evolution

Something buried in this post — this delightful, insightful, post-colonial critique-ful post — by Arunlikhati (of course) caught my eye. “Dharmic evolution.”
I’m going to say it. Evolution has nothing to do with the Dharma.
Now look. I love evolution as much as the next guy. In fact, I’m a big fan of science in general. I mean, how can you not like science? It’s given us USB flash drives, penicillin, and the new Star Trek movie. C’mon. How cool is that? But the theory of evolution cannot be applied to human culture, society, or religion. It just can’t.

non-identity politics

Over the past couple of months, both online and in the real-world, the issue of identity has come up in a number conversations I’ve had. A recurring theme has been the explicit rejection of identity as a meaningful category or, more plainly, the assertion that folks don’t want to claim an identity or “don’t want to be defined” as one thing or another.
The notion of identity — and the related but different “subjectivity” — in social theory is a given, so this attitude surprised me. Which, of course, is a sure sign that even I can get a little myopic out here in the academic hinterlands.
So I thought I’d write about it, organize my thoughts, and make a case for not only the reality of your identity but its relevance to Buddhist practice.