Sarbajit Roy wrote at 09/30/2012 10:28 AM:
The Gita, however, (as I'm fairly sure the Old Testament does too)
expresses that once a man's side is determined, he is obliged by DUTY
to do what is right, even if it involves heinous killings on a
massive scale or even the killing of his close
I hesitate to jump in as I was taught the Bhavagad Gita by a
professor/translator, not my mother or my local guru.
But, as I was taught ...
duty has almost nothing to do with the philosophical lesson of the
story. Arjuna's dilemma is not between kill and not kill, or deciding
between two
The only way I can imagine detachment being a form of attachment would
be that both attachment and detachment are limited to _partial_
[de|at]tachment. I.e. non-attachment must be some sort of singularity
approachable from either direction.
Think of attachment as: I must ensure that X comes to pass. I want it so
badly.
Think of detachment as: I must not want so badly that X comes to pass. I
must stay detached.
Think of non-attachment as: I may participate in the process whereby X comes
to pass -- or doesn't come to pass. If I
It's sort of like being cool.
If you act like you're cool, and go around telling yourself how cool you
are, you're not cool.
If you care about whether or not you're cool, you're not cool.
So if you get invested in how much you're not caring about whether or
not you're cool, you're still not
Attachment / de-attachment / non-attachment etc are distractions from
the 2 paths
A) The path of self knowledge for people on the threshhold of enlightenment.
B) The path of selfless service for the others.
I can't really explain these things because of language and societal
differences.
Most
Hi David
The only place I would somewhat differ with your analysis is on the
accrual of Karma.
My own view is that Gita refers to 2 control loops
The Outer (slower / higher) Loop is on semi-attached Ethical evolved
norms. Analogous to a Voltage loop
There is a faster Inner Loop acting on
I'm introducing this subject with some trepidation, mainly because I
dont want to seem as pushing an alternate religious viewpoint -
especially one which lends itself so easily as justification for
'jihad'.
As Glen expressed earlier the Golden Rule is not really compressible.
Do unto others as
While agreeing that this version of the Golden Rule is somewhat more
evolved, I don't exactly recall this variant as especially being
from the Gita.
On 9/28/12, Prof David West profw...@fastmail.fm wrote:
Expected that Sarbaijit might have mentioned this - the Gita has a
variant of the golden
Expected that Sarbaijit might have mentioned this - the Gita has a
variant of the golden rule that I like much better than the biblical
version - refrain from doing to others what you would not have them do
to you.
months wages on meal -- I fell into an evil crowd of capitalists on my
first
might take expressions of other
agents' rules as inputs ... i.e. meta-rules or rule operators.
This seems like a very common casual modeling conversation, to me.
What's questionable is whether the mechanism we've suggested so far will
contribute to a debate about religion and atheism.
--
glen
: [FRIAM] DEBATE about Religion and Atheism - modeling
ERIC P. CHARLES wrote at 09/27/2012 06:53 PM:
Well... so much for discussing modeling...
I don't get what you mean by that. In order to model, you have to have
something to model. You suggested that agents subscribing to social
liberalism had
On 9/26/2012 7:02 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
But start at 1:54:00 and listen to the last three minutes and fourteen
seconds, and give me your interpretation.
Around 1:47:30 Dawkins makes remark about finding out the fact of the
matter. And how passionate he was about it. This leads to
Marcus -
Very thoughtful summary and analysis. I *am* hopeful that the
intelligentsia of the world (of the West?) can somehow reason their way
through the world's problems to some solutions. We here
(FRAIM-at-large) might be in some way a microcosm of that.
My snide remark in response
Steve,
This is, of course, the inherent weakness of the socially liberal position*,
right? Either you become a hypocrite, or you must agree with your antagonist's
right to passionately hate your ideas. The person arguing against you has no
such handicap. The cards are thus stacked from the
ERIC P. CHARLES wrote at 09/27/2012 09:56 AM:
*The extra adjective is there because this is irrelevant to the financially
liberal position.
I'm not so sure that it is irrelevant. I tend to view the merchant, who
just wants to do business and doesn't care about your other social
positions, as
Glen -
I'm not sure I have a conclusive position on this topic. But I do
(surprise) have a few observations.
I agree that commerce (especially in it's larger sense, embracing
community and barter and things other than bucks) can be a valuable
ingredient in stable society...
What I
I agree that the compression is lossy. But it all depends on _what_ is
lost. If the compression extracts the (an?) essence of basic human
needs, then it's a good thing. It loses all the nonsense (e.g.
delusional ideas of social equality kumbaya) and hones in on things like
bread and water.
Glen -
I agree that the compression is lossy. But it all depends on _what_ is
lost. If the compression extracts the (an?) essence of basic human
needs, then it's a good thing. It loses all the nonsense (e.g.
delusional ideas of social equality kumbaya) and hones in on things like
bread and
In Stephen Pinker's recent book on the remarkable decline of violence,
The Better Angels of our Nature, he makes a similar observation
about the role of merchants, that they necessarily must practice
empathy with respect to an ever-widening circle of people who go far
beyond the emhathy one more
Steve Smith wrote at 09/27/2012 12:55 PM:
I don't find the golden rule (one variant of social equality?) exactly
a delusional idea, though that is probably a thread unto itself.
Well, it's on topic. The search for a biological mechanism for the
golden rule seems to target the disagreement
Well... so much for discussing modeling...
Personally, I am not a big fan of the Golden Rule because it implies that
everyone should be happy with the same things. It also implies the very
arrogant position that what you-in-particular want can be the should for
everyone else. How about if we try
I think the GR just says you might want to value context over doctrine.
On 9/27/12 7:53 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:
Well... so much for discussing modeling...
Personally, I am not a big fan of the Golden Rule because it implies
that everyone /should /be happy with the same things. It also
Alfredo --
Very interesting listening.
One might believe that they are all very reasonable men, until you get to
the very end of the video where they listen to Hitch argue that the end of
world civilization is imminent unless the Islamic world is reformed of its
unacceptable beliefs, a
Did you just point out that the mighty Hitch himself has come up with
his own justification for an anti-Islamic Jihad? And the rest endorsed
it with their silence?
Alfredo --
Very interesting listening.
One might believe that they are all very reasonable men, until you get
to the very end
Yes, that's one way to hear it. But on review, I now hear Dennett
attempting to interject, and Hitch allowing that Dawkins disagrees. Also
wondering what got edited out, since something did.
But start at 1:54:00 and listen to the last three minutes and fourteen
seconds, and give me your
Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUg-1NCCowc
PS. Christopher Hitchens murió en diciembre el año pasado. Asi que o está
en la Gloria de Dios o simplemente transformado en otras formas físicas de
la naturaleza. A mi me da igual !
--
27 matches
Mail list logo
