tcpip | Seminary Studies etc and ALP NatCon

Crossposts: https://tcpip.livejournal.com/134989.html

Seminary Studies etc and ALP NatCon

The past few days I've spent a fair amount of time completing essays for my studies at The New Seminary. A complete update of my work to date, which includes Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism, plus reviews of the four common dialogues of the last days of Socrates, plus reviews of the first three chapters of Felder's procedural reconstruction of the Ten Commandments, are all available on my website. Yes, that is quite a word count. Edit Neglected to mention that I've been upgraded to the accelerated program, and will complete within a year.

On related matters, caught up with a fellow seminary student who occasionally lives in Melbourne. A former liberal Baptist she is now part of a Uniting Church eco-feminist congregation that meets at CERES. It made good sense to have dinner that night at the home of the organiser of a local witches coven

I have arrived in Sydney to attend the ALP's National Conference and Fringe Conference. Staying in a rather neat and surprisingly charming backpackers dorm in Bondi. Chatted to a reporter on the 'plane over, who reckons the numbers are about 170 to the left and about 220 to the right, with a handful of independents, and with wavering factions in the larger groupings (e.g., the Ferguson Left, the NUW). Briefly attended the National Left meeting. Major issues that will come up will be marriage equality, onshoring processing of asylum seekers, uranium sales to India, and Party reform. Will be making ample use of Twitter during the conference (lev_lafayette).

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Fascinating ! Your website is mind-blowing !
You have seen the future and it works ...
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jsteffens.htm

Yes, quite a collection you've got there on your website! *thumbs up*

I could only just get around to visiting your website! I read the section on Hinduism with a lot of interest, and found it to be very absorbing and well written :) I found especially striking your comparison of Kama , Artha and Dharma to the satisfaction of the id, ego and superego respectively. I have come across parallels drawn by various writers between Hindu philosophical/psychological concepts and Western ones, but this one is new for me and I must say it's very impressive. Did you think of it yourself or were introduced to it from someone else? While I do find the parallel you have drawn quite appealing, I have slightly differing thoughts about it too which I'd like to share. For instance, while we can say that Artha is the pursuit of material prosperity presumably by a faculty that corresponds to the rational ego, the more direct analogue of that faculty in Hindu thought, in my understanding, would be Buddhi, which would be a general intellectual capacity to investigate matters both material (inclined towards Pravritti) and spiritual (inclined towards Nivritti or Moksha). Similarly, it seems to me that Dharma is the satisfaction of the superego only its primitive aspect of externally acquired ideas about how to behave. Dharma has other aspects too such as the manifestation of Rta, one's chosen best way of conduct given their situation (Swadharma) etc; and it can be driven primarily by the rational faculty and eventually something beyond that faculty too. Would like to know what you think. Kama I think can be readily likened to the satisfaction of the Id, and just as the latter is said to be the store of psychic energy within oneself, Kama has also been called by some to be closer to Moksha than generally considered in the discussion of the four goals.

You note the absence of knowledge from the four goals. While I agree that the concept of Purushartha has limitations that appear if it's applied dogmatically, I do not really think that not including knowledge is an omission. One reason is that knowledge in its fullness is inseparable from attainment of Moksha. God or Brahman is defined in abstract form as existence-knowledge-bliss, so knowledge is the very nature of the ultimate goal. In the more familiar form as intellectual inquiry, it is one of the paths to liberation (Jnana) rather than the end; and insofar as it is not a path to final understanding but a worldly end, it is only for the purpose of recognition and validation (Artha). What do you think? I would also be interested in knowing what you mean by saying this absence reduces the possibility of interconnectedness between the goals.

I also admit I could not understand what the reasoning might be behind your conclusion: "The union of .... modern liberal approaches." Would be great if you can explain.

One or two other things too which I'd like to exchange thoughts about if you are interested :)

Did you think of it yourself or were introduced to it from someone else?

If I'd heard of it from somewhere else it must have been in my subconscious, because I remember it coming to mind as I was writing the assignment.

Dharma has other aspects too such as the manifestation of Rta, one's chosen best way of conduct given their situation (Swadharma) etc; and it can be driven primarily by the rational faculty and eventually something beyond that faculty too.

True, but it is - at least it seems to me - that it is an appeal external to the ego of the self.

