Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: A short episode ... a response to Nitai,

Expand Messages
  • nitaisundara
    ... rather ... god , yes I ... that goes for ... reject my ... just begs ... slipperiness of the ... believer swoon ... (Her, It). You have not been able to
    Message 1 of 29 , Aug 8, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
      >
      > Nitai,
      >
      > "...[T]here are rational arguments for theism. To consider all theistic
      > thinkers as idiots is, well, idiotic."
      >
      > Response: Unless one is using the terms in some cosmological sense,
      rather
      > than taking "god" to mean a specific entity, a so-called "personal
      god", yes I
      > would call such a person an idiot. At any rate, a simpleton. And
      that goes for
      > the concepts of avatar and reincarnate as well.
      > ---
      > [I reject your notions of grace and harmony.] "Thats fine if you
      reject my
      > notions but the question I posed was
      > neither refuted as being an illegitimate one, nor addressed in any
      > attempt to make the act a strictly rational one. Your rejection was
      > completely irrelevant."
      >
      > Response: No it isn't irrelevant. First of all the notion of grace
      just begs
      > the question. Being an ex-Catholic, I am well aware of the
      slipperiness of the
      > concept and the affectivities that it conjures up to make the
      believer swoon
      > in the belief that he/she is receiving some special wink from 'Him'
      (Her, It).

      You have not been able to expand your concepts beyond the
      Judeo-christian paradigm. In my view one must act as if all progress
      depends on them, yet know that without sanction from above, none can
      be made. Grace is not some excuse to be a debauchee by night and
      repenter by day. Practically, grace is most often a slap in the face
      in that it seeks to dismantle our false identity based on connection
      with temporal objects. In proper vision everything is grace (yes, the
      new age airyness sound of this statement makes even me cringe) if one
      believes god to be independent. Grace is not praying to god to help
      you accomplish everything you want to do, the underlying, erroneous
      assumption there being that what you want to do is always godly.

      >
      > The notion of harmony is actually more troublesome. It is a
      prejudice, even a
      > conceit, that the 'end' (telos, eschaton) resembles the nothingness
      of Being
      > prior to actuality. Actuality (I mean in the phenomenological or
      'sentient'
      > sense) is thus accorded the status of error and is therefore the
      cause of pain
      > and suffering. This is really tantamount to the same rejection of
      the world
      > that one finds in the "Abrahamic" religions, and in nearly all
      religions, for
      > that matter. I am one with Nietzsche here in calling that basic view
      nihilism.

      I do not hold it against you that your conception here of Vedantic
      traditions represents only the Advaitin school in which the liberated
      soul merges with undifferentiated consciousness. Indeed in many books
      and minds this conception is synonymous with Hinduism.
      Devotional Vedanta, which I am representing, culminates in a
      "post-liberated" life which is most readily accused of
      anthropomorphism. The anthropomorphic accusation actually does not
      hold if one considers that the goal of anthropomorphic afterlife
      conceptions is to essentially do away with death of an individual. It
      does so by allowing them to feel that the will be reunited with those
      aspects of their lives that form their current identify (primarily,
      family). Thus essentially, death ceases to be. This is indeed denying
      the world.
      In devotional Vedanta those aspects of the world that lead to
      suffering are sought to be eradicated by means of embracing those
      aspects of life which lead to happiness that does not conflict with
      others' pursuits of happiness, namely sacrifice, giving, to various
      degrees of comprehensiveness. The world is not denied but
      discrimination and a hierarchy of meaningfulness is highly emphasized.
      All this is in order to kill one's selfish, enjoying ego: "Die to
      live" as Hegel said.
      Not that this short introduction will undermine your vehement
      opposition to all things metaphysical, but perhaps adjust your tone to
      a slightly less abrasive one.

      > ---
      > "This is childish condescension at best. You took the single least
      > essential (and admittedly unnecessary) statement to the point I was
      > making and clipped the rest of the paragraph."
      >
      > Response: My point was that it is hardly a big surprise that you
      privilege
      > the religion that you were born into. How lucky you are you just
      happen to have
      > been born into the truth. Ha! What are the odds!

      This is actually not exactly the case and furthermore I was at one
      point an atheist, putting full stock in empirical inquiry.

      > ---
      > "The point was that your mental capacity is not infallible so in the
      least
      > some humility and self-suspicion should be in order."
      >
      > Response: Yes, but that proviso is all the more important for those
      making
      > the larger and less plausible case of a god. God is a primitive idea.

      Hence, I try to be humble.... Primitive is not necessarily invalid,
      instinct is not necessarily animalistic. Is it primitive to seek
      affection of one's mother? No. Is such affection required for
      existence? Strictly speaking, no, but it leads to a better life.


      > ---
      > "If one agrees that logic is colored by desire (not only the logic
      of those
      > they disagree with), than a *logical* next step would be to
      introspect as to
      > what one's desire truly is. This is no easy task but theoretically,
      to the
      > extent one is seeking objective truths, objective perception and
      inference will
      > develop correspondingly."
      >
      > Response: It would be more accurate to say that logic is at the
      service of
      > intentionality, but intentionality is not necessarily the same thing as
      > falsification. Intentionality adumbrates the world. In any case,
      modern physics has
      > provided enough theoretical apparatuses to avoid the god hypothesis
      altogether.
      > Ockham's razor is called for here. Therefore the onus is on the
      shoulders of
      > the theists to show that they have anything to add at all.
      >

      Intentionality in place of desire is appearing to me as a euphemism.
      Nitai
    • eupraxis@aol.com
      Intentionality in place of desire is appearing to me as a euphemism. Not at all. Intentionality is the basic comportment to one s world which can never be
      Message 2 of 29 , Aug 8, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        "Intentionality in place of desire is appearing to me as a euphemism."

        Not at all. Intentionality is the basic comportment to one's world
        which can never be bracketed out of thought. It may involve desire in
        certain connections, but not necessarily. To totalize all
        intentionality as affect, as desire, is to already impose onto things a
        moral interpretation.

        Regarding your description of Vedantic philosophy: can you suggest a
        text, either a source text or a first-rate secondary one?

        Wil
      • nitaisundara
        ... Could you please re-word this? I am having trouble following it but it is intriguing nonetheless. ... The best text which comes to mind would be Vaisnava
        Message 3 of 29 , Aug 14, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
          >
          > "Intentionality in place of desire is appearing to me as a euphemism."
          >
          > Not at all. Intentionality is the basic comportment to one's world
          > which can never be bracketed out of thought. It may involve desire in
          > certain connections, but not necessarily. To totalize all
          > intentionality as affect, as desire, is to already impose onto things a
          > moral interpretation.
          >

          Could you please re-word this? I am having trouble following it but it
          is intriguing nonetheless.


          > Regarding your description of Vedantic philosophy: can you suggest a
          > text, either a source text or a first-rate secondary one?

          The best text which comes to mind would be "Vaisnava Vedanta" by Dr.
          Mahanambrata Bramachari. This book is difficult to come by though,
          unless you have access to a good library, I doubt that you will find
          it. Also it is worth mentioning the the Doctor had some philosophical
          conclusions that were questionably based in Vedanta, but nonetheless
          this text serves the purpose. Note that Vaisnava Vedanta has 5 main
          schools and numerous quasi-schools which actually equate to
          neo-Advaitin thought, if that. Advaita Vedanta and all schools of
          Vaisnava Vedanta have some similarities, but important distinctions as
          well.

          The following is a quote which I thought might stimulate some
          interesting discussion.

          "Descartes said, "I doubt everything. Whatever you say, I doubt."
          Then, Descartes says, the question that arises is, "Does the doubter
          exist - True or false?" You have to start your search for truth from
          there. Who am I ? To whatever truth is related, whatever idea is
          stated, one may say, "I oppose that statement. I doubt it." Then the
          question arises does the doubter exist, or is he nonexistent? If he is
          nonexistent, then there can be no question of doubting. If one takes
          the position of an extreme skeptic, he must explain his own position.
          He may assert, "Whatever you have said, I doubt;" but he must discern
          whether or not he really exists. That must be the starting point for
          any further inquiry. And what is the doubter? Is he an atom? A
          particle of dust? Is he without knowledge? And if so, then how has he
          come to assert doubt? This question should be examined. Whenever one
          may doubt, the question must be asked, "Who is the doubter? Is he
          conscious? Does he have reason? Has he any existence at all? Or is he
          imaginary? Is it matter that is submitting the question? Or is a unit
          of consciousness asking the question? What is the origin of this
          question? Who is asking the question? Has it come from the conscious
          region? If it has, then what shall we consider as the basis of
          existence? Consciousness or matter? A fossil or God?"
          -Swami B.R. Sridhar

          Nitai
          >
        • louise
          ... euphemism. ... world ... desire in ... things a ... it ... Possibly I might take up the challenge posed by Nitai to Wil, since the latter has not yet
          Message 4 of 29 , Aug 18, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "nitaisundara" <nitaisundara@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
            > >
            > > "Intentionality in place of desire is appearing to me as a
            euphemism."
            > >
            > > Not at all. Intentionality is the basic comportment to one's
            world
            > > which can never be bracketed out of thought. It may involve
            desire in
            > > certain connections, but not necessarily. To totalize all
            > > intentionality as affect, as desire, is to already impose onto
            things a
            > > moral interpretation.
            > >
            >
            > Could you please re-word this? I am having trouble following it but
            it
            > is intriguing nonetheless.

            Possibly I might take up the challenge posed by Nitai to Wil, since
            the latter has not yet ventured to respond. In fact, rather than re-
            word what is already so beautifully worded, I might try offering an
            illustration or two.
            Suppose that you intended to buy a bouquet of flowers to give to your
            niece, as a way of congratulating her for succeeding in her
            examinations. Then you discovered some new material fact. She is
            allergic to certain kinds of pollen, or, you were misinformed about
            her performance in the examinations. You review your decision, and
            decide not to buy the flowers. The intentionality of your
            comportment to the world has a particular quality which is revealed
            by your silent decisions and their outward manifestation. If you had
            been an emotionally needy person who wanted to give the flowers in
            the hope or expectation of a return of some kind, emotional or
            material, your intentionality would take on the character of desire,
            in this case, a not very worthy desire.
            Now, having put this example into words, I am wondering if my
            interpretation is related to Wil's statement in a way that he would
            acknowledge. What is the significance of morality in this context?
            Does this illustration bear relevance to the nature of intentionality
            as presented above? More light would be appreciated.

            Louise
          • bvtswami
            ... Well I hope Wil had more in mind that this. One could just as easily say that someone wanted (desired) to demonstrate his appreciation for his niece
            Message 5 of 29 , Aug 18, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
              >
              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "nitaisundara" <nitaisundara@>
              > wrote:
              > >
              > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
              > > >
              > > > "Intentionality in place of desire is appearing to me as a
              > euphemism."
              > > >
              > > > Not at all. Intentionality is the basic comportment to one's
              > world
              > > > which can never be bracketed out of thought. It may involve
              > desire in
              > > > certain connections, but not necessarily. To totalize all
              > > > intentionality as affect, as desire, is to already impose onto
              > things a
              > > > moral interpretation.
              > > >
              > >
              > > Could you please re-word this? I am having trouble following it but
              > it
              > > is intriguing nonetheless.
              >
              > Possibly I might take up the challenge posed by Nitai to Wil, since
              > the latter has not yet ventured to respond. In fact, rather than re-
              > word what is already so beautifully worded, I might try offering an
              > illustration or two.
              > Suppose that you intended to buy a bouquet of flowers to give to your
              > niece, as a way of congratulating her for succeeding in her
              > examinations. Then you discovered some new material fact. She is
              > allergic to certain kinds of pollen, or, you were misinformed about
              > her performance in the examinations. You review your decision, and
              > decide not to buy the flowers. The intentionality of your
              > comportment to the world has a particular quality which is revealed
              > by your silent decisions and their outward manifestation. If you had
              > been an emotionally needy person who wanted to give the flowers in
              > the hope or expectation of a return of some kind, emotional or
              > material, your intentionality would take on the character of desire,
              > in this case, a not very worthy desire.
              > Now, having put this example into words, I am wondering if my
              > interpretation is related to Wil's statement in a way that he would
              > acknowledge. What is the significance of morality in this context?
              > Does this illustration bear relevance to the nature of intentionality
              > as presented above? More light would be appreciated.
              >
              > Louise
              >

              Well I hope Wil had more in mind that this. One could just as easily say that someone
              wanted (desired) to demonstrate his appreciation for his niece because of certain
              information received concerning her. He desired to do what he thought was the right
              thing, to act virtuously, to display the comportment that he thought should be expected of
              one in such circumstances. However, upon receiving more information he lost that desire
              or desired not to show his appreciation because it would not have been the correct thing
              to do given the circumstances.

              intentionality |inˌten ch əˈnalitē|
              noun

              the fact of being deliberate or purposive.

              • Philosophy the quality of mental states (e.g., thoughts, beliefs, desires, hopes) that
              consists in their being directed toward some object or state of affairs.

              Nitai deserves a better explanation, but you, Louise, have made your desire clear. Wil?
            • eupraxis@aol.com
              I was using the term in, at least, the Husserlian sense. Is phenomenology taught any more? Husserl? Scheler, Merleau-Ponty, Heidegger, Sartre? The notion of
              Message 6 of 29 , Aug 19, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                I was using the term in, at least, the Husserlian sense. Is phenomenology
                taught any more? Husserl? Scheler, Merleau-Ponty, Heidegger, Sartre? The notion
                of intentionality is central to all of these folks. each has his spin, but the
                basic idea is that, say, being or being-in-the-world is never a completely
                passive being, but is a being-for or being toward; one's world is a lived world,
                a world of projects and projections. And so forth.

                My initial comment was in reference to the idea that 'all is desire'. My
                objection was that totalizing all comportments under that rubric, rather than the
                more neutral "intentionality", is reductive and tendentious, and in particular
                moral/religious. My attitude towards the latter is, I would imagine, already
                obvious.

                Wil

                In a message dated 8/18/08 10:17:41 PM, bvtswami@... writes:


                > Well I hope Wil had more in mind that this. One could just as easily say
                > that someone
                > wanted (desired) to demonstrate his appreciation for his niece because of
                > certain
                > information received concerning her. He desired to do what he thought was
                > the right
                > thing, to act virtuously, to display the comportment that he thought should
                > be expected of
                > one in such circumstances. However, upon receiving more information he lost
                > that desire
                > or desired not to show his appreciation because it would not have been the
                > correct thing
                > to do given the circumstances.
                >
                > intentionality |inˌten ch əˈ#712;ē#
                > noun
                >
                > the fact of being deliberate or purposive.
                >
                > • Philosophy the quality of mental states (e.g., thoughts, beliefs, desires,
                > hopes) that
                > consists in their being directed toward some object or state of affairs.
                >
                > Nitai deserves a better explanation, but you, Louise, have made your desire
                > clear. Wil?
                >




                **************
                It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
                deal here.

                (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • bvtswami
                ... An intention is nothing but a desire combined with a sense of ability. Desire plus ability equals intention. One cannot intend something that one knows one
                Message 7 of 29 , Aug 19, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                  >
                  > I was using the term in, at least, the Husserlian sense. Is phenomenology
                  > taught any more? Husserl? Scheler, Merleau-Ponty, Heidegger, Sartre? The notion
                  > of intentionality is central to all of these folks. each has his spin, but the
                  > basic idea is that, say, being or being-in-the-world is never a completely
                  > passive being, but is a being-for or being toward; one's world is a lived world,
                  > a world of projects and projections. And so forth.
                  >
                  > My initial comment was in reference to the idea that 'all is desire'. My
                  > objection was that totalizing all comportments under that rubric, rather than the
                  > more neutral "intentionality", is reductive and tendentious, and in particular
                  > moral/religious. My attitude towards the latter is, I would imagine, already
                  > obvious.
                  >
                  > Wil
                  >
                  > In a message dated 8/18/08 10:17:41 PM, bvtswami@... writes:
                  >
                  >
                  > > Well I hope Wil had more in mind that this. One could just as easily say
                  > > that someone
                  > > wanted (desired) to demonstrate his appreciation for his niece because of
                  > > certain
                  > > information received concerning her. He desired to do what he thought was
                  > > the right
                  > > thing, to act virtuously, to display the comportment that he thought should
                  > > be expected of
                  > > one in such circumstances. However, upon receiving more information he lost
                  > > that desire
                  > > or desired not to show his appreciation because it would not have been the
                  > > correct thing
                  > > to do given the circumstances.
                  > >
                  > > intentionality |inˌten ch əˈ#712;ē#
                  > > noun
                  > >
                  > > the fact of being deliberate or purposive.
                  > >
                  > > • Philosophy the quality of mental states (e.g., thoughts, beliefs, desires,
                  > > hopes) that
                  > > consists in their being directed toward some object or state of affairs.
                  > >
                  > > Nitai deserves a better explanation, but you, Louise, have made your desire
                  > > clear. Wil?
                  > >
                  >
                  >

                  An intention is nothing but a desire combined with a sense of ability. Desire plus ability
                  equals intention. One cannot intend something that one knows one cannot bring about,
                  but one can desire something that one knows very well one cannot achieve. So I do not
                  think you can separate intention from desire. It could be argued that intention represents
                  a particular quality of desire and in this sense can be reduced to desire. If one does away
                  with desire, so too does one do away with intention, and there is nothing particularly
                  tendentious about this fact.

