Why should things exist?

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji,

The thing about Logic is that it

doesn't get out at night while we're asleep and begin

fooling about with the delicate machinery of our minds.

It is a set of approaches that allows us to streamline

our reasoning by the discernment of form and to tell

virtually by inspection whether or not we are

venturing into fallacy. Without the logic of Boole

which seemed a harmless curiousity at the time this

present dialogue might not be happening. If Stephen

Hawking had paid attention to Godel's theorem he would

not have spent so many years chasing the jack-o-

lantern (ignis fatuus) of a universal theory.

 

Logos has been opposed to Mythos in the Greek scheme of

things. You have the pre-historic swarming gods and

then the curiously world wide emergence of the search

for the single principle of intelligence. You have

the One, the True and the Good and the One without a

second. There is no need to postulate a physical

exchange of ideas which given the extreme socio-

centric nature of the respective societies would be

unlikely - mleccha into barbarian won't go. Pluralism

to Monism and back is the constant systole diastole of

human thought.

 

I have to disagree with you on the point that

Philosophy cannot be progressive as a human science.

Obviously Sankara is an advance on what went before.

I believe you are confusing the role of philosopher as

psychopomp and the mundane tradesman clarifying,

analysing and synthesising. Sometimes it's an art and

sometimes it's a craft and even the standing ant army

of analysts with their massed force move the project

on.

 

Modern and contemporary Western philosophy has not

entirely succumbed to the analytical. Before me I

have Brand

Blanshard's 'Reason and Analysis' where he masterfully

exposes the numerous errors of Logical Positivism and

the Early Wittgenstein. If you want 'big' thought try

Sartre or Heidegger(in his Introduction to Metaphysics

he said that 'Why is there something rather than

nothing' is the most important question in

Philosophy). The one book you will need to take with

you as you shelter during the rainy season will be

'Process and Reality' by Whitehead. Roger Penrose

(Emperor's New Mind) has been called a Platonist but I

haven't got round to that yet. Daniel Dennett looms

in the field of consciousness. You perhaps won't be

charmed by his attitude to religion but he's

stimulating.

 

The important question for us on this list is what are

Indian professional philosophers who draw from the

Advaitic tradition at. They are shy pilgrims on the

net as regards on line papers. Any knowledge of their

wherabouts?

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

 

I add the lines of Louis McNeice from his poem 'Autumn

Journal' as a prophylactic against an overidealisation

of the Greeks. He was a Classics Professor.

....

The Glory that was Greece; put it in a syllabus, grade

it

Page by Page

To train the mind or even to point a moral

For the present age;

Models of logic, lucidity, dignity, sanity,

The golden mean between opposing ills

Though there were exceptions of course but only

exceptions-

The bloody Bacchanals on the Thracian hills.

So the humanist in his room with Jacobean panels

Chewing his pipe and looking on a lazy quad

Chops the Ancient World to turn a sermon

To the greater glory of God.

But I can do nothing so useful or so simple;

Those dead are dead

And when I should remember the paragons of Hellas

I think instead

Of the crooks, the adventurers, the opportunists,

The careless athletes and the fancy boys,

The hair-splitters, the pedants, the hard-boiled

sceptics

And the agora and the noise

Of the demagogues and the quacks; and the women pouring

Libations over graves

And the trimmers at Delphi and the dummies at Sparta

and lastly

I think of the slaves.

And how one can imagine oneself among them

I do not know;

It was all so unimaginably different

And all so long ago.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Vishalji,

 

advaitin, Vishal D <vishaldeshpande4>

wrote:

> praNams to all

>

> existence and non-existence are like two sides of same coin.

> like zero and infinity are two sides of same coin.

>

> It all depends on the way we think.

> we can say everything is existence, becomes manisfest from

existence and dissolve in existence.

> or we can say everything is non-exitence, becomes manisfest

temporarily and vanish, again non-existence.

>

> I personally look at it as existence.

>

> i know whatever i said may go against the tenets of advaita.

> i am open to corrections from learned members.

>

 

Whatever you said does not go against the tenets of Advaita. Remember

what the Acharya says about Maya - it is neither real nor unreal, nor

is it not real or not unreal, it is anirvacaniya.