In the more familiar form as intellectual inquiry, it is one of the paths to liberation (Jnana) rather than the end; and insofar as it is not a path to final understanding but a worldly end, it is only for the purpose of recognition and validation (Artha).

Yes, iirc I did note that further on.

I also admit I could not understand what the reasoning might be behind your conclusion: "The union of .... modern liberal approaches." Would be great if you can explain.

Ah, OK. That comes from the conceptual unity of natural and moral laws which can give rise to naturalistic and moralistic fallacies. What is "true" is not necessarily "right" and vice-versa; facts and norms have different forms of justification.

I understood what you meant, but not how you concluded that, and what your understanding is of the "conceptual unity" that you talk about.

My understanding* is the Rta combines physical, moral and ritual dimensions into a single universal principle of natural order. If this is the case then it runs the risk of confusing "is" and "ought"..

* Albeit this is from from Mitra Ara, Eschatology in the Indo-Iranian Traditions, 2008, p117 and Michael W. Myers, Brahman: A Comparative Theology, 2001, p176-178

Even taking that statement at face value, Idon't kniw how there's a risk of confusing is and ought.

Sorry about the typos, on phone.

Heh. We've reached an impasse, because I do not know how it can not be the case if dharma, through rta, expresses a unity of physical and ethical order. :)

The "unity" that you speak of is only one peculiar and limited way of putting it, that's why I was asking you to share what you mean by it. For me the conclusion doesn't follow at all. Dharma is about choosing the right conduct as follows from the principle of rta, and nowhere is free agency and human responsibility denied. But sure, we can just agree to disagree :)

Well, you've had a lifetime of experience with this concept and I've had mere months as a non-practising scholar (although I do admit to having read quite a few of the relevant texts).

When that which is perceived as the natural order of the (physical and moral) universe is distinguished from the unnatural and immoral, I raise the question on how these claims are validated. My limited experience and knowledge on this topic suggests that the the true and the good are being presented as the same.

I am not suggesting that free will and agency are denied - that would make karma a very difficult concept - rather that I don't think that statements that appeal to truth and rightness raise the same validity claims and nor do they have the same means of verification; truth is achieved (in my view) through external correspondence, rightness by intersubjective consensus.

Heh, I really don't know why you bring up the point of my being a Hindu; all I was trying to do was to engage in a conversation, and more importantly to find out how your way of thinking was different from mine that you draw different conclusions from your study than I do. That's why I asked so many questions in my first comment, and I was just a little saddened to find you less than enthusiastic, that's all. I know I can be a pest sometimes when I do that :)

To be honest I still don't understand what you are trying to say in your second paragraph; but in general you seem to be stating that there is some kind of naturalistic fallacy involved in the Hindu ethical system. I would like to tell you that that is certainly not the case and I do not know what gave you the idea. Rta is a term for the universal principle from which the moral (or Dharmic) conclusions naturally follow specific to various situations. It is natural only the sense that it is a certain statement that in any given situation certain ways of acting are better than others for the for the purpose of the welfare (spiritual as well as material) of oneself and of others - and in that respect it is the very source of morality as generally understood. For instance, that you should not cause physical harm to another, applied within context, is a moral imperative. It's not made any less moral by the "natural" - to use your term - fact that if you cause physical harm to another, you act against the spiritual as well as material interest of yourself as well as the other person .

I really don't know why you bring up the point of my being a Hindu

Oh just to suggest that my knowledge and experience is incredibly limited to that of your good self on this subject.

Rta is a term for the universal principle from which the moral (or Dharmic) conclusions naturally follow specific to various situations.

All I have read suggests that it an ordering principle that covers the moral and physical world. I don't think that such a principle is possible because facts and norms are incommensurable.

I mean, nowhere at all does the concept of Rta imply anything like "people hurt each other, we are people, so let's hurt each other."

I'm not suggesting that at all. But dharma does attempt to ground varna which confers certain social advantages which could be described as harmful to those excluded.

Oh just to suggest that my knowledge and experience is incredibly limited to that of your good self on this subject
Well, thank you for the compliment, but I too know only a fraction of this vast subject and anyway I don't think it's such a big deal - both of us have gaps in our knowledge and exchanging ideas can help bridge them.

