TheHeathenInHisBlindness : Messages : 4929-4959 of 4959

Ignorance is defined as lack of knowledge in English dictionary and Swami
Dayananda Saraswati is speaking English in this video!

I could also argue that the two being adjacent sentences does not mean that they
are the same, but they could be two different problems!!

The advantage Swami Dayananda Saraswati has that he deals with abstract concepts
and does not have to have a definition and his communication largely depends
upon experience and cognitive ability of the listener (contrasting this with
academics, and they attempt to define these).

If I remember it right, Prof Balu has spoken of Avidya.

I am not sure what you mean by the last para, but you may be undermining ...
Quantum mechanics does say that the world is only as real as we make it to be
(my words) - if this sounds familiar from Indian tradition. And in this sense,
ignorance is a problem.

Mayank

--- On Sun, 12/6/09, vnr1995 <vnr1995@...> wrote:

From: vnr1995 <vnr1995@...>
Subject: Re: [TheHeathenInHisBlindness] Swami Dayananda on experience
To: TheHeathenInHisBlindness@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, December 6, 2009, 7:43 PM

3:10 ignorance is the problem;not knowing is the problem.

That's what swami says. According to him, ignorance = not knowing.

Balu has written a paper on this: ignorance is not a lack of information,
but it exists.

Even if dayananda is enlightened, it doesn't mean that 'he' can offer some
meta-level reflections; or, if he talks, it is like scientist working in the
domain of quantum physics talking about the notion of knowledge (or what is
science), etc.

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:36 AM, Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy@gmail.
com>wrote:

> As Prof. Balagangadhara often talks about our ancients' ability to
> analyse human experience, I thought of sharing this video link:
>
> <http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=iM106dwbxTo& feature=related>
>
> "Hunting experience is called samsara" - a very enlightening statement.
>
> I must add a cautionary note though that those not familiar with the
> classical teaching tradition of Vedanta may misunderstand what he says
> here.
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#4952

From: vnr1995 <vnr1995@...>
Date: Mon Dec 7, 2009 12:43 am
Subject: Re: Swami Dayananda on experience

vnr1995

Offline

3:10 ignorance is the problem;not knowing is the problem.

That's what swami says. According to him, ignorance = not knowing.

Balu has written a paper on this: ignorance is not a lack of information,
but it exists.

Even if dayananda is enlightened, it doesn't mean that 'he' can offer some
meta-level reflections; or, if he talks, it is like scientist working in the
domain of quantum physics talking about the notion of knowledge (or what is
science), etc.

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:36 AM, Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy@...>wrote:

> As Prof. Balagangadhara often talks about our ancients' ability to
> analyse human experience, I thought of sharing this video link:
>
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iM106dwbxTo&feature=related>
>
> "Hunting experience is called samsara" - a very enlightening statement.
>
> I must add a cautionary note though that those not familiar with the
> classical teaching tradition of Vedanta may misunderstand what he says
> here.
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#4951

From: "kanaadaa" <kanaadaa@...>
Date: Wed Dec 2, 2009 6:44 pm
Subject: Claude Levi-Strauss

kanaadaa

Offline

The man's work is too vast to be grasped. Could the good folks of Vergelijkende
Cultuurwetenschap provide this group some highlights of his work?  To put myself
out on a limb, are the "social scientists"  who criticize Levi-Strauss's
"structuralism", denying that there is any universal law of humanity, only
trying to make space for their own "secular" theory?

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

#4950

From: Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy@...>
Date: Wed Dec 2, 2009 3:55 pm
Subject: Re: Swami Dayananda on experience

ramesh_murthy1

Offline

It is difficult to explain in a few sentences, but here goes:

As humans, we are constantly in search of fulfillment/happiness. The general
tendency is to look for fulfillment in some experience. To start with we
seek gross experiences - pleasures experienced by the physical senses. At
the next level, there are pleasures from more subtle or mental experiences -
relationships, work ("job satisfaction" for example), art, etc.

There is nothing wrong with seeking pleasurable experiences, except that the
promised fulfillment never comes. Instead, we see that pleasurable
experiences alternate with painful ones, and the cycle never ends.

At an extreme level, this tendency to hanker after experiences manifests
even in attempts to seek liberation from the cycle (moksha), and hence we
find people trying to achieve various kinds of mental states including
different kinds of samadhi.

Swami Dayananda is pointing out that the trick is to recognize one's
essential nature as the fullness that underlies all experience, and this
recognition is the real moksha. In other words, moksha is not a special
experience or unique mental state, but a recognition of one's essential
fullness which implies a stop to hankering after experiences.

I am not sure if I succeeded in conveying the message.



2009/11/30 Kranthikeshvara K <kranthikesvara@...>

>
>
>
> Can you kindly elaborate the following?
>
>
> "Hunting experience is called samsara" - a very enlightening statement.
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#4948

From: Kranthikeshvara K <kranthikesvara@...>
Date: Mon Nov 30, 2009 5:01 pm
Subject: Re: Swami Dayananda on experience

kranthikesvara

Offline

Can you kindly elaborate the following?�

"Hunting experience is called samsara" - a very enlightening statement.



















       The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage.
http://in.yahoo.com/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#4947

From: Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy@...>
Date: Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:36 am
Subject: Swami Dayananda on experience

ramesh_murthy1

Offline

As Prof. Balagangadhara often talks about our ancients' ability to
analyse human experience, I thought of sharing this video link:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iM106dwbxTo&feature=related>

"Hunting experience is called samsara" - a very enlightening statement.

I must add a cautionary note though that those not familiar with the
classical teaching tradition of Vedanta may misunderstand what he says
here.

#4946

From: Kranthikeshvara K <kranthikesvara@...>
Date: Mon Nov 30, 2009 5:30 am
Subject: Indian Repatriates

kranthikesvara

Offline

from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/28/business/global/28return.html
a study by Mr. Wadhwa and other academics found that 34 percent of repats found
it difficult to return to India — compared to just 13 percent of Indian
immigrants who found it difficult to settle in the United States. The repats
complained about traffic, lack of infrastructure, bureaucracy and pollution.For
many returnees the cultural ties and chance to do good that drew them back are
overshadowed by workplace cultures that feel unexpectedly foreign, and can be
frustrating. Sometimes returnees discover that they share more in their
attitudes and perspectives with other Americans or with the British than with
other Indians. Some stay just a few months, some return to the West after a few
years....Returnees run into trouble when they “look Indian but think
American,” said Anjali Bansal, managing partner in India for Spencer Stuart,
the global executive search firm. People expect them to know the country because
of how they look, but they may not
  be familiar with the way things run, she said. Similarly, when things don’t
operate the way they do in the United States or Britain, the repats sometimes
complain....“Some very simple practices that you often take for granted, such
as being ethical in day to day situations, or believing in the rule of law in
everyday behavior, are surprisingly absent in many situations,” said Raju
Narisetti, who was born in Hyderabad and returned to India in 2006 to found a
business newspaper called Mint, which is now the country’s second-biggest
business paper by readership.


















       The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage.
http://in.yahoo.com/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#4945

From: "Arun" <macgupta123@...>
Date: Thu Nov 26, 2009 4:23 am
Subject: Re: Corruption

macgupta123

Offline

Dear Kannan,

Just caught your comment in between other things. You've got the idea of what I
meant by a normative engineering statement exactly.  (Of course, if you were Ayn
Rand or one of her Objectivist devotees, such a statement is also a moral
statement. One reason I'm not an Objectivist.)  The corrosion/corruption analogy
is also perfect.

Of course, current discourse on corruption in India (or Mexico) takes on a
morally normative tone.  Whether or not Ackoff has done what I claimed, I see
this engineering norm as a possibly fruitful way of approaching the problem of
corruption.

I'll catch up with the rest of the thread over this weekend.