                  I think that the study of consciousness and the objects of direct experience is alive and
                  well but certainly not restricted to the school of existentialism. We live in a sea of desire
                  and our desire defines us. Yes, we are also something more than our desire—the stream of
                  humanity/consciousness transcendent to the roles we identify with based on desire, as
                  with perhaps Sartre, or for Nitai an enduring unit of consciousness, an "I-ness' that
                  remains intact during deep sleep and thus by implication after death, as per Vedanta.
                • eupraxis@aol.com
                  I not only disagree with this, I denounce it as yet one more case of religious inroading. Not only is this unsupportable by anything phenomenological; it is a
                  Message 8 of 29 , Aug 19, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I not only disagree with this, I denounce it as yet one more case of
                    religious inroading. Not only is this unsupportable by anything phenomenological; it
                    is a piece of religious propaganda that has no other MO than to degrade the
                    world and experience to something akin to a 'mistake'. See Nietzsche on why this
                    attitude is tantamount to nihilism.

                    Wil

                    In a message dated 8/19/08 7:39:17 AM, bvtswami@... writes:


                    > An intention is nothing but a desire combined with a sense of ability.
                    > Desire plus ability
                    > equals intention. One cannot intend something that one knows one cannot
                    > bring about,
                    > but one can desire something that one knows very well one cannot achieve. So
                    > I do not
                    > think you can separate intention from desire. It could be argued that
                    > intention represents
                    > a particular quality of desire and in this sense can be reduced to desire.
                    > If one does away
                    > with desire, so too does one do away with intention, and there is nothing
                    > particularly
                    > tendentious about this fact.
                    >
                    > I think that the study of consciousness and the objects of direct experience
                    > is alive and
                    > well but certainly not restricted to the school of existentialism. We live
                    > in a sea of desire
                    > and our desire defines us. Yes, we are also something more than our desire—
                    > the stream of
                    > humanity/consciousn humanity/consciousn<wbr>ess transcendent to the roles we
                    > identify
                    > with perhaps Sartre, or for Nitai an enduring unit of consciousness, an
                    > "I-ness' that
                    > remains intact during deep sleep and thus by implication after death, as per
                    > Vedanta.
                    >




                    **************
                    It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
                    deal here.

                    (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • bvtswami
                    The world is real but we who live in it do make mistakes, often mistakes of perception and value. If one perceives the world to be something other than it is,
                    Message 9 of 29 , Aug 19, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      The world is real but we who live in it do make mistakes, often mistakes of perception and
                      value. If one perceives the world to be something other than it is, addressing such is
                      hardly nihilistic. Nietzsche's familiarity with Vedanta is superficial at best. He is completely
                      unaware to those branches of Vedanta that affirm the objective reality of the world and
                      thus his charge of nihilism, while applicable to an extent to one school of Vedanta, is not
                      applicable to others.

                      Before you get to irate about religious inroading, it is experience that leads a Vedantist to
                      consider that he or she has an identity that transcends thought and object, an identity that
                      issues from a plane in which the apparent gap between these two "different insepearables"
                      is bridged. We do remember when we have slept well without dreaming, and one cannot
                      remember that which one has no experience of.

                      As for phenomenology, I think that the study of consciousness and the direct objects of
                      experience that constitute this approach need not be considered outside the scope of
                      Vedanta. Here is something you will likely take umbrage with, as do I, however, for
                      different reasons. For I too find the nondual school of Vedanta somewhat world denying.
                      Nonetheless the piece lends support to an expanded notion of what constitutes
                      phenomenology, which seems desirable. After all, consciousness has not been
                      understood, perhaps least of all by Dennet, who errs in the direction of reductio ad
                      absurdum in the opinion of his own peers (Searle).

                      http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/i_es/i_es_menon_sankar_frameset.htm




                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                      >
                      > I not only disagree with this, I denounce it as yet one more case of
                      > religious inroading. Not only is this unsupportable by anything phenomenological; it
                      > is a piece of religious propaganda that has no other MO than to degrade the
                      > world and experience to something akin to a 'mistake'. See Nietzsche on why this
                      > attitude is tantamount to nihilism.
                      >
                      > Wil
                      >
                      > In a message dated 8/19/08 7:39:17 AM, bvtswami@... writes:
                      >
                      >
                      > > An intention is nothing but a desire combined with a sense of ability.
                      > > Desire plus ability
                      > > equals intention. One cannot intend something that one knows one cannot
                      > > bring about,
                      > > but one can desire something that one knows very well one cannot achieve. So
                      > > I do not
                      > > think you can separate intention from desire. It could be argued that
                      > > intention represents
                      > > a particular quality of desire and in this sense can be reduced to desire.
                      > > If one does away
                      > > with desire, so too does one do away with intention, and there is nothing
                      > > particularly
                      > > tendentious about this fact.
                      > >
                      > > I think that the study of consciousness and the objects of direct experience
                      > > is alive and
                      > > well but certainly not restricted to the school of existentialism. We live
                      > > in a sea of desire
                      > > and our desire defines us. Yes, we are also something more than our desireâ€"
                      > > the stream of
                      > > humanity/consciousn humanity/consciousn<wbr>ess transcendent to the roles we
                      > > identify
                      > > with perhaps Sartre, or for Nitai an enduring unit of consciousness, an
                      > > "I-ness' that
                      > > remains intact during deep sleep and thus by implication after death, as per
                      > > Vedanta.
                      > >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > **************
                      > It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
                      > deal here.
                      >
                      > (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
                      >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                    • eupraxis@aol.com
                      You see, the thing is I do not give a rat s ass about your religious tradition any more than I do mine. What you are pushing here is an ideology that you want
                      Message 10 of 29 , Aug 19, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        You see, the thing is I do not give a rat's ass about your religious
                        tradition any more than I do mine. What you are pushing here is an
                        ideology that you want to squeeze all other discourses into. That just
                        won't do. Maybe you are on the wrong list?

                        If I said to you, "to the cesspool with Vedanta and all of its gods!",
                        would you cringe or get hot under the collar? If yes, than you are
                        merely another holy man. Another ideologist. As you may have read
                        somewhere, this is antipodal to the radical nature of
                        philosophy-qua-philosophy.

                        If you think that desire is the ground of all consciousness, prove it
                        without appeal to any sacred doctrine. I have no patience with things
                        "sacred". (Sacred is another word for 'beyond further questioning'.)

                        Wil


                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: bvtswami <bvtswami@...>
                        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 9:59 am
                        Subject: [existlist] Re: A short episode ... a response to Nitai,


                        The world is real but we who live in it do make mistakes, often
                        mistakes of perception and

                        value. If one perceives the world to be something other than it is,
                        addressing such is

                        hardly nihilistic. Nietzsche's familiarity with Vedanta is superficial
                        at best. He is completely

                        unaware to those branches of Vedanta that affirm the objective reality
                        of the world and

                        thus his charge of nihilism, while applicable to an extent to one
                        school of Vedant
                        a, is not

                        applicable to others.



                        Before you get to irate about religious inroading, it is experience
                        that leads a Vedantist to

                        consider that he or she has an identity that transcends thought and
                        object, an identity that

                        issues from a plane in which the apparent gap between these two
                        "different insepearables"

                        is bridged. We do remember when we have slept well without dreaming,
                        and one cannot

                        remember that which one has no experience of.



                        As for phenomenology, I think that the study of consciousness and the
                        direct objects of

                        experience that constitute this approach need not be considered outside
                        the scope of

                        Vedanta. Here is something you will likely take umbrage with, as do I,
                        however, for

                        different reasons. For I too find the nondual school of Vedanta
                        somewhat world denying.

                        Nonetheless the piece lends support to an expanded notion of what
                        constitutes

                        phenomenology, which seems desirable. After all, consciousness has not
                        been

                        understood, perhaps least of all by Dennet, who errs in the direction
                        of reductio ad

                        absurdum in the opinion of his own peers (Searle).



                        http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/i_es/i_es_menon_sankar_frameset.htm





                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:

                        >

                        > I not only disagree with this, I denounce it as yet one more case of

                        > religious inroading. Not only is this unsupportabl
                        e by anything
                        phenomenological; it

                        > is a piece of religious propaganda that has no other MO than to
                        degrade the

                        > world and experience to something akin to a 'mistake'. See Nietzsche
                        on why this

                        > attitude is tantamount to nihilism.

                        >

                        > Wil

                        >

                        > In a message dated 8/19/08 7:39:17 AM, bvtswami@... writes:

                        >

                        >

                        > > An intention is nothing but a desire combined with a sense of
                        ability.

                        > > Desire plus ability

                        > > equals intention. One cannot intend something that one knows one
                        cannot

                        > > bring about,

                        > > but one can desire something that one knows very well one cannot
                        achieve. So

                        > > I do not

                        > > think you can separate intention from desire. It could be argued
                        that

                        > > intention represents

                        > > a particular quality of desire and in this sense can be reduced to
                        desire.

                        > > If one does away

                        > > with desire, so too does one do away with intention, and there is
                        nothing

                        > > particularly

                        > > tendentious about this fact.

                        > >

                        > > I think that the study of consciousness and the objects of direct
                        experience

                        > > is alive and

                        > > well but certainly not restricted to the school of existentialism.
                        We live

                        > > in a sea of desire

                        > > and our desire defines us. Yes, we are also something more than our
                        desireâ€"

                        > > the20stream of

                        > > humanity/consciousn humanity/consciousn<wbr>ess transcendent to the
                        roles we

                        > > identify

                        > > with perhaps Sartre, or for Nitai an enduring unit of
                        consciousness, an

                        > > "I-ness' that

                        > > remains intact during deep sleep and thus by implication after
                        death, as per

                        > > Vedanta.

                        > >

                        >

                        >

                        >

                        >

                        > **************

                        > It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel

                        > deal here.

                        >

                        > (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)

                        >

                        >

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

                        >
                      • bvtswami
                        Feels like you trying to scare me away. Quite passionate for one promoting dispassionate discourse. Makes me wonder if you read what I posted. Anyway thanks
                        Message 11 of 29 , Aug 19, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Feels like you trying to scare me away. Quite passionate for one promoting dispassionate
                          discourse. Makes me wonder if you read what I posted. Anyway thanks for response. Let
                          me reply to what I see as the substance of your charges and to your challenge.

                          I do not think that anyone has proved exactly what the ground of consciousness is.

                          The fact that I find the logic of Vedanta of interest and noteworthy makes me no less
                          objective and no less interested in philosophy for its own sake, or less able to engage in
                          dispassionate discourse than you. You may not like Schaupenhauer, but I do not think that
                          you can accurately characterize him as not participating the radical nature of philosophy
                          qua philosophy.


                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                          >
                          > You see, the thing is I do not give a rat's ass about your religious
                          > tradition any more than I do mine. What you are pushing here is an
                          > ideology that you want to squeeze all other discourses into. That just
                          > won't do. Maybe you are on the wrong list?
                          >
                          > If I said to you, "to the cesspool with Vedanta and all of its gods!",
                          > would you cringe or get hot under the collar? If yes, than you are
                          > merely another holy man. Another ideologist. As you may have read
                          > somewhere, this is antipodal to the radical nature of
                          > philosophy-qua-philosophy.
                          >
                          > If you think that desire is the ground of all consciousness, prove it
                          > without appeal to any sacred doctrine. I have no patience with things
                          > "sacred". (Sacred is another word for 'beyond further questioning'.)
                          >
                          > Wil
                          >
                          >
                          > -----Original Message-----
                          > From: bvtswami <bvtswami@...>
                          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                          > Sent: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 9:59 am
                          > Subject: [existlist] Re: A short episode ... a response to Nitai,
                          >
                          >
                          > The world is real but we who live in it do make mistakes, often
                          > mistakes of perception and
                          >
                          > value. If one perceives the world to be something other than it is,
                          > addressing such is
                          >
                          > hardly nihilistic. Nietzsche's familiarity with Vedanta is superficial
                          > at best. He is completely
                          >
                          > unaware to those branches of Vedanta that affirm the objective reality
                          > of the world and
                          >
                          > thus his charge of nihilism, while applicable to an extent to one
                          > school of Vedant
                          > a, is not
                          >
                          > applicable to others.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Before you get to irate about religious inroading, it is experience
                          > that leads a Vedantist to
                          >
                          > consider that he or she has an identity that transcends thought and
                          > object, an identity that
                          >
                          > issues from a plane in which the apparent gap between these two
                          > "different insepearables"
                          >
                          > is bridged. We do remember when we have slept well without dreaming,
                          > and one cannot
                          >
                          > remember that which one has no experience of.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > As for phenomenology, I think that the study of consciousness and the
                          > direct objects of
                          >
                          > experience that constitute this approach need not be considered outside
                          > the scope of
                          >
                          > Vedanta. Here is something you will likely take umbrage with, as do I,
                          > however, for
                          >
                          > different reasons. For I too find the nondual school of Vedanta
                          > somewhat world denying.
                          >
                          > Nonetheless the piece lends support to an expanded notion of what
                          > constitutes
                          >
                          > phenomenology, which seems desirable. After all, consciousness has not
                          > been
                          >
                          > understood, perhaps least of all by Dennet, who errs in the direction
                          > of reductio ad
                          >
                          > absurdum in the opinion of his own peers (Searle).
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/i_es/i_es_menon_sankar_frameset.htm
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                          >
                          > >
                          >
                          > > I not only disagree with this, I denounce it as yet one more case of
                          >
                          > > religious inroading. Not only is this unsupportabl
                          > e by anything
                          > phenomenological; it
                          >
                          > > is a piece of religious propaganda that has no other MO than to
                          > degrade the
                          >
                          > > world and experience to something akin to a 'mistake'. See Nietzsche
                          > on why this
                          >
                          > > attitude is tantamount to nihilism.
                          >
                          > >
                          >
                          > > Wil
                          >
                          > >
                          >
                          > > In a message dated 8/19/08 7:39:17 AM, bvtswami@ writes:
                          >
                          > >
                          >
                          > >
                          >
                          > > > An intention is nothing but a desire combined with a sense of
                          > ability.
                          >
                          > > > Desire plus ability
                          >
                          > > > equals intention. One cannot intend something that one knows one
                          > cannot
                          >
                          > > > bring about,
                          >
                          > > > but one can desire something that one knows very well one cannot
                          > achieve. So
                          >
                          > > > I do not
                          >
                          > > > think you can separate intention from desire. It could be argued
                          > that
                          >
                          > > > intention represents
                          >
                          > > > a particular quality of desire and in this sense can be reduced to
                          > desire.
                          >
                          > > > If one does away
                          >
                          > > > with desire, so too does one do away with intention, and there is
                          > nothing
                          >
                          > > > particularly
                          >
                          > > > tendentious about this fact.
                          >
                          > > >
                          >
                          > > > I think that the study of consciousness and the objects of direct
                          > experience
                          >
                          > > > is alive and
                          >
                          > > > well but certainly not restricted to the school of existentialism.
                          > We live
                          >
                          > > > in a sea of desire
                          >
                          > > > and our desire defines us. Yes, we are also something more than our
                          > desireâ€"
                          >
                          > > > the20stream of
                          >
                          > > > humanity/consciousn humanity/consciousn<wbr>ess transcendent to the
                          > roles we
                          >
                          > > > identify
                          >
                          > > > with perhaps Sartre, or for Nitai an enduring unit of
                          > consciousness, an
                          >
                          > > > "I-ness' that
                          >
                          > > > remains intact during deep sleep and thus by implication after
                          > death, as per
                          >
                          > > > Vedanta.
                          >
                          > > >
                          >
                          > >
                          >
                          > >
                          >
                          > >
                          >
                          > >
                          >
                          > > **************
                          >
                          > > It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
                          >
                          > > deal here.
                          >
                          > >
                          >
                          > > (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
                          >
                          > >
                          >
                          > >
                          >
                          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          > >
                          >
                        • bvtswami
                          Feels like you trying to scare me away. Quite passionate for one promoting dispassionate discourse. Makes me wonder if you read what I posted. Anyway thanks
                          Message 12 of 29 , Aug 19, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Feels like you trying to scare me away. Quite passionate for one promoting dispassionate
                            discourse. Makes me wonder if you read what I posted. Anyway thanks for response. Let
                            me reply to what I see as the substance of your charges and to your challenge.

