subject:"\[silk\] What is Indian culture\?"



  I don't see why being gifted a copy of the Bible represented such a major
 theological defeat; it's a book.
 
  Depending on which edition it is, and their quality and readability
 differs wildly, it's quite a readable book,  snip


 I agree and being presented a book is something I welcome.


I remember once being asked to attend a book discussion session by a
well-meaning father of a friend, when I was in high school in Hyderabad.

It quickly turned out to be a discussion of the Ramayana and the
Mahabharata and it was soon apparent that the session was less about
literary criticism and more about indoctrinating us kids with 'good Hindu
values'.

The older ones at the group were somewhat irritated because I insisted that
if science fiction and fantasy like the Ramayana and the Mahabharata were to
be talked about at a book discussion session then equal time should be
given to the works of Asimov and Robert Heinlein. My friend's dad was
particularly miffed at some statement where I praised the epic-writing and
myth-creation qualities of Tolkein and Frank Herbert over that of Valmiki.

That session ended in some disarray.

I was not invited back to the second one.

But there was no third. :-)

M

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-15 Thread Kiran K Karthikeyan

 Just idle speculation as I recover slowly from the trial of bringing a cranky 
 89-year-old home from hospital: have you tried telling these bozos that this 
 is not the version of the Bible you follow, and it is a fixed religious 
 principle of yours not to accept scripture that does not adhere to norms that 
 you do follow? Might lead to a most interesting donnybrook. If you ever try 
 it, or have the intention to, could I have video rights worldwide?

I did once and unfortunately not captured on video. This one started
off with I love Hindus for the family relationships they maintain and
their tolerance. It was quite a romp, partly due to my
indignation of being approached during the wedding of a friend's
sister. Two close friends of mine who were Muslims also added to the
fun. We had him fleeing for his life. But I must give him credit for
never losing his temper or reacting to what was a pretty brutal
assault. Next time, you can have the video rights :)

 On the other hand, if you haven't already read it, don't. I read one holy 
 book after constant needling and unnecessary provocation by Shiv, in order to 
 get ammunition to pulverise him, and it was not a happy experience. In fact, 
 it led to giving up the argument altogether.

Actually I did read it (Old and New Testament), as well as the Koran.
Due to similar provocation by close friends who would constantly
badger me with if you don't know about every religion and its
teachings, how can you say you don't believe in God. That said, Karma
Yoga in the Bhagavad Gita especially the translation/interpretation by
Swami Chinmayananda has been a constant companion. But the Gita also
suffers from many versions, most of them bad. The worst I've come
across the one by ISKCon/Bhaktivedanta Trust. There is a Krsna, the
supreme personality of godhead or something similar in every line and
it is the first and only book in my life which I bought and threw
away.

Kiran

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-15 Thread Bonobashi

--- On Sun, 15/3/09, Mahesh Murthy mahesh.mur...@gmail.com wrote:

 From: Mahesh Murthy mahesh.mur...@gmail.com
 Subject: Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?
 To: silklist@lists.hserus.net
 Date: Sunday, 15 March, 2009, 12:43 PM

   I don't see why being gifted a copy of the Bible
 represented such a major
  theological defeat; it's a book.

   Depending on which edition it is, and their
 quality and readability
  differs wildly, it's quite a readable book, 
 snip

  I agree and being presented a book is something I
 welcome.

 I remember once being asked to attend a book discussion
 session by a
 well-meaning father of a friend, when I was in high school
 in Hyderabad.

 It quickly turned out to be a discussion of the Ramayana
 and the
 Mahabharata and it was soon apparent that the session was
 less about
 literary criticism and more about indoctrinating us kids
 with 'good Hindu
 values'.

 The older ones at the group were somewhat irritated because
 I insisted that
 if science fiction and fantasy like the Ramayana and the
 Mahabharata were to
 be talked about at a book discussion session then equal
 time should be
 given to the works of Asimov and Robert Heinlein. My
 friend's dad was
 particularly miffed at some statement where I praised the
 epic-writing and
 myth-creation qualities of Tolkein and Frank Herbert over
 that of Valmiki.

 That session ended in some disarray.

 I was not invited back to the second one.

 But there was no third. :-)

 M

I think personally that that's a shame; the Mahabharata in particular is so 
readable. For a variety of reasons, some apparent on first acquaintance, the 
Ramayana somehow doesn't appeal; to have been killed after being pissed on is a 
terrible fate for a hero, the one for whom I was named, and put me off the book 
for ever. I suspect that this may also underly some political positions of mine.

As far as the MB is concerned, however, it's been a rich treasury which I've 
dipped into again and again, and never found tedious or boring. After very 
detailed and anatomically-obsessed sojourns into Homer's battle-scenes, the MB 
is a welcome relief. Some of the Scandinavian sagas are worth a revisit, for 
their dry wit and obvious links to bardic narration, and of course anyone who 
doesn't wallow in Monkey is a dried-up, desiccated has-been, but MB is still 
the baseline for comparison.

  Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to 
http://messenger.yahoo.com/invite/

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-15 Thread Kiran K Karthikeyan

 I remember once being asked to attend a book discussion session by a
 well-meaning father of a friend, when I was in high school in Hyderabad.

 It quickly turned out to be a discussion of the Ramayana and the
 Mahabharata and it was soon apparent that the session was less about
 literary criticism and more about indoctrinating us kids with 'good Hindu
 values'.

 The older ones at the group were somewhat irritated because I insisted that
 if science fiction and fantasy like the Ramayana and the Mahabharata were to
 be talked about at a book discussion session then equal time should be
 given to the works of Asimov and Robert Heinlein. My friend's dad was
 particularly miffed at some statement where I praised the epic-writing and
 myth-creation qualities of Tolkein and Frank Herbert over that of Valmiki.

 That session ended in some disarray.

 I was not invited back to the second one.

 But there was no third. :-)

It is quite a shame, particularly because you also put an end to
others learning from/appreciating the rich and far-reaching vision in
the Mahabharata. That somebody could have envisioned the creation of
life from a lump of organic matter (how the Kauravas were created in
jars of oil) so long ago is something I hold in much higher regard
than the works of Asimov (I have not read Heinlein). That said, the
laws of robotics coined by Asimov in the Foundation series apparently
has made contributions to the fields of AI and robotics.

In philosophy, none of the authors you mention I think have come close
to the Bhagvad Gita which is a part of the Mahabharata. Ramayana I did
not find of much value, though I have read abridged versions, not a
translation of the original text.

Kiran

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

 I think personally that that's a shame; the Mahabharata in particular is so
 readable.


It is, as epics go, especially when you compare it with Kalevala, Beowulf
and the like. I've tried several times to wade through each of those. The
slightly more contemporaneous Iliad and Odyssey fare better.

But when compared with more modern epics, MB has significant issues from
some basic perspectives: character story-arcs aren't tied up neatly, there
are many loose ends, and of course, the book-within-a-book with the Gita
being there.

My personal take still is that Dune / LOTR / the Lazarus Long chronicles are
more readable if you look at the set as works of epic fiction. I don't see
why these shouldn't reach similar or larger 'epic' proportions a few
millenia from now.

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

 It is quite a shame, particularly because you also put an end to snip


Oh I'm sure I put an end to nothing. :-)

No one lost out on appreciating the rich vision of Hindu epics because of
me. I believe people will appreciate whatever they have to, whenever they
have to.

Back then, I took serious umbrage to the group being called together under
the apparent aegis of a book discussion club - and then discovering that it
was subterfuge to hold a religious discussion instead, and that the only
books to be discussed would be the Ramayana, the MB, the Upanishads, Vedas
etc.

Disclosure of this at the invitation stage would have brought a more
interested, though smaller audience which would not have included me- or
many of my classmates and friends.

As it turned out, that was the audience that went to the second meet, and,
for whatever reason, the group did not meet a third time.

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-15 Thread Bonobashi

--- On Sun, 15/3/09, Mahesh Murthy mahesh.mur...@gmail.com wrote:

 From: Mahesh Murthy mahesh.mur...@gmail.com
 Subject: Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?
 To: silklist@lists.hserus.net
 Date: Sunday, 15 March, 2009, 1:32 PM
  It is quite a shame,
 particularly because you also put an end to snip

 Oh I'm sure I put an end to nothing. :-)

 No one lost out on appreciating the rich vision of Hindu
 epics because of
 me. I believe people will appreciate whatever they have to,
 whenever they
 have to.

 Back then, I took serious umbrage to the group being called
 together under
 the apparent aegis of a book discussion club - and then
 discovering that it
 was subterfuge to hold a religious discussion instead, and
 that the only
 books to be discussed would be the Ramayana, the MB, the
 Upanishads, Vedas
 etc.

 Disclosure of this at the invitation stage would have
 brought a more
 interested, though smaller audience which would not have
 included me- or
 many of my classmates and friends.

 As it turned out, that was the audience that went to the
 second meet, and,
 for whatever reason, the group did not meet a third time.

:-)

Agitprop is not exclusively communist any more.

  Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to 
http://messenger.yahoo.com/invite/

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-15 Thread Suresh Ramasubramanian

 I found some aspects of your reply interesting. It is surprising to
 read of these aggressive methods of 'spreading the good Lord's word';
 for a moment, I thought you live in Southern Baptist country.

Most of the ultra aggressive conversion / missionary types, as well as the 
extremely loud and offkey hallelujah singing types ARE Baptists, or Pentecost, 
or other such fringe sects.

And just because they are out there and actively converting (plus run half the 
TV channels and mass meetings where people get cured of everything from piles 
to cancer by amazing miracles and more off key singing) .. well, they get more 
converts, and these converts, having been converted the way they were, are a 
lot more visible in terms of nuisance value.

-srs

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-15 Thread Suresh Ramasubramanian

 suffers from many versions, most of them bad. The worst I've come
 across the one by ISKCon/Bhaktivedanta Trust. There is a Krsna, the
 supreme personality of godhead or something similar in every line and
 it is the first and only book in my life which I bought and threw
 away.

I had that one around too - the hindu equivalent of the southern Baptist and 
Pentecost loonies .. started off with some truly gifted bong and oriya poets 
though, like Jayadeva

Pity AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada quickly latched on to the commercial 
potential of a highly oversexed, super handsome godhead (how delightfully 
phallic, that) on a generation totally devoted to free weed and even freer sex.

George Harrison was one of his devotees.. out of the Mahesh yogi frying pan 
into the prabhupada fire, poor deluded schmuck.

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-15 Thread Suresh Ramasubramanian

Dune etc had the advantage of a single author. The Mahabharata is a huge 
accretion of tons of third party interpolations .. every single wannabe guru 
with a new message found it very convenient to tack on some verses where 
bhishma, krishna, arjuna etc said x was a good thing, or where shakuni did 
y, and you all know what a sticky end he met ..

Given that kind of third party meddling .. no wonder.  What you are saying is 
like taking all the fanfic and third party takeoffs on dune and calling it all 
frank herbert's work.

Mahesh Murthy wrote:

 But when compared with more modern epics, MB has significant issues
 from
 some basic perspectives: character story-arcs aren't tied up neatly,
 there
 are many loose ends, and of course, the book-within-a-book with the
 Gita
 being there.

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-15 Thread ss

On Friday 13 Mar 2009 10:51:54 pm Mahesh Murthy wrote:
 To start with, I never spoke of a change from conservative to less
 conservative. I spoke of life forms in general following a behavioural
 pattern that would not be termed conservative. I have not advocated a
 change either way. I do believe evolution will take its course in such
 matters too

Well then we are not talking about the same thing. What you say has little 
bearing on what I am trying to say.

Asking me to read up something is the same as not answering my question. 
Sorry - but I will drop it at that.

shiv

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 8:13 PM, ss cybers...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Friday 13 Mar 2009 10:29:34 pm Mahesh Murthy wrote:
  What you believe or not to be juvenile is irrelevant.
 
  Do get to the issue if you feel like, you've tried to distract enough :-)

 My sincere apologies - but I think your commenst about hand wringing and
 distress were unnecessary even if they were not directed at me.


Your apology is accepted.

Especially because the judgment whether comments were necessary or not isn't
quite part of your mandate here. To repeat, let's debate the issues, not the
debater or the style :-)


 I understand
 that you need to make such comments to calm yourself.


There seem to be significant and repeated issues with your comprehension of
various topics in this thread, so we'll do a +1 to that tally and leave it
at that :-)


 You really must try to
 calm yourself by sticking to the discussion.


+2 :-)



 I am going to stop this particular divesrion from the discussion here.


Wise!

Mahesh

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 8:02 PM, ss cybers...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Friday 13 Mar 2009 10:51:54 pm Mahesh Murthy wrote:
  To start with, I never spoke of a change from conservative to less
  conservative. I spoke of life forms in general following a behavioural
  pattern that would not be termed conservative. I have not advocated a
  change either way. I do believe evolution will take its course in such
  matters too

 Well then we are not talking about the same thing. What you say has little
 bearing on what I am trying to say.


Neither of us talked of changing from more to less conservative. You talked
of going the other way with your supposedly theoretical hypothesis that it's
better for the child if the Indian woman stays at home instead of going to
work.

It would then follow from your logic that your own submissions were
off-topic on your own thesis. :-)


 Asking me to read up something is the same as not answering my question.


It's a common online practice, even on this forum, to not spoon-feed, but to
point a questioner in the direction of resources that may answer his or her
question. While it's technically not the same as not answering the question,
it's typically a better process for both parties concerned. YMMV though.


 Sorry - but I will drop it at that.


Cheers!

Mahesh

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-14 Thread lukhman_khan

 Mahesh - this is actually a juvenile statement

 In fact that reveals more about you than me.

Argue against his arguments. Why attack the person?

Lets get back to our CiX days for this

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html

Lukhman.

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=Priest+admits+to+idol+worship+in+churchesartid=1WM/aO6Ec6I=SectionID=7GUA38txp3s=MainSectionID=7GUA38txp3s=SectionName=zkvyRoWGpmWSxZV2TGM5XQ==SEO=B%20K%20Somashekara

The Commission is inquiring into the recent attacks on churches in Karnataka.
“Hindus believe in idol worship. So to attract them to Christianity, idol 
worship is performed in churches,” Menengis said.

During cross-examination, the priest said that “despite idol worship being 
prohibited in Bible, we have idol worship in churches.” “The duty of every 
Christian is to convert non-Christians to Christianity by any means,” the 
priest told the commission.

St James Church was attacked by miscreants on September 21, 2008.
The church is running co-education institutions, with classes from first to 
eight standard.