Best,
-Aun

#4944

From: vnr1995 <vnr1995@...>
Date: Tue Nov 24, 2009 5:44 am
Subject: Re: Re: Corruption

vnr1995

Offline

Geetanjali,

Many western economists agree that lack of information has caused financial
wreck of late. However, they don't assume that western 'values' are the
deeper cause; instead, they call for revival of such values. For instance,
Hernando de soto claims that lack of recording property rights--in my words,
lack of clearing house for 'ponzi' financial instruments--is the cause.
Joseph Stigliz claims that it is due to asymmetry of information. For more,
check their discussion on:

http://fora.tv/2008/10/20/Naomi_Klein_and_Joseph_Stiglitz_on_Economic_Power


When it comes to India, as Balu claimed long time ago, Indians dont call for
revival of indian 'values'; instead, they bemoan that indian culture, the
Indian way of going about, is the deeper cause.



On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 7:56 PM, geetanjali2062 <
geetanjali@...> wrote:

> Dear Arun,
> On a more fundamental level there appears to be a problem with Ackoff's
> statement that corruption is a product of scarce resources. What does he
> mean by people who have less resources being easily corrupted ? As we all
> know corruption is something practised by the richest industrialists to the
> poorest clerks. It seems funny to me that some of the top ministers in India
> engage in corruption so that they can hoard for a future shortage.
> And if information is such a scarce resource in under developed countries
> is it the case that information as a resource is abundant in the West. How
> is it, that so many banks and companies in the West collapsed in the recent
> financial crisis, without their auditors or the government knowing anything
> about their impending collapse?
> If Ackoff's statement is to be taken as a statement of fact it is factually
> wrong. And he does appear to making several moral assertions. i.e. that one
> requires" information, knowledge, understanding" ( whatever these are) and
> the lack of them is what causes corruption and hence leads to
> underdevelopment.
> I still am not clear what you mean by development. You seem to give a
> definition that appears to refer to itself."A legitimate need or desire is
> one that, when satisfied, does not deprive others of the opportunity to
> satisfy their legitimate needs and desires." And what is a "need that is
> required for health and survival"-these are rather subjective terms. One
> could argue using Ackoff `s own argument that the Filipinos didn't need
> homes made of locally grown materials for their health and survival and they
> could do with their own homes.
> It appears that if one takes development as self explanatory it involves
> making certain moral assertions such as that there has to be an equitable
> distribution of resources and one has to provide people with basic
> necessities.
> Regards
> Geetanjali
>
>
> --- In TheHeathenInHisBlindness@yahoogroups.com, "Arun" <macgupta123@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > In reply to the three comments so far:
> >
> > 1. I believe there are normative statements that are not moral/ethical.
> For instance, legally normative and engineering normative.
> >
> > Violation of a legal norm or an engineering norm is not necessarily
> immoral.
> >
> > (BTW, I think of the assemblage of organizations in a systematic way -
> via constitutions or corporate charters or whatever - to be a form of
> engineering.)
> >
> > 2. I think Ackoff has made corruption into a violation of an engineering
> norm rather than violation of a moral norm.
> >
> > 3. Ackoff distinguishes between growth and development.
> >
> > He starts off with a section heading: "Rubbish Heaps Grow, but They Don't
> Develop".
> >
> > A story is narrated as to how he had to build a recreation center for US
> soldiers in the Philippines during World War II, using only locally
> available materials (bamboo, grass, coconut tree trunks, etc.)  His story
> concludes with "During construction, the number of natives in the audience
> increased each day. They were generous with their advice and kept assuring
> me that we would not be able to do the things we did. After the center was
> completed, dedicated and opened, a number of natives of Barugo who had
> worked on the project tore down their homes and rebuilt them using what they
> had learned while building the recreation center.  What surprised the
> natives the most was that I had used only materials and tools readily
> available to them, but I had used these materials and tools in ways that had
> not occurred to them".
> >
> > "MORAL: Development is not a matter of how much one has, but of how much
> one can do with whatever one has."
> >
> >
> > "There are few concepts as widely misunderstood as development. It is
> usually taken to have the same meaning as growth, but neither growth nor
> development is necessary for the other. One can grow without developing and
> develop without growing.  People grow when they get larger. Some who are
> seriously retarded grwo without developing.  On the other hand, many adults
> continue to develop long after they have stopped growing - in fact, even as
> they are contracting due to old age.
> >
> > "Growth is an increase in size or number. Development is not so easy to
> define.
> >
> > "To develop is to increase one's desire and ability to satisfy one's own
> legitimate needs and desires, and those of others. A legitimate need or
> desire is one that, when satisfied, does not deprive others of the
> opportunity to satisfy their legitimate needs and desires.  A need is what
> is required for health or survival - for example, food and oxygen.  What is
> needed may not be desired; an individual may need calcium but, being unaware
> of the need may not desire it.  On the other hand, people have been known to
> desire what they do not need.
> >
> > "Development has to do with mental properties; growth, with physical
> properties".
> >
> > He then tells us that "The continuous pursuit of development has four
> interacting aspects: the scientific-technological, the economic, the
> ethical-moral and the aesthetic."
> >
> > I won't go into three of the four. The ethical-moral aspect of
> development is that it is to reduce conflict between people with conflicting
> needs and desires.
> >
> > "Because development involves an increase in ability, it empowers, but
> only in a particular way: It increases power-to, not power-over. Power-over
> is authority, and authority is the ability to make someone do something he
> does not want to do.....Power-to is the ability to implement decisions.
>  This type of power increases with competence, and hence development".
> >
> > "Development is a matter of learning, not earning..."
> >
> > --- Based on this, I would argue that per Ackoff, obstructions to
> development are not immoral; otherwise dyslexia would be immoral.
> Obstructions to development, arising from organizational defects, of which
> corruption is one, are not violating a moral code; they are violating an
> engineering code.
> >
> > To go back to Ackoff's first story, the Filipinos were not immoral or
> less moral than Ackoff, they were less developed; they had not the benefits
> of Ackoff's education in architecture and engineering. [Ackoff does not
> believe formal education is necessary for development; he makes clear that
> it is often a barrier to development.]
> >
> > -Arun
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#4943

From: "Balu" <balu@...>
Date: Sun Nov 22, 2009 5:53 pm
Subject: RE: Re: Corruption

balagangadhara

Offline

Dear Kannan,



Thanks for elucidating what you think could be Arun's suggestion. I have
only a short reply to make. If one wants to develop the story about
corruption either by using a criterion of failure or by having an analogy
akin to the corrosion of bridges or as a systemic failure (based, in some
way, on the engineering of societies and organizations), etc one has to do
more than provide a stipulative definition of corruption: one has to have a
theory of how societies function on the basis of which one could then
develop some or another factual standard or criterion. At the moment, no one
in the world has such a theory. Thus, the discussion is either about
definitions, which is uninteresting as far as I am concerned, or about
making sense of our language-use, which is normative in nature.



About the use of words. 'Normative' refers to judgements/sentences from
natural languages that use norms. (In the case of ethics, which is what we
discuss most often about, it refers to the 'moral ought'; in case of law it
is about the 'legal ought', in the case of aesthetics about the standard of
aesthetic categories, and so on.) One distinguishes (in philosophy, for
example) between 'factual' and 'normative' sentences, where statements from
Natural Sciences (for instance) embody factual statements. Statements about
'value' (valuational or axiological statements in general) exhibit other
properties than factual statements. There is no consensus about the nature
of 'values': some believe that they express something typically human, some
think that they exist in the world quite independent of human beings,
speaking only about the two ends of the spectrum. Between these two ends,
there are many possible permutations and combinations.



Normally, when I talk about the normative, I only have ethical judgements in
mind.



Friendly greetings



Balu




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#4942

From: "kannan7s" <kannan7s@...>
Date: Sun Nov 22, 2009 3:17 pm
Subject: Re: Corruption

kannan7s

Offline

Dear Balu,

I'm reading this thread with interest.