 

The "truth" of the world here is truth-falsity; divest it of truth

and it is false, or divest it of falsity and it is truth. In the

final analysis, falsity does not exist, it cannot exist - otherwise

it cannot be falsity. Therefore, the world is real only, which is the

truth. It can't be the truth that the world is false because the

truth cannot point to anything false!

 

In vyavahariika sathya, which means not fully sathya, the "truth" is

truth-falsity, but in paramarthika sathya it is truth alone. Then

Maya is not perplexing, it is simply magical. Magic is perplexing

when seen through the structures that the misdirected reasoning mind

likes to create, and that misdirection is the falsity of viparya /

vikalpa. When no alien structure is imposed on to it, it is Sheer

Magic. This Magic creates the human mind such that it doesn't accept

magic, what to do? She is like that only! :-)

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michaelji,

 

It is not an easy task for me to write this reply because there seems

to be a large misunderstanding mixed up with the points on which we

genuinely disagree. But I must try.

 

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote:

Namaste Chittaranjanji,

> The thing about Logic is that it

> doesn't get out at night while we're asleep and begin

> fooling about with the delicate machinery of our minds.

> It is a set of approaches that allows us to streamline

> our reasoning by the discernment of form and to tell

> virtually by inspection whether or not we are

> venturing into fallacy.

 

I agree.

> Without the logic of Boole

> which seemed a harmless curiousity at the time this

> present dialogue might not be happening.

 

I agree.

> If Stephen Hawking had paid attention to Godel's theorem

> he would not have spent so many years chasing the jack-o-

> lantern (ignis fatuus) of a universal theory.

 

I don't see the connection. While Godel's theorem may show that there

are things we know that cannot be be derived by formal systems, it

doesn't necessarily mean that the scientific endeavour is all

useless. Science is about finding theories that work.

> Logos has been opposed to Mythos in the Greek scheme of

> things.

 

True. In the Timeaes of Plato, this opposition is said to come about

due to the primeval confusion between sameness and difference.

> You have the pre-historic swarming gods and

> then the curiously world wide emergence of the search

> for the single principle of intelligence. You have

> the One, the True and the Good and the One without a

> second.

 

This is speculation. It is difficult for us to see how the world

appeared through the eyes of the ancients. The romantic idea of

historical progress is of recent origin.

> There is no need to postulate a physical

> exchange of ideas which given the extreme socio-

> centric nature of the respective societies would be

> unlikely - mleccha into barbarian won't go.

 

I don't see the relevance of this statement.

> Pluralism to Monism and back is the constant systole

> diastole of human thought.

 

This is speculation again.

> I have to disagree with you on the point that

> Philosophy cannot be progressive as a human science.

> Obviously Sankara is an advance on what went before.

 

I am willing to investigate the matter alongwith you.

> I believe you are confusing the role of philosopher as

> psychopomp and the mundane tradesman clarifying,

> analysing and synthesising. Sometimes it's an art and

> sometimes it's a craft and even the standing ant army

> of analysts with their massed force move the project

> on.

 

I think not, but if I am, I am willing to be shown how, and to have

the confusion removed.

> Modern and contemporary Western philosophy has not

> entirely succumbed to the analytical. Before me I

> have Brand Blanshard's 'Reason and Analysis' where he

> masterfully exposes the numerous errors of Logical

> Positivism and the Early Wittgenstein.

 

I wasn't talking about succumbing to the analytical, but about the

loss of meanings from ancient philosophy in the contemporary world.

Substance, or "ousia", is a good example.

> If you want 'big' thought try

> Sartre or Heidegger (in his Introduction to Metaphysics

> he said that 'Why is there something rather than

> nothing' is the most important question in

> Philosophy).

 

I have tried Heidegger and failed to understand him. While Plato is

clear to me, Heidegger is obscure. How does Dasein avoid solipsism -

logically? What is meant by existence being prior to essence? How is

being presence, or being present-at-hand? I would be grateful to have

it all explained to me. The immutable Being in the Theatetus of Plato

is far more meaningful to me than what seems like a Heraclitean

muddle in Heidegger's "Being and Time". But I am open to correction

if it can be shown to me how Heidegger solves the mystery of Being in

a coherent manner.