During cross-examination the priest confessed that “no girl students are 
permitted to use kumkum, bangles and wear flowers. In our institution, we 
have moral science textbook

But it does not contain texts regarding Holy Bible and Jesus,” the priest 
added.

The commission has requested the priest to submit the textbook to it..

shiv

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-14 Thread Suresh Ramasubramanian

Interesting bit of nonsense here. Quality reporting (!) to be sure.

 -Original Message-
 From: silklist-bounces+suresh=hserus@lists.hserus.net
 [mailto:silklist-bounces+suresh=hserus@lists.hserus.net] On Behalf
 Of ss
 Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 10:06 PM
 To: silklist@lists.hserus.net
 Subject: Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

 http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=Priest+admits+to+id
 ol+worship+in+churchesartid=1WM/aO6Ec6I=SectionID=7GUA38txp3s=MainSe
 ctionID=7GUA38txp3s=SectionName=zkvyRoWGpmWSxZV2TGM5XQ==SEO=B%20K%20S
 omashekara

 The Commission is inquiring into the recent attacks on churches in
 Karnataka.
 “Hindus believe in idol worship. So to attract them to Christianity,
 idol
 worship is performed in churches,” Menengis said.

 During cross-examination, the priest said that “despite idol worship
 being
 prohibited in Bible, we have idol worship in churches.” “The duty of
 every
 Christian is to convert non-Christians to Christianity by any means,”
 the
 priest told the commission.

 St James Church was attacked by miscreants on September 21, 2008.
 The church is running co-education institutions, with classes from
 first to
 eight standard.

 During cross-examination the priest confessed that “no girl students
 are
 permitted to use kumkum, bangles and wear flowers. In our institution,
 we
 have moral science textbook

 But it does not contain texts regarding Holy Bible and Jesus,” the
 priest
 added.

 The commission has requested the priest to submit the textbook to it..

 shiv

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-14 Thread Kiran K Karthikeyan

Suresh,

2009/3/15 Suresh Ramasubramanian sur...@hserus.net

 Interesting bit of nonsense here. Quality reporting (!) to be sure.


I wouldn't dismiss it so easily. Churches in Kerala have long ago adoped the
nila-vilakku, a bronze lamp used in Hindu homes and religious ceremonies.
I've been to as many churches as temples so I'm not aware of any other
practices they have borrwed.

Though I do find it hard to believe that a priest would say something like

snip

“despite idol worship being prohibited in Bible, we have idol worship in
churches.” “The duty of every Christian is to convert non-Christians to
Christianity by any means,”

/snip

so openly, especially where there is press access. Sure-fire way to get
yourself excommunicated.

But my experience with Christian missionaries as well as Christian who seek
to spread the good Lord's word have been fairly abrasive - I've had to be
particularly rude to get them off my back. Somehow the mention that my
parents are Hindu and I'm an atheist heightens their enthusiasm. Once in a
while I used to humour them and there are quite a few of them waiting to go
to heaven for having converted me :)

We've also once had to rudely refuse family friends of ours offering us a
copy of the Bible. When we refused, they left it on the coffee table on
their way out and had to be reminded to pick it up. When my father was
hopitalised a year ago, our erstwhile neighbours who are Pentecostal
Christians organized a prayer meeting at their home - ostensibly to pray for
my father's health, but invited everybody non-Christian from the
neighbourhood (Hindus and Muslims). Nil attendance at that event made them
stick to I'll pray for you.  That said, we also have Christian family
friends who seek astrological advice and have horscopes checked before
marriage. It works both ways I guess.

Kiran

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

The reason I posted this news is the fact that wearing kumkum and flowers (and 
bangles??) seems to be considered Hindu culture, 

Catholics even in Europe and other places are accused of being idol 
worshippers anyway so the Indian twist is hardly new. Bangalore has dozens of  
flower and lamp decorated roadside Infant Jesus or Jesus and Mary shrines 
that are ditto copies of Hindu shrines that dot the city everywhere. This 
blends right in there with the Hindu reverence of the mother - the Amma as 
the goddess to worship.

Evangelism in India  (as per my reading) has taken the course of non 
resistance to local culture, both as active policy and as a result of 
individual priests themselves being that way. This is a double edged sword 
because in a sense it dilutes and makes the seeminlgy rigid ideology of the 
Vatican into a blend that is virtually indistinguishable from Hindu views on 
theism.

shiv


On Sunday 15 Mar 2009 6:32:44 am Kiran K Karthikeyan wrote:
 Suresh,

 2009/3/15 Suresh Ramasubramanian sur...@hserus.net

  Interesting bit of nonsense here. Quality reporting (!) to be sure.

 I wouldn't dismiss it so easily. Churches in Kerala have long ago adoped
 the nila-vilakku, a bronze lamp used in Hindu homes and religious
 ceremonies. I've been to as many churches as temples so I'm not aware of
 any other practices they have borrwed.

 Though I do find it hard to believe that a priest would say something like

 snip

 “despite idol worship being prohibited in Bible, we have idol worship in
 churches.” “The duty of every Christian is to convert non-Christians to
 Christianity by any means,”

 /snip

 so openly, especially where there is press access. Sure-fire way to get
 yourself excommunicated.

 But my experience with Christian missionaries as well as Christian who seek
 to spread the good Lord's word have been fairly abrasive - I've had to be
 particularly rude to get them off my back. Somehow the mention that my
 parents are Hindu and I'm an atheist heightens their enthusiasm. Once in a
 while I used to humour them and there are quite a few of them waiting to go
 to heaven for having converted me :)

 We've also once had to rudely refuse family friends of ours offering us a
 copy of the Bible. When we refused, they left it on the coffee table on
 their way out and had to be reminded to pick it up. When my father was
 hopitalised a year ago, our erstwhile neighbours who are Pentecostal
 Christians organized a prayer meeting at their home - ostensibly to pray
 for my father's health, but invited everybody non-Christian from the
 neighbourhood (Hindus and Muslims). Nil attendance at that event made them
 stick to I'll pray for you.  That said, we also have Christian family
 friends who seek astrological advice and have horscopes checked before
 marriage. It works both ways I guess.

 Kiran

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-14 Thread Charles Haynes

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 1:07 PM, ss cybers...@gmail.com wrote:
 The reason I posted this news is the fact that wearing kumkum and flowers (and
 bangles??) seems to be considered Hindu culture,

Possibly, but it might just have been considered un-Christian
depending on the particular sect of Christianity. It might just be
called vanity and un-Christian as such. (The prohibition on bangles in
particular inclines me towards this as a possible interpretation.)

There was a time when European Christians considered it vain to bathe
too often. Japanese woodcuts during the era of first contact sometimes
depict westerners with flies flying around them because the Japanese
considered them to have such a bad smell.

-- Charles

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

On Sunday 15 Mar 2009 8:18:27 am Charles Haynes wrote:
 There was a time when European Christians considered it vain to bathe
 too often. Japanese woodcuts during the era of first contact sometimes
 depict westerners with flies flying around them because the Japanese
 considered them to have such a bad smell.

This is interesting information. Could the vanity part have been because 
only the richest could afford to bathe often in those times and the Church 
was catering to the (unwashed) faithful?

As a twenty something man my father was travelling to Europe (in 1945) en 
route to the US for a PhD. It turned out that he was put on, of all ships, 
the Queen Elizabeth, which doubled up as a troop carrier for US GIs returning 
after the war that had just ended.

The first morning a woman (a chambermaid?) asked my father if he  would like 
to bathe - and being Indian and Brahmin he said yes instantly, after which 
the woman readied a huge tub of hot water for him. The next morning the woman 
failed to turn up and when my father caught up with her and asked her to 
ready a bath she asked What? Again?. I'm not sure how much my father got to 
bathe on the journey after that.

In the mid-1980s I saw a news item in  British newspaper in the UK claiming 
that British teenagers on average had more baths per week than French 
teenagers. The news would be laughable to the average Indian Brahmin because 
a bath (or at least personal washing in flowing water)  is considered 
essential every day.

But  if you lived in the UK a couple of centuries or more ago - you would have 
to be wealthy enough to obtain fuel for heating water to bathe, and this 
factor is often not understood by obsevers who speak of dirty foreigners. 
On the positive side - you don;t perspire much in those temperate climes.

Bathing in water at the ambient temperature in the UK is just not on. As for 
me personally - the only time I manged to consider it OK to jump into the sea 
in the UK was one early September aftrenoon when the air temperature was 
warm. but the North Sea was freezing cold to me - a far cry from the warm 
currents off Pondicherry where I spent ecstatic hours in the sea.

How the Japanese got past this - I don't know  maybe they have enough hot 
springs.

I wonder who invented the shower - which I believe is one of the greatest 
hygiene related inventions ever.

shiv

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-14 Thread Suresh Ramasubramanian

 This is interesting information. Could the vanity part have been
 because only the richest could afford to bathe often in those times and the
 Church was catering to the (unwashed) faithful?

Even the rich - bishops, kings and such - didn’t bathe. 

 I wonder who invented the shower - which I believe is one of the
 greatest hygiene related inventions ever.

Someone called shower, if Thomas Crapper's example fits the bill.

srs (who got some email once from a Frenchman called Lecrapper)

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-14 Thread Andre Uratsuka Manoel

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 1:05 AM, ss cybers...@gmail.com wrote:

 This is interesting information. Could the vanity part have been because
 only the richest could afford to bathe often in those times and the Church
 was catering to the (unwashed) faithful?

Maybe. Europeans who first came to Brazil found Brazilian, errr,
indians' habit of bathing everyday weird. A friend of my father's used
to tell how in his childhood his italian father wouldn't bath with the
rest of the family before church because bath was for unclean
people. The bath the family took was taken by people reusing the
water from a bathtub.

 How the Japanese got past this - I don't know  maybe they have enough hot
 springs.

As a non-practicing Japanese Brazilian, I can tell furo was very
culturally important. My family was not very connected to Japanese
culture, but even so, my mom thought it was important for us to have a
furo at home, even though we rarely used it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customs_and_etiquette_of_Japan#Bathing

I think they also had public bath houses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sent%C5%8D


Andre

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

On Sunday 15 Mar 2009 9:48:49 am Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
 Even the rich - bishops, kings and such - didn’t bathe.

I had an argument about a related topic recently with a person who insisted 
that Hindus are clean because they bathe every day. I tried to point out that 
if you select 1000 Hindus from around where I live and include people like 
our gardener, the chap who washes my car, the local chowkidars and others - 
one will find that most do not bathe every day simply because they do not 
have the facilities to do that, living as they do in one room hovels with no 
toilet or bath.

The difference between the wealthy and the poor could be that the wealthy can 
afford to bathe daily, but can choose not to do that. That choice does not 
exist for the poor.

Be that as it may it is interesting that this discussion has thrown up two 
opposing (cultural?) concepts

1) He who bathes every day is clean
2) He who needs to bathe is unclean

:D


shiv

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-13 Thread Ingrid

so, do the religious/ethical/moral aspects of culture exist/evolve to
counteract biological impulses/instincts that are hazardous to the prevalent
social hierarchy?

do they serve any other purpose?

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-13 Thread Udhay Shankar N

ss wrote, [on 3/13/2009 5:32 PM]:

 Mahesh - this is actually a juvenile statement because you don't know where I 
 am coming from but you reveal where you are coming from.
 
 Regardless of whether I am sexually conservative or liberal I have a 
 viewpoint.
 
 I  suspect that you feel it is oh so cool to push for free sex and frequent 
 change of partners while talking as if those who are more conservative are 
 somehow troubled by your implied (and cool)  sexual liberalism. The mood of 
 the conservatives is important to you.
 
 In fact that reveals more about you than me. 

Can we move the discussion back to ideas rather than people, please?
This is too close to Ad Hominem for my comfort.

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

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

On Friday 13 Mar 2009 9:51:05 am Mahesh Murthy wrote:
  I can imagine that this must be severely distressing to most sexually
 conservative folks.


Mahesh - this is actually a juvenile statement because you don't know where I 
am coming from but you reveal where you are coming from.

Regardless of whether I am sexually conservative or liberal I have a 
viewpoint.

I  suspect that you feel it is oh so cool to push for free sex and frequent 
change of partners while talking as if those who are more conservative are 
somehow troubled by your implied (and cool)  sexual liberalism. The mood of 
the conservatives is important to you.

In fact that reveals more about you than me. 

The impression you want to make about your views on sexuality seems to be 
dependent on my appearing like a distressed hand wringing conservative in 
comparison to you. You seem to think that if I wring my hands and am 
distresed it will buttress your case as a spokeperson for sexual liberalism. 
Are you tyring to make an oblique advertisement about your own sexuality 
while talking about mine? 

I put it to you that you know less about free sex, sex outside of marriage or 
frequent changes of sexual partners than you claim to know. Perhaps that is 
why you take so much trouble to second guess my own sexual history and try to 
pin a particular mood on me in response to your  views. As long as you talk 
about me and my conservatism and imagined discomfort at your liberalism  - 
you can pretend to know a lot - since the topic stays off what seems to be 
your obvious sexual inexperience. 

But I can say this much for myself - I practise what I talk about. It is clear 
that your abiilty to talk about changes in sexual partners exceeds any 
practical experience. 

Now go ahead and have fun at those of us who remain faithful to one partner 
while we wring our hands in distress.

If you want to be seen as a sexually liberated man - what is needed is less 
mocking of perceived sexual conservatives and a lot more crumpet. I can see 
you are very keen. The words enthu cultlet come to mind  :). 

Chillax boss. Conservative ol' me getting irritated by your views on sexuality 
does not count as sexual experience on your CV unless you are really kinky.


shiv

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-13 Thread Charles Haynes

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 11:02 PM, ss cybers...@gmail.com wrote:

 I put it to you that you know less about free sex, sex outside of marriage or
 frequent changes of sexual partners than you claim to know. Perhaps that is
 why you take so much trouble to second guess my own sexual history and try to
 pin a particular mood on me in response to your  views. As long as you talk
 about me and my conservatism and imagined discomfort at your liberalism  -
 you can pretend to know a lot - since the topic stays off what seems to be
 your obvious sexual inexperience.

It seems to me the claim that the sexually inexperienced should not
argue about sexual mores is roughly the same as saying that someone
who's never been to Pakistan should not try to discuss Pakistani
mores.