On 'engineering normative', I think Arun is saying that it is an example of a
'normative' that is not moral/ethical; and that Ackoff's formulation is an
attempt to cast 'corruption' as a violation of one such 'engineering normative'
that has no moral/ethical dimensions.

(However, I am not convinced that Ackoff has done this.  I think the veil is
very thin.)

It's not clear to me what the difference is between 'norm' and 'normative'. 
What does 'normative' refer to?  I recall from past discussions that it revolved
around the presence of a 'moral ought' buried in the background.  More
clarification would be welcome.

Meanwhile:

My conception of 'engineering normative' would be something like (say) a failure
criterion in the mechanical design of some engineered object, e.g. a car or a
toy.  I have young children who have toys that can withstand being hurled around
the room most of the time, but they break when I inadvertently step on them. 
The engineering design of these toys would have followed some 'engineering
normative' (they are not designed to withstand the crush load of an adult
stepping on them: but this design 'norm' does not have an ethical component.  We
could design all toys like an armored tank but we don't.  This is an engineering
decision, not an ethical one.  There are, of course, ethical considerations in
engineering too, but even products that fail in the field are not necessarily
violating any ethical 'normative.')

Similarly, Arun is saying (I think) that Ackoff has cast 'corruption' as the
violation of an 'engineering normative' (in this case the engineering of
societies and organizations).  Here, 'corruption' is still considered
undesirable, but from an 'engineering' perspective, not a moral/ethical one.  It
may be argued, for instance, that 'corruption' is to organizations what
'corrosion' is to bridges: 'corrosion' would hasten the degradation of the
bridge, and if neglected, cause it to collapse (eventually).

This would be primarily an 'engineering failure,' (with a 'moral failure' maybe
not so far behind, I suppose).  It would then be argued that protecting
organizations against 'corruption' would follow the same (engineering) logic as
protecting bridges against 'corrosion.'

As I said, I'm not convinced that Ackoff's argument is ethically neutral.

My thanks to Arun for starting this thread.

I welcome further clarification on how we may highlight the presence of
normative dimensions in our judgments about 'corruption.'

Regards,
Kannan

--- In TheHeathenInHisBlindness@yahoogroups.com, "Balu" <balu@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Arun,
>
>
>
> 1. Of course, there are other normative statements besides ethical ones:
> even aesthetic statements are normative (when you judge something to be ugly
> or beautiful) or statements about the presence of other values (say, 'the
> meaning of life' questions). I have never denied it. As you rightly point
> out, legal norms are normative but they are not co-extensive with the
> ethical ones.
>
>
>
> 2. I fail to understand what you mean by 'engineering normative' or
> 'engineering code'. If you mean by this that there are standards to measure
> some entity or phenomenon and that such measurements are not "necessarily
> normative", of course, you are right. We can say whether a car has been
> properly assembled by referring to the standards of putting the parts of the
> car together; we can say that rice has been adulterated or even that storm
> has a strength measured by the Beaufort scale. None of these is normative. I
> am not claiming that 'all' measurements are normative.
>
>
>

>
>
>

>
> 5. Are you making the point that one can define the word 'corruption' in a
> non-normative way? If this is what you intend saying, I agree with you: one
> can define a word any way one feels like. I never dispute definitions.
>...
>... [deleted for brevity]
>...
> However, this was not the issue
> at stake in the discussions on the Sulekha board. The issue was the presence
> of normative dimensions in our judgments about corruption in India.
>
>
>
> Friendly greetings
>
>
>
> Balu
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

#4941

From: "Balu" <balu@...>
Date: Sun Nov 22, 2009 9:52 am
Subject: RE: Re: Corruption

balagangadhara

Offline

Dear Arun,



1. Of course, there are other normative statements besides ethical ones:
even aesthetic statements are normative (when you judge something to be ugly
or beautiful) or statements about the presence of other values (say, 'the
meaning of life' questions). I have never denied it. As you rightly point
out, legal norms are normative but they are not co-extensive with the
ethical ones.



2. I fail to understand what you mean by 'engineering normative' or
'engineering code'. If you mean by this that there are standards to measure
some entity or phenomenon and that such measurements are not "necessarily
normative", of course, you are right. We can say whether a car has been
properly assembled by referring to the standards of putting the parts of the
car together; we can say that rice has been adulterated or even that storm
has a strength measured by the Beaufort scale. None of these is normative. I
am not claiming that 'all' measurements are normative.



3. Ackoff does not deny (apparently) that 'development' also has an
'ethical-moral' and 'aesthetic' dimension, both being normative, when he
says that the 'continuous pursuit of development' expresses these aspects.
Or even he speaks about "legitimate" needs and desires: what is 'legitimate'
is, of course, something that is not merely 'legal' (a legally enacted
measure could be judged illegitimate) but also 'ethically defensible':
curtailing the freedom of press, even if done legally, could be considered
illegitimate by appealing to the notions of freedom or to the charter on
human rights. That is, ethical considerations are used to speak of
legitimacy or illegitimacy.



4. Ackoff's notion of 'power-to' and the way he speaks out the legitimate
needs and desires of others circumscribing limits of one's own desires and
needs is not new: for centuries, philosophies of Law have been discussing
the notion of 'rights' in a similar fashion. Because they have gone much
further than the anecdotal account that Ackoff gives, there is no lesson
here, I am afraid. The same also applies to his distinction between the
meaning of 'growth' and 'development': indeed, one can distinguish between
these two meanings in certain contexts by giving different definitions of
these words. For example, the 'growth' of cancer can either be defined as a
stage in the 'development' of cancer or as something distinct from the
'development' of cancer or as something co-extensive with the 'development'
of cancer. So, what point is being made?



5. Are you making the point that one can define the word 'corruption' in a
non-normative way? If this is what you intend saying, I agree with you: one
can define a word any way one feels like. I never dispute definitions.
(There exist many such definitions of corruption in the literature. The idea
that corruption is a hindrance to development is also very old: Gunnar
Myrdal wrote volumes on this issue in his 'The Asian Drama' in the sixties.
Since then, many have attempted to define 'development' itself in
non-normative terms and describe corruption as a process that hinders
'development' defined non-normatively. Some have also argued just the
opposite based on the same grounds as an efficient way of distributing
scarce resources. For literature on corruption, see my article on
'colonialism and colonial consciousness'. ) However, this was not the issue
at stake in the discussions on the Sulekha board. The issue was the presence
of normative dimensions in our judgments about corruption in India.



Friendly greetings



Balu




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#4940

From: "geetanjali2062" <geetanjali@...>
Date: Sat Nov 21, 2009 3:56 am
Subject: Re: Corruption

geetanjali2062

Offline

Dear Arun,
On a more fundamental level there appears to be a problem with Ackoff's
statement that corruption is a product of scarce resources. What does he mean by
people who have less resources being easily corrupted ? As we all know
corruption is something practised by the richest industrialists to the poorest
clerks. It seems funny to me that some of the top ministers in India engage in
corruption so that they can hoard for a future shortage.
And if information is such a scarce resource in under developed countries is it
the case that information as a resource is abundant in the West. How is it, that
so many banks and companies in the West collapsed in the recent financial
crisis, without their auditors or the government knowing anything about their
impending collapse?
If Ackoff's statement is to be taken as a statement of fact it is factually
wrong. And he does appear to making several moral assertions. i.e. that one
requires" information, knowledge, understanding" ( whatever these are) and the
lack of them is what causes corruption and hence leads to underdevelopment.
I still am not clear what you mean by development. You seem to give a definition
that appears to refer to itself."A legitimate need or desire is one that, when
satisfied, does not deprive others of the opportunity to satisfy their
legitimate needs and desires." And what is a "need that is required for health
and survival"-these are rather subjective terms. One could argue using Ackoff `s
own argument that the Filipinos didn't need homes made of locally grown
materials for their health and survival and they could do with their own homes.
It appears that if one takes development as self explanatory it involves making
certain moral assertions such as that there has to be an equitable distribution
of resources and one has to provide people with basic necessities.
Regards
Geetanjali

