Good. I do not know how I ended up on the Sadhu Sanga list either, but theory
of consciousness is one of my main interests.
Søren
Fra: Benjamin Udell [mailto:[email protected]]
Sendt: 2. februar 2016 18:14
Til: [email protected]
Emne: Re: Fwd: Fw: [PEIRCE-L] SV: SV: SV: SV: SV: [Sadhu Sanga] Paper Refuting
Darwinism Published in Journal 'Communicative & Integrative Biology'
Soren, Gary R., Stephen J., list,
The situation seems more complicated than I thought. I find that some of
Stephen Jarosek's posts to Sadhu Sanga seem as if bcc'd to peirce-l. I doubt
that both Soren and Stephen J. are doing it either accidentally by their own
actions or on purpose.
At Sadhu Sanga, a person named Mark Iosim, to whom Stephen J. (in a message
seemingly bcc'd to peirce-l) was replying at Sadhu Sanga, wrote, "I do not know
how I ended up on this mailing list," i.e., Sadhu Sanga. Back in Dec 2015 I
thought (in viewing my online spam folder) that somebody had subscribed me to
Sadhu Sanga, so I sent an unsubscribe message at that time.
It's as if Sadhu Sanga itself has arranged for messages from peirce-listers on
Sadhu Sanga to be automatically bcc'd as if by the given peirce-lister to
peirce-l (it would have to be that way, since Sadhu Sanga itself is not
subscribed to peirce-l). We may need to take this up with the proprietor of the
Sadhu Sanga list.
Best, Ben
On 2/2/2016 11:45 AM, Gary Richmond wrote:
Soren,
Did you see this message from Ben? Are you accidentally Bccing peirce-l? If
you're not certain, would you check with a tech person to see that you are
inadvertently copying these posts to peirce-l
Best,
Gary Richmond
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
C 745
718 482-5690
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Benjamin Udell <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [PEIRCE-L] SV: SV: SV: SV: SV: [Sadhu Sanga] Paper Refuting
Darwinism Published in Journal 'Communicative & Integrative Biology'
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Edwina, list,
IUPUI's technical person told me that Sadhu Sanga is not currently subscribed
to peirce-l, at least not by its email address
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
or something like it. I have checked and seen that new messages have appeared
at Sadhu Sanga that have not appeared at peirce-l. Maybe somebody subscribed
then unsubscribed Sadhu Sanga to peirce-l.
Your guess that something in the comments from Sadhu Sanga was activating the
spam filters appears to have worked, since your message got through when you
re-sent it after removing much of the comments from Sadhu Sanga. I noticed that
somebody's signature often used there contains image links etc., something
there must bother the spam filters.
Best, Ben
On 2/2/2016 10:09 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
I don't know if this post will get through; my server notified me that it was
spam. So, I'm removing much of the comments from sadhu sanga...Again, this post
didn't come from the Peirce-L site nor from Soren. It came from the Sadhu Sanga
site - and I don't think the Peirce-L site should be an appendage of that site.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Edwina Taborsky<mailto:[email protected]>
To: Søren Brier<mailto:[email protected]> ;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] SV: SV: SV: SV: SV: [Sadhu Sanga] Paper Refuting
Darwinism Published in Journal 'Communicative & Integrative Biology'
Soren - I think it's useless to argue with a fundamentalist who is isolated
from reality. The statements he makes are ungrounded and totally detached from
the real world and thus, are outside of rational or logical debate: , eg, he
writes:
1) " There is no evidence for macroevolution presupposition and thus we do not
accept it. We accept subjective evolution of consciousness and not objective
evolution of bodies."
There is evidence for macroevolution - but evidence for the 'subjective
evolution of consciousness'? No, there is no evidence for this. But - Dr.
Shanta asserts that his faith-based conclusion is valid.
2) Democracy is not based upon a scientific foundation and applying such a
system is extremely harmful (as we are witnessing at various parts of the
world) for a society, where unwise individuals form the majority. Will you
accept, if illiterate people (or individuals from commerce/arts/’political
science’ background) are given the power to judging by a majority voting system
‘who is the best scientist?’
The above statement by Dr. Shanta is illogical and irrational. Democracy has
nothing to do with science but is a method of making decisions based on an
assumption of equality of individuals. We see in the above that Dr. Shanta does
not accept such equality - defining people as 'unwise', as 'illiterate'....and
suggesting that there is some special, non-distributed knowledge base required
in order to make decisions about 'how we want to live'. That is, he obviously
supports elitist authoritarianism - but - what is his evidence for the truth
value of this elite class who will make societal decisions for the rest of us?
3) And, he writes: "Modern science cannot get any credibility until it
overcomes the endless trial and error methodology, where continually one
opinion is replaced by another. The supremacy of Absolute is not dependent on
our acceptance and rejection. Our false ego cannot change the fact that we are
inherently dependent beings and Supreme Absolute is the master of everyone."
The above is yet another example of an illogical belief. That is the strength
of science - that it admits fallibility, leaves its knowledge base open to
further data and experimentation and further rational analysis - rather than
pure blind faith. And of course - this 'Supreme Absolute' is pure blind faith -
an opinion held by Tenacity and Authority.
4) He writes: "In this material world there are always different wars are going
on. The army men of one country are fighting against the army men of another
enemy country. These fights cannot be stopped artificially because in a
material conception of life people are living a self centered life (which also
include the extended self: country, cast, colour and creed). Moreover,
artificially we cannot practice nonviolence,
Is he actually supporting violence?
5) Finally - this post doesn't seem to have come from the Peirce-L site. That
is, when I hit 'reply' - it was trying to send it to the Sadhu Sanga site -
rather than to Soren or Peirce-L. I don't think that the Peirce-L site should
become an appendage of the Sadhu-Sanga site.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Søren Brier<mailto:[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Sent:Tuesday, February 02, 2016 8:11 AM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] SV: SV: SV: SV: SV: [Sadhu Sanga] Paper Refuting Darwinism
Published in Journal Communicative & Integrative Biology'
Dear Bhakti Niskama Shanta
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