-- Charles

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

On Friday 13 Mar 2009 5:11:14 pm Ingrid wrote:
 so, do the religious/ethical/moral aspects of culture exist/evolve to
 counteract biological impulses/instincts that are hazardous to the
 prevalent social hierarchy?


I don't think morality necessarily counteracts biological impulses/instincts. 
Morality aims to modulate biological impulses.

Not having children by using contraceptives counteracts one biological 
function but serves to encourage the bonobo in us - sex for fun

Did you know that at least one senior RSS person has urged people to have more 
and more children and I am constantly told that Islamic zealots make exactly 
the same appeal.  The argument is that not having children leads to a 
depletion of population of young people with a blowback to be expected in 
future when:

a) there will not be enough young people
b) Someone else will reproduce and fill the vacuum left by your kind

This take on morality demands sex without contraceptives, which basically 
reduces the fun factor for woman while not interfering with the man's fun all 
that much. 


 do they serve any other purpose?

No. None that I can think of.


shiv

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Udhay Shankar N ud...@pobox.com wrote:

 ss wrote, [on 3/13/2009 5:32 PM]:

  Mahesh - this is actually a juvenile statement because you don't know
 where I
  am coming from but you reveal where you are coming from.


I said that a particular instance would be distressing to sexually
conservative folks.

It's a self-selecting statement and would only apply to people who classify
themselves as such, and not to people who don't.

Nothing was ad hominem.


 
  Regardless of whether I am sexually conservative or liberal I have a
  viewpoint.


And it is viewpoints we have been arguing upon, and nothing else.


 
  I  suspect that you feel it is oh so cool to push for free sex and
 frequent
  change of partners while talking as if those who are more conservative
 are
  somehow troubled by your implied (and cool)  sexual liberalism. The
 mood of
  the conservatives is important to you.
 


Gosh, there we go with the free sex bit again. :-)

For the record, not once have I stated or implied a preference for free sex.
Or for that matter, for paid sex either. :-)

To repeat, I have clearly stated that I believe there is a large area in the
middle between the opposite extremes of fidelity and free communal sex
that most creatures exist in.

Coolness, liberalism, the price of fish and the GDP of North Korea didn't
come into it.




  In fact that reveals more about you than me.


 Not that I have very much to hide :-)



 Can we move the discussion back to ideas rather than people, please?
 This is too close to Ad Hominem for my comfort.


Lead on, Obi-wan!


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

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

On Friday 13 Mar 2009 5:54:39 pm Charles Haynes wrote:
 It seems to me the claim that the sexually inexperienced should not
 argue about sexual mores is roughly the same as saying that someone
 who's never been to Pakistan should not try to discuss Pakistani
 mores.

Wrong analogy. You need to rethink that one.

Not knowing about Pakistan is not a disability, but making a judgement about 
another person's knowledge of Pakistan based on arbitrary conditions is an 
error.

Not being sexually experienced is not a disability, but making a judgement of 
another person's sexual experience and mood based on arbitrary conditions is 
equally an error.

And this is a game that two can play.


shiv

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?


 snip
 Are you tyring to make an oblique advertisement about your own sexuality
 while talking about mine?


Wow :-)

And I thought subliminal advertising was dead and gone among us advertising
folks :-)



 I put it to you that you know less about free sex, sex outside of marriage
 or
 frequent changes of sexual partners than you claim to know.


Perhaps, I do, Sire, perhaps I don't :-) But it's largely irrelevant either
way.

We discussed issues where you had an opportunity to counter fact with fact,
which you somehow sidestepped at almost every instance.

Nevertheless, the opportunity still exists, please do display said
knowledge/expertise. But do keep it in the realm of issues and away from
personal comment, if you can.

If I recall, you prefaced much of your hypothesis that started it all with
words to the effect of I don't necessarily believe what I am saying here,
but let's have a discussion about it anyway.

And now you're getting all antsy about what you said as though you actually
deeply believe it all and it's some sort of affront to find disagreement
with your once-hypothetical point of view.

It doesn't compute. Am happy to get back on track if you are :-)

Perhaps that is
 why you take so much trouble to second guess my own sexual history snip


I am curious about many things. But this is just not one of those things.
:-)


 snip since the topic stays off what seems to be
 your obvious sexual inexperience.


The topic was never on my sexual inexperience. Admittedly, little can be
said about this :-)



 But I can say this much for myself - I practise what I talk about. It is
 clear
 that your abiilty to talk about changes in sexual partners exceeds any
 practical experience.


Gosh! Now how on earth could this be apparent ?;-)



 Now go ahead and have fun at those of us who remain faithful to one partner
 while we wring our hands in distress.


Dude, it was a discussion :-)

Fidelity, like one's choice of religion / favourite ice cream flavour /
sci-fi author / shoelace-tying style / etcetera is a personal choice. I
think a fundamental basic here is that we respect personal choice.

Things start getting hairy when you impute said personal choice to all of
humanity / life on earth / members of this forum, and then impute mockery to
those who don't agree with your personal choice. That seems like someone's
playing the victim, and, juvenile virgin though I may seem to be, I'm too
old for fall for that one :-)

Please do expect such generalisations / imputation to not be taken without
comment or debate. Disagreement with your personal choice as it applies to
those other than you (like me, for instance) is not mockery. It's debate.




 If you want to be seen as a sexually liberated man - what is needed is less
 mocking of perceived sexual conservatives and a lot more crumpet. I can see
 you are very keen. The words enthu cultlet come to mind  :).


I have no particular need to be seen as anything.

I had a particular need though to take issue with your enthusiastic, eager
(and supposedly hypothetical) generalisations about Indian womanhood,
marriage, global family values and fidelity. :-)


 Chillax boss. Conservative ol' me getting irritated by your views on
 sexuality
 does not count as sexual experience on your CV unless you are really kinky.


Shiv, you're cute.

But not THAT way :-)


My $0.02,

Mahesh

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

Pakistan! Free Sex! Womanhood! Family values! Hand-wringing distress!
Folks, we have ourselves a full-fledged formula movie here!

Cue A R Rahman... :-)



 It seems to me the claim that the sexually inexperienced should not

  argue about sexual mores is roughly the same as saying that someone
  who's never been to Pakistan should not try to discuss Pakistani
  mores.

 Wrong analogy. You need to rethink that one.

 Not knowing about Pakistan is not a disability, but making a judgement
 about
 another person's knowledge of Pakistan based on arbitrary conditions is an
 error.

 Not being sexually experienced is not a disability, but making a judgement
 of
 another person's sexual experience and mood based on arbitrary conditions
 is
 equally an error.

 And this is a game that two can play.


 shiv

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-13 Thread Charles Haynes

On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Mahesh Murthy mahesh.mur...@gmail.com wrote:
 Pakistan! Free Sex! Womanhood! Family values! Hand-wringing distress!
 Folks, we have ourselves a full-fledged formula movie here!

You left out decadent westerners and their values trying to corrupt
good hearted Hindus but being confounded by the virtue of the
Ramayana.

-- Charles

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

Damn! Crossover global hit!

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Charles Haynes charles.hay...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Mahesh Murthy mahesh.mur...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  Pakistan! Free Sex! Womanhood! Family values! Hand-wringing distress!
  Folks, we have ourselves a full-fledged formula movie here!

 You left out decadent westerners and their values trying to corrupt
 good hearted Hindus but being confounded by the virtue of the
 Ramayana.

 -- Charles

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-13 Thread Cory Doctorow

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Did someone call?

Charles Haynes wrote:
 On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Mahesh Murthy mahesh.mur...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 Pakistan! Free Sex! Womanhood! Family values! Hand-wringing distress!
 Folks, we have ourselves a full-fledged formula movie here!
 
 You left out decadent westerners and their values trying to corrupt
 good hearted Hindus but being confounded by the virtue of the
 Ramayana.
 
 -- Charles
 
- --
Cory Doctorow
docto...@craphound.com

blog: boingboing.net
vanity: craphound.com
podcast: feeds.feedburner.com/doctorow_podcast
Content (Essays): http://craphound.com/content
Free novel: Little Brother: craphound.com/littlebrother
Free graphic novel: http://craphound.com/?p=2079
Free novel: Someone Comes to Town: craphound.com/someone
Free novel: Eastern Standard Tribe: craphound.com/est
Free novel: Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom: craphound.com/down
Free stories: Overclocked: craphound.com/overclocked
Free stories: A Place So Foreign: craphound.com/place

Join my mailing list and find out about upcoming books, stories,
articles and appearances:

http://www.ctyme.com/mailman/listinfo/doctorow

READ CAREFULLY. By reading this email, you agree, on behalf of your
employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from
any and all NON-NEGOTIATED  agreements, licenses, terms-of-service,
shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure,
non-compete and acceptable use policies (BOGUS AGREEMENTS) that I have
entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and
assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and
privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release
me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkm6XU4ACgkQkCbbvh/CN6+MqACgvSxTsxFZ5YJ9lgVNYu+9ibPJ
hGYAoJQl57ABPznL7Qno4jaFKcfan325
=c0XK
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-13 Thread Suresh Ramasubramanian


Cory Doctorow [13/03/09 13:19 +]:

Did someone call?


And how did the ramayana confound you, cory?

That I've got to see ..

srs


Charles Haynes wrote:

You left out decadent westerners and their values trying to corrupt
good hearted Hindus but being confounded by the virtue of the
Ramayana.

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

On Friday 13 Mar 2009 6:02:32 pm Mahesh Murthy wrote:
 To repeat, I have clearly stated that I believe there is a large area in
 the middle between the opposite extremes of fidelity and free communal
 sex that most creatures exist in.

 Coolness, liberalism, the price of fish and the GDP of North Korea didn't
 come into it.

Tanks for the clarification. I presume you are no longer  concerned about 
other peripheral issues like conservative people who may be distressed or 
wringing their hands.

Let me first point out that human morality is an artificial construct designed 
by humans for other humans.

While I agree that a large area exists describing sexual behavior of most 
creatures, I reiterate that human morality as traditionally practised (by 
the conservatives whom you speak of) demands the restriction of human 
sexuality to a small area out of that large area that you describe.

Humans, being human alone (a single species), do not represent most 
creatures . Human sexuality covers a wide area, but morality has attempted 
to reduce that sexuality to a smallish area. I believe that the restriction 
of human sexuality to a smallish area by the superimposition of morality has 
had certain survival benefits for humankind.

The hypothesis that human sexuality would occupy as large an area as that 
occupied by most creatures if unrestricted by certain types of morality is a 
declaration that I cannot prove or disprove. However there is no evidence to 
say that changing human morality to allow human sexuality to occupy a larger 
area is better or worse for humans in the long term. 

But the lack of evidence does not stop me from having an opinion. My opinion 
is that changing morality to allow human sexuality to occupy a wider area 
would be detrimental to human society in the long term. 

I believe morality itself has had evolutionary effects on human society and 
sexual morality has actually has beneficial effects. Hence I believe that the 
sexual morality demanded by marriage and fidelity are beneficial.

These are my views. You don't have to agree.

shiv

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

On Friday 13 Mar 2009 6:35:26 pm Mahesh Murthy wrote:
 If I recall, you prefaced much of your hypothesis that started it all with
 words to the effect of I don't necessarily believe what I am saying here,
 but let's have a discussion about it anyway.

 And now you're getting all antsy about what you said as though you actually
 deeply believe it all and it's some sort of affront to find disagreement
 with your once-hypothetical point of view.

The problem as far as I can see is the effect this discussion is having on you 
making you speak of actions like hand wringing, or people 
being distressed or my being antsy (whatever that means). Your 
imagination of my emotions and actions, or that of anyone else have no 
bearing on the issue - considering that I have consistently stuck to saying 
what I feel without worrying about or diverting the subject to the emotions 
felt by people who read what i write.

Why is it that you need to divert attention from the subject and refer to 
mysterious hand wringing and distress caused to conservatives and 
my antsy behavior?

These are completely peripheral to the discussion and in all cases you brought 
up the subject and you need to figure out why you keep doing that.

shiv

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?


 Tanks for the clarification. I presume you are no longer  concerned about
 other peripheral issues like conservative people who may be distressed or
 wringing their hands.


Distressed people (conservative or otherwise) are known to wring their
hands. And it's quite reasonable of me to mention so.

Why you choose to take this as an observation of your personal state of
being is somewhat beyond me. My email reader is not equipped with a video
camera. :-)

snip  I reiterate that human morality as traditionally practised (by
 the conservatives whom you speak of) demands the restriction of human
 sexuality to a small area out of that large area that you describe.


Human morality as practiced by the majority of humans who are by observation
non-conservatives does so very differently.

It is perfectly reasonable for each party to hence see the other as immoral.
But these are relative value judgments, not absolute ones and hence
unimportant.


 snip

Human sexuality covers a wide area, but morality has attempted
 to reduce that sexuality to a smallish area.


Again, conservative human morality has done so. Certainly not all human
morality. And not most human morality.

I believe that the restriction
 of human sexuality to a smallish area by the superimposition of morality
 has
 had certain survival benefits for humankind.


I don't believe so.

And I have endeavoured to prove the opposite, with evolutionary, statistical
and other evidence.

I am yet to see any evidence presented by you to support this claim you
make.


 snip

However there is no evidence to
 say that changing human morality to allow human sexuality to occupy a
 larger
 area is better or worse for humans in the long term.


No one can predict the future. But we all make reasonable predictions, based
on how large samples have behaved in the past. That is what I was doing.

Again, I see no counter-evidence to point to a different or better future if
this conservative morality axiom of fidelity was followed.



 But the lack of evidence does not stop me from having an opinion. My
 opinion
 is that changing morality to allow human sexuality to occupy a wider area
 would be detrimental to human society in the long term.


My opinion is the opposite. And I offered some observations on the behaviour
of large-sized samples across large-duration periods to back my opinion.

You're right - opinion doesn't absolutely need to be backed by evidence. But
it is useful to have some if you venture out on a forum brandishing your
opinion and pitting it against other opinions which may be backed by
evidence of some sort.

Else, one might have to descend to ad hominem...wait a minute... :-)


 I believe morality itself has had evolutionary effects on human society and
 sexual morality has actually has beneficial effects.


I believe so too. But a vastly different morality than the conservative one
you talk of.


 Hence I believe that the
 sexual morality demanded by marriage and fidelity are beneficial.


While you have every right to say so, it does not logically follow from your
above statements. It does not compute :-)



 These are my views. You don't have to agree.