--- In TheHeathenInHisBlindness@yahoogroups.com, "Arun" <macgupta123@...> wrote:
>
> In reply to the three comments so far:
>
> 1. I believe there are normative statements that are not moral/ethical. For
instance, legally normative and engineering normative.
>
> Violation of a legal norm or an engineering norm is not necessarily immoral.
>
> (BTW, I think of the assemblage of organizations in a systematic way - via
constitutions or corporate charters or whatever - to be a form of engineering.)
>
> 2. I think Ackoff has made corruption into a violation of an engineering norm
rather than violation of a moral norm.
>
> 3. Ackoff distinguishes between growth and development.
>
> He starts off with a section heading: "Rubbish Heaps Grow, but They Don't
Develop".
>
> A story is narrated as to how he had to build a recreation center for US
soldiers in the Philippines during World War II, using only locally available
materials (bamboo, grass, coconut tree trunks, etc.)  His story concludes with
"During construction, the number of natives in the audience increased each day.
They were generous with their advice and kept assuring me that we would not be
able to do the things we did. After the center was completed, dedicated and
opened, a number of natives of Barugo who had worked on the project tore down
their homes and rebuilt them using what they had learned while building the
recreation center.  What surprised the natives the most was that I had used only
materials and tools readily available to them, but I had used these materials
and tools in ways that had not occurred to them".
>
> "MORAL: Development is not a matter of how much one has, but of how much one
can do with whatever one has."
>
>
> "There are few concepts as widely misunderstood as development. It is usually
taken to have the same meaning as growth, but neither growth nor development is
necessary for the other. One can grow without developing and develop without
growing.  People grow when they get larger. Some who are seriously retarded grwo
without developing.  On the other hand, many adults continue to develop long
after they have stopped growing - in fact, even as they are contracting due to
old age.
>
> "Growth is an increase in size or number. Development is not so easy to
define.
>
> "To develop is to increase one's desire and ability to satisfy one's own
legitimate needs and desires, and those of others. A legitimate need or desire
is one that, when satisfied, does not deprive others of the opportunity to
satisfy their legitimate needs and desires.  A need is what is required for
health or survival - for example, food and oxygen.  What is needed may not be
desired; an individual may need calcium but, being unaware of the need may not
desire it.  On the other hand, people have been known to desire what they do not
need.
>
> "Development has to do with mental properties; growth, with physical
properties".
>
> He then tells us that "The continuous pursuit of development has four
interacting aspects: the scientific-technological, the economic, the
ethical-moral and the aesthetic."
>
> I won't go into three of the four. The ethical-moral aspect of development is
that it is to reduce conflict between people with conflicting needs and desires.
>
> "Because development involves an increase in ability, it empowers, but only in
a particular way: It increases power-to, not power-over. Power-over is
authority, and authority is the ability to make someone do something he does not
want to do.....Power-to is the ability to implement decisions.  This type of
power increases with competence, and hence development".
>
> "Development is a matter of learning, not earning..."
>
> --- Based on this, I would argue that per Ackoff, obstructions to development
are not immoral; otherwise dyslexia would be immoral.   Obstructions to
development, arising from organizational defects, of which corruption is one,
are not violating a moral code; they are violating an engineering code.
>
> To go back to Ackoff's first story, the Filipinos were not immoral or less
moral than Ackoff, they were less developed; they had not the benefits of
Ackoff's education in architecture and engineering. [Ackoff does not believe
formal education is necessary for development; he makes clear that it is often a
barrier to development.]
>
> -Arun
>

#4939

From: "Arun" <macgupta123@...>
Date: Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:35 pm
Subject: Re: Corruption

macgupta123

Offline

In reply to the three comments so far:

1. I believe there are normative statements that are not moral/ethical. For
instance, legally normative and engineering normative.

Violation of a legal norm or an engineering norm is not necessarily immoral.

(BTW, I think of the assemblage of organizations in a systematic way - via
constitutions or corporate charters or whatever - to be a form of engineering.)

2. I think Ackoff has made corruption into a violation of an engineering norm
rather than violation of a moral norm.

3. Ackoff distinguishes between growth and development.

He starts off with a section heading: "Rubbish Heaps Grow, but They Don't
Develop".

A story is narrated as to how he had to build a recreation center for US
soldiers in the Philippines during World War II, using only locally available
materials (bamboo, grass, coconut tree trunks, etc.)  His story concludes with
"During construction, the number of natives in the audience increased each day.
They were generous with their advice and kept assuring me that we would not be
able to do the things we did. After the center was completed, dedicated and
opened, a number of natives of Barugo who had worked on the project tore down
their homes and rebuilt them using what they had learned while building the
recreation center.  What surprised the natives the most was that I had used only
materials and tools readily available to them, but I had used these materials
and tools in ways that had not occurred to them".

"MORAL: Development is not a matter of how much one has, but of how much one can
do with whatever one has."


"There are few concepts as widely misunderstood as development. It is usually
taken to have the same meaning as growth, but neither growth nor development is
necessary for the other. One can grow without developing and develop without
growing.  People grow when they get larger. Some who are seriously retarded grwo
without developing.  On the other hand, many adults continue to develop long
after they have stopped growing - in fact, even as they are contracting due to
old age.

"Growth is an increase in size or number. Development is not so easy to define.

"To develop is to increase one's desire and ability to satisfy one's own
legitimate needs and desires, and those of others. A legitimate need or desire
is one that, when satisfied, does not deprive others of the opportunity to
satisfy their legitimate needs and desires.  A need is what is required for
health or survival - for example, food and oxygen.  What is needed may not be
desired; an individual may need calcium but, being unaware of the need may not
desire it.  On the other hand, people have been known to desire what they do not
need.

"Development has to do with mental properties; growth, with physical
properties".

He then tells us that "The continuous pursuit of development has four
interacting aspects: the scientific-technological, the economic, the
ethical-moral and the aesthetic."

I won't go into three of the four. The ethical-moral aspect of development is
that it is to reduce conflict between people with conflicting needs and desires.

"Because development involves an increase in ability, it empowers, but only in a
particular way: It increases power-to, not power-over. Power-over is authority,
and authority is the ability to make someone do something he does not want to
do.....Power-to is the ability to implement decisions.  This type of power
increases with competence, and hence development".

"Development is a matter of learning, not earning..."

--- Based on this, I would argue that per Ackoff, obstructions to development
are not immoral; otherwise dyslexia would be immoral.   Obstructions to
development, arising from organizational defects, of which corruption is one,
are not violating a moral code; they are violating an engineering code.

To go back to Ackoff's first story, the Filipinos were not immoral or less moral
than Ackoff, they were less developed; they had not the benefits of Ackoff's
education in architecture and engineering. [Ackoff does not believe formal
education is necessary for development; he makes clear that it is often a
barrier to development.]

-Arun

#4938

From: "Balu" <balu@...>
Date: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:20 am
Subject: RE: Corruption

balagangadhara

Offline

Dear Arun,



Perhaps, it is of some use to mention why it appears to you (and, by judging
what Ackoff says about the immorality not 'bothering' him when it is, in
fact, immorality that bothers him) that he is making a 'factual claim'.



When he says the 'immorality' of corruption does not bother him, he probably
has something like the following picture in mind. If something is immoral
then it is because some or another act violates some or another moral rule.
However, not all need to subscribe to one and the same set of moral rules.
It is easily conceivable that one has a set of moral rules where it is
'good' to be immoral. (This is his meta-understanding of morality.) So, he
says, he is not bothered by that.



