Re: [silk] Any thoughts on the subject?

[Heather Madrone]

And, because this particular discussion reminded me, here are the Last 
Rites of Bokononism as transmitted by Kurt Vonnegut:


God made mud.
God got lonesome.
So God said to some of the mud, “Sit up!”
“See all I’ve made,” said God, “the hills, the sea, the sky, the stars.”
And I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
Lucky me, lucky mud.
I, mud, sat up and saw what a nice job God had done.
Nice going, God.
Nobody but you could have done it, God! I certainly couldn’t have.
I feel very unimportant compared to You.
The only way I can feel the least bit important is to think of all the 
mud that didn’t even get to sit up and look around.

I got so much, and most mud got so little.
Thank you for the honor!
Now mud lies down again and goes to sleep.
What memories for mud to have!
What interesting other kinds of sitting-up mud I met!
I loved everything I saw!
Good night.
I will go to heaven now.
I can hardly wait…
To find out for certain what my wampeter* was…
And who was in my karass**…
And all the good things our karass did for you.
Amen.

Re: [silk] Any thoughts on the subject?

[Heather Madrone]

SS wrote:


No. I was joking.



What? You've been trolling? Am I the only person on this mailing list 
who didn't know that?


--hmm

Re: [silk] Any thoughts on the subject?

[SS]

On Wed, 2014-07-09 at 06:58 -0700, Heather Madrone wrote:
> Or it could be that salvation is just another pretty fairy tale that 
> human beings use to paper over death.
> 
> Perhaps there is nothing to be saved from, no true enlightenment, no 
> great mystery or puzzle to solve except for the ones we create. Maybe 
> life is just a gift with no strings attached.  We get to choose what
> we 
> do with these precious years. We wonder why we have to die, but we
> seem 
> to forget to wonder why we get to live, to experience this amazing
> world 
> in all its complexity. 

Sorry. That is too bright a picture. We don't even get to choose what we
do with our years either.

No. I was joking. Your post indicates the viewpoint of a happy, self
contented person who has found meaning in life.

My best wishes to you for that.


shiv

Re: [silk] Any thoughts on the subject?

[Heather Madrone]

Srini RamaKrishnan 
July 12, 2014 at 10:12 PM July 12, 2014

All reality is mental perception. We each believe that which is true
for us in that moment.
I am familiar with that idea. There is an area where it's a terrific 
operational strategy. The edges of that area are sharp, though, and 
hanging onto that belief along those edges is a good way to get your 
fingers shredded. It can also be a long fall when you let go.


When the earth was flat, it was, when everyone started to believe it
was not, it was not.
What changed the belief that the earth was flat was a steady mounting of 
empirical evidence that the earth was a spheroid moving through space. 
Many people chose to ignore the evidence and go on believing that the 
earth was flat, but eventually the denial structure needed to maintain 
the false belief crumbled under its own weight.


Reality is not silly putty. We can change our own attitudes and 
perceptions to a large degree by what we do with our beliefs, but our 
sphere of influence is small. Holding onto a false belief can do a lot 
of damage. Mother Nature bats last, and her course corrections are not 
always gentle.


Right now for most of this world material satisfaction is the highest
objective. If there comes a point when one realizes for oneself that
achieving the summum bonum of material life is still unsatisfying,
then one sets off on other paths of enquiry.
And when those paths of enquiry turn out to be equally unsatisfying, you 
still have this precious gift of life to spend as you will. The sky will 
still be there, and the trees, and the stars. There isn't any need to 
escape nor create a philosophical maze to convince yourself you're not 
going to die. You can just breathe into the present. You can still treat 
the other precious beings who share your trip with compassion. You can 
still turn to your own inner compass, your Inner Light, for guidance on 
the path you are meant to follow.



Neither is right, neither is wrong.

Have you convinced yourself of that? If so, enjoy it while it lasts.

--hmm

Re: [silk] Any thoughts on the subject?

[Charles Haynes]

On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Srini RamaKrishnan 
wrote:


> All reality is mental perception.
>

That's what you think...


> When the earth was flat, it was, when everyone started to believe it
> was not, it was not.
>

This is what prompted me to comment. If everyone believed the Earth was
flat (and it was) why would anyone believe anything else?

