There is always a gap between what one wants to do or says, and what
will happen. Either this gap cannot be hypocrisy or hypocrisy refers
to every thing or hypocrisy looses the force.
The other way to look at the issue: how norms (how X ought to be) came
into being? What kind of role they play? Do norms exist in
non-religious cultures? etc.
--- In TheHeathenInHisBlindness@yahoogroups.com, "shanmukha24"
> Dear all,
> Some interesting questions arise in the account given by Mr.Santosh.
> Reformers like K.C.Sen and Ranade appear to be hypocrites because
> they are not able to practice in their own life what they preach to
> the others. Such examples are plenty in the history of social
> reforms movement in India. The question that arises now is: Do we
> find similar examples in a society structured by religion? If the
> answer to this question is negative then it appears this is the
> problem typical of a society governed by traditions. We need more
> reflections on this.
- Thank you sir,
I know something about configuration of learning and culture,. Sir,
my doubt is that-is there any relation between configuration of
learning, culture and understanding of intentions. Pl. claryfy my
--- In TheHeathenInHisBlindness@yahoogroups.com, "vnr1995"
> Dear Amrutha,
> One thing is certain: we can answer (negative) questions like "why
> could not achieve what one intended?", "why one will not achievewhat
> one intends?"of
> As known, we can appeal to some factors in the world in answering
> these questions. For instance, think of Indians accusing the west
> being racist and eurocentrist. Many Indian Americans in the US sellIndians
> this explanation, thereby receiving appaluse from the fellow
> and spreading the same junk to the audience. However, the majorityof
> those who these Indians have accused of had *good* intentions. Thateurocentric.
> is, these western scholars felt they were not racist or
> How to explain their negative portrayals of other cultures, despiteout
> their good intentions? The world that comes in between their well
> intentions and their trying to understand the other, contains the
> secularized theology.
> When people like Rajiv Malhotra are criticized, many Hindus point
> that people like Rajiv doesn't have bad intentions or that he doespeople
> have good intentions. But the latter answer is not defensible:
> (either western scholars or a Rajiv) can be criticized, despitetheir
> good intentions, based on what lies in between their intentions andthese
> what they wanted to achieve.
> Is it possible to find what factors that come in between our
> intentions and results? I do not know. What is important to us:
> intentions do not have 'causal' (or otherwise) influence on manyinfluence.
> regularities in the world that are in between. Only God in whom
> causes/regularities and intentions are fused can have such
> As an aside, British Journal of Philosophy of Science, March 07,
> contains an article about: Realization, completers, and ceteris
> paribus laws in psychology.
> --- In TheHeathenInHisBlindness@yahoogroups.com, "amrutha_om"
> <amrutha_om@> wrote:
> > Dear VNR
> > Is it possible to mention other factors that lies between what
> > intends to do, and what will happen, along with cultural world.