In the subsequent phase of the argument, he introduces a part of his own
moral notions and simply assumes that it is either 'factual' or 'universal',
the latter in the sense that 'it ought to universally hold'. What to
universally hold is that 'development' is morally good and morally desirable
and that everyone ought to find 'development' good. That is because the
notion of 'development' itself is a part of moral vocabulary: one ought to
prefer 'development' to 'underdevelopment'.



He is familiar with his way of talking and assumes that such a familiarity
makes it factual because it does not seem to be formulated (in his mind and
explicitly) as a set of explicit moral rules: neither the Bible nor the
Torah says 'you ought to develop'. His naivet� does not, of course,
transform his claim into factual ones. (Here, he works at an object-level
and believes that just because he has a meta-position on morality, he is now
free of all moral considerations.)



Just like you, he is deceived by his own formulations and is not guided by
any reflection into his own stance.





Friendly greetings



Balu

_._,___




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#4937

From: "Balu" <balu@...>
Date: Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:54 am
Subject: RE: Corruption

balagangadhara

Offline

Dear Arun,



While translating Ackoff, you say that such a translation is "not a moral
judgment now, but a statement about the state of the economy". But your
claim, according to Ackoff's own argument, is untrue.



1. Consider how he describes corruption: "We concluded that corruption
occurs when one party, A (for example, a policeman), who has an obligation
to a second party, B (for example, the government), to provide service to a
third party, C (for example, a member of the public), serves C in such a way
as to benefit A more than he or she is supposed to. In addition, anyone who
induces another to behave corruptly is corrupt. Therefore, corruption is the
exploitation for one's personal benefit of a position in which one is
expected to serve others."



B (the policeman) has an obligation to serve C (a member of the public) and
this obligation is a moral obligation; A has a derived moral obligation to
serve C because A is under the moral obligation to do what B (the
government) expects him to. A violates his moral obligation to B because as
a part of B, he serves C in such a way that A benefits more, that is, A's
(moral) abuse of his position makes him receive more benefits than he
morally deserves. (What A deserves by virtue is serving C is a moral
reward.) In this sense, Ackoff is making a moral claim.



2. Ackoff does not consider his description merely as an economic judgment.
As he himself says, "the immorality of corruption is not nearly as
bothersome to me as is its obstructiveness to development." He is not
bothered by the 'immorality' of corruption even though it bothers him that
it obstructs development.



3. Which development? Probably economic development. Why should this bother
him? Because, probably, he finds it ethically good that there is economic
development. So, corruption is immoral in an additional way: it prevents the
ethically good (because it is ethically desirable) from taking place. So,
his judgment is not factual but deeply normative.



So is yours.



Friendly Greetings



Balu




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#4936

From: vnr1995 <vnr1995@...>
Date: Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:42 am
Subject: Re: Corruption

vnr1995

Offline

> "India is a corrupt country" thus translates, if one follows Ackoff,  into
> "India is a land of scarce or mal-distributed resources and of insecurity".
>  This is not a moral judgment now, but a statement about the state of the
> economy. Corruption is a symptom of underlying problems; and unfortunately a
> symptom that makes development more difficult.
>
>
The relation between flu and its symptoms can be sketched by etiology
(causal chain involved). These symptoms can have other effects: for
instance, cough is one of flu's symptoms. Lingering cough can mess up one's
lungs (another effect of symptom). Following these lines, one can talk about
secondary, tertiary, quaternary effects of corruption:  No matter, how one
dresses up symptoms when one talks about corruption in India,  they are
taking "epistemic" stance wrt Indian culture, a culture that breeds
corruption.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#4935

From: "Arun" <macgupta123@...>
Date: Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:39 am
Subject: Corruption

macgupta123

Offline

In the context of this:
http://sites.google.com/site/colonialconsciousness/balu%27sresponsesoncolonialex\
perience

I came across Russell L. Ackoff's "Ackoff's Fables: Irreverent Reflections on
Business and Bureaucracy" a couple of days ago.

(Wiki entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_L._Ackoff )

Ackoff has a story of Mexican police shaking him down for "speeding". The moral
of his fable is: "The more corrupt a culture, the greater the out-of-pocket
expenses required to live in it."

He then writes:

Corruption occurred at all levels in and out of the Mexican government. 
However, Mexicans appeared to me to be less bothered by it than North Americans.
Their attitude towards it was very different from that of gringos.   A Mexican
friend explained it to me as follows: In the United States we tip those who
serve us after being served, and the amount of our tip reflects our evaluation
of the service received.   In Mexico the steps are the same but their order is
changed: One tips in advance, and the size of the tip determines the quality of
service received.  In Mexico, the "tip-in-advance" is called a mordida, a bite.

I realize, of course, that there is a great deal of corruption in the United
States.  How can any American be unaware of this?  However, in the United
States, corruption once exposed is seldom tolerated or left unpunished.  In
Mexico, it is taken for granted, treated as a fact of life.

I spent a good deal of time reflecting on the nature and causes of corruption
while in Mexico.  Later, after I had returned to the States, an agency of the
Mexican government sponsored the preparation of a monograph on the subject by my
university colleagues and me.

We concluded that corruption occurs when one party, A (for example, a
policeman), who has an obligation to a second party, B (for example, the
government), to provide service to a third party, C (for example, a member of
the public), serves C in such a way as to benefit A more than he or she is
supposed to.  In addition, anyone who induces another to behave corruptly is
corrupt.  Therefore, corruption is the exploitation for one's personal benefit
of a position in which one is expected to serve others.

The immorality of corruption is not nearly as bothersome to me as is its
obstructiveness to development.  It is a special kind of obstruction, a
meta-obstruction, because it is a response to the existence of other
obstructions to development.  If development were not obstructed, as it is even
in the most developed countries, there would be no corruption, because there
would be no need for it.  To remove the obstructions to a society's development
not only promotes development but it also reduces corruption.

The three principal obstructions to societal development, and hence the three
principal producers of corruption, are scarcity of resources, maldistribution of
resources, and insecurity.  By a resource I mean anything, physical or mental,
that can be used to obtain something else that one needs or desires.  Therefore,
information, knowledge and understanding are resources as much as is money.

Scarcity of resources is an obvious obstruction to development.   Those who have
little or none of a resource they need are more easily corrupted than those who
have what they need.  For example, peasants who wanted the money, seeds,
fertilizers and equipment necessary to grow crops and who approached a branch of
Mexico's rural development bank were told they could have what they wanted if
they applied for more than they needed.  When they received more than they
needed they had to give the difference back to the loan officer.  He, in turn,
released them from an obligation to repay their loan to the bank.  Compliance
was the most effective way for peasants to get the resources they needed.  This
practice obviously reduced the amount of resources available for distribution to
peasants and therefore retarded rural development.   (It is my understanding
that this practice has been eliminated since my extended stay in Mexico.)

Even where there is enough of a resource to go around, many may not have enough
of it because it is distributed inequitably.  Those who do not have enough want
more and may be disposed to corruption to obtain it.  Those who have more than
they want are inclined to protect themselves against a possible future shortage
by hoarding it, and through corruption to increase their security.   It is
commonplace, particularly in countries where entertainment is a scarcity, for
people to pay bribes to obtain tickets from those who hoard them.   Those who
hoard them often solicit bribes from those who want them.  Tickets to special
events, artistic or athletic, are made available at a cost considerably greater
than their face value.

Where there is a scarcity of resources and maldistribution of what is available,
those who have some or even enough resources often feel insecure, threatened. 
They want to protect what they have against possible loss or appropriation. 
This is most easily accomplished through corruption.  For example, employees who
feel insecure about their jobs where employment is hard to get may give a
portion of their salaries to their bosses in order to increase their job
security.

------

"India is a corrupt country" thus translates, if one follows Ackoff,  into
"India is a land of scarce or mal-distributed resources and of insecurity". 
This is not a moral judgment now, but a statement about the state of the
economy. Corruption is a symptom of underlying problems; and unfortunately a
symptom that makes development more difficult.

-Arun

#4934

From: Mayank Shekhar <shekharmayank@...>
Date: Wed Nov 18, 2009 4:16 pm
Subject: Re: Re: AAR session on Judaisms & Hinduisms

shekharmayank

Online Now

Indo-Israel relationship goes ways long back. In the war when US issued threat
to send the 7th fleet, USSR, the trusted ally, also had stopped supplies.
Israel alone maintained supplies at that time.
 
During the early to mid 90s, the relationship had grown into technological
partnership.
 
The fruitfulness of relationship in US is debatable. There are two orgs tauting
to work on these. In some observation a camera has borne more result than any
other so far. There are some reports of intelligence collaboration as well (in
context to last years Mumbai terrorism), but these will remain conspiracy
theories at best. 
 
Mayank

--- On Tue, 11/17/09, kanaadaa <kanaadaa@...> wrote:


From: kanaadaa <kanaadaa@...>
Subject: [TheHeathenInHisBlindness] Re: AAR session on Judaisms & Hinduisms
To: TheHeathenInHisBlindness@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, November 17, 2009, 2:36 PM


 



Koenraad,

An interesting find. While I find these interfaith encounters cheesy at best,
like the Hindu-Jewish one SS is in frenzy over, these are the outcome of a more
confident Hindu leadership that is bypassing biased and blinkered academics. The
Hindu Jewish collaboration in the US has led to a broader Indian American-Jewish
American relationship. The recently founded US-India PAC is almost entirely
inspired by the AIPAC, and can take considerable credit for the conclusion of
the US-India nuclear collaboration agreement formalized recently. Shana Sippy
does not understand history of the Indo-Israel relationship or the larger
business of India's foreign policy. Even during the years of limited diplomatic
ties, Israel maintained a consulate in Bombay. And the shift to realpolitik wrt
Israel may have taken place as early as 1965 following Nehru's demise. But I
guess the likes of Shana Sippy write their own history as go along. Also the
feeling of helplessness as
  events overtake an academic must be getting to SS. This Hindu-Jewish exchange
has quite a history to it, and if SS thinks that she has scooped something she
may be missing it. Drs. Nathan Katz and David Shulman have been studying this
topic for quite some time. As for Hindu studies professors in the US, the field
is crowded now, there are heavyweights like Drs. Vasudha Narayan, Rambachan, and
Sharma, leading a Wendy's Child like Dipak Sarma (currently at a lightweight
dept at Case Western) to flip over to the concern crowd, with a whiny criticism
of Mike Myers's Love Guru! SS is still only a Visiting Prof and has miles to go,
so she may have decided to hitch her wagon to the "anti-Hindutva" train. Her
contentions are at times amusing. If indeed monotheism is an imposition of the
Hindutva crowd and forced homogenization, may be her insistence that murtipuja
is idol worship is also the same?

--- In TheHeathenInHisBlin dness@yahoogroup s.com, "Koenraad" <koenraad.elst@
...> wrote:
>
>
> Dear listfolk,
>
> One of the most sensational papers at the American Academy of Religion
conference in Montreal was Shana Sippy's on Hindu-Jewish religious rapprochement
as a corollary of Indian-Israeli military cooperation. After the collapse of the
Soviet Union, Narasimha Rao (r.1991-96) lost no time in establishing diplomatic
relations with Israel (1992) and, more importantly, replacing the USSR with
Israel as India's chief arms supplier. Between India and Israel, weapons have
long replaced diamonds as the most important trade good.
>
> She presented a commercial film shown by the Israeli arms dealers at trade
fairs. Daringly crystal-clear. Indian girls were dancing in between upstanding
missiles and singing: "I need protection, I need strength" etc. Then a
stereotypical Israeli guy hops onto the stage, with a broad smile, gracefully
receiving the compliments of the Indian girls: "Safety and protection, security
and perfection" etc. The Israelis reportedly congratulate themselves at having
"won the Kargil war for India" by sending India weapons tailored to the specific
challenges of the Paki occupation of peak terrain.
>
> Then she focused on joint Hindu-Jewish initiatives in the USA and
internationally. She acknowledged the strength of this alliance, though clearly
begrudging the Hindu community the benefits of any alliance. She tried to muster
reasons why Jews should refrain from this alliance: these are not just Hindus
but the "Hindu Right"; these are the people who have issued a history textbook
praising Hitler (a canard, thoroughly analysed and refuted in the first chapter
of my book *Return of the Swastika*); Hindus are idolaters; at least Jews should
have demanded that Hindus guarantee the religious rights of the many thousands
of Jews who visit India annually (are these rights threatened?! ); as a
minority, Jews should side with the minorities in India, etc. Her understanding
was that the Jews purposely ignore a lot of troubling facts or take them in
stride because this alliance is politically so useful to them. On the Hindu
side, meanwhile, she saw (quite
  correctly) an absolute ignorance of specific Jewish agendas.
>
> The joint Hindu-Jewish declaration, earlier this year in Jerusalemn, between
Swami Dayananda Saraswati, the chief Ashkenazi Rabbi and some more worthies on
both sides, was a natural target of her criticism. She lambasted some of the
points the two sides had agreed on, obviously at the Hindu side's insistence:
> * the much-maligned swastika is innocent (banal);
> * the Aryan Invasion Theory is bunk (totally misplaced, and strange that the
Jewish side bothered to agree, but perhaps a way of saying that the
much-maligned term "Aryan" is innocent too);
> * Hinduism is monotheistic too (questionable, an imposition by a particular
faction within the Hindu spectrum);
> * Hindu murtipuja is not "idolatry" per Halakhic definition;
> * the opposition to the Christian mission, which according to SS is no longer
an issue for the Jews (nearly true in Israel in so far as Christian
denominations have agreed to stop conversion attempts among Jews, but
unchangingly a concern elsewhere when intermarriage mostly means conversion to
Christianity or Islam);
> * the obviously anti-Islamic rejection of "terrorism".
>
> An orthodox Jewish member of the audience remarked that the meeting would have
been impossible without a preliminary agreement between the Rabbi and the
Israeli Government. The Israelis are not uptight about separating religion and
politics, so this is quite likely. Shana Sippy alleged that the Jerusalem
meeting had been sponsored by Rajiv Malhotra, whom she mislabelled as a Hindutva
man. After all those years of Hindutva-watching, most supposed experts haven't
even noticed the sharp divisions in the spectrum of Hindu activism.
>
> On the whole, though, I was quite impressed with Shana Sippy's presentation.
No silly pieties, not too much holy/hollow indignation at Hindutva schemes, not
as soporific as so much theological and sociological talks at such conferences,
her finger really on the pulse of the Yahudi-Hindu- bhai-bhai scene, and most of
all, a truly important and consequential topic.
>
> I refrained from volunteering my own experiences with this alliance, e.g. when
in 1993 a Mr. Tiwari of the Washington DC chapter of the VHP took me along on a
vsit to the office of the American-Israeli Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC),
the spider in the web of the fabled Jewish Lobby. We got an impressive
demonstration in some of the AIPAC feats in influencing US Congress decisions.
The idea was that Hindu activists would get some training there is the noble art
of lobbying. (Not that I've seen them put their new skills to any use since
then.)
>
> During the discussion, I learned that this annual panel on "Hinduisms and
Judaisms" was from the beginning mistrusted by the AAR, initially because it
looked like a joint Hindu-Jewish platform against Christianity, now because it
looks like a gang-up against Islam. There is no substance to this, every speaker
went out of his way to placate Islam, absolve it of any role in terrorism, and
to lambast "Islamophobia" both in India and in the West. Perhaps on Christianity
some Jews have taken a firm stand, but certainly not on the "Hindu" side. In the
three years I have attended these sessions, I have never heard a Hindu or an
Indologist take as his own any known pro-Hindu (i.c. anti-mission) positions. In
this session too, Hindu assertiveness was only present as the whipping-boy.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Koenraad Elst
>











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (3)

#4933

From: Sarvesh Tiwari <sarveshtiwari@...>
Date: Wed Nov 18, 2009 4:21 am
Subject: RE: Indians don't give back to society because of their religion?

shandilyabodhi

Offline

A regular reader of the list, but posting for the first time.   In relation to
the below entry, may I request list-mates' attention to Hindu Economics and
Charity : http://bharatendu.com/2009/07/31/hindu-economics-and-charity/


Warm Regards
Sarvesh Tiwari

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:38:44 +0000




                       1.

