Group_Request

March 4, 2010

Dear Members,Following is the email received from a member in this group Mr. ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli.......offline, found it relevant and hence posting it in the group - for WE Indians need to improve a lot in public behavior ...... hence to reiterate few points that we have been saying all the time and echo it once more here...........QuoteThe following are some guidelines we formulated for a discussion forum. They are specific to that forum, but some of them might be useful for this forum also, if you like them: * Any debate should have: a goal of discussion, the central

theme or assertion to which the deduction leads (prameya), the method for establishing the assertion,

data and deduction (pramana). When a discussion does not have these, it

is usually useless. * By itself, debating is not negative. Traditionally "Vada" is an

acknowledged science. The entire conversation is called debate and the

line of assertion/refutation presented by each participant is called an

argument. Arguments are acceptable, when based on proper bases such as

inference. Analogy is not useful for assertion but only for explaining.

Observation/factual note is good only as a basis, and not fruitful

unless there are inferences presented. These are all valid pramanas,

but only in theseconditions. * At the stage of analysis/understanding,

the reasons and method are more important than conclusions themselves.

Conclusions and opinions differ, and difference by itself is secondary.

* Examples can only help understanding a concept, but do not

establish anything. To substantiate an opinion, data needs to be

provided - statistical or exact. In cases where sweeping conclusions

are negated examples are useful as counter-proof. But in statistical

terms most of the examples or counter-examples are not helpful. It is

the proportion that matters, and data that gives us that sense of

proportion should be presented instead of examples. * Reality is phenomenal and hence is variable in time as well as relative

to observer. So emphasis should be on the frame of observation rather

than assertion.* Establishing the karya-karana or cause-effect

is important to any topic. It is cause that validates as well as

justifies the effect and therefore no amount of argument about effect

is going to lead us to either pick the problem or the solution.*

In the macro scope, complexity is much and factors are many. Therefore

opinions expressed should give scope to virtually opposing stands being

true at the same time. From causality perspective,the estimate of how

influential each factor is in the entire picture, is very important. *

Refutation cannot be for the sake of itself. To negate an argument

without establishing a counter-argument backed by deduction or data, is

not usually fruitful or constructive. In classical terminology of

debate this is called vitanda. One should present a line of argument

and try to establish it. Disagreement with any other view should only

be a part of such presentation and not the purpose of argument. *

The onus of answering refutation or accepting it should be owned. It is

not proper to keep raising points or questions without taking the onus

of answering. * We should differentiate between being

emotional, being deliberately partial and taking a participant view.

The first two do not lead to an objective or healthy discussion, but

the third can. In the first, we are losing objectivity. In the second,

we are being prejudiced. In the third, we are being objective and

acknowledging that we are stepping into the shoes of one of the parties

in a conflict because we are participant in the conflict and not

neutral observers. A few etiquette guidelines: 1. There can be disagreement or

argument while retaining respect. Someone could be shown wrong, even

while given due respect for his position and age. Credibility to argue

is different from stature and these should be usually kept separate to

avoid any displeasure in debate. 2. Similarly, stature should

not be used to elude purva paksha (refutation/objection) in a debate,

as long as there is objectivity in what the other side's argument. 3.

Use

of adjectives is best avoided, no matter whether they are for praise or

criticism. Unless there is enough argument

provided to make a word a descriptive and not an adjective, it is not

advisable to put in qualifiers just like that. 4. There should always be a conscious effort to keep focus of discussion on ideas instead of persons. That will not

only help retain objectivity but actually helps serving the purpose of discussion. ShankarUnquote

March 4, 2010

There is an old saying in english, "fools seldom differ and wise men seldom agree", therefore, in order to be proved wise men, we go on differing, albeit, many times just to differ. It is like that old Rin advertisement, "uski kameez meri kameez se safed kaise."

Moderator should recognise the potential inflammable material and guide the persons partaking in the discussion but then a discussion has to have an animated idea about it. Remember, it is not robots partaking in that discussion it is the human brain, so full of ego and false pride that it will not easily understand the finer nuaces which otherwise could benefit them only.

Hence a discussion should always be welcome, because it is a discussion forum, but then it should be kept in mind that when some members come out with statements which cannot be substantiated then such members should be suitably advised.

Framing rules/regulations will never help. It should be duty of each individual. Here again I would narrate a story, which goes like this, after attaining Independance, a man came out on streets and started swinging the baton that he had in his hand. That baton hit many people who objected but this man went unabated and proclaimed that India is a free country and he can do anything. The matter went to authorities and he was advised that yes, you are a free man of a free country, but your freedom ends where the nose tip of other person starts.