I have tried to show why :-)

My $0.02,

Mahesh

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

 The problem as far as I can see is the effect this discussion is having on
 you
 making you speak of actions like hand wringing, or people
 being distressed


The discussion, if you must know, is having an amused, calming effect on me.
:-)

I have explained before that distressed people are known to wring hands. If
this is not you, you really shouldn't be worried :-)


 or my being antsy (whatever that means).


this http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antsy.


 Your
 imagination of my emotions and actions snip


Why the persecution complex, dude? :-) Focus on the discussion, not on
imagined slights :-)



 considering that I have consistently stuck to saying
 what I feel without worrying about or diverting the subject to the emotions
 felt by people who read what i write.


So you apparently have a different style. Okay. So? :-)


Mahesh

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

On Friday 13 Mar 2009 7:39:51 pm Mahesh Murthy wrote:
 The discussion, if you must know, is having an amused, calming effect on
 me.

 :-)

 I have explained before that distressed people are known to wring hands. If
 this is not you, you really shouldn't be worried

I think that you are merely using the topic of someone elses emotion to 
buttress your viewpoint in a triumphalist manner - as if to say ha ha

This is what I believe is juvenile - because that is an action that is often 
used in internet discussions to divert from opinions to emotions.

It is a data point for me to note that you need to resort to this and justify 
it by saying that it calms you. That I will agree with - I think you do need 
to resort to triumphalist comments to calm yourself.

But that is not necessary. one can actually conduct a civilised discussion 
without triumphalism and statements abiout other participants state of mine. 
Now don't be angry with me for saying that. :)

shiv

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

On Friday 13 Mar 2009 7:32:57 pm Mahesh Murthy wrote:
 I don't believe so.

 And I have endeavoured to prove the opposite, with evolutionary,
 statistical and other evidence.

Could I ask you to point me to the message or messages in which you have 
provided statistical and evolutionary evidence that a change of human 
morality from more conservative to less consrvative has a long term survival 
benefit for humans.

I think I missed it while I was being antsy.

shiv

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?



 This is what I believe is juvenile -


What you believe or not to be juvenile is irrelevant.

Do get to the issue if you feel like, you've tried to distract enough :-)

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?


 Could I ask you to point me to the message or messages in which you have
 provided statistical and evolutionary evidence that a change of human
 morality from more conservative to less consrvative has a long term
 survival
 benefit for humans.

 I think I missed it while I was being antsy.


Glad to help. This happened long before the antsiness started. :-)

To start with, I never spoke of a change from conservative to less
conservative. I spoke of life forms in general following a behavioural
pattern that would not be termed conservative. I have not advocated a change
either way. I do believe evolution will take its course in such matters too
:D

It was you that postulated, apparently hypothetically, the need for change
to some family values that would justify, among other things, fidelity and
the need for the Indian woman to stay at home etc.

Anyway:

Do poke through the archives to find a link to a book by a pair of
monogamous biologists. Do go there. You can even read key parts of the book
online if you like. There are dozens of scientific studies referenced there.
Feel free to track down each.

Also read about the evolutionarily indicated need for a mix of stability
(search for the word nest in this thread) and for strong genes.

Search here for the phrase dispersion of parentage - there are a couple of
posts on it, with data. Google for said data.

Do read up - or read about, at least, Margaret Mead and what she wrote about
- it was mentioned here too.

Refer Ingrid's post on the proof of maternity / paternity.

Refer your apparent agreement with said theory after said data was
presented: perhaps the following phrase could dredge up some memories: The
theory sounds compelling and deserves to be considered as a close
approximation of reality

Also, it'd be nice, after you do all of this, to come back with any evidence
you might have that stacks up against any of the above: that supports your
curious contention that fidelity is evolutionarily indicated.

Yes, you have expressed that you really feel this ought to be true, but I'm
sure we can get beyond feelings to something a wee bit more scientific that
would stand up to some sort of non-feelings-based scrutiny. :-)

Regards,

My $0.02

Mahesh

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-12 Thread ss

On Thursday 12 Mar 2009 11:49:50 am Mahesh Murthy wrote:

 Even today, most talk of fidelity seems to emanate from those who were
 brought up in Christian / Islamic backgrounds of convent schools or
 madrassas,

I love your sense of humor. 


 Per most available evidence, alpha males do not demand fidelity from their
 female partners - just the right to access them as and when they feel like.

No they do not demand fidelity but they do not allow any other males to have 
sex with their females. If there is a a difference  please tell me.


  Even with all this I think one in five primate species are apparently
  mainly
  monoogamous

 Again, there is no evidence that suggest this is true. Primates are
 furiously polygamous.

 I am also specifically not sure what mainly monogamous means. Is that
 something like marginally virginal or almost pregnant?

You are speaking of individuals in reponse to an observation about groups.

I am referring to groups, not individuals. There are species that are 
primarily monogamous but observations show that members of the species are 
not invariably monogamous. Some members are and some are not. In some 
species - most appear monogamous but not 100 percent


  which suggests that there may be some survival advantages in
  monogamy.

The evidence you have provided to me does not convince me - but by all means 
hold on to your opinion on this matter. I will hold mine until I see 
convincing data to the contrary.


 Let's not confuse marriage with fidelity.

 One does not need to exist for the other to. In fact, data suggests that
 they rarely, if ever co-exist.

 From an evolutionary point of view, the most indicated construct that
 successful species follow is marriage without fidelity.


Marriage means fidelity by definition, during the duration of that marriage. 
By saying Lets not confuse marriage with fidelity you are fudging the 
definition of marriage. Marriage too is an instituton that has evolved over 
time in human societies. It might not be perfect, but I think you are jumping 
the gun in dismissing it for reasons that suit your viewpoint.


  we must accept that fidelity is an
 aberration,

You are choosing to interpret the facts you write to suit your viewpoint. That 
is quite alright except that you fail to view the same data in another way. 
Fidelity to one partner is maintained after mating in many species. While the 
female is pregnant or bringing up young from one male she does not randomly 
mate with other males, and the male himself is often around to eliminate that 
possibility. That is fidelity. You can call it marrage too. What happens 
later is comparable to divorce followed by remarriage.

It is certainly not free communal sex in which males are randomly mating and 
impregnating any available female and females are randomly available for 
mating whether or not they are carrying children from other males. 

The facts you have yourself noted seem to indicate that animals marry, stay 
married for a bit, then divorce and remarry someone else. The only question 
is whether such a scheme or repeated marriage, divorce and remarriage is 
advantageous to human adult males, females and children. I am saying that it 
probably is not and nothing you have said seems to contradict this view.

The animal model of multiple serial marriages followed by divorce is 
unsuitable for humans. And most animals, unlike humans, do not attempt to 
indulge in, allow or justify free communal sex all year round. Please don't 
tell me about Bonobos though.

shiv

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-12 Thread Radhika, Y.

what about the effect of victorian england on hindu mores regarding
sexuality? surely this would have disturbed the continuum?

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 4:06 AM, Mahesh Murthy mahesh.mur...@gmail.comwrote:

I love your sense of humor.

Inadvertant, but always glad to entertain :-)

No they do not demand fidelity but they do not allow any other males to
have
sex with their females. If there is a a difference please tell me.

The females are *already* nesting with other males. Alpha males don't stop
them from doing so or indeed from continuing to nest and have sexual
relationships with their nest-providers. They merely continue to access
these nesting females - (actually it's the other way around - the females
access them) - at will. The females may adopt subterfuge to do this so
their
current nest-partners don't savvy up to it, but they still do so.

I am referring to groups, not individuals. There are species that are
primarily monogamous but observations show that members of the species
are
not invariably monogamous. Some members are and some are not. In some
species - most appear monogamous but not 100 percent

If you were to look at numbers, whether from an individual or group or any
other convenient point of view as long as you subscribe to
commonly-accepted
mathematical and statistical notions of the word most, the opposite is
more accurate: most appear polygamous, but not 100%. I will refer
you here
http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Monogamy-Fidelity-Infidelity-Animals/dp/0805071369/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8s=booksqid=1236853661sr=1-21
among
a multitude of other places if you'd like some data.

Marriage means fidelity by definition, during the duration of that
marriage.

Oh, absolutely not. As we have said so earlier, this is true only in
Christian and Islamic societies or in individuals trained in such Christian
/ Islamic concepts through school or upbringing, who are a minority on this
planet.

Legally this may also be true in many societies that have derived their
laws
from Christian / Islamic societies. Indian law, derived from British law,
may define infidelity as a reason to end marriage - but Indian society by
large does not, and more relevantly, has never done so in the past.

By saying Lets not confuse marriage with fidelity you are fudging the
definition of marriage.

I am not. I am clarifying it. You are defining marriage as only 15% of
humans on earth would. For the other 85%, marriage is togetherness without
the encumbrance of fidelity.

Marriage too is an instituton that has evolved over
time in human societies. It might not be perfect, but I think you are
jumping
the gun in dismissing it for reasons that suit your viewpoint.

The discussion was not about perfect or imperfect marriages. And I do not
dismiss marriage.

I distinguish and dismiss fidelity as an institution of significant value.
To repeat, the most evolutionarily preferred state of being is marriage
unencumbered by fidelity. If you follow the thread of logic closely, you
will find that no firearm has been pole-vaulted. :-)

You are choosing to interpret the facts you write to suit your viewpoint.

Only inasmuch as that I am interpreting the observation of water boiling to
form a viewpoint that H2 O can remain in multiple physical states. Science
is about observations and inference - and you may claim that all inferences
are personal and hence all science is non-objective and judgemental. This
is
a specious line of reasoning.

That
is quite alright except that you fail to view the same data in another
way.
Fidelity to one partner is maintained after mating in many species.

Nope, it is not. Again, subject to reasonable mathematical and statistical
definitions of the word many. Though I note that you may choose to
re-define English at will here.

While the
female is pregnant or bringing up young from one male she does not
randomly
mate with other males, and the male himself is often around to eliminate
that
possibility. That is fidelity.

Perhaps you have not followed the line of debate. One talked of the
evolutionary need for infidelity for species to procreate and create
offspring with a higher chance of survival. Once a female is pregnant, the
deed is done and sex during pregnancy, if any, is recreational. As is
post-partum sex.

Once again, it is not just the alpha male that raids the nesting females
here - but the females who seek out the alpha males and all subsequent acts
are co-volitional.

You can call it marrage too. What happens
later is comparable to divorce followed by remarriage.

Convenient. So now we define a female having sex with seven males in a week
as a female getting married 7 times and divorced six times. Reminds one of
the modus operandi or legal justification of prostitution in Afghanistan
:-).

It is certainly not free communal sex in which males are randomly mating
and

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Mahesh Murthy mahesh.mur...@gmail.com wrote:

 You do have this bugbear about free, communal sex :-)

 Wonder why :-) Worry not, we all missed out on the age of Aquarius :-)

Speak for yourself.

-- Charles

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Mahesh Murthy mahesh.mur...@gmail.com wrote:

 No they do not demand fidelity but they do not allow any other males to
 have sex with their females. If there is a a difference  please tell me.

 The females are *already* nesting with other males. Alpha males don't stop
 them from doing so or indeed from continuing to nest and have sexual
 relationships with their nest-providers. They merely continue to access
 these nesting females - (actually it's the other way around - the females
 access them) - at will. The females may adopt subterfuge to do this so their
 current nest-partners don't savvy up to it, but they still do so.

And in some primate troupes despite the alpha male's overt attempts to
prevent lower status male coupling with his mates, in practice lower
status males are often successful at mating with and fathering
children with the alpha males putative mates. Or to put it another
way, the women aren't averse to sex with non-alpha males even when
nominally partnered with the alpha male.

 Marriage too is an instituton that has evolved over
 time in human societies. It might not be perfect, but I think you are
 jumping the gun in dismissing it for reasons that suit your viewpoint.

 The discussion was not about perfect or imperfect marriages. And I do not
 dismiss marriage.

 I distinguish and dismiss fidelity as an institution of significant value.
 To repeat, the most evolutionarily preferred state of being is marriage
 unencumbered by fidelity. If you follow the thread of logic closely, you
 will find that no firearm has been pole-vaulted. :-)

I'm surprised at seeming ignorance of basic research in this area. I'm
no expert, but even I've read Coming of Age in Samoa.

 That
 is quite alright except that you fail to view the same data in another way.
 Fidelity to one partner is maintained after mating in many species.

 Nope, it is not. Again, subject to reasonable mathematical and statistical
 definitions of the word many. Though I note that you may choose to
 re-define English at will here.

 The facts you have yourself noted seem to indicate that animals marry, stay
 married for a bit, then divorce and remarry someone else. The only question
 is whether such a scheme or repeated marriage, divorce and remarriage is
 advantageous to human adult males, females and children. I am saying that
 it
 probably is not and nothing you have said seems to contradict this view.

 Hmm, let's see. I'm saying that many millions of species and many billions
 of members of said species follow the model of non-fidelity and it has led
 to the earth being what it is today, obviously advantageous to all life on
 the planet.

I wonder how bonobos are supposed to fit this male dominant serial
monogamy model. Because they certainly don't by any stretch of the
imagination, and if you're going to try to play the mongamy is
natural law card, then bonobos, as some of our closest animal
relatives, trump that rather thoroughly.

 My $0.02,

 Mahesh

I'd say it was worth more than that. Thanks for posting.

-- Charles

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-12 Thread ss

On Friday 13 Mar 2009 2:53:24 am Charles Haynes wrote:
 I wonder how bonobos are supposed to fit this male dominant serial
 monogamy model. Because they certainly don't by any stretch of the
 imagination, and if you're going to try to play the mongamy is
 natural law card, then bonobos, as some of our closest animal
 relatives, trump that rather thoroughly.

In fact I don't play cards. My last card game was 25 years ago.  All I am 
saying is that if an animal model seems to fit a particular pattern it does 
not necessarily mean that it is right for humans.

You can get all sorts of animal models and say Look - humans should do this 
because it works for horny toads or whatever. Victorian morality balked at 
any human connection with primates, but the morality of those who lived 
through the Age of Aquarius look at bonobos as their model. These are 
opinions that are based on based on current morality. Victorians saw their 
relationship with primates through the filter of their morality and people of 
the age of Aquarius conveniently claim increased kinship with bonobo society 
through the filter of their morality.

But hello? It appears that  the bonobo model did not work well for many people 
who lived through the age of Aquarius and a reversion to Victorian models of 
fidelity and morality became a better bet for one's personal life. Why the 
mealy mouthed protestation then? 

It is a rhetorical fudge to choose to interpret a statement of opinion as an 
enunciation of natural law. But that is a fallout of this mode of 
communication.

