Constructivism, the fodder of secular Buddhists
In my brief review of the literature, I think I am right to say that constructivism, as it pertains to mystical experiences, assumes that so-called mystical experiences are no different from everyday human experiences in that they are constructed variously through our "concepts, expectations, hopes, and beliefs we bring to them" (Forman, The Innate Capacity, p. vii).
Constructivism, I hasten to inject, is food for the secular Buddhist who doesnt hold any stock in Buddhist mysticism as if to say that the Buddhas enlightenment was not without a background context conditioned by language, culture and beliefs. Let me say further, I would not be surprised to see secular Buddhists argue against Buddhism from a constructivist position.
K.C. Forman, has a lot to say on this subject of constructivism and he is worth a detailed read (yep, I am still reading him). Back on track, Forman points out that the constructivist model as been substantially challenged. For one thing (and it is an important thing), it commits the fallacy of petitio principii inasmuch as it assumes that the constructivist model has been already proven when in fact it hasn't (cp. Mysticism, Mind, Consciousness, p. 44).
Besides this fallacy, perhaps the central weakness or defect of constructivism is that it doesnt make a credible attack on mysticisms fortress, the via negativa, or the same, the apophatic path. Making Quixotic charges at it, as is sometimes the case with constructivists, only hurts constructivists project.
When one considers the via negativa as the sublation or removal of all human concepts, expectations, hopes, etc., by which the adept reaches ultimate reality, which doesnt depend on human experience and knowledge, the constructivist arguments certainly fall flat.
How, for example, can a constructivist argument be made against Buddhism when the Buddha in the Udana speaks in negative terms like this?
Mo nks, there is a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a no-compounded. Monks, if that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be apparent no escape from this here that is born, become, made, compounded. But since, nonks there is an unborn . . . therefore the escape from this here is born, become . . . is apparent (Udana 80, 81).
The born, the become, the made, etc., comprise all of human existence which, for the Buddha, is unreal; which is the supreme illusion. The only escape from it is to go by way of negation if we expect to reach the summit of nirvana.
The mystic understands that we cannot continue to grasp at the born, the become, the made, etc., or invent gods by the dozen, if we expect to realize the really real. Instead, every presupposition, concept, and mental image has to be jettisoned, including sensory consciousness. If we do not proceed apophatically, then the constructivist argument is a good one; furthermore, that there are no pure unmediated experiences.
Let me add thisyoull enjoy it. Its from Formans book, Mysticism, Mind, Consciousness, noted earlier in this blog.
In short, mysticism seems to offer a procedure for unveiling certain deep truths of human existence. What it offers, in the end, is not a linguistic truth, but rather a way to slough off the onion layers of illusion and self-delusion, and allow the nonlinguistic inner presence to reflexively reveal itself to itself: consciousness showing itself to consciousness (p. 172).