                            I do not think that anyone has proved exactly what the ground of consciousness is.

                            The fact that I find the logic of Vedanta of interest and noteworthy makes me no less
                            objective and no less interested in philosophy for its own sake, or less able to engage in
                            dispassionate discourse than you. You may not like Schaupenhauer, but I do not think that
                            you can accurately characterize him as not participating the radical nature of philosophy
                            qua philosophy.


                            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                            >
                            > You see, the thing is I do not give a rat's ass about your religious
                            > tradition any more than I do mine. What you are pushing here is an
                            > ideology that you want to squeeze all other discourses into. That just
                            > won't do. Maybe you are on the wrong list?
                            >
                            > If I said to you, "to the cesspool with Vedanta and all of its gods!",
                            > would you cringe or get hot under the collar? If yes, than you are
                            > merely another holy man. Another ideologist. As you may have read
                            > somewhere, this is antipodal to the radical nature of
                            > philosophy-qua-philosophy.
                            >
                            > If you think that desire is the ground of all consciousness, prove it
                            > without appeal to any sacred doctrine. I have no patience with things
                            > "sacred". (Sacred is another word for 'beyond further questioning'.)
                            >
                            > Wil
                            >
                            >
                            >

                            Let me add that it was not beneath the dignity of Nietzsche to consider the logic of
                            Vedanta, nor have I stooped to religious fanaticism by responding in brief as to the
                            superficial nature of his critique of Vedanta.
                          • eupraxis@aol.com
                            You miss the point. The question is whether one s intentional comportment to the world (to existence, if you prefer) is emotional (e.g., desire) or is in its
                            Message 13 of 29 , Aug 19, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              You miss the point. The question is whether one's intentional
                              comportment to the world (to existence, if you prefer) is emotional
                              (e.g., desire) or is in its radical and abstract nature is a neutral
                              'affectivity'. The eastern use of desire as a stand in for
                              intentionality always winds up with a moral interpretation of sentience
                              as pain, suffering, etc., blah, blah. You say nirvana, and I say Good
                              night Gracie.

                              Despite all of Schopenhauer's brilliant insights, he stumbles upon this
                              same nihilism, but he does not depend upon any sacred doctrine in doing
                              so. Despite his influences, Schop. is a Kantian negative idealist to
                              the end, mainly due to his not following through with the pan-logicsm
                              that undergirds his basic insight. To put it otherwise, cutting his
                              nose to spite his face, he rejected the Hegelian insight into totality.
                              But that is another topic for another time.

                              As far as scaring you away, no -- I merely eschew all religiosity. I
                              despise it, in fact. ...Which brings me to another correction: when
                              have I ever said that I am dispassionate? Do I sound dispassionate to
                              you?

                              Wil


                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: bvtswami <bvtswami@...>
                              To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:20 am
                              Subject: [existlist] Re: A short episode ... a response to Nitai,


                              Feels like you trying to scare me away. Quite passionate for one
                              promoting dispassionate

                              discourse. Makes me wonder if20you read what I posted. Anyway thanks for
                              response. Let

                              me reply to what I see as the substance of your charges and to your
                              challenge.



                              I do not think that anyone has proved exactly what the ground of
                              consciousness is.



                              The fact that I find the logic of Vedanta of interest and noteworthy
                              makes me no less

                              objective and no less interested in philosophy for its own sake, or
                              less able to engage in

                              dispassionate discourse than you. You may not like Schaupenhauer, but I
                              do not think that

                              you can accurately characterize him as not participating the radical
                              nature of philosophy

                              qua philosophy.



                              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:

                              >

                              > You see, the thing is I do not give a rat's ass about your religious

                              > tradition any more than I do mine. What you are pushing here is an

                              > ideology that you want to squeeze all other discourses into. That
                              just

                              > won't do. Maybe you are on the wrong list?

                              >

                              > If I said to you, "to the cesspool with Vedanta and all of its
                              gods!",

                              > would you cringe or get hot under the collar? If yes, than you are

                              > merely another holy man. Another ideologist. As you may have read

                              > somewhere, this is antipodal to the radical nature of

                              > philosophy-qua-philosophy.

                              >

                              > If you think that desire is the ground of all consciousness, prove it

                              > witho
                              ut appeal to any sacred doctrine. I have no patience with things

                              > "sacred". (Sacred is another word for 'beyond further questioning'.)

                              >

                              > Wil

                              >

                              >

                              > -----Original Message-----

                              > From: bvtswami <bvtswami@...>

                              > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com

                              > Sent: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 9:59 am

                              > Subject: [existlist] Re: A short episode ... a response to Nitai,

                              >

                              >

                              > The world is real but we who live in it do make mistakes, often

                              > mistakes of perception and

                              >

                              > value. If one perceives the world to be something other than it is,

                              > addressing such is

                              >

                              > hardly nihilistic. Nietzsche's familiarity with Vedanta is
                              superficial

                              > at best. He is completely

                              >

                              > unaware to those branches of Vedanta that affirm the objective
                              reality

                              > of the world and

                              >

                              > thus his charge of nihilism, while applicable to an extent to one

                              > school of Vedant

                              > a, is not

                              >

                              > applicable to others.

                              >

                              >

                              >

                              > Before you get to irate about religious inroading, it is experience

                              > that leads a Vedantist to

                              >

                              > consider that he or she has an identity that transcends thought and

                              > object, an identity that

                              >

                              > issues from a plane in which the apparent gap between these two

                              > "different insepearables"

                              >

                              > is bridged. We do remember when we have slep
                              t well without dreaming,

                              > and one cannot

                              >

                              > remember that which one has no experience of.

                              >

                              >

                              >

                              > As for phenomenology, I think that the study of consciousness and the

                              > direct objects of

                              >

                              > experience that constitute this approach need not be considered
                              outside

                              > the scope of

                              >

                              > Vedanta. Here is something you will likely take umbrage with, as do
                              I,

                              > however, for

                              >

                              > different reasons. For I too find the nondual school of Vedanta

                              > somewhat world denying.

                              >

                              > Nonetheless the piece lends support to an expanded notion of what

                              > constitutes

                              >

                              > phenomenology, which seems desirable. After all, consciousness has
                              not

                              > been

                              >

                              > understood, perhaps least of all by Dennet, who errs in the direction

                              > of reductio ad

                              >

                              > absurdum in the opinion of his own peers (Searle).

                              >

                              >

                              >

                              >
                              http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/i_es/i_es_menon_sankar_frameset.htm

                              >

                              >

                              >

                              >

                              >

                              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:

                              >

                              > >

                              >

                              > > I not only disagree with this, I denounce it as yet one more case of

                              >

                              > > religious inroading. Not only is this unsupportabl

                              > e by anything

                              > phenomenological; it

                              >

                              > > is a piece of religious propaganda that has no other
                              MO than to

                              > degrade the

                              >

                              > > world and experience to something akin to a 'mistake'. See
                              Nietzsche

                              > on why this

                              >

                              > > attitude is tantamount to nihilism.

                              >

                              > >

                              >

                              > > Wil

                              >

                              > >

                              >

                              > > In a message dated 8/19/08 7:39:17 AM, bvtswami@ writes:

                              >

                              > >

                              >

                              > >

                              >

                              > > > An intention is nothing but a desire combined with a sense of

                              > ability.

                              >

                              > > > Desire plus ability

                              >

                              > > > equals intention. One cannot intend something that one knows one

                              > cannot

                              >

                              > > > bring about,

                              >

                              > > > but one can desire something that one knows very well one cannot

                              > achieve. So

                              >

                              > > > I do not

                              >

                              > > > think you can separate intention from desire. It could be argued

                              > that

                              >

                              > > > intention represents

                              >

                              > > > a particular quality of desire and in this sense can be reduced
                              to

                              > desire.

                              >

                              > > > If one does away

                              >

                              > > > with desire, so too does one do away with intention, and there is

                              > nothing

                              >

                              > > > particularly

                              >

                              > > > tendentious about this fact.

                              >

                              > > >

                              >

                              > > > I think that the study of consciousness and the objects of direct

                              > experience

                              >

                              > > > is al
                              ive and

                              >

                              > > > well but certainly not restricted to the school of
                              existentialism.

                              > We live

                              >

                              > > > in a sea of desire

                              >

                              > > > and our desire defines us. Yes, we are also something more than
                              our

                              > desireâ€"

                              >

                              > > > the20stream of

                              >

                              > > > humanity/consciousn humanity/consciousn<wbr>ess transcendent to
                              the

                              > roles we

                              >

                              > > > identify

                              >

                              > > > with perhaps Sartre, or for Nitai an enduring unit of

                              > consciousness, an

                              >

                              > > > "I-ness' that

                              >

                              > > > remains intact during deep sleep and thus by implication after

                              > death, as per

                              >

                              > > > Vedanta.

                              >

                              > > >

                              >

                              > >

                              >

                              > >

                              >

                              > >

                              >

                              > >

                              >

                              > > **************

                              >

                              > > It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel

                              >

                              > > deal here.

                              >

                              > >

                              >

                              > > (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)

                              >

                              > >

                              >

                              > >

                              >

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

                              >

                              > >

                              >
                            • bvtswami
                              If you are satisfied, why move? Perhaps out of satisfaction in celebration. I would say lila, not nirvana, is the final word in Vedanta. It is here that
                              Message 14 of 29 , Aug 19, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                If you are satisfied, why move? Perhaps out of satisfaction in celebration. I would say lila,
                                not nirvana, is the final word in Vedanta. It is here that sentience comes full circle and the
                                world embracing end of Vedanta is attained. But Schopenhauer did not go there. This to
                                me is more his short coming. But then you have missed my point and continued to cry
                                nihilism.

                                Oh good! I was not scared anyway. No, unfortunately you don't sound dispassionate in the
                                sense of being able to be rational and impartial as one should be when discussing
                                philosophy qua philosophy. What do you sound like? An intellectual bully.



                                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                >
                                > You miss the point. The question is whether one's intentional
                                > comportment to the world (to existence, if you prefer) is emotional
                                > (e.g., desire) or is in its radical and abstract nature is a neutral
                                > 'affectivity'. The eastern use of desire as a stand in for
                                > intentionality always winds up with a moral interpretation of sentience
                                > as pain, suffering, etc., blah, blah. You say nirvana, and I say Good
                                > night Gracie.
                                >
                                > Despite all of Schopenhauer's brilliant insights, he stumbles upon this
                                > same nihilism, but he does not depend upon any sacred doctrine in doing
                                > so. Despite his influences, Schop. is a Kantian negative idealist to
                                > the end, mainly due to his not following through with the pan-logicsm
                                > that undergirds his basic insight. To put it otherwise, cutting his
                                > nose to spite his face, he rejected the Hegelian insight into totality.
                                > But that is another topic for another time.
                                >
                                > As far as scaring you away, no -- I merely eschew all religiosity. I
                                > despise it, in fact. ...Which brings me to another correction: when
                                > have I ever said that I am dispassionate? Do I sound dispassionate to
                                > you?
                                >
                                > Wil
                                >
                                >
                                > -----Original Message-----
                                > From: bvtswami <bvtswami@...>
                                > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                > Sent: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:20 am
                                > Subject: [existlist] Re: A short episode ... a response to Nitai,
                                >
                                >
                                > Feels like you trying to scare me away. Quite passionate for one
                                > promoting dispassionate
                                >
                                > discourse. Makes me wonder if20you read what I posted. Anyway thanks for
                                > response. Let
                                >
                                > me reply to what I see as the substance of your charges and to your
                                > challenge.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > I do not think that anyone has proved exactly what the ground of
                                > consciousness is.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > The fact that I find the logic of Vedanta of interest and noteworthy
                                > makes me no less
                                >
                                > objective and no less interested in philosophy for its own sake, or
                                > less able to engage in
                                >
                                > dispassionate discourse than you. You may not like Schaupenhauer, but I
                                > do not think that
                                >
                                > you can accurately characterize him as not participating the radical
                                > nature of philosophy
                                >
                                > qua philosophy.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > You see, the thing is I do not give a rat's ass about your religious
                                >
                                > > tradition any more than I do mine. What you are pushing here is an
                                >
                                > > ideology that you want to squeeze all other discourses into. That
                                > just
                                >
                                > > won't do. Maybe you are on the wrong list?
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > If I said to you, "to the cesspool with Vedanta and all of its
                                > gods!",
                                >
                                > > would you cringe or get hot under the collar? If yes, than you are
                                >
                                > > merely another holy man. Another ideologist. As you may have read
                                >
                                > > somewhere, this is antipodal to the radical nature of
                                >
                                > > philosophy-qua-philosophy.
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > If you think that desire is the ground of all consciousness, prove it
                                >
                                > > witho
                                > ut appeal to any sacred doctrine. I have no patience with things
                                >
                                > > "sacred". (Sacred is another word for 'beyond further questioning'.)
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > Wil
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > -----Original Message-----
                                >
                                > > From: bvtswami <bvtswami@>
                                >
                                > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                >
                                > > Sent: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 9:59 am
                                >
                                > > Subject: [existlist] Re: A short episode ... a response to Nitai,
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > The world is real but we who live in it do make mistakes, often
                                >
                                > > mistakes of perception and
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > value. If one perceives the world to be something other than it is,
                                >
                                > > addressing such is
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > hardly nihilistic. Nietzsche's familiarity with Vedanta is
                                > superficial
                                >
                                > > at best. He is completely
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > unaware to those branches of Vedanta that affirm the objective
                                > reality
                                >
                                > > of the world and
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > thus his charge of nihilism, while applicable to an extent to one
                                >
                                > > school of Vedant
                                >
                                > > a, is not
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > applicable to others.
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > Before you get to irate about religious inroading, it is experience
                                >
                                > > that leads a Vedantist to
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > consider that he or she has an identity that transcends thought and
                                >
                                > > object, an identity that
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > issues from a plane in which the apparent gap between these two
                                >
                                > > "different insepearables"
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > is bridged. We do remember when we have slep
                                > t well without dreaming,
                                >
                                > > and one cannot
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > remember that which one has no experience of.
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > As for phenomenology, I think that the study of consciousness and the
                                >
                                > > direct objects of
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > experience that constitute this approach need not be considered
                                > outside
                                >
                                > > the scope of
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > Vedanta. Here is something you will likely take umbrage with, as do
                                > I,
                                >
                                > > however, for
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > different reasons. For I too find the nondual school of Vedanta
                                >
                                > > somewhat world denying.
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > Nonetheless the piece lends support to an expanded notion of what
                                >
                                > > constitutes
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > phenomenology, which seems desirable. After all, consciousness has
                                > not
                                >
                                > > been
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > understood, perhaps least of all by Dennet, who errs in the direction
                                >
                                > > of reductio ad
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > absurdum in the opinion of his own peers (Searle).
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > >
                                > http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/i_es/i_es_menon_sankar_frameset.htm
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > >
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > I not only disagree with this, I denounce it as yet one more case of
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > religious inroading. Not only is this unsupportabl
                                >
                                > > e by anything
                                >
                                > > phenomenological; it
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > is a piece of religious propaganda that has no other
                                > MO than to
                                >
                                > > degrade the
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > world and experience to something akin to a 'mistake'. See
                                > Nietzsche
                                >
                                > > on why this
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > attitude is tantamount to nihilism.
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > >
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > Wil
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > >
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > In a message dated 8/19/08 7:39:17 AM, bvtswami@ writes:
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > >
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > >
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > > An intention is nothing but a desire combined with a sense of
                                >
                                > > ability.
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > > Desire plus ability
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > > equals intention. One cannot intend something that one knows one
                                >
                                > > cannot
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > > bring about,
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > > but one can desire something that one knows very well one cannot
                                >
                                > > achieve. So
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > > I do not
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > > think you can separate intention from desire. It could be argued
                                >
                                > > that
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > > intention represents
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > > a particular quality of desire and in this sense can be reduced
                                > to
                                >
                                > > desire.
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > > If one does away
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > > with desire, so too does one do away with intention, and there is
                                >
                                > > nothing
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > > particularly
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > > tendentious about this fact.
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > >
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > > I think that the study of consciousness and the objects of direct
                                >
                                > > experience
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > > is al
                                > ive and
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > > well but certainly not restricted to the school of
                                > existentialism.
                                >
                                > > We live
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > > in a sea of desire
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > > and our desire defines us. Yes, we are also something more than
                                > our
                                >
                                > > desireâ€"
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > > the20stream of
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > > humanity/consciousn humanity/consciousn<wbr>ess transcendent to
                                > the
                                >
                                > > roles we
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > > identify
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > > with perhaps Sartre, or for Nitai an enduring unit of
                                >
                                > > consciousness, an
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > > "I-ness' that
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > > remains intact during deep sleep and thus by implication after
                                >
                                > > death, as per
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > > Vedanta.
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > >
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > >
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > >
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > >
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > >
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > **************
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > deal here.
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > >
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > >
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > >
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                                > > >
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                              • eupraxis@aol.com
                                ... No sir (ma am?). You are either young or are otherwise too used to the easy pass given everyone s point of view by our multi-culturists and big tent
                                Message 15 of 29 , Aug 20, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  In a message dated 8/19/08 9:06:17 PM, bvtswami@... writes:
                                  > An intellectual bully.
                                  >
                                  No sir (ma'am?). You are either young or are otherwise too used to the easy
                                  pass given everyone's point of view by our multi-culturists and big tent
                                  advocates. While I would to welcome everyone to the crossroads of ideas, no matter
                                  from what godforsaken point of origin one hales, once here the rules of Western
                                  philosophy, of Wissenschaft, are absolute: put up, or shut up.