All I have read suggests that it an ordering principle that covers the moral and physical world
As I said before - that is someone's particular way of describing Rta which is a very cursory one and tells us precious little about what Rta actually is. The concept nowhere implies that the physical and the moral is the same; If that is your interpretation then it is a patently incorrect one - as a study of the subject would show you and as I have demonstrated to you conceptually and through examples. I haven't seen an objection from you to my examples so far. It seems to me that you are reading more into that statement than is intended and insist upon connecting the dots where no connection is apparent.

I don't think that such a principle is possible because facts and norms are incommensurable.
Facts are facts and norms are norms. Just as the physical is the physical and the moral is the moral. I don't see how this has any implications for the existence of the principle of Rta. The commonality or "unity" you can see is only that there in an order to the universe - which results in moral laws relating to human conduct just as it results in physical laws relating to the empirical world. Hinduism sees an underlying single source in these types of laws and sees it as indicative of a united, coherent and consistent order to the universe, just as it sees a unity in all existence and ascribes that to a single existence called Brahman. To say that Rta can't exist because physical and moral laws are of different kinds is as superficial as saying that Brahman can't exist because cats and dogs are different kinds of animals.

I'm not suggesting that at all
But you did assert that the concept of Rta may lead to the naturalistic fallacy. If you are not suggesting what you have quoted then there is no naturalistic fallacy. As you agree, Rta does not deny free agency - people can make choices, and the principle of Rta firmly states that some choices are better than others - even though any of those choices can be made. People "ought to" make the better choices - regardless what choices they typically do typically make or feel inclined to make. See, no is-ought equivalence.

But dharma does attempt to ground varna which confers certain social advantages which could be described as harmful to those excluded.
I don't know what this has to do with what we have been discussing. Since you bring it up, Varna is in no way a cut and dried inviolable implication that follows from the concept of Rta. It was a system that was considered dharmic to have and follow at one time. The system outgrew its utility and became twisted, exploitative and adharmic. It would be dharmic in the present age to discard it. It will dharmic to discard it because to discard it will be in our spiritual and material interest. That we are able to reach this correct conclusion about what is in our interest indicates that we are more in touch with the principle of Rta than than we (Indian society) have been for a long time in the past. Building ones moral faculty in various ways brings one towards greater awareness of this principle, and enables one to more readily act in ways that are good.

As I said before - that is someone's particular way of describing Rta which is a very cursory one and tells us precious little about what Rta actually is.

Well, that's fine. Would you care to elaborate on what Rta actually is, and what principle it uses that transcends the pragmatic differences between the evaluation of physical facts and moral norms?

I haven't seen an objection from you to my examples so far.

The example given...

For instance, that you should not cause physical harm to another, applied within context, is a moral imperative. It's not made any less moral by the "natural" - to use your term - fact that if you cause physical harm to another, you act against the spiritual as well as material interest of yourself as well as the other person .

... does not provide the transcendent principle that I would be seeking for validation. Actions can, of course, be both physically and morally harmful but that does not mean that physical harm and moral harm is the same, and indeed, they are often in conflict because they a validated by different principles (i.e., statements of fact vs statements of norms).

It seems to me that you are reading more into that statement than is intended and insist upon connecting the dots where no connection is apparent.

Perhaps. Such is my nature :)

Hinduism sees an underlying single source in these types of laws and sees it as indicative of a united, coherent and consistent order to the universe, just as it sees a unity in all existence and ascribes that to a single existence called Brahman.

Ah, well, I see disunity and incommensurability. :)

To say that Rta can't exist because physical and moral laws are of different kinds is as superficial as saying that Brahman can't exist because cats and dogs are different kinds of animals.

Except cats and dogs are both animals, which shows they have a higher unity, a higher principle. Now, for Rta to exist it must be able to show
a unity between physical and moral laws.

See, no is-ought equivalence.

Sorry, I don't see that. The question I have with Is-Ought and the Moral/Naturalistic fallacy is unrelated to questions of agency, but rather to pragmatic verification.

I don't know what this has to do with what we have been discussing.

As much as the varna finds its origins in the Manusmriti, which are supposed to be apaurusheyatva (or am I wrong there?).

I appreciate and thoroughly approve of the interpretative and liberal approach that you have taken on this matter of course, just in the same way I appreciate how liberal Christians find much of their Bible to be abhorrent in inappropriate. But both liberal Hindu and liberal Christian would surely admit that there's is not the only interpretation and there is plenty who will claim that the holy books are to be interpreted literally and eternally.

:(

I see nothing at all but non sequiters in your response as before but I'll see later today if I can continue this conversation usefully.

