But why would they be the same thing? He stated that there are religious figures who can change and affect somebody in a profound and great way just by touching them or speaking to them, but that the next day he might be off molesting a little boy.
I found this part of the convo especially fascinating, b/c I think he is right on a fundamental level. And as he states, reporting what is true is not the same as sanctioning it. Here is a decent argument for 'Christ consciousness' I guess. We need to be able to speak openly about ourselves and our institutions yet to speak openly is to suggest approval, which says something very vital about our cultural climate.
I have to completely disagree with Dr. Kripal that the uni today is about moral values of open-mindedness. I was nearly 30 years in the system between student and educator and I witnessed how easily manipulated students are as well as teachers by 'the curriculum' which for the vast majority of education is now completely set in stone. I had some great profs of course, and some great students, but that was not the norm. Open-minded about shallow things, there I could agree--culture, color, creed, take-out. But there is no authentic respect and intellectual curiosity for dissenting viewpoints if those stray from acceptable current norms (of victim culture mostly) and there is absolutely a collectivist agenda, on this I have no doubt. There is also an obvious 'dismantling' of the power of white men in the culture which is obvious in MSM, education, politics, medicine, etc. Is it deserved and appropriate? Personally I think it's by design and nefarious and the backlash and drop out rate of good men from the pool of givers in the culture will far outweigh any benefit to the rest of us. Signaling out 'white men' as demonstrating more group preference than any other group is simply absurd and will come to bite us all in the arse.
Even in this interview Kripal has the 'auto-laugh' that comes with even saying the word 'conspiracy' and tacks that on, as I have myself, to 'worldview agenda' and control, which is of course as old as time and perfectly acceptable. I think he might be off the mark here, but playing his role of 'objective academic' (when he is able to play it and not fall into his own traps!).
I find him quite clever and fascinating person and intend to read his latest book at least, so I don't mean to come off too critical here, but there was that 'living in a bubble and loving it' feeling I get from him. But, maybe I'm projecting . . . :)
In any case I do think he achieves something precious in this interview which I find so exceptionally rare--I get the sense he really wants the conversation, loves the learning, knows the battles are a needed part of the adventure and really wants to inspire others to dive in, and that's a damn good academic in my view!
On the other hand, we've got a huge problem culturally, and academia is SO NOT getting it so far as I can tell.
Institutional Narcissism, imo, across the board.