What is right for humans in terms of survival could possibly be what has 
evolved over millennia. I would have thought that the reason why humans are 
not bonobos should have been clear to most humans. Dismissing evolutionary 
developments and imagining that a natural law may be uncovered by looking a 
any convenient and horny animal at hand is good for a chinwag - but utter 
tripe in most other respects.

shiv

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-12 Thread ss

On Thursday 12 Mar 2009 10:12:04 pm Radhika, Y. wrote:
 what about the effect of victorian england on hindu mores regarding
 sexuality? surely this would have disturbed the continuum?

Hindu society is likely to have been modified both by Islamic views on 
morality as well as Victorian morality. The real problem (that I come across 
time and again in various dscussions) is that people are trying to pin down 
what is the Hindu model that pre-dated these two hated influences. 

Islam did not cook up new morality. It merely codified and formalized some 
aspects of pre-existing, pre-Islamic morality. That means that there were 
certain models of morality that pre-dated islam. Some aspects of Hindu 
morality too pre-date islam.

Most people who search for pure Hindu morality unadulterated by Islamic and 
Christian morality seem (to me) loath to accept that Islam and Hindus may 
both have adopted an ancient pre-Islamic model resulting in the uncomfortable 
(to some) conclusion that there is some coincidence and commonality in 
Islamic and Hindu morality. Khajuraho and the Kama Sutra are quoted as 
glorious examples of Hindu morality that predated all this admixture.

But if you look at what Hindu society seems to value and what Islamic society 
seems to value - there is a lot of commonality. The joint family system with 
collective decision making about various issues including marriage, the 
demand for respect for elders, the movement of the married girl into the 
groom's family/house and the exalted status of sons over daughters are common 
to Islamic and Hindu society. 

It has been alleged that the Hindu tendency to ask women to cover their heads 
with a pallu is Islamic influence. The honor system where family honor is 
dependent on the behavior of the female is blamed on Islamic society - but 
seems to exist among Hindus as well. Is this contamination from Islam or is 
this a pre-Islamic model that has been adopted by Hindus as well as in Islam?

Why was it such a good model for Sita to follow Rama into the forest? Why did 
Rama reject Sita after her rescue from Lanka? Is there any Christian or 
Islamic morality here?

What is Indian culture?

shiv

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:20 PM, ss cybers...@gmail.com wrote:

 But hello? It appears that  the bonobo model did not work well for many people
 who lived through the age of Aquarius and a reversion to Victorian models of
 fidelity and morality became a better bet for one's personal life. Why the
 mealy mouthed protestation then?

 What is right for humans in terms of survival could possibly be what has
 evolved over millennia. I would have thought that the reason why humans are
 not bonobos should have been clear to most humans. Dismissing evolutionary
 developments and imagining that a natural law may be uncovered by looking a
 any convenient and horny animal at hand is good for a chinwag - but utter
 tripe in most other respects.

But neither are humans a species with alpha males (a fairly specific
term relating to pack animal heirarchies, humans are not pack animals)
and yet you seemed to want to use animal examples to justify human
behavior - until animal counterexamples were presented.

How about we agree that animal models aren't appropriate for
prescribing human behavior and leave it at that?

-- Charles

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:45 PM, ss cybers...@gmail.com wrote:

 Why did Rama reject Sita after her rescue from Lanka?

I was under the impression that scholars thought that particular part
of the Ramayana was a relatively recent accretion, and not
contemporaneous with the rest of the writing?

 Is there any Christian or Islamic morality here?

I don't know - is there?

-- Charles

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-12 Thread Mahesh Murthy

Amidst the frenzied hand-wringing, I think the issue I grok is that you see
free communal sex as the only alternative to fidelity.

In fact these are two thinly-populated extremes on the bell curve, and
neither is evolutionarily common or preferred.

A few billion human beings (apart from a few trillion other non-human
beings) exist in that seemingly happily and fat middle ground where
companionships of marriage-like relationships coexist with sexual
non-exclusivity.

Further, AFAIK, the age of Aquarius (I was only 5 or 10 then!) preceded
discoveries of bonobo behaviour by a few decades, and again, AFAIK, was
never justified using the latter.

Seen differently and on a more macro scale, the age of Aquarius has always
existed and continues to exist in all living cultures, petri dish included -
and I can imagine that this must be severely distressing to most sexually
conservative folks.

:-)




 In fact I don't play cards. My last card game was 25 years ago.  All I am
 saying is that if an animal model seems to fit a particular pattern it does
 not necessarily mean that it is right for humans.

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-11 Thread gabin kattukaran

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Bonobashi bonoba...@yahoo.co.in wrote:

 What I was trying to 'sell' to you, Shiv, as you have spotted, is the idea 
 that matriarchal society was the accepted norm right through pre-history, 
 with all the riff-raff (males) sent safely far away from the camp to hunt, 
 while grown-ups (females) worked on getting on with life, and were allowed 
 back in with the fruits of this go-out-and-play-now only in the evening or 
 night. This was a very stable system until patriarchal societies replaced 
 them. The precise nature and the reasons behind this revolutionary change are 
 far too complex to discuss even in a book or two hundred.

 The wandering of the Indo-Aryans was one of the phenomena which contributed 
 to this revolution. Think of male domination of society as a disease. The IA 
 volkswanderueng spread the patriarchal cosmogony and patriarchal social 
 architecture over a large part of the Northern hemisphere using the very 
 effective language and its future developed sub-forms as a vector.

 Recent developments in the last two thousand years are a particularly squalid 
 manifestation of this disease - a nauseating sub-type, if you like. We have 
 to wait for the virus to mutate into harmless forms, or find a ratiocinated 
 cure.

 If you look at the way women address daily life versus the way men do, the 
 analogy might be of a Phalcon on an IL76 platform, versus an SU 30 MKI.

 I hope you are enjoying it. It was like a dip in an ice-cold pool for me the 
 first time I read it.


Which book is this?

-gabin


-- 

Joan Collins  - The problem with beauty is that it's like being born
rich and getting poorer.

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-11 Thread Ingrid

2009/3/11 ss cybers...@gmail.com

 On Wednesday 11 Mar 2009 8:14:05 am Charles Haynes wrote:
  As I mention above, even if you believe that children are best raised
  in a stable multi-adult environment, it's not clear how that implies
  marriage, or even traditional family.

 It does not, but the only known method so far is the family unit, with
 monogamy for the female in most societies. Nobody can argue that nothing
 else
 will work, but nothing else seems to have been thrown up as a solution in
 thousands of years of human history. If you know something different, I
 would
 like to know too.

 If one were to combine human potential and human curiosity along with
 rigorous
 science, then one would have to have an ongoing prospective research study
 to
 see whether any other model is as good or better. The only problem is that
 the timescales to prove or disprove anything are so large that reseacrh
 becomes impractical. Perhaps time will tell if there is any other method.

 Until then - I will continue to hold the conservative viewpoint that what
 seems to have worked so far might possibly be the best bet until someone
 else
 does the experimentation and figures out that something else is equally
 good
 or better.

 shiv


monogamy and the control of women's sexuality in general, are only necessary
when patrilineal private property is the norm. all communal forms are,
therefore, viable alternatives.

- Ingrid

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-11 Thread Eugen Leitl

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 08:51:23AM +0530, ss wrote:

  It seems to me that, at least for now, overpopulation is a more
  serious threat to sustainability.

Sustainability is a function of the technology available. Unfortunately
we're in an unstable regime where we need to push for ridiculously advanced
technologies in a very short time frame, orelse we'll experience massive
depopulation on about a century time scale.

Reducing the footprint can be only a temporary stop-gap measure, and in fact
could become a trap. Missing a launch windows could be fatal.
 
 I decided to respond to this separately because this is an interesting 
 response.
 
 Overpopulation and sub fertility are two separate issues because sub-fertlity 

In terms of the ecosystem carrying capacity, there's definitely massive 
overpopulation.

 and falling populations are occurring in different areas of the world from 
 the areas of high fertility and high population. 

The time scale is also important. Sudden changes from hyperfertility to 
sub-replacement
fertility will set societies up for massive failure if not compensated for.
 
 What is needed is not sub-fertility in Europe and hyper-fertility in India, 
 but exactly the opposite. I would have thought that Europe could do with 
 increased fertlity and India with reduced fertility. No matter how many 

The actual reasons for subreplacement fertility are high costs.
Some subpopulations do have a very high fertility which if sustained
in time will break out dramatically through the receding population landscape.

 European women fail to have kids for the noble cause of global 

The less noble cause is you nowadays need two working parents to raise children,
and this will bring you on the brink of poverty. The wages stayed flat since 
1990,
or so.

 overpopulation, it makes no difference to the fertility in India. Or Africa.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-11 Thread ss

OT but all this talk of marriage and family reminds me of

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ysm9eRtYHk

shiv

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-11 Thread Ingrid

2009/3/11 ss cybers...@gmail.com

 On Wednesday 11 Mar 2009 4:34:15 pm Ingrid wrote:
  monogamy and the control of women's sexuality in general, are only
  necessary when patrilineal private property is the norm. all communal
 forms
  are, therefore, viable alternatives.

 Could you expand on this a little bit more please

 shiv


maternity is usually a provable fact. paternity, without DNA testing, a
claim.
this is not a significant issue when resources and responsibilities are
jointly owned or shared by a tribe/clan/commune/kibbutz/joint family.
it is also not an issue once private property is institutionalised when
property is handed down the maternal line.
it only becomes an issue when a) there is private property to be
inherited/bequeathed and b) this is done down the paternal line since the
risk of a 'cuckoo in the nest' kicks in.
from a female perspective the upside to monogamy is not being left alone to
raise the offspring in which she has invested greater genetic, time and
effort resources than the sperm donor has. communal living and resource
sharing arrangements address this more or less adequately.
all the hunter-gatherer/pastoral communities i'm aware of fit this pattern
i.e. they are polygamous/polyandrous and do not have severe proscriptions
against what monogamous cultures term promiscuity.
hence my conclusion.

- Ingrid

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-11 Thread Venkat Mangudi's Silk Account

Can I norrow this book if someone (from silk) in Bangalore has it?

V

On 3/11/09, ss cybers...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Wednesday 11 Mar 2009 3:21:27 pm gabin kattukaran wrote:
 Which book is this?

 Lost Ciivilizations of the Stone Age - Richard Rudgley, Arrow 1998



-- 
Sent from my mobile device

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-11 Thread Radhika, Y.

easily available everywhere?

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 5:39 AM, ss cybers...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wednesday 11 Mar 2009 3:21:27 pm gabin kattukaran wrote:
  Which book is this?

 Lost Ciivilizations of the Stone Age - Richard Rudgley, Arrow 1998

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-11 Thread ss

On Wednesday 11 Mar 2009 6:46:40 pm Ingrid wrote:
 maternity is usually a provable fact. paternity, without DNA testing, a
 claim.
 this is not a significant issue when resources and responsibilities are
 jointly owned or shared by a tribe/clan/commune/kibbutz/joint family.
 it is also not an issue once private property is institutionalised when
 property is handed down the maternal line.
 it only becomes an issue when a) there is private property to be
 inherited/bequeathed and b) this is done down the paternal line since the
 risk of a 'cuckoo in the nest' kicks in.
 from a female perspective the upside to monogamy is not being left alone to
 raise the offspring in which she has invested greater genetic, time and
 effort resources than the sperm donor has. communal living and resource
 sharing arrangements address this more or less adequately.
 all the hunter-gatherer/pastoral communities i'm aware of fit this pattern
 i.e. they are polygamous/polyandrous and do not have severe proscriptions
 against what monogamous cultures term promiscuity.
 hence my conclusion.

Very interesting. Thanks.

shiv

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-11 Thread Thaths

[Meta: Glad to see Bonobashi has (for the most part) fixed his mail
client's quoting]

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Bonobashi bonoba...@yahoo.co.in wrote:
 The wandering of the Indo-Aryans was one of the phenomena which
 contributed to this revolution. Think of male domination of society as
 a disease. The IA volkswanderueng spread the patriarchal
 cosmogony and patriarchal social architecture over a large part of
 the Northern hemisphere using the very effective language and its
 future developed sub-forms as a vector.

I am confused about the collation of Indo-Aryan (ethnicity, for I
lack a better term) and Indo European. The former a branch of a people
who migrated from Western Asia/Easter Europe and the latter, a
collection of languages that all evolved from a parent proto language.
The Indo-Aryans spoke one of the (many) Indo European languages. To
have had the sort of effect you are talking about the language that
the Indo-Aryans spoke must be very close to the trunk of Indo European
languages (which is not what most Linguists say) and they must have
spread to more parts of the world than is accepted wisdom among
historians.

Thaths
-- 
   You'll have to speak up, I'm wearing a towel. -- Homer J. Simpson

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-11 Thread Mahesh Murthy

Also, from what I've read:

- DNA testing of hunter / gatherer societies show different dispersion of
parentage - much more of the supposed alpha-male-in-a-commune kind of
patterns, with no discernible lineage of the two-parents-in-mutual-fidelity
kind

- this two-parent-in-mutual-fidelity lineage begins to get visible from
times when men settled down and became agrarian - i.e. recent centuries /
millenia

- this begets the theory that fidelity is a recent construct that was
actually implemented by males, to ensure their property (i.e. land) went to
their heirs, and not to the heirs of their partner that were not provably
from their sperm. I.e. the threat of withholding hereditary property was
used as a threat to keep potentially wayward females in line.

- which begets the theory that the religions with the most proscriptions on
female behaviour (of the thou-shalt-not-stray kind) are those run by rich
old males - ie. Christianity and Islam

- which seems to neatly back up Ingrid's point that fidelity is a relatively
modern social construct that is designed to preserve hereditary property in
patrilineal societies.

- Fidelity doesn't need to - and indeed doesn't - exist in property-agnostic
cultures  (i.e. the very poor / very rich classes and hence the adage about
fidelity being the hobgoblin that haunts the middle class) and also in
cultures that are matrilineal, like modern Iceland / parts of Kerala /
Bengal / the North East of India etc.

- Fidelity is an aberration from the point of view of evolutionary biology,
where fidelity is not indicated as a means to produce the fittest offspring.

- If you were to consider humankind as merely another specie, then the
female's best chance of producing a child that survives is to (a) find a
mate that provides the best nest (loosely speaking: a rich, stable guy) and
(b) to do so with the best sperm (which is usually from the alpha male kind
- and those are rarely the types to be stable nest providers).