And yes, you are wrong about Manusmriti.

Would you care to elaborate on what Rta actually is
Rta is the operating principle of the universe, one can say it's the Brahman in action, the very fabric of the ever-changing manifested reality. It's the principle which undergirds all the modifications that the manifested universe undergoes with time. It's an abstract concept, but so is Brahman.

what principle it uses that transcends the pragmatic differences between the evaluation of physical facts and moral norms
Why should Rta be something that uses some principle to transcend the pragmatic differences between facts and moral norms? I hope you remember that we are not discussing Western philosophy here.

...does not provide the transcendent principle that I would be seeking for validation
Why should Rta provide you whatever you are seeking for validation? Who said it would? I was rebutting your claim that Rta leads to "naturalism," or it doesn't distinguish between facts and norms. I stated that it does, and demonstrated how. Anyway, I don't know why you are bringing up norms again and again - why does all morality have to be in terms of norms, and how does Rta stand in the way of having moral norms?

Actions can, of course, be both physically and morally harmful but that does not mean that physical harm and moral harm is the same
Where did I say it is the same? I am feeling more and more confounded by your statements.

Ah, well, I see disunity and incommensurability
But we are not talking about what you see, right? We are talking about some of the core beliefs of Hinduism and the conclusions that follow from them. You are free not to have those beliefs.

Except cats and dogs are both animals, which shows they have a higher unity, a higher principle
And moral laws and natural laws are both kinds of laws, so I don't know what you are missing. Moreover, I could have given the example of me and the bottle of Mountain Dew in front of me instead of cats and dogs. They are both manifestations of Brahman, even though one is sentient and the other is not.

Now, for Rta to exist it must be able to show a unity between physical and moral laws

But why? In fact it’s strange on one hand you accuse Rta of equating moral and natural laws, and on the other hand criticizing Rta for not showing “unity” between Natural and moral laws. The commonality which are you are looking for is quite evidently in that they are both laws. But they are different in that natural laws are descriptive in terms of what happens in nature; and moral laws are prescriptive in terms of what choices human beings should make. By way of being more specific about the common characteristic of these two types of laws, you could say that just as certain natural events are followed by certain other natural events, similarly certain choices humans make in terms of how to act are followed by certain consequences in the physical as well as the psychological and the spiritual realms. The two kinds of laws are certainly different in nature, but both indicate that there is a certain orderliness which is always present in the way things happen in the universe, and Hinduism ascribes the existence of this orderliness to a single principle called Rta.

Sorry, I don't see that. The question I have with Is-Ought and the Moral/Naturalistic fallacy is unrelated to questions of agency, but rather to pragmatic verification

I think the is-ought question and the naturalistic fallacy are quite clearly about confusion between statements about what people do and statements of what they should do; and I have shown that no such confusion arises in pursuing the concept of Rta. I only cited agency to show that "ought" statements are possible according to Rta, as people have free agency. If I understand wrongly by the is-ought distinction and the naturalistic fallacy I would ask you to state so, and then supply the correct definition.

Rta is the operating principle of the universe, one can say it's the Brahman in action, the very fabric of the ever-changing manifested reality. It's the principle which undergirds all the modifications that the manifested universe undergoes with time. It's an abstract concept, but so is Brahman.

I actually find Brahman less abstract that Rta :)

You describe Rta as the operating principle of the universe, which I agree with and have said as much. But again what is this principle?

Why should Rta be something that uses some principle to transcend the pragmatic differences between facts and moral norms?

Because it is the operating principle of the universe.

I hope you remember that we are not discussing Western philosophy here.

I don't think that matter. The universe is shared space.

I stated that it does, and demonstrated how.

I'm sorry, I found it unconvincing and provided reasons why the demonstration was lacking.

I guess rta is an interesting attempt to propose a universal order, like the Hellenic pagan concept of logos which strikes me as being very clear (especially in the interpretation of the Stoics).

Anyway, I don't know why you are bringing up norms again and again - why does all morality have to be in terms of norms, and how does Rta stand in the way of having moral norms?

Because norms represent expectations of behaviour, and universal moral norms establish how everyone should behave towards each other - and that these expectations can differ from actual behaviours.

Where did I say it is the same? I am feeling more and more confounded by your statements.

There are multiple times where you have stated rta is the ordering principle of the universe. This means that they have the same principle. I am simply asking what that principle is, in a manner that doesn't collapse into tautology.