                                  The right-wing here always gabbers endlessly about the relativism of us
                                  secularists and free thinkers. What they dislike is the opposite, actually: the
                                  non-belief in, and aversion to, dogma of any kind. We say that all religions have
                                  an equal footing; yes, but only because they are all products of a mode of
                                  thinking deserving equal contempt. In actual fact, aside from the wayward
                                  wankers who are too quick to affirm the nonsense of the 'any man', most true
                                  secularists are of a disposition to insist on the utter abrogation of the sacred as
                                  the basis for anything at all.

                                  And what a laugh when a partisan who insists on his or her holy texts, and
                                  who is always too ready to show the world the true path to salvation, calls ME a
                                  bully! The hand that holds the Vedanta is the same one that wipes yer arse,
                                  sir. No text derives from anything more exalted than that. No text ever has or
                                  ever will. So, since we of this mortal coil are all of us in the same banana
                                  tree, we are best served by the rigor of thought thinking itself, as Aristotle
                                  and Hegel saw, and thus excise everything from our philosophy that acts merely
                                  as just another narcotic.

                                  "Blessed are the sleepy ones, for they shall soon drop off."

                                  Wil




                                  **************
                                  It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
                                  deal here.

                                  (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • bvtswami
                                  Hardly is one engaged in the systematic pursuit of knowledge, learning, and scholarship when they disregard any and all thought outside of their preference,
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Aug 20, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hardly is one engaged in the systematic pursuit of knowledge, learning, and scholarship
                                    when they disregard any and all thought outside of their preference, nor when the put
                                    word in others mouths. We are talking about consciousness, the basis of which no one has
                                    proved. While Descartes dualism may not be popular for good reasons, neither its
                                    opposite or anything in between has been proven. To suggest that the logic of Vedanta
                                    may contribute in a meaningful way to the discussion does not violate the rules of Wissenschaft in the broadest sense of the term. I am afraid we all have our sacred, you
                                    included. For, to hold nothing as sacred only creates another sacred ground.

                                    Attachement creates the myth of the sacred. As Khun has pointed out, even scientists are
                                    attached to their beliefs. As Popper has suggested, if they get lucky something works at
                                    least for a while. Meanwhile Vedanta is a radical approach to becoming free from bias—
                                    attachment fosters bias.

                                    You are proud, but proud of nothing. Better thinkers than you have argued well that the
                                    evolution of scientific knowledge has little to do with "truth" and is more a mere artifact of
                                    sociology.

                                    I have not insisted on any sacred texts. You are the one who keeps referring to them. So
                                    you had a troubled childhood with regard to religion. Your religion did not let you think,
                                    and it is apparent that it has left you permanently damaged.



                                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                    >
                                    > In a message dated 8/19/08 9:06:17 PM, bvtswami@... writes:
                                    > > An intellectual bully.
                                    > >
                                    > No sir (ma'am?). You are either young or are otherwise too used to the easy
                                    > pass given everyone's point of view by our multi-culturists and big tent
                                    > advocates. While I would to welcome everyone to the crossroads of ideas, no matter
                                    > from what godforsaken point of origin one hales, once here the rules of Western
                                    > philosophy, of Wissenschaft, are absolute: put up, or shut up.
                                    >
                                    > The right-wing here always gabbers endlessly about the relativism of us
                                    > secularists and free thinkers. What they dislike is the opposite, actually: the
                                    > non-belief in, and aversion to, dogma of any kind. We say that all religions have
                                    > an equal footing; yes, but only because they are all products of a mode of
                                    > thinking deserving equal contempt. In actual fact, aside from the wayward
                                    > wankers who are too quick to affirm the nonsense of the 'any man', most true
                                    > secularists are of a disposition to insist on the utter abrogation of the sacred as
                                    > the basis for anything at all.
                                    >
                                    > And what a laugh when a partisan who insists on his or her holy texts, and
                                    > who is always too ready to show the world the true path to salvation, calls ME a
                                    > bully! The hand that holds the Vedanta is the same one that wipes yer arse,
                                    > sir. No text derives from anything more exalted than that. No text ever has or
                                    > ever will. So, since we of this mortal coil are all of us in the same banana
                                    > tree, we are best served by the rigor of thought thinking itself, as Aristotle
                                    > and Hegel saw, and thus excise everything from our philosophy that acts merely
                                    > as just another narcotic.
                                    >
                                    > "Blessed are the sleepy ones, for they shall soon drop off."
                                    >
                                    > Wil
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > **************
                                    > It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
                                    > deal here.
                                    >
                                    > (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    >
                                  • eupraxis@aol.com
                                    Is not Vedanta by definition an ancient and sacred corpus? Kuhn discusses changes in scientific explanatory structures, not ancient doctrines. You know, like
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Aug 20, 2008
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Is not Vedanta by definition an ancient and sacred corpus? Kuhn
                                      discusses changes in scientific explanatory structures, not ancient
                                      doctrines. You know, like Newton to Einstein.

                                      In any case, this is an existentialism list, not an Indian religion
                                      list. If you have something theoretical to add, fine; but if it has as
                                      an authority a religious doctrine (which would be a logical informal
                                      fallacy -- appeal to authority), than it has no place here. And please
                                      save the "everyone has a sacred cow" defense.

                                      Wil


                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: bvtswami <bvtswami@...>
                                      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                      Sent: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:27 pm
                                      Subject: [existlist] Re: A short episode ... a response to Nitai,

                                      Hardly is one engaged in the systematic pursuit of knowledge, learning,
                                      and scholarship

                                      when they disregard any and all thought outside of their preference,
                                      nor when the put

                                      word in others mouths. We are talking about consciousness, the basis
                                      of which no one has

                                      proved. While Descartes dualism may not be popular for good reasons,
                                      neither its

                                      opposite or anything in between has been proven. To suggest that the
                                      logic of Vedanta

                                      may contribute in a meaningful way to the discussion does not violate
                                      the rules of Wissenschaft in the broadest sense of the term. I am
                                      afraid we all have our sacred, you

                                      included. For, to hold nothing as sacred only creates another sacred
                                      ground.




                                      Attachement creates the myth of the sacred. As Khun has pointed out,
                                      even scientists are

                                      attached to their beliefs. As Popper has suggested, if they get lucky
                                      something works at

                                      least for a while. Meanwhile Vedanta is a radical approach to becoming
                                      free from bias—

                                      attachment fosters bias.



                                      You are proud, but proud of nothing. Better thinkers than you have
                                      argued well that the

                                      evolution of scientific knowledge has little to do with "truth" and is
                                      more a mere artifact of

                                      sociology.



                                      I have not insisted on any sacred texts. You are the one who keeps
                                      referring to them. So

                                      you had a troubled childhood with regard to religion. Your religion did
                                      not let you think,

                                      and it is apparent that it has left you permanently damaged.



                                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:

                                      >

                                      > In a message dated 8/19/08 9:06:17 PM, bvtswami@... writes:

                                      > > An intellectual bully.

                                      > >

                                      > No sir (ma'am?). You are either young or are otherwise too used to
                                      the easy

                                      > pass given everyone's point of view by our multi-culturists and big
                                      tent

                                      > advocates. While I would to welcome everyone to the crossroads of
                                      ideas, no matter

                                      > from what godforsaken point of origin one hales, once here the rules
                                      of Western

                                      > philosophy, of Wissenschaft, are absolute: put up, or shut up.

                                      >

                                      > The right-wing here always gab
                                      bers endlessly about the relativism of
                                      us

                                      > secularists and free thinkers. What they dislike is the opposite,
                                      actually: the

                                      > non-belief in, and aversion to, dogma of any kind. We say that all
                                      religions have

                                      > an equal footing; yes, but only because they are all products of a
                                      mode of

                                      > thinking deserving equal contempt. In actual fact, aside from the
                                      wayward

                                      > wankers who are too quick to affirm the nonsense of the 'any man',
                                      most true

                                      > secularists are of a disposition to insist on the utter abrogation of
                                      the sacred as

                                      > the basis for anything at all.

                                      >

                                      > And what a laugh when a partisan who insists on his or her holy
                                      texts, and

                                      > who is always too ready to show the world the true path to salvation,
                                      calls ME a

                                      > bully! The hand that holds the Vedanta is the same one that wipes yer
                                      arse,

                                      > sir. No text derives from anything more exalted than that. No text
                                      ever has or

                                      > ever will. So, since we of this mortal coil are all of us in the same
                                      banana

                                      > tree, we are best served by the rigor of thought thinking itself, as
                                      Aristotle

                                      > and Hegel saw, and thus excise everything from our philosophy that
                                      acts merely

                                      > as just another narcotic.

                                      >

                                      > "Blessed are the sleepy ones, for they shall soon drop off."

                                      >

                                      > Wil

                                      >

                                      >

                                      >

                                      >

                                      > **************
                                      0A
                                      > It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel

                                      > deal here.

                                      >

                                      > (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)

                                      >

                                      >

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

                                      >
                                    • bvtswami
                                      Hardly is one engaged in the systematic pursuit of knowledge, learning, and scholarship when they disregard any and all thought outside of their preference,
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Aug 20, 2008
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Hardly is one engaged in the systematic pursuit of knowledge, learning, and scholarship
                                        when they disregard any and all thought outside of their preference, nor when the put
                                        word in others mouths. We are talking about consciousness, the basis of which no one has
                                        proved. While Descartes dualism may not be popular for good reasons, neither its
                                        opposite or anything in between has been proven. To suggest that the logic of Vedanta
                                        may contribute in a meaningful way to the discussion does not violate the rules of Wissenschaft in the broadest sense of the term. I am afraid we all have our sacred, you
                                        included. For, to hold nothing as sacred only creates another sacred ground.

                                        Attachement creates the myth of the sacred. As Khun has pointed out, even scientists are
                                        attached to their beliefs. As Popper has suggested, if they get lucky something works at
                                        least for a while. Meanwhile Vedanta is a radical approach to becoming free from bias—
                                        attachment fosters bias.

                                        You are proud, but proud of nothing. Better thinkers than you have argued well that the
                                        evolution of scientific knowledge has little to do with "truth" and is more a mere artifact of
                                        sociology.

                                        I have not insisted on any sacred texts. You are the one who keeps referring to them. So
                                        you had a troubled childhood with regard to religion. Your religion did not let you think,
                                        and it is apparent that it has left you permanently damaged.



                                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                        >
                                        > In a message dated 8/19/08 9:06:17 PM, bvtswami@... writes:
                                        > > An intellectual bully.
                                        > >
                                        > No sir (ma'am?). You are either young or are otherwise too used to the easy
                                        > pass given everyone's point of view by our multi-culturists and big tent
                                        > advocates. While I would to welcome everyone to the crossroads of ideas, no matter
                                        > from what godforsaken point of origin one hales, once here the rules of Western
                                        > philosophy, of Wissenschaft, are absolute: put up, or shut up.
                                        >
                                        > The right-wing here always gabbers endlessly about the relativism of us
                                        > secularists and free thinkers. What they dislike is the opposite, actually: the
                                        > non-belief in, and aversion to, dogma of any kind. We say that all religions have
                                        > an equal footing; yes, but only because they are all products of a mode of
                                        > thinking deserving equal contempt. In actual fact, aside from the wayward
                                        > wankers who are too quick to affirm the nonsense of the 'any man', most true
                                        > secularists are of a disposition to insist on the utter abrogation of the sacred as
                                        > the basis for anything at all.
                                        >
                                        > And what a laugh when a partisan who insists on his or her holy texts, and
                                        > who is always too ready to show the world the true path to salvation, calls ME a
                                        > bully! The hand that holds the Vedanta is the same one that wipes yer arse,
                                        > sir. No text derives from anything more exalted than that. No text ever has or
                                        > ever will. So, since we of this mortal coil are all of us in the same banana
                                        > tree, we are best served by the rigor of thought thinking itself, as Aristotle
                                        > and Hegel saw, and thus excise everything from our philosophy that acts merely
                                        > as just another narcotic.
                                        >
                                        > "Blessed are the sleepy ones, for they shall soon drop off."
                                        >
                                        > Wil
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > **************
                                        > It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
                                        > deal here.
                                        >
                                        > (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        >
                                      • bvtswami
                                        Khun raises the problem of explaining why in the history of science one paradigm is chosen over another. If paradigms are ultimately incommensurable, if they
                                        Message 19 of 29 , Aug 20, 2008
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Khun raises the problem of explaining why in the history of science one paradigm is
                                          chosen over another. If paradigms are ultimately incommensurable, if they cannot be
                                          rigorously compared. He answers this question by saying that the the decision lies with
                                          the ongoing scientific community. But this answer undercuts the foundation of scientific
                                          enterprise, leaving it to the mercy of sociological and personal factors that subjectively
                                          distort the scientific judgement. Indeed, Khun himself demonstrated that scientists do not
                                          in practice fundamentally question the governing paradigm or test it against other
                                          alternatives. Did you get that? Do you understand its implications?

                                          It matters little that Vedanta derives from a text that some consider sacred. Its logic is no
                                          less worthy of consideration on this account. Unless, that is, you have a bias. I have not
                                          committed the logical fallacy of appeal to authority merely by citing a particular logic. I
                                          have not said the logic is valid because the Vedanta texts say so. You are not the sharpest
                                          pencil in the box.


                                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                          >
                                          > Is not Vedanta by definition an ancient and sacred corpus? Kuhn
                                          > discusses changes in scientific explanatory structures, not ancient
                                          > doctrines. You know, like Newton to Einstein.
                                          >
                                          > In any case, this is an existentialism list, not an Indian religion
                                          > list. If you have something theoretical to add, fine; but if it has as
                                          > an authority a religious doctrine (which would be a logical informal
                                          > fallacy -- appeal to authority), than it has no place here. And please
                                          > save the "everyone has a sacred cow" defense.
                                          >
                                          > Wil
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > -----Original Message-----
                                          > From: bvtswami <bvtswami@...>
                                          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                          > Sent: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:27 pm
                                          > Subject: [existlist] Re: A short episode ... a response to Nitai,
                                          >
                                          > Hardly is one engaged in the systematic pursuit of knowledge, learning,
                                          > and scholarship
                                          >
                                          > when they disregard any and all thought outside of their preference,
                                          > nor when the put
                                          >
                                          > word in others mouths. We are talking about consciousness, the basis
                                          > of which no one has
                                          >
                                          > proved. While Descartes dualism may not be popular for good reasons,
                                          > neither its
                                          >
                                          > opposite or anything in between has been proven. To suggest that the
                                          > logic of Vedanta
                                          >
                                          > may contribute in a meaningful way to the discussion does not violate
                                          > the rules of Wissenschaft in the broadest sense of the term. I am
                                          > afraid we all have our sacred, you
                                          >
                                          > included. For, to hold nothing as sacred only creates another sacred
                                          > ground.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Attachement creates the myth of the sacred. As Khun has pointed out,
                                          > even scientists are
                                          >
                                          > attached to their beliefs. As Popper has suggested, if they get lucky
                                          > something works at
                                          >
                                          > least for a while. Meanwhile Vedanta is a radical approach to becoming
                                          > free from biasâ€"
                                          >
                                          > attachment fosters bias.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > You are proud, but proud of nothing. Better thinkers than you have
                                          > argued well that the
                                          >
                                          > evolution of scientific knowledge has little to do with "truth" and is
                                          > more a mere artifact of
                                          >
                                          > sociology.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > I have not insisted on any sacred texts. You are the one who keeps
                                          > referring to them. So
                                          >
                                          > you had a troubled childhood with regard to religion. Your religion did
                                          > not let you think,
                                          >
                                          > and it is apparent that it has left you permanently damaged.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > In a message dated 8/19/08 9:06:17 PM, bvtswami@ writes:
                                          >
                                          > > > An intellectual bully.
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > > No sir (ma'am?). You are either young or are otherwise too used to
                                          > the easy
                                          >
                                          > > pass given everyone's point of view by our multi-culturists and big
                                          > tent
                                          >
                                          > > advocates. While I would to welcome everyone to the crossroads of
                                          > ideas, no matter
                                          >
                                          > > from what godforsaken point of origin one hales, once here the rules
                                          > of Western
                                          >
                                          > > philosophy, of Wissenschaft, are absolute: put up, or shut up.
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > The right-wing here always gab
                                          > bers endlessly about the relativism of
                                          > us
                                          >
                                          > > secularists and free thinkers. What they dislike is the opposite,
                                          > actually: the
                                          >
                                          > > non-belief in, and aversion to, dogma of any kind. We say that all
                                          > religions have
                                          >
                                          > > an equal footing; yes, but only because they are all products of a
                                          > mode of
                                          >
                                          > > thinking deserving equal contempt. In actual fact, aside from the
                                          > wayward
                                          >
                                          > > wankers who are too quick to affirm the nonsense of the 'any man',
                                          > most true
                                          >
                                          > > secularists are of a disposition to insist on the utter abrogation of
                                          > the sacred as
                                          >
                                          > > the basis for anything at all.
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > And what a laugh when a partisan who insists on his or her holy
                                          > texts, and
                                          >
                                          > > who is always too ready to show the world the true path to salvation,
                                          > calls ME a
                                          >
                                          > > bully! The hand that holds the Vedanta is the same one that wipes yer
                                          > arse,
                                          >
                                          > > sir. No text derives from anything more exalted than that. No text
                                          > ever has or
                                          >
                                          > > ever will. So, since we of this mortal coil are all of us in the same
                                          > banana
                                          >
                                          > > tree, we are best served by the rigor of thought thinking itself, as
                                          > Aristotle
                                          >
                                          > > and Hegel saw, and thus excise everything from our philosophy that
                                          > acts merely
                                          >
                                          > > as just another narcotic.
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > "Blessed are the sleepy ones, for they shall soon drop off."
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > Wil
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > **************
                                          > 0A
                                          > > It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
                                          >
                                          > > deal here.
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                        • eupraxis@aol.com
                                          You misread Kuhn. His theory is about scientific structural revolutions. It has nothing to do with choices ; it is about radical paradigm changes that are
                                          Message 20 of 29 , Aug 20, 2008
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            You misread Kuhn. His theory is about scientific structural
                                            revolutions. It has nothing to do with 'choices'; it is about radical
                                            paradigm changes that are contiguous and continuous. Do you understand
                                            those implications? Your characterization of Kuhn's theory is way off.

