Seminary Studies etc and ALP NatCon

[tcpip]

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).

Comments

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

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!

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.

[pmax3.livejournal.com]

How could it not come to such a conclusion if it is a principle that unites natural and moral claims

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.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Don't ask me, or show me where in the scriptures it is said to be something that unites natural and moral claims.

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.

[pmax3.livejournal.com]

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)
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.

[pmax3.livejournal.com]

Right, and that governing principle is

You have asked this before and I have already answered. It's not a formula. When people need to decide how to act they don't open "the book of Rta" to know what it says. The refer to the various methods of arriving at Dharma. Nor do they open such a book to predict the position of starts - they refer to astronomy books for that. How can you expect a "law of everything" to be expressible in words. I don't know what fun you see in ignoring answers and repeating your questions. You are free to discard the concept if you find it unsatisfactory or not useful but don't make inane statements like Rta should do X. That's like going to a car showroom and asking for icecream. Then saying "I'll pass."

And yes we should stop conversing further on this.