    Indians don't give back to society because of their religion?
   From:
       Sankrant Sanu


_________________________________________________________________
New Windows 7: Find the right PC for you. Learn more.
http://windows.microsoft.com/shop

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (4)

#4932

From: "kanaadaa" <kanaadaa@...>
Date: Tue Nov 17, 2009 7:36 pm
Subject: Re: AAR session on Judaisms & Hinduisms

kanaadaa

Offline

Koenraad,

An interesting find.  While I find these interfaith encounters cheesy at best,
like the Hindu-Jewish one SS is in frenzy over, these are the outcome of a more
confident Hindu leadership that is bypassing biased and blinkered academics. 
The Hindu Jewish collaboration in the US has led to a broader Indian
American-Jewish American relationship.  The recently founded US-India PAC is
almost entirely inspired by the AIPAC, and can take considerable credit for the
conclusion of the US-India nuclear collaboration agreement formalized recently. 
Shana Sippy does not understand history of the Indo-Israel relationship or the
larger business of India's foreign policy.  Even during the years of limited
diplomatic ties, Israel maintained a consulate in Bombay.  And the shift to
realpolitik wrt Israel may have taken place as early as 1965 following Nehru's
demise.  But I guess the likes of Shana Sippy write their own history as go
along.  Also the feeling of helplessness as events overtake an academic must be
getting to SS.  This Hindu-Jewish exchange has quite a history to it, and if SS
thinks that she has scooped something she may be missing it.  Drs. Nathan Katz
and David Shulman have been studying this topic for quite some time.  As for
Hindu studies professors in the US, the field is crowded now, there are
heavyweights like Drs. Vasudha Narayan, Rambachan, and Sharma, leading a Wendy's
Child like Dipak Sarma (currently at a lightweight dept at Case Western) to flip
over to the concern crowd, with a whiny criticism of Mike Myers's Love Guru!  SS
is still only a Visiting Prof and has miles to go, so she may have decided to
hitch her wagon to the "anti-Hindutva" train.  Her contentions are at times
amusing.  If indeed monotheism is an imposition of the Hindutva crowd and forced
homogenization, may be her insistence that murtipuja is idol worship is also the
same?

--- In TheHeathenInHisBlindness@yahoogroups.com, "Koenraad" <koenraad.elst@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Dear listfolk,
>
> One of the most sensational papers at the American Academy of Religion
conference in Montreal was Shana Sippy's on Hindu-Jewish religious rapprochement
as a corollary of Indian-Israeli military cooperation. After the collapse of the
Soviet Union, Narasimha Rao (r.1991-96) lost no time in establishing diplomatic
relations with Israel (1992) and, more importantly, replacing the USSR with
Israel as India's chief arms supplier. Between India and Israel, weapons have
long replaced diamonds as the most important trade good.
>
> She presented a commercial film shown by the Israeli arms dealers at trade
fairs. Daringly crystal-clear. Indian girls were dancing in between upstanding
missiles and singing: "I need protection, I need strength" etc. Then a
stereotypical Israeli guy hops onto the stage, with a broad smile, gracefully
receiving the compliments of the Indian girls: "Safety and protection, security
and perfection" etc. The Israelis reportedly congratulate themselves at having
"won the Kargil war for India" by sending India weapons tailored to the specific
challenges of the Paki occupation of peak terrain.
>
> Then she focused on joint Hindu-Jewish initiatives in the USA and
internationally. She acknowledged the strength of this alliance, though clearly
begrudging the Hindu community the benefits of any alliance. She tried to muster
reasons why Jews should refrain from this alliance: these are not just Hindus
but the "Hindu Right"; these are the people who have issued a history textbook
praising Hitler (a canard, thoroughly analysed and refuted in the first chapter
of my book *Return of the Swastika*); Hindus are idolaters; at least Jews should
have demanded that Hindus guarantee the religious rights of the many thousands
of Jews who visit India annually (are these rights threatened?!); as a minority,
Jews should side with the minorities in India, etc. Her understanding was that
the Jews purposely ignore a lot of troubling facts or take them in stride
because this alliance is politically so useful to them. On the Hindu side,
meanwhile, she saw (quite correctly) an absolute ignorance of specific Jewish
agendas.
>
> The joint Hindu-Jewish declaration, earlier this year in Jerusalemn, between
Swami Dayananda Saraswati, the chief Ashkenazi Rabbi and some more worthies on
both sides, was a natural target of her criticism. She lambasted some of the
points the two sides had agreed on, obviously at the Hindu side's insistence:
> * the much-maligned swastika is innocent (banal);
> * the Aryan Invasion Theory is bunk (totally misplaced, and strange that the
Jewish side bothered to agree, but perhaps a way of saying that the
much-maligned term "Aryan" is innocent too);
> * Hinduism is monotheistic too (questionable, an imposition by a particular
faction within the Hindu spectrum);
> * Hindu murtipuja is not "idolatry" per Halakhic definition;
> * the opposition to the Christian mission, which according to SS is no longer
an issue for the Jews (nearly true in Israel in so far as Christian
denominations have agreed to stop conversion attempts among Jews, but
unchangingly a concern elsewhere when intermarriage mostly means conversion to
Christianity or Islam);
> * the obviously anti-Islamic rejection of "terrorism".
>
> An orthodox Jewish member of the audience remarked that the meeting would have
been impossible without a preliminary agreement between the Rabbi and the
Israeli Government. The Israelis are not uptight about separating religion and
politics, so this is quite likely. Shana Sippy alleged that the Jerusalem
meeting had been sponsored by Rajiv Malhotra, whom she mislabelled as a Hindutva
man. After all those years of Hindutva-watching, most supposed experts haven't
even noticed the sharp divisions in the spectrum of Hindu activism.
>
> On the whole, though, I was quite impressed with Shana Sippy's presentation.
No silly pieties, not too much holy/hollow indignation at Hindutva schemes, not
as soporific as so much theological and sociological talks at such conferences,
her finger really on the pulse of the Yahudi-Hindu-bhai-bhai scene, and most of
all, a truly important and consequential topic.
>
> I refrained from volunteering my own experiences with this alliance, e.g. when
in 1993 a Mr. Tiwari of the Washington DC chapter of the VHP took me along on a
vsit to the office of the American-Israeli Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC),
the spider in the web of the fabled Jewish Lobby. We got an impressive
demonstration in some of the AIPAC feats in influencing US Congress decisions.
The idea was that Hindu activists would get some training there is the noble art
of lobbying. (Not that I've seen them put their new skills to any use since
then.)
>
> During the discussion, I learned that this annual panel on "Hinduisms and
Judaisms" was from the beginning mistrusted by the AAR, initially because it
looked like a joint Hindu-Jewish platform against Christianity, now because it
looks like a gang-up against Islam. There is no substance to this, every speaker
went out of his way to placate Islam, absolve it of any role in terrorism, and
to  lambast "Islamophobia" both in India and in the West. Perhaps on
Christianity some Jews have taken a firm stand, but certainly not on the "Hindu"
side. In the three years I have attended these sessions, I have never heard a
Hindu or an Indologist take as his own any known pro-Hindu (i.c. anti-mission)
positions. In this session too, Hindu assertiveness was only present as the
whipping-boy.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Koenraad Elst
>

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (3)

#4931

From: "Koenraad" <koenraad.elst@...>
Date: Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:23 pm
Subject: AAR session on Judaisms & Hinduisms

koenraad_elst

Offline

Dear listfolk,

One of the most sensational papers at the American Academy of Religion
conference in Montreal was Shana Sippy's on Hindu-Jewish religious rapprochement
as a corollary of Indian-Israeli military cooperation. After the collapse of the
Soviet Union, Narasimha Rao (r.1991-96) lost no time in establishing diplomatic
relations with Israel (1992) and, more importantly, replacing the USSR with
Israel as India's chief arms supplier. Between India and Israel, weapons have
long replaced diamonds as the most important trade good.

