Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (4646)	3/25/2002 11:58:37 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Yes, you could argue the converse. I take your point about preferability seeming too mild. Perhaps one could say that there is a felt need to assume the objective conditions through which all that they hold dear and gives their life meaning actually matters. I was just trying for a reformulation that was more affirmative. Actually, the level of belief that is worth discussing is the possibility of the Devi. If created immortals are possible, and they are, then there is room to have one represented as having the head of an elephant, whether literally or figuratively. In Vedanta, all such matters are basically interpreted as manifestation of Brahm, and are mainly ways of representing His attributes. In a similar vein, the Stoics in the late Empire allegorized the pagan gods. Thus, the image of Ganesha may be taken as a way of mediating between the ordinary believer and the Hidden Divinity. If the belief is trivial, your distinction holds. If the belief is central to the person's make- up, then condescension for one is condescension for the other. In your last points, I neither entirely agree, nor entirely disagree. I am not sure I can make a productive comment, at this point. Perhaps I will come back to it later.....

To: Lane3 who wrote (4646)	3/25/2002 12:35:38 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

Religion, logic, and rationality. The search for truth, in science, begins with a hypothesis. Ar research study may follow to prove, or to reject, that hypothesis. In the case of religion, we might start with the competing, and mutually exclusive, hypotheses that (A) existence is a random event, or (B) existence is intelligently designed and purposeful. If we think about how we might be able to reject (B) ... and thus prove (A) ... we immediately recognize that we must begin by comprehending the nature of existence. That is, what is existence? The dimensions of existence that we can perceive are time and space (the known universe). We then confront the necessity that the those dimensions must, by definition, either be finite or infinite. Time is without beginning and endless, or it is not. Space is endless, or it is not. We next are compelled to acknowledge that we cannot comprehend either possibility. They do not compute. We can only perceive through our five senses and the interpretation of our brain, and neither is adequate to comprehend finite or infinite time, or finite or infinite space. An analogy would be the "square circle", a circle composed of straight lines. We can speak the words "square circle", but we cannot comprehend their meaning. That does not mean that a square circle does not exist or is not possible ... it only means that it is does not exist or is not possible within the boundaries of the dimensions of our existence that we are able to perceive. Given that we cannot comprehend the nature of existence, we cannot reject hypothesis (B). If we cannot reject (B), than it is as rational and logical to accept (B) as it is to accept (A). JC

To: Lane3 who wrote (4646)	3/26/2002 1:32:18 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

When I was in my senior year at St. John's, we had a section in seminar on Marx (and Engels). Someone early on was quite dismissive, which aroused my ire. I said that we should take it seriously, and became the chief mouthpiece for Marx. The rumor got around school that I was a Marxist, when, in fact, I was already started to drift rightward. I just found it unconscionable to not take it seriously. In an alumni seminar using TS Eliot's essay "Notes towards a Definition of Culture", I mentioned a trip I had taken to Concord, Massachusetts, to see Emerson's house, and Walden, and so forth, as an illustration of the way in which we invest objects and places with cultural significance due to activities and people associated with them. Later, someone referred to "Emerson and Thoreau, your heroes", although I had never said that they were my heroes, and, in fact, did not regard them so. I explained that I was paying my respects to persons of importance and interest in the intellectual life of the country, but that they had no special, personal meaning for me. I relate these two anecdotes to indicate ways in which one may respect what one does not agree with or warm to. Being dismissive of Marx, who was a great and influential thinker taken seriously by many intelligent and good people, would have been a travesty. Understanding how he could have attracted such a following was a prerequisite to understand the modern era. Understanding where he went wrong was contingent on knowing what he said to begin with. Anything else was superficial. Similarly with the Concord folk: these people were a formative influence on American culture, especially Emerson, and it was a good thing to take the time to pay respects and gain additional insight through seeing how they lived. All I desire is to see a similar respect for the beliefs and customs that have been seriously held by plenty of decent, intelligent people, and a sincere attempt to consider their views. I did not say that you had to hold sacred what other did, I said that one should have respect for what others hold sacred. Practically speaking, in the context of discussion, "respect" mainly means taking something seriously, rather than trashing it. You can take it seriously even while you object. I am not sure what else to say, at this moment. I think I will post this and get your response......