- Virtually no species on Earth display fidelity - and most display some
variant of this live-with-nest-provider-but-get-sperm-from-alpha-male
indicated behaviour that is most preferred from an evolutionary point of
view. This behaviour is not uncommon among humankind either, with it
offering sufficient grist-for-the-mill for soap operas around the planet.

My $0.02,

Mahesh



On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 8:53 PM, ss cybers...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wednesday 11 Mar 2009 6:46:40 pm Ingrid wrote:
  maternity is usually a provable fact. paternity, without DNA testing, a
  claim.
  this is not a significant issue when resources and responsibilities are
  jointly owned or shared by a tribe/clan/commune/kibbutz/joint family.
  it is also not an issue once private property is institutionalised when
  property is handed down the maternal line.
  it only becomes an issue when a) there is private property to be
  inherited/bequeathed and b) this is done down the paternal line since the
  risk of a 'cuckoo in the nest' kicks in.
  from a female perspective the upside to monogamy is not being left alone
 to
  raise the offspring in which she has invested greater genetic, time and
  effort resources than the sperm donor has. communal living and resource
  sharing arrangements address this more or less adequately.
  all the hunter-gatherer/pastoral communities i'm aware of fit this
 pattern
  i.e. they are polygamous/polyandrous and do not have severe proscriptions
  against what monogamous cultures term promiscuity.
  hence my conclusion.

 Very interesting. Thanks.

 shiv

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-11 Thread Badri Natarajan

 Also, from what I've read:

 - DNA testing of hunter / gatherer societies show different dispersion of
 parentage - much more of the supposed alpha-male-in-a-commune kind of
 patterns, with no discernible lineage of the


JADP, even in modern Western societies, dispersion of parentage is much
higher than most people would assume.

I remember reading about some study done in pre-DNA testing days (maybe
the 70s or the 80s) using blood types, which showed that something like
10% of children were not fathered by the man they thought was their
father. And the true number is probably much higher because (as I
understand it), blood type testing is cruder than DNA testing, and does
not distinguish in some cases between a father and son who are not
biologically related.

Badri

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-11 Thread Mahesh Murthy

I've heard the number 10% for India too.

That's somewhat astounding - implying that some 100+ million people here are
not the children of their mothers' long-term partners.



On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:32 AM, Badri Natarajan asi...@vsnl.com wrote:

  Also, from what I've read:
 
  - DNA testing of hunter / gatherer societies show different dispersion of
  parentage - much more of the supposed alpha-male-in-a-commune kind of
  patterns, with no discernible lineage of the
 

 JADP, even in modern Western societies, dispersion of parentage is much
 higher than most people would assume.

 I remember reading about some study done in pre-DNA testing days (maybe
 the 70s or the 80s) using blood types, which showed that something like
 10% of children were not fathered by the man they thought was their
 father. And the true number is probably much higher because (as I
 understand it), blood type testing is cruder than DNA testing, and does
 not distinguish in some cases between a father and son who are not
 biologically related.

 Badri

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-11 Thread ss

On Thursday 12 Mar 2009 1:43:11 am Mahesh Murthy wrote:
 - Fidelity is an aberration from the point of view of evolutionary biology,
 where fidelity is not indicated as a means to produce the fittest
 offspring.

 - If you were to consider humankind as merely another specie, then the
 female's best chance of producing a child that survives is to (a) find a
 mate that provides the best nest (loosely speaking: a rich, stable guy) and
 (b) to do so with the best sperm (which is usually from the alpha male kind
 - and those are rarely the types to be stable nest providers).

 - Virtually no species on Earth display fidelity - and most display some
 variant of this live-with-nest-provider-but-get-sperm-from-alpha-male
 indicated behaviour that is most preferred from an evolutionary point of
 view. This behaviour is not uncommon among humankind either, with it
 offering sufficient grist-for-the-mill for soap operas around the planet.

The theory sounds compelling and deserves to be considered as a close 
approximation of reality - but going by Hindu tradition the demand for female 
fidelity is older than Christianity and Islam.

Certainly the acquisition/control of property (a geographical area with 
resources?) by a physically dominant male would seem to demand female 
fidelity. But when you compare with animal societies - you tend to find that 
all competing male sexual partners  are kept well out of the way by the 
dominant alpha male as long as he is able to physically dominate. And during 
this period female fidelity (and monogamy) is enforced. And the male too is 
unable to leave his group and wander into some other male's territory and 
gather more females. 

Even with all this I think one in five primate species are apparently mainly 
monoogamous which suggests that there may be some survival advantages in 
monogamy.

It is simplistic to pin down human behavior by comparing with any convenient 
animal society depending on what bias one might want to highlight. Popular 
science tends to justify recreational sex in humans based on observations of  
some animal species - which seems to be a conveinient way of saying 'Bonobos 
have fun sex aso it is natural for humans to do that  - don't feel guilty. 
This is no different from  preacher quoting the example of some supposedly 
monogamous species to follow.

Speaking of animals and survival traits, it is likely that the institution of 
marriage was merely a formalization of a widespread human custom that aided 
survival of cooperative human societies (increased cooperation, decreased 
infighting) by demanding male fidelity as well as female fidelity. Female 
fidelity to one partner at a time seems to be the norm for almost any 
species, and male fidelity to one or a group of females is ensured by the 
need to fight off other competing males. So fidelity during significant 
sexually active phases of animal life does not seem unusual at all. Its not 
as if animals are randomly f*ck1ng around.

shiv

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-10 Thread Mahesh Murthy

  This brings me to the subject of succcessful marriages.

 Marriages are not free by definition. Neither man nor woman have complete
 freedom. But when it comes to the crunch, male freedom has always been
given
 priority over female freedom.

 What is the right way to address this?
 1) Curb male freedom
 2) Increase female freedom
 3) Both of the above


The freedom referred to above varies from geography to geography and I think
a mistake perhaps being made is applying Western values to Indian realities.
Traditional Christian or Western (and Islamic) marriage rituals have held
that fidelity is key to a marriage - and one oft-proven reason for the high
incidence of divorce in traditional Christian cultures like the US is the
inability for a spouse to maintain this desired state of being.

Fidelity has never been key for a traditional Indian (read Hindu) marriage.
(I remember reading somewhere that the Hindu marriage rituals involve no
mention or oath of fidelity.) The usual stuff about Draupadi  Krishna
aside, traditional Indian social emphasis has always been about keeping the
nuclear or other family together, regardless of occasional waywardness of
either spouse. Indeed, there's room to believe that Indian marriages tend to
last longer because there is this built-in elasticity.

The increasing rate of divorce in modern India is perhaps more due to the
prevalence of the (western) infidelity-intolerant mindset among Indian men
and women than any in any new-found notion of freedom or lack thereof in
either sex. So I'm not sure the options (1) / (2) / (3) are a comprehensive
set of choices.

My $0.02

Mahesh


On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 9:43 AM, ss cybers...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tuesday 10 Mar 2009 9:14:03 am gabin kattukaran wrote:

 
  Why would you think that a smaller population is a problem? A smaller
  population that is reached by lower birth rates rather than higher
  death rates seems like a good proposition.

 Seem like a good proposition alright. no dispute on that. But nobody knows
 for
 sure. The first effects of falling birh  rates will probably become visible
 within my lifetime - some of these effects are coming up already.

 Falling birth rates in Europe for instance could be good for Indians - who
 have a huge percentage of young people. The bulge in demographics of the
 elderly in Euope could be looked after by young nursing care recruits and
 service people from India or African/Arab countries who have young people
 in
 surplus. No [roblem for them. teh problem is only for the Ram Sene
 equivalents in Europe who wll see thei culture disappearing. Whether that
 is
 a problem or not depends on whoch viewpoint you choose to take.


   Here is the controversial and troubling thought - I would appreciate
   inputs on this: If you read between the lines above it is easy to
   conclude that the problems of Western society can be directly linked to
   more freedom for women.
 
  This is true only if you decide that freedom seeking women and not
  freedom suppressing men/relationships or any thing else are the reason
  for divorces or relationship breakdowns.

 DISCLAIMER: My arguments that follow are for the sake of discussion and not
 a
 statement of my personal ideology or religion

 Is there a difference between freedom seeking women and freedom
 suppressing
 men in terms of effect on the woman or the marriage?

 The woman who seeks freedom for herself without being held down by any man
 desires freedom just as much as the woman who wants freedom from being held
 in bondage by a man. In both cases, if the desire is not to marry or
 continue
 with a marriage, the net effect on society is the same.

 It matters little whether the woman seeks freedom for freedom's sake or
 whether she seeks freedom from man. I seek to protect marriage and the
 family
 and the rights of a child to have a nuclear family therefore I demand that
 the woman must submit and swallow her pride, stuff her freedom and toe the
 line.

 This is what society often does, although the man is normally expected to
 contribute.

 This brings me to the subject of succcessful marriages.

 Marriages are not free by definition. Neither man nor woman have complete
 freedom. But when it comes to the crunch, male freedom has always been
 given
 priority over female freedom.

 What is the right way to address this?
 1) Curb male freedom
 2) Increase female freedom
 3) Both of the above

 shiv

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-10 Thread lukhman_khan

I have gone ahead and added *IN_INDIA* in each of the lines.

1. Children are not listening to their elders *IN_INDIA*.
2. Children are not wearing traditional clothes*IN_INDIA*.
   Everyone is in jeans *IN_INDIA* and in other alien dresses.
3. Our traditional clothes are dying *IN_INDIA*.
4. What is worse, parents are not objecting to their
   children following Western culture *IN_INDIA*.
   Fathers are drinking with their sons.

5. Wives are not respecting their husbands *IN_INDIA*.

6. Boys and girls are freely mixing before marriage *IN_INDIA*.
   I-pill is the most widely sought after drug by girls *IN_INDIA*
   Oh BTW Girls cannot have regular sex (without the boys being
   involved) *IN_INDIA*.
7. Women are not practising old traditions *IN_INDIA*
8. Children talk back to adults *IN_INDIA*
9. Women in cut-piece clothes have become commercial
   objects. Even pictures of our gods and goddesses*IN_INDIA* are
   being used to sell liquor.
10. Last and the most important: *IN_INDIA*
Women are drinking and going to nightclubs.

Now replace *IN_INDIA* with *in_Japan* or *in_kenya* or *in america* and 
re-read the above. (find/replace will work beautifully)

What these nuts are alarmed/concerned about is ***CHANGE*** but they term it 
***Indian Culture***.

I cant think of India of pre 1950 as the India of post 1992.
So, what was culture then is not culture today.

IMHO, what we see aroung us, the way of life of the people today, the 
languages, our blind faiths, our slumdogs, our tycoons, our educated voters, 
our uneducated voters, our middle class, our mulsims, our christians, our 
untouchables, our brahmins our tribals are all indian culture. This does not 
exclude anyone. The communists, the rightwing hindu parties, the pink chaddis, 
the khakhi chaddis, our political class, our judiciary, our police, our army, 
everyone is part of this huge couldron.

Lukhman.

The only thing that is constant is change.

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

On Tuesday 10 Mar 2009 1:39:56 pm Mahesh Murthy wrote:

snip
 realities. Traditional Christian or Western (and Islamic) marriage rituals
 have held that fidelity is key to a marriage - and one oft-proven reason
 for the high incidence of divorce in traditional Christian cultures like
 the US is the inability for a spouse to maintain this desired state of
 being.

snip


 The increasing rate of divorce in modern India is perhaps more due to the
 prevalence of the (western) infidelity-intolerant mindset among Indian men
 and women

Er it really should be Indian infidelity and not Western infdelity shouldn't 
it?

Be that as it may, the divorce rates in the West are not necessarily high 
merely because of infidelity are they? They are high because divorce laws are 
liberal and allow divorce on various gounds other than infidelity. 
Incompatibility, cruelty and other factors can lead to divorce. Many Western 
societies are far more secular than Indian society and allow these divorce 
laws to operate without interference from religious and other pressure 
groups, unlike India.

There is pressure not to divorce in Indian society and the increasing rates of 
divorce are probably not so much related to fidelity as the fact that divorce 
is now possible without shaming the woman forever.

The other point is that fidelity is indeed demanded in Hindu marriages - from 
the woman. What the man should do is not clearly mentioned. Clearly here is 
an instance in which fidelity must be demanded from the man as well. 
but traditionalists who do not want to touch Hindu rituals will be shocked 
at such an Idea. However the traditionalists have already lost ground. Hindu 
laws usually meant that a married daughter is excluded from inhertitance of 
her paternal ancestral property. This silly law has now been overturned. 
Married women get an equal share of ancestral property.

I think that for India:
1) The institution of marriage must be protected but not if it is clearly 
harmful to man or woman
2) The woman must be protected against cruelty, forced marriage and bondage
3) Fidelity must be expected of the man as well as the woman

All this looks so easy and simple - one can say that Indian laws ensure 
exactly these three points. But in reality i believe that Hindu society is 
still living in the past.

What happened in the past that does not happen now?

Well - a man would get married and have 11 children.7 would die and after a 
while his wife would die too- naturally. That meant that the man could marry 
again. If the man died - you know what became of the widow. Hindutva still 
does not accept that bias against women is built into Hindu attitudes. The 
woman must change and accommodate, not the man. Everything about the Hindu 
past is considered so fine and so glorious and yet is considered to have been 
raped and misrepresented so badly (By the British and Muslims) that:

a) Nobody will countenance a molocule of change
b) Nobody wants to hear a single word of criticism.

What really loads the dice against women in india is what is happening in the 
West - in which the decadence of the West is being (rightly or wrongly) 
linked to all the freedoms that people have - with female freedom being seen 
as a fundamntal factor leading to the demise of the family and dissolution of 
society. Bondage, modesty, self effacement, fidelity and servitude of women 
in India is portrayed as good and righteous - being beneficial to society.

Hindutva finds it easy to laugh mockingly at Islam's admittedly ludicrous 
claim to respect women. But no Hindutva supporter has accepted any of the 
arguments I make to show that Hindu treatment of women is the pits. This 
insight just does not exist. I am accused of saying such things because my 
mind has been twisted by Westernization. 

But it is difficult not to accept that the West too had botched things badly 
and that is the biggest boost that both Islamists and Hindutvadis get when 
you use the West as comparison in terms of womens rights and freedoms.

