Criticisms of the School often centre on its use of the word "philosophy". People often arrive expecting a course in the history of ideas or of philosophers. Or, they expect that there will be more intellectual content than there is.
Conversely, we must suppose that many people don't come because they expect something that is overly academic for their tastes or abilities.
Then, within the School itself, there is uncertainty about the meaning of philosophy. It means "love of wisdom", but is this "desire for wisdom" (as Plato says in the Symposium, when he says that no philosopher is wise, because if they were they would no longer have the desire for what they have) or is it "love for that wisdom which one has"?
I think that a majority of members of the School would subscribe to the latter view. Wisdom is contained in the "scriptures" as well as in the heart, and it is a matter of joining with the wisdom already present.
This creates a further problem, which is that once people have attended for a year or two they realise that the School does not stand for "philosophy", but for "a philosophy". In the London School less than 10% complete 3 terms, so maybe the penny drops even earlier. People do not want this.
So we have a marketing problem, and an identity problem. The marketing problem is that people understand philosophy to mean something that we do not mean. The identity problem is more serious, because in my opinion we have got it wrong. ... click "Read more"
Philosophy in the West and India are different things. In the West, we have inherited from Christianity the idea of orthodoxy (ortho = "right", doxy = "belief", "right opinion" or "right religion") - that is, that there is one view that is correct. This is why modern science and modern philosophy can be such tough going: they are competing with religion to claim the title of "the one right opinion". The School, meanwhile, makes the same mistake in a different way. It says, "modern science and philosophy are clearly wrong, therefore the religious approach must be right".
But we are wrong. There doesn't have to be a single right answer.
In India, there has never been a tradition of orthodoxy. Krishna says that "however men worship me, even so I reward them". The Indian tradition is not that of one correct opinion, but of many opinions that are all partial approximations to the one truth. It is one of keeping the doors of the mind open until wisdom dawns. The Indian idea is not orthodoxy, but orthopraxy ("right practice").
In the West, we have constrained thought and free living; but India stands for free thought and disciplined living.
That is what I believe the School should stand for: not quasi-religion hiding under the name of philosophy, but a new (for the West) idea of philosophy.
The School has an effective discipline, and a partial method. All we need to do is to free our minds from dogmatic ideas. This is already happening, I believe - see some recent posts on developments in the School - and it is just a matter of more of us lending our shoulders to the wheel.
Everyone can do this, by the way, not just egg-heads. The important questions are important to everyone, and for that reason everyone can ponder them. Just because you haven't exercised a muscle for a while doesn't mean you can't. Ultimately, no expert, guru or acharya whatsoever can do this work for you.
If you don't quite believe that this radical view is representing the tradition rightly, then you need to question what I'm saying. I would welcome any questions, especially from those who believe that this view is alien to the School they dearly love.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Why philosophy?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
The advertising problem is a strange one because you might think it would be more effective to market what is actually on offer.
Is it that we shy away from committing ourselves? Or do we lack confidence in what we offer? Possibly we may believe that potential students will be less potential if they're given the nuts and bolts right at the start?
I have some sympathy with the latter view. Many is the time I've been 'sold' something which I was truly grateful for but which I resisted at the time.
Better, perhaps, to cast the net wide. People may find that their 'lack' is filled in ways for which they hadn't bargained but which they feel pleased about nevertheless.
However, we mustn't be misleading, it does no service to anyone. And any disparity between what's advertised and what's on offer puts tutors and others in difficult positions, sucks in energy, and facilitates distrust.
I believe that people who leave the early groups are being asked by questionnaire for their response to the School. This may also be happening to those who stay although I've personally seen no evidence of this. It would be a Good Thing if it were done. The questions would need to be carefully worded to avoid any suspicion of fishing for specific responses, but any trained market researcher can supply such a questionnaire, interpret it and properly load it against bias.
I found your orthodoxy/orthopraxy distinctions of interest. Even Jesus Christ is regarded as an avatar in India. Unlike Shiva, Krishna, Kali or the elephant god, I don't think he's much worshipped but he's in the pantheon.
But then the West for the last 2000 years has followed a monotheistic tradition. Difficult to unpick that one. We may have to live with it as first base at any rate.
For an organisation committed to Truth, we are oddly willing to compromise the actualite in order to draw people in. Personally I've always felt that a good salesman is someone who takes the trouble to find out what you really want, and then shows you something that fits the bill. I've rarely, on the other hand, had the feeling of being glad to be conned, even if for my own good.
The idea that "people don't know what's good for them, therefore tell them what they want to hear" is doomed to failure. OK, they don't know. So we need to be more imaginative in explaining it to them - as I think you acknowledge in your thoughtful post, Anon.
The questionnaires are being put into action next term and should help introduce clarity. It's not just for leavers, but for everyone who attends, and is looking at why they joined and later at what they then found.
(Which reminds me of the one about the Irishman who when asked to fill in a questionnaire, punched the doorman ... hmm could be a slow burner that one)
There's a difficulty in that people often don't know what they want because they don't know the possibilities.
Of they may have an idea about something which has become a little fixed but, presented in a different way, by a different person, and at a different time, it becomes acceptable, even welcome.
So far as I was concerned it was like this with meditation. I wasn't interested at the beginning and only did it because my group as a whole was initiated. But - hey presto! All change!
Liked the food though... now, we never mention that in the ads.
The other thing the ads don't mention is the social aspect. People come to evening classes largely because they want to get out and meet people.
This is the problem with the parrot/flying fish imagery - it emphasises the individual. The parrot is going out to join his pals in the trees of Richmond Park.
Kevin - Couldn't we join up your latest post (The Trap)with this one? Seems that the tools of one could help with the other?
I'm not a marketeer, but I know plenty who are, and the key to selling anything seems to be to offer the key to a problem that can't otherwise be solved.
In other words, the clever marketing campaign doesn't describe what a product can do, it shows you (not tells you, important this)how it will change your life for the better.
Everyone seems to want to change their lives for the better, just as everyone wants love.
Tap into that basic human desire and we might make progress towards more fully advertising the School.
And let's not forget the sometimes unacknowledged but important, such as food and social contact. The food - which is fresh and home-made - gives messages of love, just as much as support and attention from tutors in group. (The plastic cutlery doesn't, however.)
If people feel better after an evening of philosophy - clearer, happier and with energy - they'll be more likely to come again. We know this happens anyway, so it's a question of reflecting it in the advertising.
Laura, I suppose that is what is behind the current fashion for the word "solution", as in the Private Eye column "Solutions".
What used to be "food" is now a "meal solution" ... what used to be a "lawnmower" is now a "garden solution". Perhaps we could offer a "life solution" programme, combined with a refreshing "meal solution" at break time?
Seriously, though, I think you're right about the food. It's a struggle to keep it going, though ... not many people coming through and prepared to do the work.
Well, perhaps we need better marketing within the School about service??
How about a visit from Jamie Oliver to buck things up? He's been to St J, why not Mandeville?
What do you mean, not 'prepared'? There's a choice?
Post a Comment