                                            Screw Vedanta. What actual point are you proffering, and for its own
                                            sake rather than the defense of an ancient text? Do you understand that
                                            question?

                                            Wil


                                            -----Original Message-----
                                            From: bvtswami <bvtswami@...>
                                            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                            Sent: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 2:04 pm
                                            Subject: [existlist] Re: A short episode ... a response to Nitai,


                                            Khun raises the problem of explaining why in the history of science one
                                            paradigm is

                                            chosen over another. If paradigms are ultimately incommensurable, if
                                            they cannot be

                                            rigorously compared. He answers this question by saying that the the
                                            decision lies with

                                            the ongoing scientific community. But this answer undercuts the
                                            foundation of scientific

                                            enterprise, leaving it to the mercy of sociological and personal
                                            factors that subjectively

                                            distort the scientific judgement. Indeed, Khun himself demonstrated
                                            that scientists do not

                                            in practice fundamentally question the governing paradigm or test it
                                            against other

                                            alternatives. Did you get that? Do you understand its implications?



                                            It matters little that Vedanta derives from a text that some consider
                                            sacred. Its logic is no

                                            l
                                            ess worthy of consideration on this account. Unless, that is, you have
                                            a bias. I have not

                                            committed the logical fallacy of appeal to authority merely by citing a
                                            particular logic. I

                                            have not said the logic is valid because the Vedanta texts say so. You
                                            are not the sharpest

                                            pencil in the box.



                                            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:

                                            >

                                            > Is not Vedanta by definition an ancient and sacred corpus? Kuhn

                                            > discusses changes in scientific explanatory structures, not ancient

                                            > doctrines. You know, like Newton to Einstein.

                                            >

                                            > In any case, this is an existentialism list, not an Indian religion

                                            > list. If you have something theoretical to add, fine; but if it has
                                            as

                                            > an authority a religious doctrine (which would be a logical informal

                                            > fallacy -- appeal to authority), than it has no place here. And
                                            please

                                            > save the "everyone has a sacred cow" defense.

                                            >

                                            > Wil

                                            >

                                            >

                                            > -----Original Message-----

                                            > From: bvtswami <bvtswami@...>

                                            > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com

                                            > Sent: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:27 pm

                                            > Subject: [existlist] Re: A short episode ... a response to Nitai,

                                            >

                                            > Hardly is one engaged in the systematic pursuit of knowledge,
                                            learning,

                                            > and scholarship

                                            >

                                            > when they disregard any and all thought outside of their preference,

                                            > nor when the put

                                            >

                                            > word20in others mouths. We are talking about consciousness, the basis

                                            > of which no one has

                                            >

                                            > proved. While Descartes dualism may not be popular for good reasons,

                                            > neither its

                                            >

                                            > opposite or anything in between has been proven. To suggest that the

                                            > logic of Vedanta

                                            >

                                            > may contribute in a meaningful way to the discussion does not violate

                                            > the rules of Wissenschaft in the broadest sense of the term. I am

                                            > afraid we all have our sacred, you

                                            >

                                            > included. For, to hold nothing as sacred only creates another sacred

                                            > ground.

                                            >

                                            >

                                            >

                                            >

                                            > Attachement creates the myth of the sacred. As Khun has pointed out,

                                            > even scientists are

                                            >

                                            > attached to their beliefs. As Popper has suggested, if they get lucky

                                            > something works at

                                            >

                                            > least for a while. Meanwhile Vedanta is a radical approach to
                                            becoming

                                            > free from biasâ€"

                                            >

                                            > attachment fosters bias.

                                            >

                                            >

                                            >

                                            > You are proud, but proud of nothing. Better thinkers than you have

                                            > argued well that the

                                            >

                                            > evolution of scientific knowledge has little to do with "truth" and
                                            is

                                            > more a mere artifact of

                                            >

                                            > sociology.

                                            >

                                            >

                                            >

                                            > I have not insisted on any sacred texts. You are the one who keeps

                                            > referring to them. So

                                            0A>

                                            > you had a troubled childhood with regard to religion. Your religion
                                            did

                                            > not let you think,

                                            >

                                            > and it is apparent that it has left you permanently damaged.

                                            >

                                            >

                                            >

                                            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:

                                            >

                                            > >

                                            >

                                            > > In a message dated 8/19/08 9:06:17 PM, bvtswami@ writes:

                                            >

                                            > > > An intellectual bully.

                                            >

                                            > > >

                                            >

                                            > > No sir (ma'am?). You are either young or are otherwise too used to

                                            > the easy

                                            >

                                            > > pass given everyone's point of view by our multi-culturists and big

                                            > tent

                                            >

                                            > > advocates. While I would to welcome everyone to the crossroads of

                                            > ideas, no matter

                                            >

                                            > > from what godforsaken point of origin one hales, once here the
                                            rules

                                            > of Western

                                            >

                                            > > philosophy, of Wissenschaft, are absolute: put up, or shut up.

                                            >

                                            > >

                                            >

                                            > > The right-wing here always gab

                                            > bers endlessly about the relativism of

                                            > us

                                            >

                                            > > secularists and free thinkers. What they dislike is the opposite,

                                            > actually: the

                                            >

                                            > > non-belief in, and aversion to, dogma of any kind. We say that all

                                            > religions have

                                            >

                                            > > an equal footing; yes, but only because they are all products of a

                                            > mode of

                                            >

                                            > > thinking deserving equal contempt. In actual=2
                                            0fact, aside from the

                                            > wayward

                                            >

                                            > > wankers who are too quick to affirm the nonsense of the 'any man',

                                            > most true

                                            >

                                            > > secularists are of a disposition to insist on the utter abrogation
                                            of

                                            > the sacred as

                                            >

                                            > > the basis for anything at all.

                                            >

                                            > >

                                            >

                                            > > And what a laugh when a partisan who insists on his or her holy

                                            > texts, and

                                            >

                                            > > who is always too ready to show the world the true path to
                                            salvation,

                                            > calls ME a

                                            >

                                            > > bully! The hand that holds the Vedanta is the same one that wipes
                                            yer

                                            > arse,

                                            >

                                            > > sir. No text derives from anything more exalted than that. No text

                                            > ever has or

                                            >

                                            > > ever will. So, since we of this mortal coil are all of us in the
                                            same

                                            > banana

                                            >

                                            > > tree, we are best served by the rigor of thought thinking itself,
                                            as

                                            > Aristotle

                                            >

                                            > > and Hegel saw, and thus excise everything from our philosophy that

                                            > acts merely

                                            >

                                            > > as just another narcotic.

                                            >

                                            > >

                                            >

                                            > > "Blessed are the sleepy ones, for they shall soon drop off."

                                            >

                                            > >

                                            >

                                            > > Wil

                                            >

                                            > >

                                            >

                                            > >

                                            >

                                            > >

                                            >

                                            > >

                                            >

                                            > > **************

                                            > 0A

                                            > > It's only a
                                            deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel

                                            >

                                            > > deal here.

                                            >

                                            > >

                                            >

                                            > > (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)

                                            >

                                            > >

                                            >

                                            > >

                                            >

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

                                            >

                                            > >

                                            >
                                          • bvtswami
                                            The only point you are proffering is that Vedanta has nothing to say about consciousness because its Vedanta. I have pointed out that Nietzsche did not
                                            Message 21 of 29 , Aug 20, 2008
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              The only point you are proffering is that Vedanta has nothing to say about consciousness
                                              because its Vedanta. I have pointed out that Nietzsche did not understand Vedanta, that it
                                              is not ultimately nihilistic, etc. to point out that you are using straw man arguments
                                              against its logic. Otherwise, I brought it up initially as a reference to Nitai's statement "all
                                              is desire." My point at that time was merely that his position, in which intention is
                                              subsumed within desire, was that of Vedanta, and such a position was as valid a
                                              philosophical speculation as that of Sartre with regard to the basis of consciousness. You
                                              have made it clear that you disagree. Fine. But, again, you have gone on to say nothing
                                              more than "Vedanta has nothing to say because it's considered sacred," which I disagree
                                              with. There, now that I have brought you up to date with what we are talking about and
                                              how little you have said in all of this, I will leave you to work out you existential angst on
                                              your own as you deal with your childhood religious problems.

                                              Regarding Khun, I disagree with you. You have not read him very well, not pondered the
                                              wider implications of his insights. The combination of 18th century philosophy and
                                              modern science left the modern mind free of absolutes but also disconcertingly free of any
                                              solid ground. This reality was reinforced by Popper and then Kuhn. Popper noted that
                                              science never produces knowledge that is certain nor even probable. But he maintained
                                              the rationality of science by stressing its commitment to rigorous testing of theories, its
                                              neutrality and dedication to truth. Kuhn, however, undercut this ill conceived security by
                                              citing historical examples in the development of science that proved that in actual
                                              practice scientists seldom conformed Popper's ideal of systematic self criticism, etc.
                                              Instead science routinely reinterprets or neglects altogether data in conflict with the
                                              pevaiing paradigm. Did you say something about a sacred cow?



                                              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                              >
                                              > You misread Kuhn. His theory is about scientific structural
                                              > revolutions. It has nothing to do with 'choices'; it is about radical
                                              > paradigm changes that are contiguous and continuous. Do you understand
                                              > those implications? Your characterization of Kuhn's theory is way off.
                                              >
                                              > Screw Vedanta. What actual point are you proffering, and for its own
                                              > sake rather than the defense of an ancient text? Do you understand that
                                              > question?
                                              >
                                              > Wil
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > -----Original Message-----
                                              > From: bvtswami <bvtswami@...>
                                              > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                              > Sent: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 2:04 pm
                                              > Subject: [existlist] Re: A short episode ... a response to Nitai,
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > Khun raises the problem of explaining why in the history of science one
                                              > paradigm is
                                              >
                                              > chosen over another. If paradigms are ultimately incommensurable, if
                                              > they cannot be
                                              >
                                              > rigorously compared. He answers this question by saying that the the
                                              > decision lies with
                                              >
                                              > the ongoing scientific community. But this answer undercuts the
                                              > foundation of scientific
                                              >
                                              > enterprise, leaving it to the mercy of sociological and personal
                                              > factors that subjectively
                                              >
                                              > distort the scientific judgement. Indeed, Khun himself demonstrated
                                              > that scientists do not
                                              >
                                              > in practice fundamentally question the governing paradigm or test it
                                              > against other
                                              >
                                              > alternatives. Did you get that? Do you understand its implications?
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > It matters little that Vedanta derives from a text that some consider
                                              > sacred. Its logic is no
                                              >
                                              > l
                                              > ess worthy of consideration on this account. Unless, that is, you have
                                              > a bias. I have not
                                              >
                                              > committed the logical fallacy of appeal to authority merely by citing a
                                              > particular logic. I
                                              >
                                              > have not said the logic is valid because the Vedanta texts say so. You
                                              > are not the sharpest
                                              >
                                              > pencil in the box.
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > Is not Vedanta by definition an ancient and sacred corpus? Kuhn
                                              >
                                              > > discusses changes in scientific explanatory structures, not ancient
                                              >
                                              > > doctrines. You know, like Newton to Einstein.
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > In any case, this is an existentialism list, not an Indian religion
                                              >
                                              > > list. If you have something theoretical to add, fine; but if it has
                                              > as
                                              >
                                              > > an authority a religious doctrine (which would be a logical informal
                                              >
                                              > > fallacy -- appeal to authority), than it has no place here. And
                                              > please
                                              >
                                              > > save the "everyone has a sacred cow" defense.
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > Wil
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > -----Original Message-----
                                              >
                                              > > From: bvtswami <bvtswami@>
                                              >
                                              > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                              >
                                              > > Sent: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:27 pm
                                              >
                                              > > Subject: [existlist] Re: A short episode ... a response to Nitai,
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > Hardly is one engaged in the systematic pursuit of knowledge,
                                              > learning,
                                              >
                                              > > and scholarship
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > when they disregard any and all thought outside of their preference,
                                              >
                                              > > nor when the put
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > word20in others mouths. We are talking about consciousness, the basis
                                              >
                                              > > of which no one has
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > proved. While Descartes dualism may not be popular for good reasons,
                                              >
                                              > > neither its
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > opposite or anything in between has been proven. To suggest that the
                                              >
                                              > > logic of Vedanta
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > may contribute in a meaningful way to the discussion does not violate
                                              >
                                              > > the rules of Wissenschaft in the broadest sense of the term. I am
                                              >
                                              > > afraid we all have our sacred, you
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > included. For, to hold nothing as sacred only creates another sacred
                                              >
                                              > > ground.
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > Attachement creates the myth of the sacred. As Khun has pointed out,
                                              >
                                              > > even scientists are
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > attached to their beliefs. As Popper has suggested, if they get lucky
                                              >
                                              > > something works at
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > least for a while. Meanwhile Vedanta is a radical approach to
                                              > becoming
                                              >
                                              > > free from biasâ€"
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > attachment fosters bias.
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > You are proud, but proud of nothing. Better thinkers than you have
                                              >
                                              > > argued well that the
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > evolution of scientific knowledge has little to do with "truth" and
                                              > is
                                              >
                                              > > more a mere artifact of
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > sociology.
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > I have not insisted on any sacred texts. You are the one who keeps
                                              >
                                              > > referring to them. So
                                              >
                                              > 0A>
                                              >
                                              > > you had a troubled childhood with regard to religion. Your religion
                                              > did
                                              >
                                              > > not let you think,
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > and it is apparent that it has left you permanently damaged.
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > >
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > > In a message dated 8/19/08 9:06:17 PM, bvtswami@ writes:
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > > > An intellectual bully.
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > > >
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > > No sir (ma'am?). You are either young or are otherwise too used to
                                              >
                                              > > the easy
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > > pass given everyone's point of view by our multi-culturists and big
                                              >
                                              > > tent
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > > advocates. While I would to welcome everyone to the crossroads of
                                              >
                                              > > ideas, no matter
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > > from what godforsaken point of origin one hales, once here the
                                              > rules
                                              >
                                              > > of Western
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > > philosophy, of Wissenschaft, are absolute: put up, or shut up.
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > >
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > > The right-wing here always gab
                                              >
                                              > > bers endlessly about the relativism of
                                              >
                                              > > us
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > > secularists and free thinkers. What they dislike is the opposite,
                                              >
                                              > > actually: the
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > > non-belief in, and aversion to, dogma of any kind. We say that all
                                              >
                                              > > religions have
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > > an equal footing; yes, but only because they are all products of a
                                              >
                                              > > mode of
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > > thinking deserving equal contempt. In actual=2
                                              > 0fact, aside from the
                                              >
                                              > > wayward
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > > wankers who are too quick to affirm the nonsense of the 'any man',
                                              >
                                              > > most true
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > > secularists are of a disposition to insist on the utter abrogation
                                              > of
                                              >
                                              > > the sacred as
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > > the basis for anything at all.
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > >
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > > And what a laugh when a partisan who insists on his or her holy
                                              >
                                              > > texts, and
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > > who is always too ready to show the world the true path to
                                              > salvation,
                                              >
                                              > > calls ME a
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > > bully! The hand that holds the Vedanta is the same one that wipes
                                              > yer
                                              >
                                              > > arse,
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > > sir. No text derives from anything more exalted than that. No text
                                              >
                                              > > ever has or
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > > ever will. So, since we of this mortal coil are all of us in the
                                              > same
                                              >
                                              > > banana
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > > tree, we are best served by the rigor of thought thinking itself,
                                              > as
                                              >
                                              > > Aristotle
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > > and Hegel saw, and thus excise everything from our philosophy that
                                              >
                                              > > acts merely
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > > as just another narcotic.
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > >
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > > "Blessed are the sleepy ones, for they shall soon drop off."
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > >
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > > Wil
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > >
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > >
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > >
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > >
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > > **************
                                              >
                                              > > 0A
                                              >
                                              > > > It's only a
                                              > deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > > deal here.
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > >
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > > (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > >
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > >
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > > >
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                            • eupraxis@aol.com
                                              If you are writing about Kuhn s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, you are way off base. Maybe you read an online review of it? But, in any case, you
                                              Message 22 of 29 , Aug 20, 2008
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                If you are writing about Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific
                                                Revolutions, you are way off base. Maybe you read an online review of
                                                it?

                                                But, in any case, you have twice ignored my question: what is your
                                                contribution to the discussion on intentionality? If whatever you have
                                                in mind has been taken from Vedanta, fine. But that does not constitute
                                                its argument. What is the position, regardless of Vedanta? What is its
                                                phenomenological support, since that is what we are discussing?

                                                Wil


                                                -----Original Message-----
                                                From: bvtswami <bvtswami@...>
                                                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                                Sent: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 3:36 pm
                                                Subject: [existlist] Re: A short episode ... a response to Nitai,



                                                The only point you are proffering is that Vedanta has nothing to say
                                                about consciousness

                                                because its Vedanta. I have pointed out that Nietzsche did not
                                                understand Vedanta, that it

                                                is not ultimately nihilistic, etc. to point out that you are using
                                                straw man arguments

                                                against its logic. Otherwise, I brought it up initially as a reference
                                                to Nitai's statement "all

                                                is desire." My point at that time was merely that his position, in
                                                which intention is

                                                subsumed within desire, was that of Vedanta, and such a position was as
                                                valid a

                                                philosophical speculation as that of Sartre with regard to the basis of
                                                consciousness. You

                                                have made it clear that you disagree. Fine. But, again, you have gone
                                                on to say=2
                                                0nothing

                                                more than "Vedanta has nothing to say because it's considered sacred,"
                                                which I disagree

                                                with. There, now that I have brought you up to date with what we are
                                                talking about and

                                                how little you have said in all of this, I will leave you to work out
                                                you existential angst on

                                                your own as you deal with your childhood religious problems.



                                                Regarding Khun, I disagree with you. You have not read him very well,
                                                not pondered the

                                                wider implications of his insights. The combination of 18th century
                                                philosophy and

                                                modern science left the modern mind free of absolutes but also
                                                disconcertingly free of any

                                                solid ground. This reality was reinforced by Popper and then Kuhn.
                                                Popper noted that

                                                science never produces knowledge that is certain nor even probable. But
                                                he maintained

                                                the rationality of science by stressing its commitment to rigorous
                                                testing of theories, its

                                                neutrality and dedication to truth. Kuhn, however, undercut this ill
                                                conceived security by

                                                citing historical examples in the development of science that proved
                                                that in actual

                                                practice scientists seldom conformed Popper's ideal of systematic self
                                                criticism, etc.

                                                Instead science routinely reinterprets or neglects altogether data in
                                                conflict with the

                                                pevaiing paradigm. Did you say something about a sacred cow?



                                                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:

                                                >

                                                > You misread=2
                                                0Kuhn. His theory is about scientific structural

                                                > revolutions. It has nothing to do with 'choices'; it is about radical

                                                > paradigm changes that are contiguous and continuous. Do you
                                                understand

                                                > those implications? Your characterization of Kuhn's theory is way
                                                off.

                                                >

                                                > Screw Vedanta. What actual point are you proffering, and for its own

                                                > sake rather than the defense of an ancient text? Do you understand
                                                that

                                                > question?

                                                >

                                                > Wil

                                                >

                                                >

                                                > -----Original Message-----

                                                > From: bvtswami <bvtswami@...>

                                                > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com

                                                > Sent: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 2:04 pm

                                                > Subject: [existlist] Re: A short episode ... a response to Nitai,

                                                >

                                                >

                                                > Khun raises the problem of explaining why in the history of science
                                                one

                                                > paradigm is

                                                >

                                                > chosen over another. If paradigms are ultimately incommensurable, if

                                                > they cannot be

                                                >

                                                > rigorously compared. He answers this question by saying that the the

                                                > decision lies with

                                                >

                                                > the ongoing scientific community. But this answer undercuts the

                                                > foundation of scientific

                                                >

                                                > enterprise, leaving it to the mercy of sociological and personal

                                                > factors that subjectively

                                                >

                                                > distort the scientific judgement. Indeed, Khun himself demonstrated

                                                > that scientists do not

                                                >

                                                > in practice fundamentally question the governing paradigm or
                                                test it

                                                > against other

                                                >

                                                > alternatives. Did you get that? Do you understand its implications?

                                                >

                                                >

                                                >

                                                > It matters little that Vedanta derives from a text that some consider

                                                > sacred. Its logic is no

                                                >

                                                > l

                                                > ess worthy of consideration on this account. Unless, that is, you
                                                have

                                                > a bias. I have not

                                                >

                                                > committed the logical fallacy of appeal to authority merely by citing
                                                a

                                                > particular logic. I

                                                >

                                                > have not said the logic is valid because the Vedanta texts say so.
                                                You

                                                > are not the sharpest

                                                >

                                                > pencil in the box.

                                                >

                                                >

                                                >

                                                > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > Is not Vedanta by definition an ancient and sacred corpus? Kuhn

                                                >

                                                > > discusses changes in scientific explanatory structures, not ancient

                                                >

                                                > > doctrines. You know, like Newton to Einstein.

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > In any case, this is an existentialism list, not an Indian religion

                                                >

                                                > > list. If you have something theoretical to add, fine; but if it has

                                                > as

                                                >

                                                > > an authority a religious doctrine (which would be a logical informal

                                                >

                                                > > fallacy -- appeal to authority), than it has no place here. And

                                                > please

                                                >

                                                > > save the "everyone has a sacred cow" defense.
                                                =0
                                                D
                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > Wil

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > -----Original Message-----

                                                >

                                                > > From: bvtswami <bvtswami@>

                                                >

                                                > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com

                                                >

                                                > > Sent: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:27 pm

                                                >

                                                > > Subject: [existlist] Re: A short episode ... a response to Nitai,

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > Hardly is one engaged in the systematic pursuit of knowledge,

                                                > learning,

                                                >

                                                > > and scholarship

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > when they disregard any and all thought outside of their preference,

                                                >

                                                > > nor when the put

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > word20in others mouths. We are talking about consciousness, the
                                                basis

                                                >

                                                > > of which no one has

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > proved. While Descartes dualism may not be popular for good reasons,

                                                >

                                                > > neither its

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > opposite or anything in between has been proven. To suggest that the

                                                >

                                                > > logic of Vedanta

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > may contribute in a meaningful way to the discussion does not
                                                violate

                                                >

                                                > > the rules of Wissenschaft in the broadest sense of the term. I am

                                                >

                                                > > afraid we all have our sacred, you

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > included. For, to hold nothing as sacred only creates anothe
                                                r sacred

                                                >

                                                > > ground.

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > Attachement creates the myth of the sacred. As Khun has pointed out,

                                                >

                                                > > even scientists are

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > attached to their beliefs. As Popper has suggested, if they get
                                                lucky

                                                >

                                                > > something works at

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > least for a while. Meanwhile Vedanta is a radical approach to

                                                > becoming

                                                >

                                                > > free from biasâ€"

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > attachment fosters bias.

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > You are proud, but proud of nothing. Better thinkers than you have

                                                >

                                                > > argued well that the

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > evolution of scientific knowledge has little to do with "truth" and

                                                > is

                                                >

                                                > > more a mere artifact of

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > sociology.

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > I have not insisted on any sacred texts. You are the one who keeps

                                                >

                                                > > referring to them. So

                                                >

                                                > 0A>

                                                >

                                                > > you had a troubled childhood with regard to religion. Your religion

                                                > did

                                                >

                                                > > not let you think,

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                >=2
                                                0> and it is apparent that it has left you permanently damaged.

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > >

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > > In a message dated 8/19/08 9:06:17 PM, bvtswami@ writes:

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > > > An intellectual bully.

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > > >

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > > No sir (ma'am?). You are either young or are otherwise too used to

                                                >

                                                > > the easy

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > > pass given everyone's point of view by our multi-culturists and
                                                big

                                                >

                                                > > tent

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > > advocates. While I would to welcome everyone to the crossroads of

                                                >

                                                > > ideas, no matter

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > > from what godforsaken point of origin one hales, once here the

                                                > rules

                                                >

                                                > > of Western

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > > philosophy, of Wissenschaft, are absolute: put up, or shut up.

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > >

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > > The right-wing here always gab

                                                >

                                                > > bers endlessly about the relativism of

                                                >

                                                > > us

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > > secularists and free thinkers. What they dislike is the opposite,

                                                >0D

                                                > > actually: the

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > > non-belief in, and aversion to, dogma of any kind. We say that all

                                                >

                                                > > religions have

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > > an equal footing; yes, but only because they are all products of a

                                                >

                                                > > mode of

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > > thinking deserving equal contempt. In actual=2

                                                > 0fact, aside from the

                                                >

                                                > > wayward

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > > wankers who are too quick to affirm the nonsense of the 'any man',

                                                >

                                                > > most true

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > > secularists are of a disposition to insist on the utter
                                                abrogation

                                                > of

                                                >

                                                > > the sacred as

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > > the basis for anything at all.

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > >

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > > And what a laugh when a partisan who insists on his or her holy

                                                >

                                                > > texts, and

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > > who is always too ready to show the world the true path to

                                                > salvation,

                                                >

                                                > > calls ME a

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > > bully! The hand that holds the Vedanta is the same one that wipes

                                                > yer

                                                >

                                                > > arse,

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > > sir. No text derives from anything more exalted than that. No text

                                                0A>

                                                > > ever has or

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > > ever will. So, since we of this mortal coil are all of us in the

                                                > same

                                                >

                                                > > banana

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > > tree, we are best served by the rigor of thought thinking itself,

                                                > as

                                                >

                                                > > Aristotle

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > > and Hegel saw, and thus excise everything from our philosophy that

                                                >

                                                > > acts merely

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > > as just another narcotic.

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > >

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > > "Blessed are the sleepy ones, for they shall soon drop off."

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > >

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > > Wil

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > >

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > >

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > >

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > >

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > > **************

                                                >

                                                > > 0A

                                                >

                                                > > > It's only a

                                                > deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > > deal here.

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > >

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > >
                                                (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > >

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > >

                                                =0
                                                A>

                                                > >

                                                >

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

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >

                                                > > >

                                                >

                                                > >

                                                >
                                              • bvtswami
                                                Regarding Kuhn, what I have written is more or less a textbook understanding of Kuhn with regard to the history of the development of thought in Western
                                                Message 23 of 29 , Aug 20, 2008
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Regarding Kuhn, what I have written is more or less a textbook understanding of Kuhn
                                                  with regard to the history of the development of thought in Western civilization. In other
                                                  words this is what is taught in college these days. You might for example read the best
                                                  seller Richard Tarnas's "Passion of the Western Mind" that is recommended reading on
                                                  practically every University campus.

                                                  I have already referred you to an article on the Advaita Vedanta understanding of
                                                  intentional consciousness (not my preferred form of Vedanta) as part of the discussion.
                                                  The idea is that consciousness has not been understood, and other than Dennet most
                                                  people would agree. There has been progress in the field and also an openness to Eastern
                                                  thought on the subject by some, Henry Stapp for one. I did not realize that bringing this
                                                  up would cause you to go ballistic. Here is the article I referred you to. Nothing conclusive
                                                  by any means.

                                                  http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/i_es/i_es_menon_sankar_frameset.htm




