Bill, you say:
BB: Were Arjuna of right mind, he would be dead to self and all earthly cares,
his mind clearly fixed on the Absolute.
REPLY:
But according to my understanding of the Gita the idea is that to be of the right mind is to clearly fixed on your earthly task, on what you are doing right now, like any craftsman at work in his craft. That is a very different matter than being "fixed on the Absolute", which does not seem to me to be recommended anywhere in the Gita. What could that mean in Hinduism? Of course, the objection is obvious, given my interpretation, namely, who says what your task is? Well, Arjuna was a general; and the dramatic context provides the task there: be a general and do what that dictates now. But then in real life that is frequently the way it is. Wriggle around any way you like, at times; there is no getting around what your task appears to you to be, unless you are in the business of rejecting all obligations in principle.
Now, Arjuna might well be faulted for never having asked himself before that moment, when all the troops are lined up, whether he really thinks he ought to be try to be a general, instead of raising that question at the last minute. But then he might have said, well, but is there no legitimate occasion ever to be a general, the task of whom is precisely to slaughter the enemy at certain times, no matter who the enemy is? And then we would have a wholly different kind of moral reflection going on. But do you think the point the Gita makes is simply wrong, regardless of context, or isn't it right in saying, in effect, "Hey, the world contains many unspeakably vile things, never to be justified by any reasoning based on practical worldly consequences. There is no solution at the level of this-worldly understanding, and no conclusion to be drawn about this world except that it is constructed in an unspeakably vile and unjust way, if you try to assess it in calculative terms of good and bad produced. But in fact these armies are drawn up and are going to be slaughtering one another regardless of what you decide now. But don't confuse yourself with the being that decided that the world would be like this, if it makes sense to say that there is any such being."
There is something that simply passes the possibility of a mere stance of moral self-righteousness about such situations. And sometimes there is nothing to do but what is wrong, any way you want to look at it. (He is not, after all, being urged to slaughter needlessly -- any more than, say, he is being urged to torture people by proxy, as generals and commanders-in-chief frequently are, Western and Eastern alike. Would that the products of Western civilization and the Christian religion could be expected to rise routinely to the level of a sincere and intelligent devotee of the Gita and just do their job instead of exploiting its power! ) So the only way out, when you are in such a situation of moral impossibility is just to do your job, assuming you know what your job really is."
In my opinion, the next stage of development after Hinduism is Socratic Platonism -- Plato is acually a Reform Hindu in my opinion -- where you take as your job the task of, say, trying to get clear on what it means to be a general. Not that that gets you off the hook of these morally imponderable situtations, but at least you've got a better job! And if you ever find yourself in position to be the executive ruler of a great country you might be able to avoid disgracing your office and your political and religious tradition when such questions as, What is the job of a President? and What is the job of a torturer? arises!
I am reminded just now, by the way, of that passage in the l898 lectures on "vitally important topics" where Peirce says that the vivisectionist becomes immoral precisely at the moment when he tries to justify his actions in slicing up the dog on the grounds that it will have beneficial results.
Joe
BB: Were Arjuna of right mind, he would be dead to self and all earthly cares,
his mind clearly fixed on the Absolute.
REPLY:
But according to my understanding of the Gita the idea is that to be of the right mind is to clearly fixed on your earthly task, on what you are doing right now, like any craftsman at work in his craft. That is a very different matter than being "fixed on the Absolute", which does not seem to me to be recommended anywhere in the Gita. What could that mean in Hinduism? Of course, the objection is obvious, given my interpretation, namely, who says what your task is? Well, Arjuna was a general; and the dramatic context provides the task there: be a general and do what that dictates now. But then in real life that is frequently the way it is. Wriggle around any way you like, at times; there is no getting around what your task appears to you to be, unless you are in the business of rejecting all obligations in principle.
Now, Arjuna might well be faulted for never having asked himself before that moment, when all the troops are lined up, whether he really thinks he ought to be try to be a general, instead of raising that question at the last minute. But then he might have said, well, but is there no legitimate occasion ever to be a general, the task of whom is precisely to slaughter the enemy at certain times, no matter who the enemy is? And then we would have a wholly different kind of moral reflection going on. But do you think the point the Gita makes is simply wrong, regardless of context, or isn't it right in saying, in effect, "Hey, the world contains many unspeakably vile things, never to be justified by any reasoning based on practical worldly consequences. There is no solution at the level of this-worldly understanding, and no conclusion to be drawn about this world except that it is constructed in an unspeakably vile and unjust way, if you try to assess it in calculative terms of good and bad produced. But in fact these armies are drawn up and are going to be slaughtering one another regardless of what you decide now. But don't confuse yourself with the being that decided that the world would be like this, if it makes sense to say that there is any such being."
There is something that simply passes the possibility of a mere stance of moral self-righteousness about such situations. And sometimes there is nothing to do but what is wrong, any way you want to look at it. (He is not, after all, being urged to slaughter needlessly -- any more than, say, he is being urged to torture people by proxy, as generals and commanders-in-chief frequently are, Western and Eastern alike. Would that the products of Western civilization and the Christian religion could be expected to rise routinely to the level of a sincere and intelligent devotee of the Gita and just do their job instead of exploiting its power! ) So the only way out, when you are in such a situation of moral impossibility is just to do your job, assuming you know what your job really is."
In my opinion, the next stage of development after Hinduism is Socratic Platonism -- Plato is acually a Reform Hindu in my opinion -- where you take as your job the task of, say, trying to get clear on what it means to be a general. Not that that gets you off the hook of these morally imponderable situtations, but at least you've got a better job! And if you ever find yourself in position to be the executive ruler of a great country you might be able to avoid disgracing your office and your political and religious tradition when such questions as, What is the job of a President? and What is the job of a torturer? arises!
I am reminded just now, by the way, of that passage in the l898 lectures on "vitally important topics" where Peirce says that the vivisectionist becomes immoral precisely at the moment when he tries to justify his actions in slicing up the dog on the grounds that it will have beneficial results.
Joe
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
