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

Re: [greenlogic] Fw: Re: [Wisdom-l] RE: [TheBecoming] Philosophy: Restoring the Soul -hilarious -

Expand Messages
  • Bhanu Padmo
    Dear Gulati, (1) No two theories about the same context will be equally correct and equally plausible.   (2) Academic and Philosophical Blackmail.  The
    Message 1 of 6 , Feb 17, 2013
      Dear Gulati,

      (1) No two
      theories about the same context will be equally correct and equally plausible.


      (2) Academic and Philosophical
      Blackmail.  The
      so-called scientific theories are about *objectivity* only. Their themes do not
      include any form of *subjectivity-objectivity connectivity*. How could anybody
      be able to or expect to experience *subjectively-objectivity relationship* in
      the course of a so-called scientific experiment?


      The implicit
      complaint which your statement connotes is about the definition of *science*. Science
      ought to deal with the *unified theory* which can not exclude epistemic/
      subjective aspect of this cosmos/ creation. Moreover, the subjective aspect of
      knowing needs to be *prioritized* over objective aspect, though the latter is *absolutely
      indispensable* as well.


      The *truncated
      science* of academy fails to integrate the two aspects as it decisively
      amputates the subjective aspect off and yet it continues to boast of its
      endeavors after offering us a unified theory which can never take off as such.


      The problem is
      over when we differentiate *objectivity-dwelling non-science* from *objectivity-intensive
      science* and *integral science*. The latter two would undertake the task of
      complementing the unified theory by way of taking both subjective and objective
      aspects into consideration while ascribing primacy to the subjective aspect and
      acknowledging absolute indispensability of the objective aspect.


      It may be noted
      that the classical subjectivists had been committing the grave error of denying
      or ignoring *absolute indispensability* of objectivism when they were to
      explicitly acknowledge it. Thus they propagated *exclusive subjectivism* often
      in the name of religion and spirituality. The latter act is tantamount to
      philosophical blackmail.


      They were as
      erroneous as the modern objectivists who propagate *exclusive objectivism* in
      the name of science. This is academic blackmail.



      (3) There can
      be many interpretations of a passage/ discourse/ theory that can be seen as
      phases of the hermeneutic (meaning-mutating, meaning-updating) process. The objective
      of the sequence of interpretations is evolution of meaning. With this objective
      out of view, interpretations would go awry and be infinite in number.


      (4) Yes. That
      is why we have to start with given or acknowledged or average meaning of words.
      If any doubt crops up in the course of a discussion, the contending parties
      would seek clarification.


      (5) Academic Sapience.  You are going too far in
      generalizing the matter. The contenders are not blind people. They should have
      basic qualification which is confirmed by the fact that they have agreed to
      commence the conversation.


      Their verbal
      juxtaposition couldn*t bring out unlimited linguistic or semantic variation,
      unless one or both of them suddenly decides/ decide to enter respective narrow
      capillary-like academic tunnel/ tunnels.


      Sapience of
      academic specialization (that has lost sight of unified knowledge) is the
      greatest danger against philosophical advancement. That is why it is essential
      that the contenders assent to *civility* (of civil research) qualifiably even
      if they are academicians.


      Let*s broaden
      the meaning of the term *academician*. For our purposes, it should not mean
      only *tax-supported/ salaried professor who has not been able to cast off the
      slavish hangover and who has not been able to transcend the salary-thick


      The causal
      essence of such a status is *protracted unconditional/ unlimited/
      disproportionate social-financial security*.


      If you apply
      this causal essence to other fields, the curtain is raised to disclose the
      identity of other type of culture-supported academicians who erroneously enjoy
      implicit sapience over learned philosophy conditioned by direct/ indirect
      materialistic concerns.


       (6) Which speaker do you have in mind? Me?
      You? If any of us prove to be sapient and adamant and so cracked, the content
      will slip through our fingers. Right!!




      You may
      reply this thread upon http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/greenlogic/ as well

      or consign a copy to greenlogic@...   for extended


      TheRampaPath] Re: [greenlogic] Re: [Wisdom-l] Re:
      [TheBecoming] Fw: The soul,re;latest missive. / Concept of Physical Life

      February 15, 2013 5:25 AM


      "devindersingh gulati" <dgulhati@...>

      Add sender to Contacts


      <greenlogic@...>, "TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com"
      <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com>, "seerseeker@yahoogroups.com"
      <seerseeker@yahoogroups.com>... more

      different theories may offer equally plausible accounts of the same
      theories are "undetermined" by experience

      are infinite interpretations of a discourse depending on the context Words
      have a meaning only relative to the other words they are connected to in
      the sentences that we assume to be trueThe
      meaning of a sentence depends on the interpretation of the entire
      language. Its meaning can even change in time.The
      meaning of language is not in the mind of the speaker



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.