Seminary Studies etc and ALP NatCon
Dec. 1st, 2011 09:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tcpipThe 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).
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).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-12-14 11:51 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-14 08:59 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2011-12-14 09:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-15 06:25 am (UTC)Panentheism, whilst relying on a speculation, does not make additional claims of what the universe consists of. Rta however is making a claim that I do not understand.
I hope you are not taking "principle" in the sense of a formula or definition that can be written in a book.
That is indeed what I would be looking for. I suppose if it is something that cannot be acquired in such a manner, I shall have to pass.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-15 07:38 am (UTC)What Panentheism?? I don't know what that is. What an amazing way of engaging in conversation you have!
I shall have to pass
I thought you were studying a subject. I don't know what you are passing because nobody offered anything to you.
Panentheism
Date: 2011-12-15 10:26 pm (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism
Re: Panentheism
Date: 2011-12-16 03:06 am (UTC)Re: Panentheism
Date: 2011-12-16 07:25 am (UTC)Brahman is interpreted by every interfaith study as a form of panetheism. Indeed, it is considered to be one of the best examples.
Re: Panentheism
Date: 2011-12-16 05:09 pm (UTC)Mysticism
Date: 2011-12-15 10:56 pm (UTC)Dr. Raimundo Pannikar, ‘Foreword’, Jeanine Miller, The Vision of Cosmic Order in the Vedas (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1985), p. xix.
So because Rta proposes a harmonic order that is beyond thought it is inexplicable.
Re: Mysticism
Date: 2011-12-16 05:11 am (UTC)Re: Mysticism
Date: 2011-12-16 07:26 am (UTC)Re: Mysticism
Date: 2011-12-16 05:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-14 08:59 pm (UTC)I am simply asking what that principle is, in a manner that doesn't collapse into tautology.
Refer to what I said above about it not being a definition of formula that can be written in a book, and it's being the name for a unity that is declared or posited. It (that there is a singular underlying order) is known to be true for a fact only with realization or enlightenment or what have you. It is as silly as saying, "I am simply asking what Brahman is!". Knowing it takes sustained effort according to the paths written in the scriptures or suggested by saints. If you find that unsatisfactory, then fine, you can discard it. For Hindus what is written in the scriptures and the testimony of generations of seers, besides the coherence and utility of Hindu thought, is good enough to find the position credible, and to persist with their efforts and enquiry on the paths suggested on its basis. For those for whom the concept is so unappealing as to not even embark on the path which might show it to be true, it will remain a tautology.
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.
And... "animals" is not an abstraction??? Is there an animal which is not a cat or a dog or some other particular species of animal? To question your statement from the opposite direction, there are tax laws, civil laws, local laws, international laws... does this mean there are there no "real Laws"? In what sense are "animals" just as real as cats and dogs are, but "laws" not as real as natural laws and moral laws are?
That is exactly correct. It claims to offer the unity, and yet I can find no justification for the claim
Please quote the part of the Hindu scriptures where the claim of "offering" the "unity" is made in the sense you allege.
This seems much more like an observation rather than a principle
To repeat for the nth time, it is not a principle arrived at through deduction, but a statement about reality declared to be true by the scriptures and verified by those who have found spiritual illumination. And yes, it's a tenable position going by observation like you say.
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.
And, pray, my lord, how does the concept of Rta lead to such a fallacy? To take one example: it is true that people commit murders; how does this fact in combination with belief in the existence of Rta lead us to conclude that people should commit murders? And I hope this application is pragmatic enough for you!
no subject
Date: 2011-12-15 06:29 am (UTC)No, it most certainly isn't. There a real conditions on what makes an animal which are universal to all animals. This does not seem to apply to the notion of an all-encompassing principle of the universe; some validity claims are incommensurable. Rta suggests to me that all validity claims are commensurable.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-15 07:41 am (UTC)So next time I go to a pet shop, I'll say, I want an animal as a pet, and tell them they are ignorant if they can't make out what I'm asking for.
some validity claims are incommensurable
I just had tea.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-15 10:28 pm (UTC)They can give you one.
I just had tea.
A testable proposition.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-16 03:09 am (UTC)And I can give you a law if you ask for one. Also, you ignored that I brought up the comparison between me and a bottle of soda rather than just two kinds of animals.
A testable proposition
And it has four words.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-16 07:30 am (UTC)But you cannot give me one that includes the essential characteristics of all laws - but if the pet store gives you a rat it will have the essential characteristics of all animals.
you ignored that I brought up the comparison between me and a bottle of soda
Don't recall that.
And it has four words.
So?
no subject
Date: 2011-12-16 04:51 pm (UTC)I can give you any one - it will have the essential characteristic that it is a law, and is known by everyone to be so.
So?
This would be an appropriate response to almost all of what you have said.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-15 08:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-15 10:47 pm (UTC)How could it not come to such a conclusion if it is a principle that unites natural and moral claims? If murders exist then they are part of the natural order, correct?
I expected you to be more sincere than that.
Whilst I understand that we are engaging in a critical discussion of what is a core belief for you, I would ask that you avoid in engaging in ad hominen remarks.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-16 04:00 am (UTC)Ask the person who says it unites natural and moral claims. Don't ask me, or show me where in the scriptures it is said to be something that unites natural and moral claims. I only said it's the governing principle of the universe which in its manifested forms decides what the consequences of moral choices will be just as it governs what the consequents of physical happenings will be.
If murders exist then they are part of the natural order, correct
Wow, it would be hard to find a more blatant example of begging the question than that. You yourself equivocate between the use of the words "natural order" in the descriptive and prescriptive sense, then try to use your own equivocation to claim that Rta does't distinguish between is and ought.
Listen carefully: "Murders exist" isn't in the form of a law, it is a statement of what exists. Hence it is not of the form of Rta. Statements expressive of Rta would be more of the form of "If you do X, Y happens," or "when X happens in nature, Y is the effect." That is the only sense in which it is an order. Not in the sense of a statement "Ricky Ponting is a Cricket Player." It's not dictated by Rta that Ricky Ponting has to be the cricket player, it can well be otherwise - and if he gives up Cricket he won't be violating any order. Thus, "people commit murders" isn't part of the natural order. The natural order is only that committing murders has serious harmful consequences - that is all. Again, something of the form of law has to be something like "committing murder has the effect of causing misery to oneself and others" That is the form of a law that operates, and is closer to an expression of Rta. Therefore, a believer in Rta wouldn't be violating Rta if he doesn't commit murders despite being aware that there are people commit murders - because Rta does't ask you to do anything of the sort. Rta isn't prescriptive in itself - it only governs what the consequences of actions/events will be, so the question of violating it doesn't arise. The prescriptive laws are Dharma - such as "you shouldn't be violent." Those can be violated or adhered to by people. You can see that the fact of Rta ("Committing murders leads to dire consequences") is not in opposition with the moral prescription of Dharma ("you should not commit murders"). Rather, it supports it, and forms a basis for Dharma and moral choices.
I have explained to you in as much detail as I can what the characteristics of Rta are, and what they are't. If you still insist on interpreting terms like "natural order" (which, you should be cognizant, is a translation) in the wrong connotation which is nowhere intended or stated in Hindu scriptures, and thereby drawing incorrect conclusions from it, then I can't help you any further.
I have not attacked any argument of yours based on any personal characteristic of yours, so there was no ad hominen. Rather, I directly told you how I felt about you randomly dropping substantive points which for me were the purpose of discussion and moving to pet concepts of yours which are not essential to the discussion. Based on my impression of you I did not expect you to engage in discussion with me in this manner, and I saw insincerity in your doing so repeatedly, and so I told it to you. I started this discussion with you despite being incredibly busy only because I expected you to appreciate and reciprocate the effort, and I didn't find that. I thought being candid about this was in order, sorry if you don't like it.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-16 07:41 am (UTC)From fear of Him does the wind blow; from fear of Him does the sun rise; from fear of Him do Agni and Indra act and death, the fith, doth run (T.U. II.8.1) (Katha II3.3)
Everything, apparently, is ordered by Rta.
I only said it's the governing principle of the universe which in its manifested forms decides what the consequences of moral choices will be just as it governs what the consequents of physical happenings will be.
Right, and that governing principle is?
You yourself equivocate between the use of the words "natural order" in the descriptive and prescriptive sense
Er, no I don't. I only use natural order in the descriptive sense.
"Murders exist" isn't in the form of a law, it is a statement of what exists.
An action which has followed natural law from beginning to end.
I have not attacked any argument of yours based on any personal characteristic of yours, so there was no ad hominen.
You attacked my sincerity. We are apparently both busy people, so this will be my last remark on this thread.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-16 05:07 pm (UTC)How does this combine moral and natural claims? Oh my God! You know what, don't bother replying. All those mentions in the scriptures, to practice disciplines, serve the Guru etc. to make oneself fit for the study of Upanishads are bunk. tcpip just needs to swoop in,and randomly quote scipture, and use his imagination to draw conclusion which noone in the Hindu tradition has drawn so far. If only we knew for the past thousands of years that all Dharma is bunk. There is no such thing as Dharma - the Upanishads say there are no moral obligations! I salute your critical analysis, where would we be without you.
Er, no I don't. I only use natural order in the descriptive sense
You use natural order in the sense of a present state of things which people should maintain - that is not descriptive but prescriptive.
An action which has followed natural law from beginning to end
No, it hasn't. It has required certain choices from free will to be made by humans, which is not dictated by Rta.
You attacked my sincerity
I have found you to insincere towards the apparent purpose of having a productive discussion, and more interested in talking about yourself and showing off your familiarity with random terminology. You have ignored my answers and kept asking the same questions, refused to demonstrate how the is-ought fallacy follows from the concept of Rta reverting again and again instead to incorrect usage of the translation "natural order", not acknowledging most places where you were shown to be wrong, and making pompous statements talking mostly about yourself rather than the subject. So I stand by what I said. I started with a much different set of expectations from you, if I could have foreseen your approach I wouldn't have made the first comment. I thought it appropriate to be known that I have been surprised. As for "attack", this is not a forum and only we two are conversing. Still, if you are so sensitive about it, please know that I have found your method of conversing to be baffling and insulting as well.
(no subject)
From: