[MD] Anti-reductionism in the MOQ

[Akshay Peshwe]

Ham Priday, on your comment on individual freedom (and us being robots of
God's Will): Why, it is true, we are indeed robots of God's Will. And why
would this be a bad idea?

Wherever we can look, we will find proof of determinism, and by extension
predestination, except of course our own personal experience. But a good
science education will show that intuition is rarely fully correct,
especially an unrefined one. Even though someone tried to "prove free will"
by making conclusions out of the Uncertainty Principle, it is not provable
in theory or in practice, simply because the Uncertainty Principle only
tells us that we cannot know a system completely, it does not say that a
system has been left undecided or "left on its own". Read my blog for many
more arguments: http://thegreatwheel.blogspot.com

Akshay


On 12/01/2008, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> Akshay writes --
>
>
> > No, I am not atheist. I believe in God, but not the God that billions
> over
> > the world worship -- the kind of God that you pray to for success, the
> > kind
> > of God that helps you when you're in trouble, the kind of God that is
> your
> > friend. God is all these and beyond.
> >
> > See, God is a mere name, a name for the highest power of the universe,
> or
> > the fundamental essence of the universe. Hence, at least in Hindu
> thought,
> > everyone believes in God, except that they vary slightly in their
> concepts
> > about this highest power.
>
> Okay, I happen to agree with the concept of the Divine as you describe it.
> I am neither a theist nor an atheist, but am certainly not an anti-theist.
> For me, divine intervention in man's affairs, granting him special favors
> by
> request, and demanding absolute submission of the "believer" makes
> individual freedom impossible and turns human beings into "robots" of
> God's
> Will.  I also believe that man must be "innocent" of absolute truth and
> knowledge in order to exercise free choice.  Religion and philosophy were
> invented, it seems to me, to assuage man's need for spiritual support by
> offering a structured morality system (to foster the survival of his
> culture) and/or a plausible theory (to account for the universe and
> explain
> his role in it.)
>
> > See, God is a mere name, a name for the highest power of the universe,
> > or the fundamental essence of the universe. Hence, at least in Hindu
> > thought,
> > everyone believes in God, except that they vary slightly in their
> concepts
> > about this highest power. ...
> >
> > Let me ask you: how do you recommend me to learn more about Christ?
> > By asking a person who calls himself Christian or by reading
> > the Bible correctly? Some British officers of the East India Company
> were
> > always willing to criticize India by showcasing her degenerate aspects
> to
> > the world, portraying them as primary to India than her scriptures. It
> was
> > an attempt based entirely in delusion and arrogance. People are never
> > perfect, only the revealed scriptures are.
>
> Yes, this is the problem with Islam and the Law of the Prophet, so well
> articulated by Hirsi Ali in 'Infidel'.   No one may question the sacred
> word
> of God or challenge its morality--even if it calls for the beheading of
> infidels or the circumcision of young women.
>
> I no longer regard myself a Christian.  But if I were to introduce you to
> Christianity it would be along historical lines, showing how polytheism,
> paganism and Judaic law were melded into a moral culture capable of being
> reformed into a universal ideology of significant benefit to mankind.  I
> would have you examine the tenets of Christ's morality as set forth in his
> parables and the Sermon on the Mount, comparing them with the more
> "absolute" mandates of the Ten Commandments as handed down from Mr. Sinai
> by
> Moses.  I would then show you how this simple morality and its promise of
> salvation was "mythologized" by the apostle Paul, spreading it throughout
> Greece, Asia Minor, and the Roman Empire where it was transformed into a
> monarchy known as Christendom.  Finally, I would acquaint you with the
> introspective thoughts of Eckhart, Aquinas, Cusanus, Jaspers, Tillich, and
> Buber, among others, who transformed Christian theology into a philosophy.
>
> > Right now all this may sound like another Easterner with his peculiar
> > philosophy, but if you have patience, I can assure you that discovering
> > the
> > real philosophy of Hinduism will be the greatest reward that God could
> > ever
> > bless you with. I don't blame you, I am in fact encouraging you. It's
> not
> > like I'm trying to convert you, please don't have that impression.
> Google
> > for "vedas speed of light", "rig veda clifford algebra", "sanskrit
> grammar
> > computer science", or refer to this site: http://www.hinduwisdom.info/,
> > which has enough information to convince you).
>
> Thanks, Ashkay.  I looked at this site, which is well done, and intend to
> get back to it later.  As a Westerner I tend to be turned off by symbolic
> icons and indecipherable mystic terms, so perhaps I'm a more suitable
> candidate for the theories explained by writers more familiar with my
> culture, such as Swami Vivekananda or Sri Aurobindo.  The less mysticism,
> the better, as far as I'm concerned.   My problem with Eastern philosophy
> is
> its absence of a cosmological theory or ontology.  No doubt mystical koans
> and meditations can be illuminating and useful  in "discovering the Way",
> but those of us with a scientific background are always seeking a
> fundamental thesis.  This is also what I find lacking in Pirsig's
> philosophy, by the way.
>
> > I see the MoQ ideology as a degenerate subset of ancient Hindu thought.
> > I am not undermining Pirsig's originality or his intellectual
> > capabilities, I am
> > merely stating what would be obvious if Hindu thought were to be
> compared
> > with Pirsig's metaphysics. I do not hold any intention of being
> offensive
> > or
> > of attempting to convert anybody. I interpret the MoQ in my own way,
> > although it does happen that I deviate from what Pirsig might have
> wanted.
>
> Indeed, we all are subject to our own interpretation, which of course is
> how
> we develop our individual value system.  I believe the reality that each
> individual creates for himself is more authentic than anything adaped by
> the
> "collective intellect".
>
> Thanks again for your clear responses to my questions.  Rest assured that
> nothing you say will offend me.  I have a lot to learn from Sanatana
> Dharma,
> and I welcome your thoughts and questions.
>
> Essentially yours,
> Ham
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>