                                                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > If you are writing about Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific
                                                  > Revolutions, you are way off base. Maybe you read an online review of
                                                  > it?
                                                  >
                                                  > But, in any case, you have twice ignored my question: what is your
                                                  > contribution to the discussion on intentionality? If whatever you have
                                                  > in mind has been taken from Vedanta, fine. But that does not constitute
                                                  > its argument. What is the position, regardless of Vedanta? What is its
                                                  > phenomenological support, since that is what we are discussing?
                                                  >
                                                  > Wil
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > -----Original Message-----
                                                  > From: bvtswami <bvtswami@...>
                                                  > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                                  > Sent: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 3:36 pm
                                                  > Subject: [existlist] Re: A short episode ... a response to Nitai,
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > The only point you are proffering is that Vedanta has nothing to say
                                                  > about consciousness
                                                  >
                                                  > because its Vedanta. I have pointed out that Nietzsche did not
                                                  > understand Vedanta, that it
                                                  >
                                                  > is not ultimately nihilistic, etc. to point out that you are using
                                                  > straw man arguments
                                                  >
                                                  > against its logic. Otherwise, I brought it up initially as a reference
                                                  > to Nitai's statement "all
                                                  >
                                                  > is desire." My point at that time was merely that his position, in
                                                  > which intention is
                                                  >
                                                  > subsumed within desire, was that of Vedanta, and such a position was as
                                                  > valid a
                                                  >
                                                  > philosophical speculation as that of Sartre with regard to the basis of
                                                  > consciousness. You
                                                  >
                                                  > have made it clear that you disagree. Fine. But, again, you have gone
                                                  > on to say=2
                                                  > 0nothing
                                                  >
                                                  > more than "Vedanta has nothing to say because it's considered sacred,"
                                                  > which I disagree
                                                  >
                                                  > with. There, now that I have brought you up to date with what we are
                                                  > talking about and
                                                  >
                                                  > how little you have said in all of this, I will leave you to work out
                                                  > you existential angst on
                                                  >
                                                  > your own as you deal with your childhood religious problems.
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > Regarding Khun, I disagree with you. You have not read him very well,
                                                  > not pondered the
                                                  >
                                                  > wider implications of his insights. The combination of 18th century
                                                  > philosophy and
                                                  >
                                                  > modern science left the modern mind free of absolutes but also
                                                  > disconcertingly free of any
                                                  >
                                                  > solid ground. This reality was reinforced by Popper and then Kuhn.
                                                  > Popper noted that
                                                  >
                                                  > science never produces knowledge that is certain nor even probable. But
                                                  > he maintained
                                                  >
                                                  > the rationality of science by stressing its commitment to rigorous
                                                  > testing of theories, its
                                                  >
                                                  > neutrality and dedication to truth. Kuhn, however, undercut this ill
                                                  > conceived security by
                                                  >
                                                  > citing historical examples in the development of science that proved
                                                  > that in actual
                                                  >
                                                  > practice scientists seldom conformed Popper's ideal of systematic self
                                                  > criticism, etc.
                                                  >
                                                  > Instead science routinely reinterprets or neglects altogether data in
                                                  > conflict with the
                                                  >
                                                  > pevaiing paradigm. Did you say something about a sacred cow?
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > You misread=2
                                                  > 0Kuhn. His theory is about scientific structural
                                                  >
                                                  > > revolutions. It has nothing to do with 'choices'; it is about radical
                                                  >
                                                  > > paradigm changes that are contiguous and continuous. Do you
                                                  > understand
                                                  >
                                                  > > those implications? Your characterization of Kuhn's theory is way
                                                  > off.
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > Screw Vedanta. What actual point are you proffering, and for its own
                                                  >
                                                  > > sake rather than the defense of an ancient text? Do you understand
                                                  > that
                                                  >
                                                  > > question?
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > Wil
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > -----Original Message-----
                                                  >
                                                  > > From: bvtswami <bvtswami@>
                                                  >
                                                  > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                                  >
                                                  > > Sent: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 2:04 pm
                                                  >
                                                  > > Subject: [existlist] Re: A short episode ... a response to Nitai,
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > Khun raises the problem of explaining why in the history of science
                                                  > one
                                                  >
                                                  > > paradigm is
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > chosen over another. If paradigms are ultimately incommensurable, if
                                                  >
                                                  > > they cannot be
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > rigorously compared. He answers this question by saying that the the
                                                  >
                                                  > > decision lies with
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > the ongoing scientific community. But this answer undercuts the
                                                  >
                                                  > > foundation of scientific
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > enterprise, leaving it to the mercy of sociological and personal
                                                  >
                                                  > > factors that subjectively
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > distort the scientific judgement. Indeed, Khun himself demonstrated
                                                  >
                                                  > > that scientists do not
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > in practice fundamentally question the governing paradigm or
                                                  > test it
                                                  >
                                                  > > against other
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > alternatives. Did you get that? Do you understand its implications?
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > It matters little that Vedanta derives from a text that some consider
                                                  >
                                                  > > sacred. Its logic is no
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > l
                                                  >
                                                  > > ess worthy of consideration on this account. Unless, that is, you
                                                  > have
                                                  >
                                                  > > a bias. I have not
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > committed the logical fallacy of appeal to authority merely by citing
                                                  > a
                                                  >
                                                  > > particular logic. I
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > have not said the logic is valid because the Vedanta texts say so.
                                                  > You
                                                  >
                                                  > > are not the sharpest
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > pencil in the box.
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > Is not Vedanta by definition an ancient and sacred corpus? Kuhn
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > discusses changes in scientific explanatory structures, not ancient
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > doctrines. You know, like Newton to Einstein.
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > In any case, this is an existentialism list, not an Indian religion
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > list. If you have something theoretical to add, fine; but if it has
                                                  >
                                                  > > as
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > an authority a religious doctrine (which would be a logical informal
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > fallacy -- appeal to authority), than it has no place here. And
                                                  >
                                                  > > please
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > save the "everyone has a sacred cow" defense.
                                                  > =0
                                                  > D
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > Wil
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > -----Original Message-----
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > From: bvtswami <bvtswami@>
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > Sent: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:27 pm
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: A short episode ... a response to Nitai,
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > Hardly is one engaged in the systematic pursuit of knowledge,
                                                  >
                                                  > > learning,
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > and scholarship
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > when they disregard any and all thought outside of their preference,
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > nor when the put
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > word20in others mouths. We are talking about consciousness, the
                                                  > basis
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > of which no one has
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > proved. While Descartes dualism may not be popular for good reasons,
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > neither its
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > opposite or anything in between has been proven. To suggest that the
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > logic of Vedanta
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > may contribute in a meaningful way to the discussion does not
                                                  > violate
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > the rules of Wissenschaft in the broadest sense of the term. I am
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > afraid we all have our sacred, you
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > included. For, to hold nothing as sacred only creates anothe
                                                  > r sacred
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > ground.
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > Attachement creates the myth of the sacred. As Khun has pointed out,
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > even scientists are
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > attached to their beliefs. As Popper has suggested, if they get
                                                  > lucky
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > something works at
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > least for a while. Meanwhile Vedanta is a radical approach to
                                                  >
                                                  > > becoming
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > free from biasâ€"
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > attachment fosters bias.
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > You are proud, but proud of nothing. Better thinkers than you have
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > argued well that the
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > evolution of scientific knowledge has little to do with "truth" and
                                                  >
                                                  > > is
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > more a mere artifact of
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > sociology.
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > I have not insisted on any sacred texts. You are the one who keeps
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > referring to them. So
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > 0A>
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > you had a troubled childhood with regard to religion. Your religion
                                                  >
                                                  > > did
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > not let you think,
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >=2
                                                  > 0> and it is apparent that it has left you permanently damaged.
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > > In a message dated 8/19/08 9:06:17 PM, bvtswami@ writes:
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > > > An intellectual bully.
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > > No sir (ma'am?). You are either young or are otherwise too used to
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > the easy
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > > pass given everyone's point of view by our multi-culturists and
                                                  > big
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > tent
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > > advocates. While I would to welcome everyone to the crossroads of
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > ideas, no matter
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > > from what godforsaken point of origin one hales, once here the
                                                  >
                                                  > > rules
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > of Western
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > > philosophy, of Wissenschaft, are absolute: put up, or shut up.
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > > The right-wing here always gab
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > bers endlessly about the relativism of
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > us
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > > secularists and free thinkers. What they dislike is the opposite,
                                                  >
                                                  > >0D
                                                  >
                                                  > > > actually: the
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > > non-belief in, and aversion to, dogma of any kind. We say that all
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > religions have
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > > an equal footing; yes, but only because they are all products of a
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > mode of
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > > thinking deserving equal contempt. In actual=2
                                                  >
                                                  > > 0fact, aside from the
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > wayward
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > > wankers who are too quick to affirm the nonsense of the 'any man',
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > most true
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > > secularists are of a disposition to insist on the utter
                                                  > abrogation
                                                  >
                                                  > > of
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > the sacred as
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > > the basis for anything at all.
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > > And what a laugh when a partisan who insists on his or her holy
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > texts, and
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > > who is always too ready to show the world the true path to
                                                  >
                                                  > > salvation,
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > calls ME a
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > > bully! The hand that holds the Vedanta is the same one that wipes
                                                  >
                                                  > > yer
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > arse,
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > > sir. No text derives from anything more exalted than that. No text
                                                  >
                                                  > 0A>
                                                  >
                                                  > > > ever has or
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > > ever will. So, since we of this mortal coil are all of us in the
                                                  >
                                                  > > same
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > banana
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > > tree, we are best served by the rigor of thought thinking itself,
                                                  >
                                                  > > as
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > Aristotle
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > > and Hegel saw, and thus excise everything from our philosophy that
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > acts merely
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > > as just another narcotic.
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > > "Blessed are the sleepy ones, for they shall soon drop off."
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > > Wil
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > > **************
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > 0A
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > > It's only a
                                                  >
                                                  > > deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > > deal here.
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > >
                                                  > (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > =0
                                                  > A>
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > > >
                                                  >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                • eupraxis@aol.com
                                                  Regarding Kuhn, read Kuhn. Watch out when using secondary sources. Not ballistic at all; rather, impatient. In your experience, has Vedanta ever been shown to
                                                  Message 24 of 29 , Aug 20, 2008
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Regarding Kuhn, read Kuhn. Watch out when using secondary sources.

                                                    Not ballistic at all; rather, impatient. In your experience, has
                                                    Vedanta ever been shown to be wrong? Could you ever accept such a
                                                    thing? I really doubt it.

                                                    While I will look up the provided link, I have had similar arguments
                                                    with others. It is always "current research confirms the" Rg Veda,
                                                    Koran, Bible, etc., etc. As if that matters to anyone!

                                                    Finally, this is an existentialist list. I wish any of this had
                                                    something to do with the phenomenological question.

                                                    Wil

                                                    -----Original Message-----
                                                    From: bvtswami <bvtswami@...>
                                                    To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                                    Sent: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 5:14 pm
                                                    Subject: [existlist] Re: A short episode ... a response to Nitai,


                                                    Regarding Kuhn, what I have written is more or less a textbook
                                                    understanding of Kuhn

                                                    with regard to the history of the development of thought in Western
                                                    civilization. In other

                                                    words this is what is taught in college these days. You might for
                                                    example read the best

                                                    seller Richard Tarnas's "Passion of the Western Mind" that is
                                                    recommended reading on

                                                    practically every University campus.



                                                    I have already referred you to an article on the Advaita Vedanta
                                                    understanding of

                                                    intentional consciousness (not my preferred form of Vedanta) as part of
                                                    the discussion.

                                                    The idea is that consciousness has not been understood, and other than
                                                    Dennet most

                                                    people=2
                                                    0would agree. There has been progress in the field and also an
                                                    openness to Eastern

                                                    thought on the subject by some, Henry Stapp for one. I did not realize
                                                    that bringing this

                                                    up would cause you to go ballistic. Here is the article I referred you
                                                    to. Nothing conclusive

                                                    by any means.



                                                    http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/i_es/i_es_menon_sankar_frameset.htm



                                                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:

                                                    >

                                                    > If you are writing about Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific

                                                    > Revolutions, you are way off base. Maybe you read an online review of

                                                    > it?

                                                    >

                                                    > But, in any case, you have twice ignored my question: what is your

                                                    > contribution to the discussion on intentionality? If whatever you
                                                    have

                                                    > in mind has been taken from Vedanta, fine. But that does not
                                                    constitute

                                                    > its argument. What is the position, regardless of Vedanta? What is
                                                    its

                                                    > phenomenological support, since that is what we are discussing?

                                                    >

                                                    > Wil

                                                    >

                                                    >

                                                    > -----Original Message-----

                                                    > From: bvtswami <bvtswami@...>

                                                    > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com

                                                    > Sent: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 3:36 pm

                                                    > Subject: [existlist] Re: A short episode ... a response to Nitai,

                                                    >

                                                    >

                                                    >

                                                    > The only point you are proffering is that Vedanta has nothing to say

                                                    > about consciousness

                                                    >

                                                    > because its Vedanta. I have pointed out that Nietzsche di
                                                    d not

                                                    > understand Vedanta, that it

                                                    >

                                                    > is not ultimately nihilistic, etc. to point out that you are using

                                                    > straw man arguments

                                                    >

                                                    > against its logic. Otherwise, I brought it up initially as a
                                                    reference

                                                    > to Nitai's statement "all

                                                    >

                                                    > is desire." My point at that time was merely that his position, in

                                                    > which intention is

                                                    >

                                                    > subsumed within desire, was that of Vedanta, and such a position was
                                                    as

                                                    > valid a

                                                    >

                                                    > philosophical speculation as that of Sartre with regard to the basis
                                                    of

                                                    > consciousness. You

                                                    >

                                                    > have made it clear that you disagree. Fine. But, again, you have gone

                                                    > on to say=2

                                                    > 0nothing

                                                    >

                                                    > more than "Vedanta has nothing to say because it's considered
                                                    sacred,"

                                                    > which I disagree

                                                    >

                                                    > with. There, now that I have brought you up to date with what we are

                                                    > talking about and

                                                    >

                                                    > how little you have said in all of this, I will leave you to work out

                                                    > you existential angst on

                                                    >

                                                    > your own as you deal with your childhood religious problems.

                                                    >

                                                    >

                                                    >

                                                    > Regarding Khun, I disagree with you. You have not read him very
                                                    well,

                                                    > not pondered the

                                                    >

                                                    > wider implications of his insights. The combination of 18th century

                                                    > philosophy and

                                                    >

                                                    > modern science left the mo
                                                    dern mind free of absolutes but also

                                                    > disconcertingly free of any

                                                    >

                                                    > solid ground. This reality was reinforced by Popper and then Kuhn.

                                                    > Popper noted that

                                                    >

                                                    > science never produces knowledge that is certain nor even probable.
                                                    But

                                                    > he maintained

                                                    >

                                                    > the rationality of science by stressing its commitment to rigorous

                                                    > testing of theories, its

                                                    >

                                                    > neutrality and dedication to truth. Kuhn, however, undercut this ill

                                                    > conceived security by

                                                    >

                                                    > citing historical examples in the development of science that proved

                                                    > that in actual

                                                    >

                                                    > practice scientists seldom conformed Popper's ideal of systematic
                                                    self

                                                    > criticism, etc.

                                                    >

                                                    > Instead science routinely reinterprets or neglects altogether data in

                                                    > conflict with the

                                                    >

                                                    > pevaiing paradigm. Did you say something about a sacred cow?

                                                    >

                                                    >

                                                    >

                                                    > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > You misread=2

                                                    > 0Kuhn. His theory is about scientific structural

                                                    >

                                                    > > revolutions. It has nothing to do with 'choices'; it is about
                                                    radical

                                                    >

                                                    > > paradigm changes that are contiguous and continuous. Do you

                                                    > understand

                                                    >

                                                    > > those implications? Your characterization of Kuhn's theory is way

                                                    > off.

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > Screw Vedanta. What
                                                    actual point are you proffering, and for its own

                                                    >

                                                    > > sake rather than the defense of an ancient text? Do you understand

                                                    > that

                                                    >

                                                    > > question?

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > Wil

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > -----Original Message-----

                                                    >

                                                    > > From: bvtswami <bvtswami@>

                                                    >

                                                    > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com

                                                    >

                                                    > > Sent: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 2:04 pm

                                                    >

                                                    > > Subject: [existlist] Re: A short episode ... a response to Nitai,

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > Khun raises the problem of explaining why in the history of science

                                                    > one

                                                    >

                                                    > > paradigm is

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > chosen over another. If paradigms are ultimately incommensurable, if

                                                    >

                                                    > > they cannot be

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > rigorously compared. He answers this question by saying that the the

                                                    >

                                                    > > decision lies with

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > the ongoing scientific community. But this answer undercuts the

                                                    >

                                                    > > foundation of scientific

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > enterprise, leaving it to the mercy of sociological and personal

                                                    >

                                                    > > factors that subjectively

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > distort the scientific judgement. Indeed, Khun himself demonstrated

                                                    >

                                                    > > that scientists do not

                                                    >

                                                    >20>

                                                    >

                                                    > > in practice fundamentally question the governing paradigm or

                                                    > test it

                                                    >

                                                    > > against other

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > alternatives. Did you get that? Do you understand its implications?

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > It matters little that Vedanta derives from a text that some
                                                    consider

                                                    >

                                                    > > sacred. Its logic is no

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > l

                                                    >

                                                    > > ess worthy of consideration on this account. Unless, that is, you

                                                    > have

                                                    >

                                                    > > a bias. I have not

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > committed the logical fallacy of appeal to authority merely by
                                                    citing

                                                    > a

                                                    >

                                                    > > particular logic. I

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > have not said the logic is valid because the Vedanta texts say so.

                                                    > You

                                                    >

                                                    > > are not the sharpest

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > pencil in the box.

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > Is not Vedanta by definition an ancient and sacred corpus? Kuhn

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > discusses changes in scientific explanatory structures, not
                                                    ancient

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > doc
                                                    trines. You know, like Newton to Einstein.

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > In any case, this is an existentialism list, not an Indian
                                                    religion

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > list. If you have something theoretical to add, fine; but if it
                                                    has

                                                    >

                                                    > > as

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > an authority a religious doctrine (which would be a logical
                                                    informal

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > fallacy -- appeal to authority), than it has no place here. And

                                                    >

                                                    > > please

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > save the "everyone has a sacred cow" defense.

                                                    > =0

                                                    > D

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > Wil

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > -----Original Message-----

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > From: bvtswami <bvtswami@>

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > Sent: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:27 pm

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: A short episode ... a response to Nitai,

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > Hardly is one engaged in the systematic pursuit of knowledge,

                                                    >

                                                    > > learning,


                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > and scholarship

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > when they disregard any and all thought outside of their
                                                    preference,

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > nor when the put

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > word20in others mouths. We are talking about consciousness, the

                                                    > basis

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > of which no one has

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > proved. While Descartes dualism may not be popular for good
                                                    reasons,

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > neither its

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > opposite or anything in between has been proven. To suggest that
                                                    the

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > logic of Vedanta

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > may contribute in a meaningful way to the discussion does not

                                                    > violate

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > the rules of Wissenschaft in the broadest sense of the term. I am

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > afraid we all have our sacred, you

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > included. For, to hold nothing as sacred only creat
                                                    es anothe

                                                    > r sacred

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > ground.

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > Attachement creates the myth of the sacred. As Khun has pointed
                                                    out,

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > even scientists are

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > attached to their beliefs. As Popper has suggested, if they get

                                                    > lucky

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > something works at

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > least for a while. Meanwhile Vedanta is a radical approach to

                                                    >

                                                    > > becoming

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > free from biasâ€"

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > attachment fosters bias.

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > You are proud, but proud of nothing. Better thinkers than you have

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > argued well that the

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    >
                                                    >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > evolution of scientific knowledge has little to do with "truth"
                                                    and

                                                    >

                                                    > > is

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > more a mere artifact of

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > sociology.

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > I have not insisted on any sacred texts. You are the one who keeps

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > referring to them. So

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > 0A>

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > you had a troubled childhood with regard to religion. Your
                                                    religion

                                                    >

                                                    > > did

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > not let you think,

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >=2

                                                    > 0> and it is apparent that it has left you permanently damaged.

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > > In a message dated 8/19
                                                    /08 9:06:17 PM, bvtswami@ writes:

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > > > An intellectual bully.

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > > No sir (ma'am?). You are either young or are otherwise too used
                                                    to

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > the easy

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > > pass given everyone's point of view by our multi-culturists and

                                                    > big

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > tent

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > > advocates. While I would to welcome everyone to the crossroads
                                                    of

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > ideas, no matter

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > > from what godforsaken point of origin one hales, once here the

                                                    >

                                                    > > rules

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > of Western

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > > philosophy, of Wissenschaft, are absolute: put up, or shut up.

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >



                                                    >

                                                    > > > > The right-wing here always gab

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > bers endlessly about the relativism of

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > us

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > > secularists and free thinkers. What they dislike is the
                                                    opposite,

                                                    >

                                                    > >0D

                                                    >

                                                    > > > actually: the

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > > non-belief in, and aversion to, dogma of any kind. We say that
                                                    all

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > religions have

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > > an equal footing; yes, but only because they are all products
                                                    of a

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > mode of

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > > thinking deserving equal contempt. In actual=2

                                                    >

                                                    > > 0fact, aside from the

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > wayward

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > > wankers who are too quick to affirm the nonsense of the 'any
                                                    man',

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > most true

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > > secularists are of a disposition to insist on the utter

                                                    >20abrogation

                                                    >

                                                    > > of

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > the sacred as

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > > the basis for anything at all.

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > > And what a laugh when a partisan who insists on his or her holy

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > texts, and

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > > who is always too ready to show the world the true path to

                                                    >

                                                    > > salvation,

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > calls ME a

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > > bully! The hand that holds the Vedanta is the same one that
                                                    wipes

                                                    >

                                                    > > yer

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > arse,

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > > sir. No text derives from anything more exalted than that. No
                                                    text

                                                    >

                                                    > 0A>

                                                    >

                                                    > > > ever has or

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > > ever will. So, since we of this mortal coil are all of us in the

                                                    >

                                                    > > same

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >
                                                    0D
                                                    > > > banana

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > > tree, we are best served by the rigor of thought thinking
                                                    itself,

                                                    >

                                                    > > as

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > Aristotle

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > > and Hegel saw, and thus excise everything from our philosophy
                                                    that

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > acts merely

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > > as just another narcotic.

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > > "Blessed are the sleepy ones, for they shall soon drop off."

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > > Wil

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >



                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > > **************

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > 0A

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > > It's only a

                                                    >

                                                    > > deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > > deal here.

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > >

                                                    > (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > =0

                                                    > A>

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

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

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >

                                                    > > >

                                                    >

                                                    > >

                                                    >














                                                    0D
                                                  • bvtswami
                                                    Yes, within the Vedanta world there are things that people of times gone by thought that have been proven wrong, as big as the cosmological and as small as how
                                                    Message 25 of 29 , Aug 20, 2008
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Yes, within the Vedanta world there are things that people of times gone by thought that
                                                      have been proven wrong, as big as the cosmological and as small as how to cure the
                                                      common cold. And if they were wrong, they were wrong. What has not been proven wrong,
                                                      however, are the notions that mind is a subtle form of matter (similar to Chalmers) and I-
                                                      ness consciousness precedes thought.

                                                      The link I sent you is different than the arguments you mention.

                                                      I am confident about my take on Kuhn, but thanks.


                                                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      > Regarding Kuhn, read Kuhn. Watch out when using secondary sources.
                                                      >
                                                      > Not ballistic at all; rather, impatient. In your experience, has
                                                      > Vedanta ever been shown to be wrong? Could you ever accept such a
                                                      > thing? I really doubt it.
                                                      >
                                                      > While I will look up the provided link, I have had similar arguments
                                                      > with others. It is always "current research confirms the" Rg Veda,
                                                      > Koran, Bible, etc., etc. As if that matters to anyone!
                                                      >
                                                      > Finally, this is an existentialist list. I wish any of this had
                                                      > something to do with the phenomenological question.
                                                      >
                                                      > Wil
                                                      >
                                                      > -----Original Message-----
                                                      > From: bvtswami <bvtswami@...>
                                                      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                                      > Sent: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 5:14 pm
                                                      > Subject: [existlist] Re: A short episode ... a response to Nitai,
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > Regarding Kuhn, what I have written is more or less a textbook
                                                      > understanding of Kuhn
                                                      >
                                                      > with regard to the history of the development of thought in Western
                                                      > civilization. In other
                                                      >
                                                      > words this is what is taught in college these days. You might for
                                                      > example read the best
                                                      >
                                                      > seller Richard Tarnas's "Passion of the Western Mind" that is
                                                      > recommended reading on
                                                      >
                                                      > practically every University campus.
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > I have already referred you to an article on the Advaita Vedanta
                                                      > understanding of
                                                      >
                                                      > intentional consciousness (not my preferred form of Vedanta) as part of
                                                      > the discussion.
                                                      >
                                                      > The idea is that consciousness has not been understood, and other than
                                                      > Dennet most
                                                      >
                                                      > people=2
                                                      > 0would agree. There has been progress in the field and also an
                                                      > openness to Eastern
                                                      >
                                                      > thought on the subject by some, Henry Stapp for one. I did not realize
                                                      > that bringing this
                                                      >
                                                      > up would cause you to go ballistic. Here is the article I referred you
                                                      > to. Nothing conclusive
                                                      >
                                                      > by any means.
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/i_es/i_es_menon_sankar_frameset.htm
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > If you are writing about Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific
                                                      >
                                                      > > Revolutions, you are way off base. Maybe you read an online review of
                                                      >
                                                      > > it?
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > But, in any case, you have twice ignored my question: what is your
                                                      >
                                                      > > contribution to the discussion on intentionality? If whatever you
                                                      > have
                                                      >
                                                      > > in mind has been taken from Vedanta, fine. But that does not
                                                      > constitute
                                                      >
                                                      > > its argument. What is the position, regardless of Vedanta? What is
                                                      > its
                                                      >
                                                      > > phenomenological support, since that is what we are discussing?
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > Wil
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > -----Original Message-----
                                                      >
                                                      > > From: bvtswami <bvtswami@>
                                                      >
                                                      > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                                      >
                                                      > > Sent: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 3:36 pm
                                                      >
                                                      > > Subject: [existlist] Re: A short episode ... a response to Nitai,
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > The only point you are proffering is that Vedanta has nothing to say
                                                      >
                                                      > > about consciousness
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > because its Vedanta. I have pointed out that Nietzsche di
                                                      > d not
                                                      >
                                                      > > understand Vedanta, that it
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > is not ultimately nihilistic, etc. to point out that you are using
                                                      >
                                                      > > straw man arguments
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > against its logic. Otherwise, I brought it up initially as a
                                                      > reference
                                                      >
                                                      > > to Nitai's statement "all
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > is desire." My point at that time was merely that his position, in
                                                      >
                                                      > > which intention is
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > subsumed within desire, was that of Vedanta, and such a position was
                                                      > as
                                                      >
                                                      > > valid a
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > philosophical speculation as that of Sartre with regard to the basis
                                                      > of
                                                      >
                                                      > > consciousness. You
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > have made it clear that you disagree. Fine. But, again, you have gone
                                                      >
                                                      > > on to say=2
                                                      >
                                                      > > 0nothing
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > more than "Vedanta has nothing to say because it's considered
                                                      > sacred,"
                                                      >
                                                      > > which I disagree
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > with. There, now that I have brought you up to date with what we are
                                                      >
                                                      > > talking about and
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > how little you have said in all of this, I will leave you to work out
                                                      >
                                                      > > you existential angst on
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > your own as you deal with your childhood religious problems.
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > Regarding Khun, I disagree with you. You have not read him very
                                                      > well,
                                                      >
                                                      > > not pondered the
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > wider implications of his insights. The combination of 18th century
                                                      >
                                                      > > philosophy and
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > modern science left the mo
                                                      > dern mind free of absolutes but also
                                                      >
                                                      > > disconcertingly free of any
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > solid ground. This reality was reinforced by Popper and then Kuhn.
                                                      >
                                                      > > Popper noted that
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > science never produces knowledge that is certain nor even probable.
                                                      > But
                                                      >
                                                      > > he maintained
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > the rationality of science by stressing its commitment to rigorous
                                                      >
                                                      > > testing of theories, its
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > neutrality and dedication to truth. Kuhn, however, undercut this ill
                                                      >
                                                      > > conceived security by
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > citing historical examples in the development of science that proved
                                                      >
                                                      > > that in actual
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > practice scientists seldom conformed Popper's ideal of systematic
                                                      > self
                                                      >
                                                      > > criticism, etc.
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > Instead science routinely reinterprets or neglects altogether data in
                                                      >
                                                      > > conflict with the
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > pevaiing paradigm. Did you say something about a sacred cow?
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > You misread=2
                                                      >
                                                      > > 0Kuhn. His theory is about scientific structural
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > revolutions. It has nothing to do with 'choices'; it is about
                                                      > radical
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > paradigm changes that are contiguous and continuous. Do you
                                                      >
                                                      > > understand
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > those implications? Your characterization of Kuhn's theory is way
                                                      >
                                                      > > off.
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > Screw Vedanta. What
                                                      > actual point are you proffering, and for its own
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > sake rather than the defense of an ancient text? Do you understand
                                                      >
                                                      > > that
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > question?
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > Wil
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > -----Original Message-----
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > From: bvtswami <bvtswami@>
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > Sent: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 2:04 pm
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: A short episode ... a response to Nitai,
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > Khun raises the problem of explaining why in the history of science
                                                      >
                                                      > > one
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > paradigm is
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > chosen over another. If paradigms are ultimately incommensurable, if
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > they cannot be
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > rigorously compared. He answers this question by saying that the the
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > decision lies with
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > the ongoing scientific community. But this answer undercuts the
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > foundation of scientific
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > enterprise, leaving it to the mercy of sociological and personal
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > factors that subjectively
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > distort the scientific judgement. Indeed, Khun himself demonstrated
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > that scientists do not
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >20>
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > in practice fundamentally question the governing paradigm or
                                                      >
                                                      > > test it
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > against other
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > alternatives. Did you get that? Do you understand its implications?
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > It matters little that Vedanta derives from a text that some
                                                      > consider
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > sacred. Its logic is no
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > l
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > ess worthy of consideration on this account. Unless, that is, you
                                                      >
                                                      > > have
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > a bias. I have not
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > committed the logical fallacy of appeal to authority merely by
                                                      > citing
                                                      >
                                                      > > a
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > particular logic. I
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > have not said the logic is valid because the Vedanta texts say so.
                                                      >
                                                      > > You
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > are not the sharpest
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > pencil in the box.
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > Is not Vedanta by definition an ancient and sacred corpus? Kuhn
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > discusses changes in scientific explanatory structures, not
                                                      > ancient
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > doc
                                                      > trines. You know, like Newton to Einstein.
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > In any case, this is an existentialism list, not an Indian
                                                      > religion
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > list. If you have something theoretical to add, fine; but if it
                                                      > has
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > as
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > an authority a religious doctrine (which would be a logical
                                                      > informal
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > fallacy -- appeal to authority), than it has no place here. And
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > please
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > save the "everyone has a sacred cow" defense.
                                                      >
                                                      > > =0
                                                      >
                                                      > > D
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > Wil
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > -----Original Message-----
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > From: bvtswami <bvtswami@>
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > Sent: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:27 pm
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: A short episode ... a response to Nitai,
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > Hardly is one engaged in the systematic pursuit of knowledge,
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > learning,
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > and scholarship
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > when they disregard any and all thought outside of their
                                                      > preference,
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > nor when the put
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > word20in others mouths. We are talking about consciousness, the
                                                      >
                                                      > > basis
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > of which no one has
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > proved. While Descartes dualism may not be popular for good
                                                      > reasons,
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > neither its
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > opposite or anything in between has been proven. To suggest that
                                                      > the
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > logic of Vedanta
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > may contribute in a meaningful way to the discussion does not
                                                      >
                                                      > > violate
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > the rules of Wissenschaft in the broadest sense of the term. I am
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > afraid we all have our sacred, you
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > included. For, to hold nothing as sacred only creat
                                                      > es anothe
                                                      >
                                                      > > r sacred
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > ground.
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > Attachement creates the myth of the sacred. As Khun has pointed
                                                      > out,
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > even scientists are
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > attached to their beliefs. As Popper has suggested, if they get
                                                      >
                                                      > > lucky
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > something works at
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > least for a while. Meanwhile Vedanta is a radical approach to
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > becoming
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > free from biasÃÆ'¢â‚¬"
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > attachment fosters bias.
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > You are proud, but proud of nothing. Better thinkers than you have
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > argued well that the
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > evolution of scientific knowledge has little to do with "truth"
                                                      > and
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > is
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > more a mere artifact of
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > sociology.
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > I have not insisted on any sacred texts. You are the one who keeps
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > referring to them. So
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > 0A>
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > you had a troubled childhood with regard to religion. Your
                                                      > religion
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > did
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > not let you think,
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >=2
                                                      >
                                                      > > 0> and it is apparent that it has left you permanently damaged.
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > > In a message dated 8/19
                                                      > /08 9:06:17 PM, bvtswami@ writes:
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > > > An intellectual bully.
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > > No sir (ma'am?). You are either young or are otherwise too used
                                                      > to
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > the easy
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > > pass given everyone's point of view by our multi-culturists and
                                                      >
                                                      > > big
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > tent
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > > advocates. While I would to welcome everyone to the crossroads
                                                      > of
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > ideas, no matter
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > > from what godforsaken point of origin one hales, once here the
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > rules
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > of Western
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > > philosophy, of Wissenschaft, are absolute: put up, or shut up.
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > > The right-wing here always gab
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > bers endlessly about the relativism of
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > us
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > > secularists and free thinkers. What they dislike is the
                                                      > opposite,
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >0D
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > actually: the
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > > non-belief in, and aversion to, dogma of any kind. We say that
                                                      > all
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > religions have
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > > an equal footing; yes, but only because they are all products
                                                      > of a
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > mode of
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > > thinking deserving equal contempt. In actual=2
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > 0fact, aside from the
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > wayward
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > > wankers who are too quick to affirm the nonsense of the 'any
                                                      > man',
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > most true
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > > secularists are of a disposition to insist on the utter
                                                      >
                                                      > >20abrogation
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > of
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > the sacred as
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > > the basis for anything at all.
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > > And what a laugh when a partisan who insists on his or her holy
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > texts, and
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > > who is always too ready to show the world the true path to
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > salvation,
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > calls ME a
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > > bully! The hand that holds the Vedanta is the same one that
                                                      > wipes
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > yer
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > arse,
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > > sir. No text derives from anything more exalted than that. No
                                                      > text
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > 0A>
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > ever has or
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > > ever will. So, since we of this mortal coil are all of us in the
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > same
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      > 0D
                                                      > > > > banana
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > > tree, we are best served by the rigor of thought thinking
                                                      > itself,
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > as
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > Aristotle
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > > and Hegel saw, and thus excise everything from our philosophy
                                                      > that
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > acts merely
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > > as just another narcotic.
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > > "Blessed are the sleepy ones, for they shall soon drop off."
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > > Wil
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > > **************
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > 0A
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > > It's only a
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > > deal here.
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > =0
                                                      >
                                                      > > A>
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      > > >
                                                      >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > 0D
                                                      >
                                                    • eupraxis@aol.com
                                                      ... That is folly on your part. The book is out there for anyone to read, and for you to defend your reading of a secondary source -- a double displacement, at
                                                      Message 26 of 29 , Aug 20, 2008
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        In a message dated 8/20/08 6:09:44 PM, bvtswami@... writes:
                                                        > I am confident about my take on Kuhn, but thanks.
                                                        >
                                                        That is folly on your part. The book is out there for anyone to read, and for
                                                        you to defend your reading of a secondary source -- a double displacement, at
                                                        best -- is just arrogant and unbecoming. But I'll leave it at that.

                                                        wil



                                                        **************
                                                        It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
                                                        deal here.

                                                        (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)


                                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                      • bvtswami
                                                        I did not mean to imply that I would not read more of Kuhn from Kuhn, but that I was confident of my understanding of what he has written with regard to the
                                                        Message 27 of 29 , Aug 20, 2008
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          I did not mean to imply that I would not read more of Kuhn from Kuhn, but that I was
                                                          confident of my understanding of what he has written with regard to the point I raised, a
                                                          point taught in most Universities. And I will also leave it at that.


                                                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                                          >
                                                          > In a message dated 8/20/08 6:09:44 PM, bvtswami@... writes:
                                                          > > I am confident about my take on Kuhn, but thanks.
                                                          > >
                                                          > That is folly on your part. The book is out there for anyone to read, and for
                                                          > you to defend your reading of a secondary source -- a double displacement, at
                                                          > best -- is just arrogant and unbecoming. But I'll leave it at that.
                                                          >
                                                          > wil
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          > **************
                                                          > It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
                                                          > deal here.
                                                          >
                                                          > (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                          >
                                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.