Hi David The only place I would somewhat differ with your analysis is on the "accrual" of Karma.
My own view is that Gita refers to 2 control loops The Outer (slower / higher) Loop is on "semi-attached" Ethical evolved norms. Analogous to a Voltage loop There is a faster Inner Loop acting on situational / contextual attachments (feedback) analogous to the Current Loop. In the context of Arjuna's dilemma, the Arjuna killing software (programmed into the Kshatriya warrior caste) has encountered an unprogrammed situation - "can I kill my own analogs ?". The software then breaks out of the inner loop (via error handler / maintenance handler) and "Krishna" the Outer Loop reprograms Arjuna to continue the killing .. "you do your job because the others are doing theirs". I recall a paper by Peter van Roy (no relation) on "Overcoming software fragility with inter-acting feedback loops and reversible phase transitions" which helped me understand some of it. www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/bcs08vanroy.pdf Sarbajit On 10/2/12, Prof David West <profw...@fastmail.fm> wrote: > I hesitate to jump in as I was taught the Bhavagad Gita by a > professor/translator, not my mother or my local guru. > > But, as I was taught ... > > "duty has almost nothing to do with the philosophical lesson of the > story. Arjuna's dilemma is not between kill and not kill, or deciding > between two contradictory laws - but between attached and non-attached > action. Only the latter avoids the accrual of Karma (western spelling). > Non-attachment is definitively not detachment (detachment is an instance > of attachment). Non-attachment is acting with "perfect knowledge" that > the action is the "right" action in that context, with context being the > totality of the world. (A kind of omniscience, the possibility of which > is for another time and place.) > > An action taken because "it is my duty," "blood will make me happy," "I > believe the end result will bring about world peace," "I am afraid," > "but they are my kinsmen" - is an attached action. You act on the > delusional perception that doing so makes a difference and that you are > the causal source of that difference. Only when you know that you are > merely the means by which a correct action expresses itself are you > truly non-attached and free from acquiring yet more Karma. > > I stand ready to be corrected by those more knowledgeable. > > And how this affects compressible/non-compressible I haven't a clue. > > dave west > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012, at 03:24 PM, glen wrote: >> Sarbajit Roy wrote at 09/30/2012 10:28 AM: >> > The Gita, however, (as I'm fairly sure the Old Testament does too) >> > expresses that once a man's side is determined, he is obliged by DUTY >> > to do what is "right", even if it involves heinous killings on a >> > massive scale or even the killing of his close relatives. DUTY is one >> > of the core elements of Dharma (the way of righteousness). Of course >> > DUTY cannot be taken in isolation, because the essence of the Gita is >> > the continuous weighing of choices between the Dharmic Law (kill / >> > harm nobody) versus the inferior Niti (Penal) Law (slay all offenders >> > on sight). Gita 1:30, 2:31 etc. >> > >> > So DUTY would probably be compressible. I am an ant, so I'm duty bound >> > to pick up every speck of sugar I can find and convey it back to the >> > mother ship. >> >> >> Yep. I'm totally ignorant of Gita. But this one clause suggests to me >> that duty is compressible, by (my) definition: >> >> "Never consider yourself the cause of the results of your activities ..." >> >> Incompressible (components of) systems are initiators of cause rather >> than passive transmitters of cause. If a duty is defined by removing >> one's _self_ from the situation, detachment, then it's definitely not >> prima causa. >> >> But I wonder, also, about the Dharmic Law, which sound like _rules_ to >> me ... rules have an input and an output, mindlessly transmitting cause >> from the former to the latter. Is there any inherent "be present", "pay >> attention", "be attached", "be the change you want to see", take >> responsibility for your actions element to Dharmic Law? If not, then >> it, too, is compressible. >> >> To promote an agent to an actor, we have to make it a prima causa, give >> it the ability to _start_ a causal chain ... or at least affect someone >> else's chain in a way that couldn't happen were it not present. >> >> Note that an actor's influence on the propagation of events need not be >> unique. I.e. 2 different actors could produce the same result. But in >> order for it to actually be an actor rather than an agent, the result >> cannot be "optimized out", so to speak. An actor can only be >> (perfectly) replaced by another actor ... though an agent can >> approximate/simulate an actor. >> >> -- >> glen >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