She presented a commercial film shown by the Israeli arms dealers at trade
fairs. Daringly crystal-clear. Indian girls were dancing in between upstanding
missiles and singing: "I need protection, I need strength" etc. Then a
stereotypical Israeli guy hops onto the stage, with a broad smile, gracefully
receiving the compliments of the Indian girls: "Safety and protection, security
and perfection" etc. The Israelis reportedly congratulate themselves at having
"won the Kargil war for India" by sending India weapons tailored to the specific
challenges of the Paki occupation of peak terrain.

Then she focused on joint Hindu-Jewish initiatives in the USA and
internationally. She acknowledged the strength of this alliance, though clearly
begrudging the Hindu community the benefits of any alliance. She tried to muster
reasons why Jews should refrain from this alliance: these are not just Hindus
but the "Hindu Right"; these are the people who have issued a history textbook
praising Hitler (a canard, thoroughly analysed and refuted in the first chapter
of my book *Return of the Swastika*); Hindus are idolaters; at least Jews should
have demanded that Hindus guarantee the religious rights of the many thousands
of Jews who visit India annually (are these rights threatened?!); as a minority,
Jews should side with the minorities in India, etc. Her understanding was that
the Jews purposely ignore a lot of troubling facts or take them in stride
because this alliance is politically so useful to them. On the Hindu side,
meanwhile, she saw (quite correctly) an absolute ignorance of specific Jewish
agendas.

The joint Hindu-Jewish declaration, earlier this year in Jerusalemn, between
Swami Dayananda Saraswati, the chief Ashkenazi Rabbi and some more worthies on
both sides, was a natural target of her criticism. She lambasted some of the
points the two sides had agreed on, obviously at the Hindu side's insistence:
* the much-maligned swastika is innocent (banal);
* the Aryan Invasion Theory is bunk (totally misplaced, and strange that the
Jewish side bothered to agree, but perhaps a way of saying that the
much-maligned term "Aryan" is innocent too);
* Hinduism is monotheistic too (questionable, an imposition by a particular
faction within the Hindu spectrum);
* Hindu murtipuja is not "idolatry" per Halakhic definition;
* the opposition to the Christian mission, which according to SS is no longer an
issue for the Jews (nearly true in Israel in so far as Christian denominations
have agreed to stop conversion attempts among Jews, but unchangingly a concern
elsewhere when intermarriage mostly means conversion to Christianity or Islam);
* the obviously anti-Islamic rejection of "terrorism".

An orthodox Jewish member of the audience remarked that the meeting would have
been impossible without a preliminary agreement between the Rabbi and the
Israeli Government. The Israelis are not uptight about separating religion and
politics, so this is quite likely. Shana Sippy alleged that the Jerusalem
meeting had been sponsored by Rajiv Malhotra, whom she mislabelled as a Hindutva
man. After all those years of Hindutva-watching, most supposed experts haven't
even noticed the sharp divisions in the spectrum of Hindu activism.

On the whole, though, I was quite impressed with Shana Sippy's presentation. No
silly pieties, not too much holy/hollow indignation at Hindutva schemes, not as
soporific as so much theological and sociological talks at such conferences, her
finger really on the pulse of the Yahudi-Hindu-bhai-bhai scene, and most of all,
a truly important and consequential topic.

I refrained from volunteering my own experiences with this alliance, e.g. when
in 1993 a Mr. Tiwari of the Washington DC chapter of the VHP took me along on a
vsit to the office of the American-Israeli Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC),
the spider in the web of the fabled Jewish Lobby. We got an impressive
demonstration in some of the AIPAC feats in influencing US Congress decisions.
The idea was that Hindu activists would get some training there is the noble art
of lobbying. (Not that I've seen them put their new skills to any use since
then.)

During the discussion, I learned that this annual panel on "Hinduisms and
Judaisms" was from the beginning mistrusted by the AAR, initially because it
looked like a joint Hindu-Jewish platform against Christianity, now because it
looks like a gang-up against Islam. There is no substance to this, every speaker
went out of his way to placate Islam, absolve it of any role in terrorism, and
to  lambast "Islamophobia" both in India and in the West. Perhaps on
Christianity some Jews have taken a firm stand, but certainly not on the "Hindu"
side. In the three years I have attended these sessions, I have never heard a
Hindu or an Indologist take as his own any known pro-Hindu (i.c. anti-mission)
positions. In this session too, Hindu assertiveness was only present as the
whipping-boy.

Kind regards,

Koenraad Elst

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (3)

#4930

From: "Balu" <balu@...>
Date: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:21 am
Subject: RE: Re: Indians don't give back to society because of their religion?

balagangadhara

Offline

Dear Friends,



I could not agree with Kanaadaa more, when he asks 'what analysis?'. I share
too his characterization of the piece, except that I do not know of the
Duane Gish he speaks about. To this, let me add a few extra points:



(a) It is unclear what Aakar Patel wants to convey with the use the word
'opportunism': it means, in political and ethical theory, a tendency to be
'unprincipled'. He seems to suggest the attitude of someone who makes use of
'opportunities'. If this is true, it is unclear what is wrong with it.



(b) It is true that (most) Indians do not consider themselves
'philanthropists'. However, it is patently false that rich Indians do not do
'Danam': setting up institutions of learning, creating free clinics and
hospitals, building choultries, temples and free hostels, etc are ubiquitous
in India.



(c) While it is an interesting question to ask why Brahma has so few temples
(there are a few stories about that in India), it is not true to say that
his job is 'done' once he creates the world. In fact, according to Patel's
own argument, we need him if we are not to be 'born again' in the world.
Besides, it is he who decides about our 'fate' in the world (prior to our
birth), if we follow stories about him that circulate in India. By
'petitioning him anew' we could have a better 'rebirth' or even a cessation
of the cycle of birth and death.



(d) The "tragedy of commons" (see his claims about toilets) has little to do
with opportunism; this, in its turn, has no connection to Hobbes. In
rational choice theory, which discusses this problem, this has to do with
conflict between individual rationality and collective rationalities.



(e) It is nonsense to suggest that the Indians, when 'petitioning God',
expect that 'rewards' due to someone else becomes one's own. This Patel
knows very little of India or about 'Hinduism'.



Thus one could go on and on. In fact, almost every sentence of this guy is
either false or nonsensical. However, he reminds me of the many NRI's I meet
in the US: holding forth on things they neither understand nor care about
but doing so with an air of profundity, a show of 'learning' (references to
Hobbes, Canetti, 'zero-sum' games, etc) and using utterly ridiculous
analogies that miss all points and serve no purpose.



I hope Sankrant Sanu uploaded this piece of rubbish as a warning.



Friendly greetings



Balu




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (4)

#4929

From: Kranthikeshvara K <kranthikesvara@...>
Date: Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:28 pm
Subject: Hobbes and Religion

kranthikesvara

Offline