Right now for most of this world material satisfaction is the highest
> objective.


How do you know?


> If there comes a point when one realizes for oneself that
> achieving the summum bonum of material life is still unsatisfying,
> then one sets off on other paths of enquiry.
>

So - have you? Does your individual realisation affect the consensus
reality? If so - how?


> Neither is right, neither is wrong.
>

"It is what it is?" Be careful, rat will throw you off a cliff.

http://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2014/07/12

-- Charles

Re: [silk] Any thoughts on the subject?

[Udhay Shankar N]

On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Srini RamaKrishnan  wrote:

> All reality is mental perception. We each believe that which is true
> for us in that moment.
>
> When the earth was flat, it was, when everyone started to believe it
> was not, it was not.
>
> Right now for most of this world material satisfaction is the highest
> objective. If there comes a point when one realizes for oneself that
> achieving the summum bonum of material life is still unsatisfying,
> then one sets off on other paths of enquiry.
>
> Neither is right, neither is wrong.

Each generation rediscovers solipsism for itself (but of course!)

Udhay



-- 

((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))

Re: [silk] Any thoughts on the subject?

[Srini RamaKrishnan]

On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:28 PM, Heather Madrone  wrote:
>> Srini RamaKrishnan 
>> July 1, 2014 at 9:36 AM July 1, 2014
>>
>> Truly salvation lies within.
>
>
> Or it could be that salvation is just another pretty fairy tale that human
> beings use to paper over death.

All reality is mental perception. We each believe that which is true
for us in that moment.

When the earth was flat, it was, when everyone started to believe it
was not, it was not.

Right now for most of this world material satisfaction is the highest
objective. If there comes a point when one realizes for oneself that
achieving the summum bonum of material life is still unsatisfying,
then one sets off on other paths of enquiry.

Neither is right, neither is wrong.

Re: [silk] Any thoughts on the subject?

[Heather Madrone]

Srini RamaKrishnan 
July 1, 2014 at 9:36 AM July 1, 2014

Truly salvation lies within.


Or it could be that salvation is just another pretty fairy tale that 
human beings use to paper over death.


Perhaps there is nothing to be saved from, no true enlightenment, no 
great mystery or puzzle to solve except for the ones we create. Maybe 
life is just a gift with no strings attached.  We get to choose what we 
do with these precious years. We wonder why we have to die, but we seem 
to forget to wonder why we get to live, to experience this amazing world 
in all its complexity.


--hmm

Re: [silk] Any thoughts on the subject?

[Shenoy N]

>
> > - a lot of things simply got screwed up with no easy solutions.
>
> The core of our current clusterfuck is due to the issues like
> http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2013/09/the-real-population-problem/
> which are definitely not the fault of science and technology.
>
> If we don't manage to patch up the issue short-term, there will be
> no long-term.
>
>
That is a terrific article! A meta look, and supported with hard data, from
the look of it. It will need to be read at leisure

-- 
Narendra Shenoy
http://narendrashenoy.blogspot.com

Re: [silk] Any thoughts on the subject?

[Srini RamaKrishnan]

On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 6:56 PM, SS  wrote:
> The topic is huge and is partly philosophical.

Anything sufficiently complex is ultimately completely philosophical.

There's a story I was told as a kid, maybe many of you have heard it.
Wikipedia describes it rather blandly like so:

"Once there was a competition between Ganesha and his brother as to
see who could circumambulate the three worlds faster and hence win the
fruit of knowledge. Skanda went off on a journey to cover the three
worlds while Ganesha simply circumambulated his parents. When asked
why he did so, he answered that his parents Shiva and Parvati
constituted the three worlds and was thus given the fruit of
knowledge."
source: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythological_anecdotes_of_Ganesha#Birth_and_childhood

The bare bones of the story are enough for the point I am about to make.

Why do we do the things we do?

Beyond the physical needs, we are psychological beings that are slaves
to our desires and aversions.

As a race we seek control of the world around us by mastering every
science, and every object of knowledge. We are like Skanda,
circumnavigating the worlds in an effort to win the fruit of wisdom.
Whereas, what we are really contending with are our fears and desires,
which aren't out there in the three worlds, but within us.

We can't get to the bottom of our psychological drive by conquering
new planets. No Sir, we need to conquer ourselves, and that is far
more difficult than conquering a planet. We ought to be like Ganesha,
and look deep within for the answers.

Humans have only progressed in technology and scientific understanding
from generation to generation, but we show little generational
advancement in our grasp of basic human emotions like greed, anger,
love, happiness and so on.

Whereas, every mystic since ancient times who was successful in
looking within discovered only peace, joy and happiness. The end goal
of all human quest, but they only found it for themselves, and
couldn't share it with the others, no matter how much they tried. Even
wise ones like the Buddha only left a teaching, with an exhortation to
practice.

Thus, Shiv is spot on about science losing the plot; but I'd take that
further and say, humanity has been losing the plot for a very long
time.

We are stuck in the long route; trying to race ahead like Skanda,
though we ultimately lose out.

This is so from the days of the tale of Adam and Eve that we desire
life, and so we fear death. We desire the apple, so we have to contend
with the snake.

All our pursuit of knowledge is to make life easier, and death a
little more understandable. Even though often our everyday lives
betray little of their lofty origins, it is so. This is why all human
action happens.

Most of us see meaning in life, and an end of meaning in death. This
only makes the problem worse as the Buddhists are wont to say, because
all life is but a preparation for death, so we should be seeking
meaning in death instead in order to have a meaningful life.

The pace of progress today is such that even the dullest mind is aware
of it. It is said that Skanda's peacock's wings were on fire as he
raced through the skies to beat his brother that the whole universe
was in awe. We are exactly there, we know the time is running out, we
know we are working as fast as we can, and we know we are creating
more problems than we solve. It's become a real whack-a-mole, and yet
we persist because we know better.

Truly salvation lies within.

Re: [silk] Any thoughts on the subject?

[Eugen Leitl]

On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 06:56:58PM +0530, SS wrote:

> That of course is untrue and scientists everywhere are beginning to
> understand the limitations of science and the difficulties that are yet
> to come to make the slightest progress. But that realization has come at
> a cost - too many mistakes have been made and not all of them are
> reversible. Science has done things to the world which were done "in
> good faith" as part of "conquering nature". Instead of conquering nature
> - a lot of things simply got screwed up with no easy solutions. 

The core of our current clusterfuck is due to the issues like
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2013/09/the-real-population-problem/
which are definitely not the fault of science and technology.

If we don't manage to patch up the issue short-term, there will be
no long-term.

Re: [silk] Any thoughts on the subject?

[SS]

On Tue, 2014-07-01 at 15:50 +0530, Deepa Agashe wrote:
> I'm a scientist, but I don't think most what I do has any direct
> impact on
> people at all. My work (understanding how evolution works, in a
> nutshell)
> makes some people happy and some angry, but mostly people don't care.
> The
> state of the human body or mind is certainly not a goal that drives my
> work, at any rate.
> 
> I'm still unsure what agenda or plot am I following (or losing), apart
> from
> trying to understand what I find curious. 

I am a scientist too and have spent all my life, reading, thinking about
and working with and on, science. And I am not sure I like the way
science is heading. So, as is my wont, I am making a statement about
impressions I get and looking for responses. The responses I got were
angry and indignant and that in itself is interesting to me - but it's
another topic. :D

But first, one could ask, "What is science?"

Science is partially about understanding the world/universe around us
and answering questions that we have.

A far larger part of the world's "body of scientists" are involved in
"applied science" in which science is applied to achieve some goal. Of
course I have spent many enchanted hours following the science of how to
design things that kill people. But even here - goals are met by funding
research that designs such killer hardware simply as a means to dominate
and make some people richer and others poorer - so even weapons
manufacturing and the science that goes into that only aids the goals
that I listed.

Certain aspects of science - like pure mathematics, particle physics of
the CERN genre are not obviously offshoots of my list. But my own field
- medicine, is all about making people fatter and live longer. And
happier, with a bit of luck.

I think that science sort of "blasted its way" into a religion clouded
world and blew religion away with its successes and its promise. But
science, having blown religion away does not know where it is heading.
Religion had used outrageous explanations for what it could not explain.
Science brought in rationality and understanding - much to the chagrin
of "religionists".But Science started "playing God" to an extent. Things
that previously required a chancy divine intervention were easily and
consistently achieved by science. The need for God receded.

Ever since my childhood - which was over four decades ago, I have been
bombarded with information about science which invariably seeks to
conquer nature, the world or the universe. That was a stated goal and it
was also very very believable back in the 60s. It was possible to
"conquer" nature and control everything.

That of course is untrue and scientists everywhere are beginning to
understand the limitations of science and the difficulties that are yet
to come to make the slightest progress. But that realization has come at
a cost - too many mistakes have been made and not all of them are
reversible. Science has done things to the world which were done "in
good faith" as part of "conquering nature". Instead of conquering nature
- a lot of things simply got screwed up with no easy solutions. 

While there probably are many examples I see the "demographic bulge" of
older people in populations as a consequence of the stupidity of science
and a naive belief that good was being done. Mind you, it was not
"science" alone. But it was science and scientists who were readily
available and genuinely believed that they were doing good by working on
ideas that were actually social engineering and blind experimentation
with no idea about long term consequences. Everything about personal
freedom, freedom from hard labour, health, wealth and happiness as in
lack of suffering, lack of hunger, lack of comfort, lack of spare time
to spend for "leisure", lack of "quality" in life were all addressed as
problems to be solved by scientists who devised short term or medium
term fixes with little understanding about what "long term" really
means.

The topic is huge and is partly philosophical. I did not mean to cause
anger - but "anger" when science is dissed shows the kind of cockiness
that science has engendered among people who admire science. This in
itself should be a warning sign. The last time people got angry at their
work being dissed was when religionists were having their butts kicked
in by scientists. 

shiv

Re: [silk] Any thoughts on the subject?

[Deepa Agashe]

On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 2:39 PM, SS  wrote:

> On Mon, 2014-06-30 at 09:18 +0530, Udhay Shankar N wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 9:05 AM, SS  wrote:
> >
> > > Science decreased death rates and increased life-spans, causing a
> > > population explosion like never before. The same science responded to
> > > that by decreasing birth rate.
> >
> > The above means what, exactly? How did "science" decrease birth rate?
>
> I will postpone my answer to the above question because it comes lower
> down in the hierarchy than a far more fundamental question you have
> asked below
>
> > > How astoundingly stupid. Will not be surprised at all to see religion
> > > come increasingly into conflict with science. Scientists have lost the
> > > plot.
> >
> > And what plot would this be?
>
> When I approach the question from a slightly different angle I could
> almost agree with you and state that scientists have no plot, and
> therefore they could not have lost the plot.
>
> However I don't believe this to be the case.
>
> Scientists and therefore science are primarily engaged in
> 1. Making people fatter
> 2. Making people richer
> 3. Making people happier
> 4. Making people live longer
>
> Other seemingly unrelated scientific activity can almost invariably be
> deduced to be related to one of the above goals. For example scientists
> involved in environment or climate studies are merely fulfilling one of
> four basic goals of science. In fact all money that is poured into
> science ultimately revolves around these goals
>
> A brief consideration of the above goals reveals that they all have
> limits and once those limits are reached there is nowhere to go other
> than to search for more people to co-opt into those goals.
>
> shiv
>
>
>
>
Apologies Shiv, I seem to have missed a bit of the thread earlier and
didn't realize that my "they" is you.

I'm a scientist, but I don't think most what I do has any direct impact on
people at all. My work (understanding how evolution works, in a nutshell)
makes some people happy and some angry, but mostly people don't care. The
state of the human body or mind is certainly not a goal that drives my
work, at any rate.

I'm still unsure what agenda or plot am I following (or losing), apart from
trying to understand what I find curious.

Re: [silk] Any thoughts on the subject?

[SS]

On Mon, 2014-06-30 at 09:18 +0530, Udhay Shankar N wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 9:05 AM, SS  wrote:
> 
> > Science decreased death rates and increased life-spans, causing a
> > population explosion like never before. The same science responded to
> > that by decreasing birth rate.
> 
> The above means what, exactly? How did "science" decrease birth rate?