And moral laws and natural laws are both kinds of laws, so I don't know what you are missing.

Right, but "animals" are real which include cats and dogs. "Laws" is an abstraction to note that there are real moral laws and real natural laws, but not that there are laws for both.

But why? In fact it’s strange on one hand you accuse Rta of equating moral and natural laws, and on the other hand criticizing Rta for not showing “unity” between Natural and moral laws.

That is exactly correct. It claims to offer the unity, and yet I can find no justification for the claim.

The two kinds of laws are certainly different in nature, but both indicate that there is a certain orderliness which is always present in the way things happen in the universe, and Hinduism ascribes the existence of this orderliness to a single principle called Rta.

This seems much more like an observation rather than a principle.

If I understand wrongly by the is-ought distinction and the naturalistic fallacy I would ask you to state so, and then supply the correct definition.

Certainly. The is-ought distinction and the naturalistic and moral fallacy is not related to agency as such, but rather to verification.

A natural fallacy claims that because something is the case, that it ought to be the case. Because England has had a royal family it ought to have a royal family. As you can see this is an argument which starts with a statement of fact and then uses it as moral justification.

A moralistic fallacy claims that because something ought to be the case, it is the case. An example would be a claim that says because vegetarianism is the right thing to do, humans are naturally vegetarian. In this case it starts with a statement of morals, and then uses it to claim a fact.

I actually find Brahman less abstract that Rta :)
For what reason?

But again what is this principle?
It's written in the portion of my reply you quoted above. What other kind of answer are you looking for? I can't show you a picture of Rta or give an exhaustive account of it. Just as I can give you only an abstract definition of the Brahman but not display it to you. You can have instances of Rta in manifested form - such as: "being unwaveringly truthful leads one to develop clarity of thought, helps the mind overcome attachments to the world, helps one gain credibility in society, and eventually leads to spiritual illumination". Just as you can have instances of the Brahman in the form of a chair, the ocean, or yourself. Any greater understanding of either Rta or Brahman is a matter of realization, for which devotees of various categories engage in years and lifetimes of rigorous Sadhana. That is what you have to engage in if you want a more direct answer then is written in the books.

Because it is the operating principle of the universe.
So? That is a strange expectation to have of the operating principle. I hope you are not taking "principle" in the sense of a formula or definition that can be written in a book. You can't even write all the laws of physics known till now in a single book - and it's not as if all the work in Physics is now done. Not to mention the human sciences, all the other sciences, ethics and what not. Rta governs all of these, but leaving aside all the questions posed by these you want it to be something that answers your one question, and then it will be satisfactory?

I don't think that matter. The universe is shared space.
It matters in this case because you are using the assumptions of Western philosophy to evaluate an Eastern concept, such as in your expectation that the very concept of Rta should should be useful for a chosen purpose of yours like a transcending the pragmatic differences between something and something else, even though it nowhere purports to do that. Perhaps you are erroneously assuming Rta to be the counterpart of some concept that exists in Western Philosophy, and declaring it to be invalid because it doesn't do the same things as your Western concept does.

I'm sorry, I found it unconvincing and provided reasons why the demonstration was lacking
The demonstration I provided was of Rta not standing in the way of maintaining difference between "is" statements and "ought" statements, through examples. You have not touched those at all. So what reasons have you provided ? The transcending pragmatic differences...? As I said above, that is a fancy expectation of yours from the concept of Rta which has nothing to do with the treatment of the concept in Indian philosophy. What I understand by naturalism in ethics is the idea that people should look to how things are in order to decide how they should act. I demonstrated that Rta suggests nothing of the sort, rather it asserts that moral laws are grounded as firmly in the fabric of existence as natural laws are. So, there. If you aren't contesting that Rta suggests an is-ought equivalence, then I'm not interested in discussing what other expectations you might have of Rta.

I guess rta is an interesting attempt to propose a universal order

Well, it is posited (or rather declared by the scriptures, realized as true by spiritual aspirants at the end of their search, and posited/believed by the rest) that there is a universal order - that order being called Rta. This is what I have been saying repeatedly, and wondering why you have strange theoretical expectations from the concept. I don't know much about Logos.

Because norms represent expectations of behaviour, and universal moral norms...
You seemed to be overusing that term, and my point was that normative ethics isn't only one kind of ethics. That is all.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject