Greetings Ian et al, Now that the topic of purpose comes up, let me bring up here a point of serious disagreement I have with Western notions (note the intended avoidance of "scientific notions") of biological evolution. Western ideas of life are based on linear time. However, since the only alternative stream of thoughts I am familiar with are those of Hinduism, I'd like to point out traditional Hindu beliefs regarding to the Ages of Man (the four-fold Yuga theory), which is cyclic. Man had 8400000 "lives" before him, and man started off with the Satya Yuga, the highest, where there was moral flourishing all around. Then came the Treta Yuga, and then the Dwapara Yuga, and then finally the Kali Yuga. We are presently in the Kali Yuga, which started on 18 February, 3102 BC (after the Mahabharata war got over and Lord Krsna ascended back to the heavens). The Kali Yuga, where only 25% of the world is moral, is one of hatred and darkness. The four Yugas have been compared to a bull; with each Age, one leg of the bull is removed. Hence, currently the bull of morality stands only on one leg, that of truthfulness (there are three more virtues corresponding to the three other legs), hence the raison d'etre of tolerable standards of scientific pursuits in the modern world. After the Kali Yuga gets over, man will go back to the Satya Yuga.
That is a very broad outline and so it shouldn't be taken to be comprehensive. There are some debates among contemporary Hindu thinkers as to how long the ages exactly are (ref. Sri Yukteswar Giri's "The Holy Science" which unites ideas of all religions). On a related note, this is not "Asiatic fatalism". There are cycles in all processes of nature: breathing in/out, day/night, the seasons, et cetera. Purpose, again, is one of those things that needs to be scrutizined by analytical philosophy. Perhaps, only time will tell what it really is... And, what makes you think my name is "rockin"? My name is a Sanskrit word, meaning "infinite". Indeed, I love my name. :) Akshay On 23/10/2007, ian glendinning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Akshay, Gav, > > I think I agree with Gav. Akshey when you say > ""The universe is a conspiracy on my behalf", the very sentence is > contradictory because conspiracy, like clapping, cannot happen without > two participating entities. .... Swearing together to harm, is that > the Purpose?" > > Depends what you think a "conspiracy" is. > > Natural evolution causes "harm" to some entities, making an omelette > breaks eggs, so causing "harm" is not the issue. The issue, even for a > well intentioned conspiracy (as opposed to one whose aims are malign) > is essentially secrecy - how aware passive participants and the > uninvolved are in the process and its motives. > > My theory, and the reason I tend to reject conspiracy theories > (conspiracies by "them", the "system", etc) and see them as natural > processes as follows. > > Yes, one reason is that human bystanders (even the passively involved) > will always have different perspectives of means and ends ... how big > a picture to take into account, how big an end is "justified" by how > many "means" - a balance of values. > > But more importantly, the means and processes are often not so much > secret, as un-recognised - discounted by too simple SOMist logic - so > that people are more blind-sided than deliberately kept in the dark by > anyone. Worse still we accept the blind-siding as the normal process > of argument and justification - the SOMist meme - the rationalistic > neurosis, natural hypocrisy. > > This latter case is by far the most important in the "whole world as a > conspiracy involving me" angle that Gav is alluding to. There is no > "them" here to deliberately keep secrets - but the accepted memes can > leave us in the dark nevertheless. > > All this talk of deliberate ends is a question of teleology - purpose. > For me teleology is in evolution - it's a natural direction (as > opposed to end). At the biological level it is in the genes (not in > the living beings). At the intellectual level it's in the memes (not > in the hosts brains). These are the much misunderstood selfish genes > and memes. > > Evolution is a natural conspiracy of natural processes. Whether it is > on our behalf or not we benefit as the (so far) most advanced meme > machine in our corner of the cosmos - the benefit is to the > advancement of genes (and now memes). It's as well to remember that we > are most importantly a collection of memes - the collection of genes > and flesh and bone (and bacteria) are baggage along for the ride. The > memes can keep a large part of our conscious intellect in the dark > (Let them eat SOM, SOMist intellect for the masses). > > Fortunately some (Gav among them) are more enlightened, and recognise > a good meme when they see it. We must not be uninvolved, passive > bystanders. > > Thanks for that opportunity. > Ian > 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/ > 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/