We have seen people on this forum making predictions like, he would get a job in ncr, or that big names have been exposed etc., etc., but have never explained it astrologically. Do we allow such things to continue or not is for moderators to decide. This is what I call unsubstantiated claims.

Recently, one Member claimed that his ideology was different. If his ideology is different then would it not be better for him to either go to people who follow his ideology or share his ideology with this group for their enlightenment, as he would ultimately claim.

During the years spent in astrology, I have noticed that, with the advent of computers and technology savvy people, try to use such forums for their advantage, only to increase their clientage. We are no moral police but we do have the responsibility as students of astrology to atleast be able to say, what is right, what is wrong. I never reject a theory, without experimenting with it. And I have tried, all techniques which are available and known to me. This was also the basis of me rejecting Narayana Dasha totally.

Lets try to keep ourselves away from such things and try and spend more time discussing astrology as much as our lives permit us.

Before ending, I may remind everyone of that famous song (famous as per me), "meri baat ke mane do, meri baat ke mane do,jo achha lage use apna lo, jo bura lage use jane do"

Best wishes,

Mouji Ram

Sre_eram <sreeram64 Sent: Thu, March 4, 2010 12:27:06 PM Group_Request

Dear Members,Following is the email received from a member in this group Mr. ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli.......offline, found it relevant and hence posting it in the group - for WE Indians need to improve a lot in public behavior ...... hence to reiterate few points that we have been saying all the time and echo it once more here........ ...QuoteThe following are some guidelines we formulated for a discussion forum. They are specific to that forum, but some of them might be useful for this forum also, if you like them:

* Any debate should have: a goal of discussion, the central theme or assertion to which the deduction leads (prameya), the method for establishing the assertion, data and deduction (pramana). When a discussion does not have these, it is usually useless.

* By itself, debating is not negative. Traditionally "Vada" is an acknowledged science. The entire conversation is called debate and the line of assertion/refutatio n presented by each participant is called an argument. Arguments are acceptable, when based on proper bases such as inference. Analogy is not useful for assertion but only for explaining. Observation/ factual note is good only as a basis, and not fruitful unless there are inferences presented. These are all valid pramanas, but only in theseconditions.

* At the stage of analysis/understand ing, the reasons and method are more important than conclusions themselves. Conclusions and opinions differ, and difference by itself is secondary.

* Examples can only help understanding a concept, but do not establish anything. To substantiate an opinion, data needs to be provided - statistical or exact. In cases where sweeping conclusions are negated examples are useful as counter-proof. But in statistical terms most of the examples or counter-examples are not helpful. It is the proportion that matters, and data that gives us that sense of proportion should be presented instead of examples.

* Reality is phenomenal and hence is variable in time as well as relative to observer. So emphasis should be on the frame of observation rather than assertion.

* Establishing the karya-karana or cause-effect is important to any topic. It is cause that validates as well as justifies the effect and therefore no amount of argument about effect is going to lead us to either pick the problem or the solution.

* In the macro scope, complexity is much and factors are many. Therefore opinions expressed should give scope to virtually opposing stands being true at the same time. From causality perspective, the estimate of how influential each factor is in the entire picture, is very important.

* Refutation cannot be for the sake of itself. To negate an argument without establishing a counter-argument backed by deduction or data, is not usually fruitful or constructive. In classical terminology of debate this is called vitanda. One should present a line of argument and try to establish it. Disagreement with any other view should only be a part of such presentation and not the purpose of argument.

* The onus of answering refutation or accepting it should be owned. It is not proper to keep raising points or questions without taking the onus of answering.

* We should differentiate between being emotional, being deliberately partial and taking a participant view. The first two do not lead to an objective or healthy discussion, but the third can. In the first, we are losing objectivity. In the second, we are being prejudiced. In the third, we are being objective and acknowledging that we are stepping into the shoes of one of the parties in a conflict because we are participant in the conflict and not neutral observers. A few etiquette guidelines: 1. There can be disagreement or argument while retaining respect. Someone could be shown wrong, even while given due respect for his position and age. Credibility to argue is different from stature and these should be usually kept separate to avoid any displeasure in debate. 2. Similarly, stature should not be used to elude purva paksha (refutation/ objection) in a debate, as long as there is objectivity in what the other side's

argument. 3. Use of adjectives is best avoided, no matter whether they are for praise or criticism. Unless there is enough argument provided to make a word a descriptive and not an adjective, it is not advisable to put in qualifiers just like that. 4. There should always be a conscious effort to keep focus of discussion on ideas instead of persons. That will not only help retain objectivity but actually helps serving the purpose of discussion. ShankarUnquote

March 4, 2010

A very good & matured mail.

Thanks a lot.

regards

Chakraborty

On Behalf Of Manoj KumarThursday, March 04, 2010 4:42 PM Subject: Re: Group_Request