I will postpone my answer to the above question because it comes lower
down in the hierarchy than a far more fundamental question you have
asked below

> > How astoundingly stupid. Will not be surprised at all to see religion
> > come increasingly into conflict with science. Scientists have lost the
> > plot.
> 
> And what plot would this be?

When I approach the question from a slightly different angle I could
almost agree with you and state that scientists have no plot, and
therefore they could not have lost the plot.

However I don't believe this to be the case.

Scientists and therefore science are primarily engaged in
1. Making people fatter
2. Making people richer
3. Making people happier
4. Making people live longer

Other seemingly unrelated scientific activity can almost invariably be
deduced to be related to one of the above goals. For example scientists
involved in environment or climate studies are merely fulfilling one of
four basic goals of science. In fact all money that is poured into
science ultimately revolves around these goals

A brief consideration of the above goals reveals that they all have
limits and once those limits are reached there is nowhere to go other
than to search for more people to co-opt into those goals. 

shiv

Re: [silk] Any thoughts on the subject?

[Deepa Agashe]

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Udhay Shankar N  wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 9:05 AM, SS  wrote:
>
> > Science decreased death rates and increased life-spans, causing a
> > population explosion like never before. The same science responded to
> > that by decreasing birth rate.
>
> The above means what, exactly? How did "science" decrease birth rate?
>
> > It is almost as if science likes to deny death and will go so far as to
> > bar birth simply to prove that old age and death can be conquered.
>
> Everything that is not forbidden is compulsory. It's called the
> Totalitarian Principle [1].
>
> > How astoundingly stupid. Will not be surprised at all to see religion
> > come increasingly into conflict with science. Scientists have lost the
> > plot.
>
> And what plot would this be?
>
> Udhay
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarian_principle
>
> --
>
> ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
>
>

Wow. Is there a context that might help disentangle the muddled logic?
Should I even bite this bait?

I'm guessing they want to talk about vaccination, antibiotics and other
advances in modern medicine/science, and then contraception. Why it's
dumped on "science" and not humans as a lot I don't get.

Re: [silk] Any thoughts on the subject?

[Udhay Shankar N]

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 9:05 AM, SS  wrote:

> Science decreased death rates and increased life-spans, causing a
> population explosion like never before. The same science responded to
> that by decreasing birth rate.

The above means what, exactly? How did "science" decrease birth rate?

> It is almost as if science likes to deny death and will go so far as to
> bar birth simply to prove that old age and death can be conquered.

Everything that is not forbidden is compulsory. It's called the
Totalitarian Principle [1].

> How astoundingly stupid. Will not be surprised at all to see religion
> come increasingly into conflict with science. Scientists have lost the
> plot.

And what plot would this be?

Udhay

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarian_principle

-- 

((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))

Re: [silk] Any thoughts on the subject?

[SS]

On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 18:31 +0530, Deepa Mohan wrote:
> It's all very well to create these shapes...but what will they mean
> for us?


I like the word "USAnian"

Deep you need to look at the triangles formed by the populations of
Pakistan, Syria, Nigeria, Somalia, Bangladesh, to an extent India as
well.

Ever since I was a boy articles from the US have generally self-referred
to the US as if it is the centre of the universe, and this article is no
different when the author says 


> Around the world, older generations are becoming the dominant
> demographic groups.
> 
Not all around the world sir. Not all around the world. 

As a "prefect" in school (how quaint and remote that sounds to me!) I
used to read out bible lessons at the morning assembly  once in a couple
of weeks or so as "The Lesson for the Day". One lesson contained the
lines "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit"

Not sure if Pakistanis etc are meek, but they shall certainly inherit. 

Science decreased death rates and increased life-spans, causing a
population explosion like never before. The same science responded to
that by decreasing birth rate.

It is almost as if science likes to deny death and will go so far as to
bar birth simply to prove that old age and death can be conquered.

How astoundingly stupid. Will not be surprised at all to see religion
come increasingly into conflict with science. Scientists have lost the
plot.

shiv

[silk] Any thoughts on the subject?

[Deepa Mohan]

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/the-shifting-shape-of-age-around-the-world/373638/


It's all very well to create these shapes...but what will they mean for us?

"A top-heavy rectangle is a poor foundation for a social safety net." says
the last line, but in a society like India's which does not have any social
safety net to begin with, what does that signify?

Deepa.