--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Seems to me his role in history would be more > > > > > accidental than anything else. He was a vehicle for > > > > > the knowledge to come out. If I believe it's what > > > > > he said it was, it's been around as long as human > > > > > beans, and Nature/the gunas determined when and by > > > > > what means it was time for it to be recognized again. > > > > > > > > I'm confused by this. Is this a belief you hold" What > > > > probability do you assign to it as true? > > > > > > Based on the Gita, first of all. I assign it a fairly > > > high probability, enough to make it part of my working > > > hypothesis; can't say I beLEEEVE it (or much of anything > > > else metaphysical), though. > > > > This gets to the heart of our differing views on epistemology. > > For me it seems like a pretty big contradiction to place a > > high probability on something but not being able to say you > > believe in it. I don't understand that. My beliefs are > > shaped by probability, they are connected. So for me high > > probability of things being true is accompanied by more > > substantial belief. > > Well, I'm not sure how to explain it to you. For me, an > abstract metaphysical premise can never be anything more > than a working hypothesis, pretty much by definition. As > far as competing metaphysical premises are concerned, I > can assign probabilities among them according to what > makes most sense to me intellectually without promoting > the one I accord the highest probability to the status of > belief.
Thanks for explaining it. We have come to this place before in our discussions about how we view beliefs. I can see that this distinction is working for you even though I can't personally relate to it. > > For other types of premises, it works differently, since > there can be more or less actual evidence for them. > > > I'm not sure how you make the move from the beautiful work > > of literature (Mahabharata) describing the human condition > > brilliantly to it being a literal roadmap of how the world > > actually works in a grander scheme. > > And I don't know how you can equate an abstract metaphysical > premise to a "literal roadmap" except as a slightly sleazy > attempt at a sort of guilt-by-association with scriptural > literalism. There is nothing sleazy about taking you at your word. The concept of rise and fall of knowledge and of humans like Maharishi taking the role of reviver IS a literal claim in the literature. And you seem to be taking it literally and giving it a high probability of being true within your subset of pre-belief metaphysical concepts. It is a statement about the world and in this case Maharishi specifically that you are taking literally. Unless you are saying that the rise and fall of knowledge is actually a metaphor for something else. You might not believe that Bhima actually tore a man's thigh off and shoved it down his neck literally, you are picking and choosing. But you were taking this aspect of the literature literally as stated rather than how we usually read literature. Lets take another example of literal interpretations of specific points because this distinction is important for understanding some issues with modern "moderate" religious people as well. Take Harry Potter. A person might say that the characters of Harry Potter are made up and Hogwart school is a fiction, but the fact of sorcerers battling each other on earth today has a high probability of being true. This statement raises the book from pure fiction to literally giving information about how the world works. Christians like to distance themselves from their more literally minded brothers by saying that they don't believe that EVERYTHING in the Bible is true. They could dismiss the miracles part for example and see them as metaphor teachings for this and that. But if they accept that the Bible DOES in fact give specific knowledge about how believing in Jesus results in staying conscious after death in a special place forever, they are taking THAT claim of the Bible literally. And here is the most important epistemological point for me. They are not showing how they make such distinctions between a statement in the Bible that is literally true and which are metaphors because the Bible presents them equally earnestly as facts. They are giving conclusions without showing their work. So the question arises, how do YOU distinguish a claim in the Gita that there is an actual rise and fall of knowledge and it comes out when times are bad with the claim that Arjuna could shoot a shower of a thousand arrows in the matter of a few moments. For me it is easy. All of it is metaphor as in much great literature. Krishna's talk on the chariot is a beautiful description of dilemmas we face in life between family loyalty and society. Great useful stuff. But because I don't accept Krishna as a literal God coming to earth to clue us all in, I don't take religious assertions about the rise and fall of knowledge as having a high probability of being true. I give that a low probability because I don't believe the writers of the book were privy to such inside info about how life actually works. I'm still not clear how you can. > > > You don't come across as a scripture believer so I'm not > > sure how you could base anything of the nature of the rise > > and fall of knowledge on the Gita. > > The Gita citation was for your reference. That particular > premise is hardly limited to the Gita, or Hinduism or the > Vedic tradition, for that matter. As I say, it makes > intellectual sense to me, given my choice of optimism as > an approach to life. Do you mean different prophets of God in different scriptures? Is that what you mean by this idea being found elsewhere? I think there are some critical differences myself if this is what you mean. > > > Or how you jump to Maharishi as "the dude." > > One of many such dudes. "THE dude" only at this particular > point in history. By his own account the Dude after Guru Dev who was the best dude since Shankara. > > > This may come from your experiences of your program that > > give you more confidence that Maharishi was teaching > > something profound enough to warrant his grand claim of > > his unique role in history. > > ??? Not even he made that claim. He absolutely did. He even talked about how Buddha only got 500 people enlightened but he was going to get thousands of people there. He clearly stated that his full revival of knowledge was greater than Buddha who he considered to be an Avatar. And even as one of many > such dudes throughout history, IMHO he was drafted, as were > they, according to the premise. I give him credit only > for doing his damndest to fulfill the requirements of the > position for which he was drafted. In light of the implicit grandeur of this role his personal flaws seem kind of insignificant. > > > Your next paragraph may help me understand how you are > > putting this together. > > > > > > It's a function of an attitude I choose to hold that > > > it's not all going to go down the tubes. > > > > Sounds like a false alternative to me. I don't see how > > Maharishi being wrong about his elevated role in human > > history has anything to do with things going down the > > tubes. I'm betting on human ingenuity for my optimism > > in life. > > Let's backtrack: My attitude that it isn't all going to > go down the tubes leads me to accord probability to the > metaphysical premise that the knowledge of how to keep > it from going down the tubes keeps getting revived when > things become really bad. Has nothing to do with MMY's > perceived role. The salient issue is whether what he > was teaching was this knowledge. I think it was, but, > once again, I don't give him any credit for being the > dude who revived it--or through whom it was revived-- > this time around. Ok I think I get your point. > > As to human ingenuity, I think the knowledge fosters > and facilitates it, so to me that's a false dichotomy. I guess we just differ in the teleological nature of the process or that it comes in waves that the Indian literature talks about. > > > I could be > > > wrong, but I prefer to live as an optimist in that > > > regard. > > > > I don't view this as a function of optimism unless you > > have put all your eggs in this basket for hope. > > Not following you here. Which basket? Maharishi's mental techniques basket. > > > Although I am not a fan of "epistemological hedonism" (if > > it feels good it is a valuable belief) > > Not so much hedonism as a matter of what gets you > through the night, an alternative to hopelessness > and despair. Another false alternative for me. I think there is much reason to maintain hopefulness. Even many people in the German death camps managed it. It seems to be a human trait plugged into our survival. Unless the brain chemistry F's up. Then we are screwed! I have much compassion for people with clinical depression. > > <snip> >