The future IMO will mean not copying the West. But things must not remain the 
same either.

shiv

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-10 Thread Eugen Leitl

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 09:43:27AM +0530, ss wrote:

 Seem like a good proposition alright. no dispute on that. But nobody knows 
 for 
 sure. The first effects of falling birh  rates will probably become visible 
 within my lifetime - some of these effects are coming up already.

It's the sudden change in the birth rate that hurts. China may pull a Japan.
How well is India doing?
 
 Falling birth rates in Europe for instance could be good for Indians - who 
 have a huge percentage of young people. The bulge in demographics of the 
 elderly in Euope could be looked after by young nursing care recruits and 

The Japanese are betting on robots, which will probably fail.

 service people from India or African/Arab countries who have young people in 

I'm not sure there will be enough money. There might well be better
opportunities at home after the smoke clears.

 surplus. No [roblem for them. teh problem is only for the Ram Sene 
 equivalents in Europe who wll see thei culture disappearing. Whether that is 

Xenophobia will be a problem.

 a problem or not depends on whoch viewpoint you choose to take.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

On Tuesday 10 Mar 2009 4:09:40 pm Eugen Leitl wrote:
 I'm not sure there will be enough money. There might well be better
 opportunities at home after the smoke clears.

Don't bet on it. There are enough people here to make living poor in Europe 
seem attractive - so the xenophobes may well get business.

Enough money is a relative thing. If a given European country says that the 
minimum wage is X Euros and hour - this may seem expensive. But if a mass of 
Indians are willing to work for x/10 Euros an hour - the only thing holding 
them back is a law that demands a particuular minimum wage. Change the law 
and its done.

This is how Britain subsidised its health service and acquired a lot of its 
Pakistanis And Indians, Bangladeshis, Nigerians and Sri Lankans) . Workers 
(doctors) from the subcontinent were employed in all the junior posts with 
little hope of rising to higher levels and little hope of settling 
permanently and claiming a pension at a later date. So the work was done 
cheaper.

shiv

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-10 Thread Anish Mohammed

 
 This is how Britain subsidised its health service and acquired a lot of
 its
 Pakistanis And Indians, Bangladeshis, Nigerians and Sri Lankans) . Workers
 (doctors) from the subcontinent were employed in all the junior posts with
 little hope of rising to higher levels and little hope of settling
 permanently and claiming a pension at a later date. So the work was done
 cheaper.

 shiv

 Hi Shiv,
  I have to agree to disagree with you. Your views about NHS I beleive come
from your days in UK. Things have changed quite a bit, I have quite a few
Asian ( and Indian) friends who are consultants, and even some classmates of
mine from medical school ( yep, I am a fellow medic, gone nuts :-) )
regards
Anish

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-10 Thread Mahesh Murthy

snip



 Be that as it may, the divorce rates in the West are not necessarily high
 merely because of infidelity are they?


It is certainly the most frequently-quoted cause.




 The other point is that fidelity is indeed demanded in Hindu marriages -
 from
 the woman.


Can you quote me relevant scripture on this please - and not Manu smriti?
Thanks.

snip


 I think that for India:
 1) The institution of marriage must be protected but not if it is clearly
 harmful to man or woman
 2) The woman must be protected against cruelty, forced marriage and bondage
 3) Fidelity must be expected of the man as well as the woman


1. Why?
2. Why just the woman?
3. Why?



 The future IMO will mean not copying the West. But things must not remain
 the
 same either.


This seems somewhat out of line with your earlier 3 tenets. Be that as it
may, change is happening, pink chaddis and all. I'm not worried on that
count.

My $0.02,

Mahesh

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

On Tuesday 10 Mar 2009 6:44:43 pm Mahesh Murthy wrote:
 snip

  Be that as it may, the divorce rates in the West are not necessarily high
  merely because of infidelity are they?

 It is certainly the most frequently-quoted cause.

Naturally. It is the one most likely to get you a divorce.



  The other point is that fidelity is indeed demanded in Hindu marriages -
  from
  the woman.

 Can you quote me relevant scripture on this please - and not Manu smriti?
 Thanks.


You asking me for scriptures? As in It has been written??. I have never read 
Manu Smriti and have no intention of doing so in the foreseeable future.

I am referring to the act of looking for the star Arundhati - the symbolism 
being that the bride must be like Arundathi. The groom seems to have no 
similar demand placed on him as far as I know. If that comes from Manu 
smriti - you will have to educate me, assuming you are yourself familar with 
the work.


  I think that for India:
  1) The institution of marriage must be protected but not if it is clearly
  harmful to man or woman
  2) The woman must be protected against cruelty, forced marriage and
  bondage 3) Fidelity must be expected of the man as well as the woman

 1. Why?
 2. Why just the woman?
 3. Why?


I think the institution of marriage is important subject to the conditions I 
have stated. Please take it as my opinion. If you differ I would like to hear 
your view.

In India the woman certainly needs protection more than the man. I hope you 
don't think that I implied that the man must not be protected. My not saying 
something does not mean I endorse or do not endorse what I have not said.

Fidelity must be expected from the man as well as the woman. Are you asking 
why I hold this opinion? I will answer that if you confirm that you are not 
trolling.


  The future IMO will mean not copying the West. But things must not remain
  the
  same either.

 This seems somewhat out of line with your earlier 3 tenets. Be that as it
 may, change is happening, pink chaddis and all. I'm not worried on that
 count.

How is it out of line? Please explain.


shiv

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

On Tuesday 10 Mar 2009 5:04:41 pm Anish Mohammed wrote:
  Hi Shiv,
   I have to agree to disagree with you. Your views about NHS I beleive come
 from your days in UK. Things have changed quite a bit, I have quite a few
 Asian ( and Indian) friends who are consultants, and even some classmates
 of mine from medical school ( yep, I am a fellow medic, gone nuts :-) )
 regards
 Anish

Anish - I saw how the change occurred and the process of change started 20 
years ago. i still have a lot of consultant friends in the UK. Some 
contemporaries who are really senior and at the top of their profession - and 
a few younger people. 

But the NHS was set up and thrived on imported cheap labour. What exists now 
in the UK is a pale shadow of that NHS. If that labour did not exist - the 
NHS could never have been run the way it was. It is a lot different now.

Mind you it certainly was a fair deal for the doctors who came in and life was 
a lot easier - although they got paid a lot less.  If it had not been a fair 
deal - the doctors would not have gone to the UK in the first place. 

And that is the point I was making. Indians will do menial jobs for low 
salaries if the life they get is better than what they have in India. That 
class of Indian still exists (in surprisingly large numbers) and will still 
be ready to gobble up any menial jobs that may come up as Europe's population 
ages.

shiv

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-10 Thread J. Andrew Rogers



On Mar 10, 2009, at 6:14 AM, Mahesh Murthy wrote:

snip

Be that as it may, the divorce rates in the West are not  
necessarily high

merely because of infidelity are they?



It is certainly the most frequently-quoted cause.



In most such cases, I would argue that infidelity is merely a symptom  
of a more fundamental cause.



J. Andrew Rogers

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-10 Thread .

Its strange that this discussion is about men  women but few women
are participating in a discussion which is also about them ..

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 6:22 AM, ss cybers...@gmail.com wrote:
 Be that as it may, the divorce rates in the West are not necessarily high
 merely because of infidelity are they? They are high because divorce laws are
 liberal and allow divorce on various gounds other than infidelity.
 Incompatibility, cruelty and other factors can lead to divorce. Many Western

...shouldnt they?


 There is pressure not to divorce in Indian society and the increasing rates of
 divorce are probably not so much related to fidelity as the fact that divorce
 is now possible without shaming the woman forever.

it is also not a social stigma as it used to be a few decades ago.


 The other point is that fidelity is indeed demanded in Hindu marriages - from
 the woman. What the man should do is not clearly mentioned. Clearly here is

Many papers had nice articles on account of women's day and I think
these two from The Hindu are pertinent to the ongoing discussion.

http://www.hindu.com/mag/2009/03/08/stories/2009030850190500.htm
http://www.hindu.com/mag/2009/03/08/stories/2009030850180500.htm

As the articles note, a number of women are choosing to retain their
independence than marry because its expected of them. Most women dont
wish to provide monthly installments of dowry either and insist on
managing their own finances as opposed to meekly handing over their
earnings to the husband. Various factors aid them in this decision but
you cannot underestimate the change in mindset of the earlier
generation and the support they provide, which does have a role to
play in their lives today. This is not true for all Indian families
though and not every Indian woman is emancipated.

Again, women (never mind which class, rich or poor she is) are more
self-aware and are less willing to tolerate infidelity/bad
relationships today. She has choices and is willing to use them. This
is true for women from the lower economic strata of society too,
especially if they are the bread-winners supporting an alcoholic
abusive husband. This is related to the increased ability of a woman
to support themselves financially and face society head-on.  OTOH,
there are cases of some women who are tolerant of a bad
relationship/marriage simply because they cannot bear the thought of
the social stigma or dont want to give up the hi-flying lifestyle he
offers. They are becoming a rare species in India today.


 I think that for India:
 1) The institution of marriage must be protected but not if it is clearly
 harmful to man or woman

I know there is a whole industry that earns its bread from getting
people married :) but why the undue emphasis on the institution of
marriage and why should it be protected? Is there any research that
has been done to find out the negative effects of not marrying?
Recently there was talk of giving a legal status to live-in
relationships but am not sure of its progress.

Simplistically put, Isnt it much better for a kid to grow up in a
happy environment with a single parent than have to live with the
typical complete family where both parents are unhappy.  Even the
Indian legal system changed the definition of family over a decade
ago to permit single women to adopt children of either gender. This
was later extended to single men who can adopt a male child.  IIRC,
even school admission forms must now include mothers name and cannot
deny admission on the basis of the fathers name not being provided. I
am not sure how much of this is really in practice as there is no data
available publicly.


 What really loads the dice against women in india is what is happening in the
 West - in which the decadence of the West is being (rightly or wrongly)

does that imply that decadence was never prevalent in India not
even in the BC era? I find that hard to believe.


 The future IMO will mean not copying the West. But things must not remain the
 same either.

Its a fallacy that India is always copying the west. Switzerland
granted women voting rights in the 70's while Indian women could vote
right after we gained independence.

-- 
.

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-10 Thread Radhika, Y.

Shiv, I agree that fidelity must be expected for both men and women. Not
getting divorced in INdia where a marriage has gone bad is also often
because the spouses want to save face-too many at the anecdotal level to
relate.

In my experience as a 20-something divorced woman in India in the early 90s
and in the US I found some interesting parallels and differences:

1. The age at which you get divorced makes a lot of difference. This was
true both in the US and INdia - perhaps in the US living in a large city
makes some difference but not in smaller places where the dice is still
loaded against divorced women. If nothing was overtly said to me, I
certainly knew it by the opposite when i got remarried at the age of 38-my
social stock skyrocketed even amongst single American friends!

2. In the US economics has a large role to play in the success of a marriage
or in individual success. For example, partners may not make the sacrifices
to stay in the same place if their job opportunities take them elsewhere.
Naturally seperate lives begin to form when they are physically apart-we may
demand maturity on the part of people and ask that they have enough
self-restraint once committed but whether a marriage can survive such
demands is another matter. Also, keeping up with the Jones'/Jains is an
expensive business - without two incomes it is virtually impossible. Even
where people are together in the same place, there is so much personal
sacrifice in terms of time and money in the name of achieving the dream life
that it is quite natural for a man or a woman to have a mid-life crisis and
wonder where real life just vanished!!! Not every working couple is making
big bucks either unless they are white collar professionals. Being a single
parent is of course even worse economically- i remember the newspaper vendor
in our building in Washington - a single dad making 5 with 4 kids!!

3. In India women are brought up with the idea of sacrifice in personal
relationships to an extreme degree and they often suffer from this - this
certainly includes educated, bright women. In the US, the other extreme
is visible and in fact the system is weighted against people who cannot be
self-sufficient. Too bad if you are a mother, you had better be a working
mother and nobody else gives a hoot. Many women manage but is it surprising
that stress and long-term health are compromised whether it is a man or a
woman with the job of bringing up kids and earning?  People are often
contemptous when still young of anybody who wants balance.

4. Divorce might be more accessible in the US but that is about all. Women
still make less money than men, they will get passed over for promotions if
they are pregnant and if they re-enter the work force after being away for a
year they cannot hope to even start at the same level. Sweden/Norway may be
the only country I know where companies are mandated to take mothers back at
the same level.

5. Improper accounting/valuation of women's time: My brother's insurance
company in the States calculated the value that my stay-at-home engineer
sis-in-law adds to the household-a net saving of $100,000 and more an year
just because my sis-in-law is a free educator, nurse, counsellor and my
nephew's favorite playmate !!! Now just imagine if he had to pay her this
amount. WELL!!! i am not suggesting that marriage be reduced to an economic
transaction but the work that women do outside of work is severely
undervalued.

I personally believe that the law in every country needs to go from offering
protection to offering futures for women. Yes, it must protect women from
marital rape, domestic abuse and where the spouses have irreconciliable
differences, they must be allowed to seperate. But the law of a country
should also not tolerate any discrimination - under our fundamental rights
no seperate law is needed to ensure that women who are divorced or married
get equal opportunity and liberty to pursue life (the pursuit of happiness i
find a bit silly since it seems to arrive when we are not looking for it!).

The debate about change in India is being framed cleverly as a west vs. east
difference of cultures and the men making these statements seem to forget
that MEN are participating in the change. The men who are going out with
these loose women are often decent people who may or may not get married
to these women but don't necessarily have double standards. Are these
loose men then? If we look at history then men have been way looser than
women by any standard-witness Genghis khan - 13000 genes in existence have
been traced to this man!!!


On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 8:13 AM, ss cybers...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tuesday 10 Mar 2009 6:44:43 pm Mahesh Murthy wrote:
  snip
 
   Be that as it may, the divorce rates in the West are not necessarily
 high
   merely because of infidelity are they?
 
  It is certainly the most frequently-quoted cause.

 Naturally. It is the one most likely to get you a divorce.


 
   The other

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-10 Thread Sriram Karra

On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 7:15 AM, Udhay Shankar N ud...@pobox.com wrote:


 8. Children talk back to adults.


I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on
the frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless
beyond words.

When I was a boy, we were taught to be discrete and respectful of
elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise and impatient of
restraint.
--- Hesiod, Eighth Century B.C.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.quotations/msg/207140bd34d71a6b?pli=1

-- 
Sriram Karra
You don't quit your job because you don't like it; you just go in and do it
really half assed. -Homer Simpson

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

On Tuesday 10 Mar 2009 11:37:30 pm . wrote:
 I know there is a whole industry that earns its bread from getting
 people married :) but why the undue emphasis on the institution of
 marriage and why should it be protected? Is there any research that
 has been done to find out the negative effects of not marrying?
 Recently there was talk of giving a legal status to live-in
 relationships but am not sure of its progress.

 Simplistically put, Isnt it much better for a kid to grow up in a
 happy environment with a single parent than have to live with the
 typical complete family where both parents are unhappy.  Even the
 Indian legal system changed the definition of family over a decade
 ago to permit single women to adopt children of either gender. This
 was later extended to single men who can adopt a male child.  IIRC,
 even school admission forms must now include mothers name and cannot
 deny admission on the basis of the fathers name not being provided. I
 am not sure how much of this is really in practice as there is no data
 available publicly.

Research about the results of not marrying is going on right now.  Long term 
effects will not be in for at least 20 years from now. It is not at all clear 
that for human children the happy single parent environment is good. 
Research seems to show that the child actually needs a stable father figure 
as much as a mother. 

In fact the deeper you go into this family business, the more attractive 
some (but not all) aspects of the core/joint family become. Support through 
physical illness and other times of stress (such as unemployment) is much 
better from the family unit rather than the individual unit. What has been 
attempted in the West is to make the government or other services replace the 
family - to provide the care that the family provides in less developed 
societies. Having said that the joint family in India - for all its 
advantages has been misused to make the new female entrant a slave.

But let me come to the more controversial bit. 

Pregnant women, and women with infants need support from others 
and independence is not possible. For the purpose of procreation and 
maintaining a stable human population - pregnancies and women and the 
accompanying dependence are unavoidable.  When women become independent, 
their independence is held to ransom by the forced dependence that pregnancy 
and childbearing causes. And as Western populations are allowing female 
independence in this way, it  is being accompanied by a fall in fertility as 
women choose to have fewer babies. 

As the number of babies being born falls below replacement level - two effects 
occur
1) An absolute decrease in the population
2) The relative increase in the elderly and dependent.

Now here's the rub:
A) The Hindutvadis who are complaining about women not meeting certain 
standards are complaining exactly about the Western style female independence 
I have written about above.
B) Female independence in the Western model is being seen as the single 
biggest threat to the family and to society. The Indian family is viewed as 
a unit in which the parents care for children until the children can be 
independent, and then it is expected that the children will care for the 
parents.

A break up of the family, a fall in population and children staying away from 
parents are all seen as family and society destroying occurrences. 

All these society destroying occurrences are being blamed on Western style 
female independence and individualism imparted to children as opposed to 
the collective of the family that Indian society is thought to represent.

To the protesting Hindutvadis - their fight is not for a religion so much as 
for dharma. The word dharma itself means to hold or to preserve - or 
righteous duty. Preservation of the way of life is seen as a righteous duty. 
They are fighting what they see as a threat to society and the way of life 
that they feel India represents. I believe that they are unable to articulate 
their views and anxieties very well in English and hence their demands sound 
stupid in translation.

My personal views are slightly different and I have already stated them and I 
don't really know if the ideal that I seek can ever be implemented - i.e 
freedom for the woman as well as protection for the (legally binding) 
institution of marriage (which forms the basis of the family). I accept that 
the family is important and IMO irreplaceable, but ideally, not at the cost 
of female slavery.

shiv

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

On Tuesday 10 Mar 2009 11:51:23 pm Radhika, Y. wrote:
 I personally believe that the law in every country needs to go from
 offering protection to offering futures for women. Yes, it must protect
 women from marital rape, domestic abuse and where the spouses have
 irreconciliable differences, they must be allowed to seperate. But the law
 of a country should also not tolerate any discrimination - under our
 fundamental rights no seperate law is needed to ensure that women who are
 divorced or married get equal opportunity and liberty to pursue life (the
 pursuit of happiness i find a bit silly since it seems to arrive when we
 are not looking for it!).

Off topic - but Bonobashi (IG) has sent me a very interesting book that I am 
still reading. 

The book basically tears down generally accepted dates for the development of 
writing, science and math - and uses available arceological evidence to push 
back dates to a surprisingly distant past - 40,000 years or more.

One of the interesting hypotheses that seems to be emerging (I have not yet 
read the whole book) is the establshment of male-dominated societies at some 
time in the past from what might possibly have been societies that were much 
more fair to the woman.

Here's (slightly vulgar) titbit from the book. There is list of very ancient 
words that have possibly been in existence from the beginnings of language 
and one of the words happens to be puti - referring either to a hole or the 
vagina. It appears that the Punjabi word phuddi (for vagina) is one of the 
oldest words in existence. I got a big kick out of that because that Punjabi 
word has been known to me as a curse-word from my schoodays. 

But the use of the word phuddi as a curse word is itself an indicator of 
male domination. As is the word aurat for woman - with aurat being 
synonymous with shame and female genitalia. In some circles there has 
been a move to relace the word aurat with naari for this reason - 
although that does not mean much for women in any tangible sense.

shiv

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-10 Thread Charles Haynes

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:16 PM, ss cybers...@gmail.com wrote:

 Support through
 physical illness and other times of stress (such as unemployment) is much
 better from the family unit rather than the individual unit.
...
 Pregnant women, and women with infants need support from others
 and independence is not possible. For the purpose of procreation and
 maintaining a stable human population - pregnancies and women and the
 accompanying dependence are unavoidable.  When women become independent,
 their independence is held to ransom by the forced dependence that pregnancy
 and childbearing causes.

None of that implies lifetime one-man-one-woman marriage though. In
particular, it would seem to argue for larger multiple-adult support
units. The joint/extended family is certainly one proven model, but it
would seem to me that other multi-adult family structures could well
be equally effective. In particular, while women physically bear the
children, there's no obvious reason why that would prohibit women from
being otherwise independent, any more than any other short term
physical disability.

 And as Western populations are allowing female
 independence in this way, it  is being accompanied by a fall in fertility as
 women choose to have fewer babies.

It seems to me that, at least for now, overpopulation is a more
serious threat to sustainability.

 My personal ... ideal ...
 freedom for the woman as well as protection for the (legally binding)
 institution of marriage (which forms the basis of the family). I accept that
 the family is important and IMO irreplaceable, but ideally, not at the cost
 of female slavery.

As I mention above, even if you believe that children are best raised
in a stable multi-adult environment, it's not clear how that implies
marriage, or even traditional family.

-- Charles

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-10 Thread Deepa Mohan

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Sriram Karra ska...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 7:15 AM, Udhay Shankar N ud...@pobox.com wrote:


  8. Children talk back to adults.


 I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on
 the frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless
 beyond words.

 When I was a boy, we were taught to be discrete and respectful of
 elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise and impatient of
 restraint.
 --- Hesiod, Eighth Century B.C.

 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.quotations/msg/207140bd34d71a6b?pli=1




Ah. That is the exact quote I was looking for, thank you!

And I am sure that in every century after that, one can find a quote to the
same effect.

Deepa.

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

On Wednesday 11 Mar 2009 8:14:05 am Charles Haynes wrote:
 As I mention above, even if you believe that children are best raised
 in a stable multi-adult environment, it's not clear how that implies
 marriage, or even traditional family.

It does not, but the only known method so far is the family unit, with 
monogamy for the female in most societies. Nobody can argue that nothing else 
will work, but nothing else seems to have been thrown up as a solution in 
thousands of years of human history. If you know something different, I would 
like to know too.

If one were to combine human potential and human curiosity along with rigorous 
science, then one would have to have an ongoing prospective research study to 
see whether any other model is as good or better. The only problem is that 
the timescales to prove or disprove anything are so large that reseacrh 
becomes impractical. Perhaps time will tell if there is any other method.

Until then - I will continue to hold the conservative viewpoint that what 
seems to have worked so far might possibly be the best bet until someone else 
does the experimentation and figures out that something else is equally good 
or better.

shiv

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

On Wednesday 11 Mar 2009 8:14:05 am Charles Haynes wrote:
  And as Western populations are allowing female
  independence in this way, it  is being accompanied by a fall in fertility
  as women choose to have fewer babies.

 It seems to me that, at least for now, overpopulation is a more
 serious threat to sustainability.

I decided to respond to this separately because this is an interesting 
response.

Overpopulation and sub fertility are two separate issues because sub-fertlity 
and falling populations are occurring in different areas of the world from 
the areas of high fertility and high population. 

What is needed is not sub-fertility in Europe and hyper-fertility in India, 
but exactly the opposite. I would have thought that Europe could do with 
increased fertlity and India with reduced fertility. No matter how many 
European women fail to have kids for the noble cause of global 
overpopulation, it makes no difference to the fertility in India. Or Africa.

shiv

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-10 Thread .

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 10:16 PM, ss cybers...@gmail.com wrote:

 Research about the results of not marrying is going on right now.  Long term
 effects will not be in for at least 20 years from now. It is not at all clear
 that for human children the happy single parent environment is good.
 Research seems to show that the child actually needs a stable father figure
 as much as a mother.

A single parent environment could also be an outcome of the death of a
spouse. It seems weird to suggest that he/she tie the knot again just
to satisfy the state or society's definition of family. The
constitution does not interfere with an individual's rights. To my
knowledge, even Vedic literature/texts dont have any such well-defined
mandate about women and their marital obligations (fwiw, i dont
consider Manusmriti a religious text). Given that i have not read
every text out there, i'd like to know which text has such definition
wrt women, marriage, etc


 And as Western populations are allowing female
 independence in this way, it  is being accompanied by a fall in fertility as
 women choose to have fewer babies.

 As the number of babies being born falls below replacement level - two effects
 occur
 1) An absolute decrease in the population

This is a good thing IMO, since parenting is a responsibility, not a
right on account of its biological function. If one must propose the
argument that every woman must have kids why not encourage
adoption as a means of completing the circle. That is a nicer option
than adding to the already over populated planet.

 B) Female independence in the Western model is being seen as the single
 biggest threat to the family and to society. The Indian family is viewed as
 a unit in which the parents care for children until the children can be
 independent, and then it is expected that the children will care for the
 parents.

Although I dont understand the intricacies of the local language I do
understand the part where the children (in a joint family) have heated
exchanges while pressuring their parents to sell the ancestral
house/land and give them their share. That seems more like greed than
the indian family and culture which is being bandied about.


 All these society destroying occurrences are being blamed on Western style
 female independence and individualism imparted to children as opposed to
 the collective of the family that Indian society is thought to represent.

Greed, cunningness, avarice, malice, selfishness, etc... are human
traits and have nothing to do with so-called western influences. If
anything it seems like shifting the blame onto others shoulders.


 To the protesting Hindutvadis - their fight is not for a religion so much as
 for dharma. The word dharma itself means to hold or to preserve - or
 righteous duty. Preservation of the way of life is seen as a righteous duty.
 They are fighting what they see as a threat to society and the way of life
 that they feel India represents. I believe that they are unable to articulate
 their views and anxieties very well in English and hence their demands sound
 stupid in translation.

Nah, it seems like a few are dumping their narrow-minded ideas on the
general populace because they think they can control others despite
the law of the land not giving them this right. It has hardly anything
to do with the English language.

-- 
.

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-10 Thread Charles Haynes

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 2:04 PM, ss cybers...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Wednesday 11 Mar 2009 8:14:05 am Charles Haynes wrote:
 As I mention above, even if you believe that children are best raised
 in a stable multi-adult environment, it's not clear how that implies
 marriage, or even traditional family.

 It does not, but the only known method so far is the family unit, with
 monogamy for the female in most societies.
...
 If one were to combine human potential and human curiosity along with rigorous
 science, then one would have to have an ongoing prospective research study to
 see whether any other model is as good or better.

Except that the ideas in your first paragraph (monogamous families are
the best we know) are being used as justification to prohibit the
second (investigate alternatives) - sometimes violently.

Is it possible for divorced women to raise healthy successful
children? Maybe yes, maybe no, but to on the one hand discourage them
both actively and passively, and on the other hand point at their
subsequent failures as evidence that they cannot succeed would seem to
beg the question.

-- Charles

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-10 Thread lukhman_khan

 I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent  on the 
 frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are
 reckless beyond words.
 When I was a boy, we were taught to be discrete and
 respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly
 wise and impatient of restraint.- Hesiod, Eighth Century B.C.
 Ah. That is the exact quote I was looking for, thank you!
 And I am sure that in every century after that, one
 can find a quote to the same effect. Deepa.

Exactly. Change has been *constant* all through.
And it will deal itself.

If divorces are becoming rampant, somehow the broken families will deal with 
themselves. The society will also find a way. The people whose families broke 
will get along.

(A breakup)? it will all be normal.

Shiv is holding on to the notion that the family setup should stay and nothing 
new can replace it. Can he? then, be accused of cognitive dissonance 
(incorrectly spelled?)

The whole idea of breast beating at (loss of) indian culture can then be 
explained by Shivs theory.
1. Person A is doing things the old way for a 100 years
2. it is proved that it is not the best way to do it
3. A whole new idea (more efficient) is presented.
4. Person A refuses to follow 3. and denies 2. and attacks 3.

Lukhman.

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

2009-03-10 Thread Divya Manian

On 3/10/09 8:38 PM, lukhman_khan lukhman_k...@yahoo.com wrote:

 
 If divorces are becoming rampant, somehow the broken families will deal with
 themselves. The society will also find a way. The people whose families broke
 will get along.
 
 (A breakup)? it will all be normal.

Getting along is not the equivalent of a solution. Getting along is
just a survival mechanism that kicks in, but not without shaping your
thought process (which could affect you in other ways - not always
positively). 
 
 Shiv is holding on to the notion that the family setup should stay and nothing
 new can replace it. Can he? then, be accused of cognitive dissonance
 (incorrectly spelled?)

I don't think there has been any good replacement for the family setup
as you mentioned yet. People are at best coping. Divorce of parents always
leaves some mark on children (which affects their perception of marriage and
raising of kids - cant find link to this) and there is no best way yet to
eliminate it.

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?

On Wednesday 11 Mar 2009 9:05:51 am Charles Haynes wrote:
 Except that the ideas in your first paragraph (monogamous families are
 the best we know) are being used as justification to prohibit the
 second (investigate alternatives) - sometimes violently.

True.

And this is politics. On what grounds, and in what manner do you sell an 
exploration of what is not known to people who think they already know?

shiv

Re: [silk] What is Indian culture?