> The one book you will need to take with

> you as you shelter during the rainy season will be

> 'Process and Reality' by Whitehead. Roger Penrose

> (Emperor's New Mind) has been called a Platonist but I

> haven't got round to that yet.

 

I have gone through half of Penrose's "Shadows of the Mind" and it is

only a restatement of the Godel's theorem as applied to computational

(Turing) machines. I don't even see where the leap to consciousness

comes in - logically.

> Daniel Dennett looms in the field of consciousness.

> You perhaps won't be charmed by his attitude to religion

> but he's stimulating.

 

Perhaps.

> The important question for us on this list is what are

> Indian professional philosophers who draw from the

> Advaitic tradition at. They are shy pilgrims on the

> net as regards on line papers. Any knowledge of their

> wherabouts?

 

I don't know where they are, or what they are at. It is irrelevant to

our discussion. But here now, the question was of logic and the

obscuration of logic. Perhaps we could start with the question that

Frege began with -- what does it means to say "A = B". How is the

morning star the same as the evening star? Does the sense-reference

theory provide us a coherent answer? I am willing to investigate the

issue with you. If you prefer, we could start with a simpler question

pertaining to scientific logic by which science says things

like "colour is electromagnetic radiation of a certain frequency".

> I add the lines of Louis McNeice from his poem 'Autumn

> Journal' as a prophylactic against an overidealisation

> of the Greeks. He was a Classics Professor.

 

It is not of much concern to me what Louis McNeice says about the

Greeks. Sorry Michaelji, the greatness of Plato is what comes across

to me when I read the dialogues and it needs no Classics Professor to

tell me about it. :-)

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> Namaste Michaelji,

>

> > The important question for us on this list is what are

> > Indian professional philosophers who draw from the

> > Advaitic tradition at. They are shy pilgrims on the

> > net as regards on line papers. Any knowledge of their

> > wherabouts?

>

> I don't know where they are, or what they are at.

 

Namaste,

 

The Indian Council of Philosophical Research web-site:

 

http://www.icpr.nic.in/project.htm

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji,

 

Forgive my third message in a day. I cannot resist a few brief

comments to you too.

 

>I wasn't talking about succumbing to the analytical,

>but about the loss of meanings from ancient philosophy

>in the contemporary world. Substance, or "ousia", is a

>good example.

 

I must differ. It was a great moment in philosophy when Berkeley and

Hume exposed the emptiness of words like 'substance', 'matter', even

'self' in the sense of ego. These are all arbitrary and meaningless

constructs of the mind, and the mind is the source of delusion

according to Advaitins and Buddhists alike. However, you may attach

some unusual connotations to the word 'Substance', making it more

like 'Self'. I advise sticking to 'Self'. :-)

 

 

>I have tried Heidegger and failed to understand him.

 

Heidegger schmeidegger, as we say over here. You have good taste and

a clear head. Don't damage your brain with this.

 

I am glad you like Plato. I would reject many of his actual

arguments, such as his curious notion of 'ideas' ... at least if his

words are taken literally. But it would be interesting to discuss in

what sense his spiritual view is compatible with Advaita. After all,

he 'invented' the ideas in order to determine the 'truth' in changing

phenomena. The truth, according to him, must be unchanging and

without multiplicity. This clearly does remind one of Shankara. But

Shankara did not invent a strange world of ideas floating no one

knows where. He took nonduality seriously, to the limit in fact. So

Shankara wins, by the old Ockham's razor!

 

Also, Michael mentions 'Process and Reality' by A.N. Whitehead.

There may be something of spiritual value in Whitehead's

sophisticated thought. The 'Guide to Philosophy' by C.E.M. Joad,

which I mentioned earlier, has a good discussion of Whitehead.

 

Roger Penrose has some really wild ideas about consciousness arising

in the quantum mechanical contortions of certain brain proteins, or

something like that. Sounds like more misguided materialism to me...

 

I suggest that we NOT discuss how the morning star is the same as the

evening star. That is the kind of analytic-linguistic wilderness

which made poor Greg suffer in graduate school.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin