No, I was just responding to your penitent preoccupation with Western ideology, while denouncing several thousand years of so-called Indian non-scientific thought.
On 27 Mar 2011, at 18:55, manikuttyanand wrote: > I think you are implying that atomic/molecular physics is a complicated > subject, but perhaps I am not understanding you. > > Anand > > --- In [email protected], Chetan Nagendra <chetan@...> wrote: > > > > Dalton, Thompson. > > > > Crap. > > > > > > On 26 Mar 2011, at 17:19, Anand Manikutty wrote: > > > > > > Some day when I can afford to not hold down a full time job I'd like > > > > to get some formal training in Philosophy even though my > > > > current instinct is to hate it for its eminent unsuitability to > > > > tackling > > > > the subject. > > > I respectfully disagree that that is the job of philosophers really. This > > > is really about cosmology. Whether or not the universe is a hologram is a > > > question best left to physicists. > > > > > > Pace Paramarthananda, ideas related to the reality of the Universe in > > > premodern Indian texts (the Advaita of Sankara, et cetera) do not have a > > > basis in the scientific method. The revolution in our understanding of > > > the nature of matter came with the work of Dalton, Thompson, et cetera. > > > We have some comments on these strands of opinion in the teaching > > > materials accompanying our book "The Essence of Leadership". > > > > > > In a nutshell, we don't believe that there is much to be gained from > > > studying premodern Indian history if the aim is to gain a better > > > understanding of the nature of the universe. > > > > > > Anand > > > P.S. More (to follow) here : > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/indo-euro-americo-asian_list/message/324 > > > > > > > >
