zvs
New Member
Posts: 40
|
Post by zvs on Jun 15, 2009 10:36:41 GMT -6
zvs, was that an argument or just strong, hefty confabulation? Confabulation on my part. If it's the same for you, then all the better! I am used to being argued with on the internet. Maybe I have to abandon that meme now. |
|
zvs
New Member
Posts: 40
|
Post by zvs on Jun 15, 2009 10:41:09 GMT -6
Great input, zvs. Don't worry about ST. He is a bit contentious at times, but says he is willing to respect you if you respect him. Still, I think he is a bit of a grouch. Well, so am I at times. Hey, I see you are a musician. Any music you might want to share with us? For some reason I thought you were in Finland or Sweden or something (based on our last commincations). Ah, no; I wish I were from some Northern country, always have had a soft spot for it, but I am a citizen of the good ol' economically ruined, torture-promoting and yet still proudly flag-waving USA! (Forgive me.) I respect everybody by default. I will have music to share in the near future. I'm working on some solo stuff. I've tried playing with other people for over 10 years now and met with constant disappointment, so I'm cloistering up in my parents' basement sometime soon to just do some stuff by myself. It will incorporate jazz, psychedelic, Eastern music, punk rock, dub... whatever feels right. Mostly instrumental. |
|
|
|
Post by ST on Jun 15, 2009 11:16:19 GMT -6
The atheism of non bhaktas IS indeed abedha, it IS about existence without a sense of relationship, which is in fact a contradiction but at that stage of reasoning the individual does not even realize the blunder.
Bhakti comes from bhakti; no amount of logic can produce a blue boy playing a flute.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jun 15, 2009 11:29:08 GMT -6
The atheism of non bhaktas IS indeed abedha, it IS about existence without a sense of relationship, which is in fact a contradiction but at that stage of reasoning the individual does not even realize the blunder. Bhakti comes from bhakti; no amount of logic can produce a blue boy playing a flute. Well you can capitalize the whole sentence and that would not make it any more true. There are real mayavadins in the world and one should not misapply the term to those who are not, to anyone whom one does not like. There is plenty of relationship in the atheistic worldview. There just are not absolute relationships. Your knowledge of the atheistic worldview seems entirely theoretical and baseless. Their freedom from religion allows them finally to really relate to other people and things. That is all that remains to them. No "hereafter" distractions. Yes, the bhakti memeplex reduplicates itself as a bhakti memeplex and within that memeplex there are blue boys and golden girls, not blue gods and golden goddesses. By the way, how is the weather down there in North Carolina? |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jun 15, 2009 11:37:35 GMT -6
Great input, zvs. Don't worry about ST. He is a bit contentious at times, but says he is willing to respect you if you respect him. Still, I think he is a bit of a grouch. Well, so am I at times. Hey, I see you are a musician. Any music you might want to share with us? For some reason I thought you were in Finland or Sweden or something (based on our last commincations). Ah, no; I wish I were from some Northern country, always have had a soft spot for it, but I am a citizen of the good ol' economically ruined, torture-promoting and yet still proudly flag-waving USA! (Forgive me.) I respect everybody by default. I will have music to share in the near future. I'm working on some solo stuff. I've tried playing with other people for over 10 years now and met with constant disappointment, so I'm cloistering up in my parents' basement sometime soon to just do some stuff by myself. It will incorporate jazz, psychedelic, Eastern music, punk rock, dub... whatever feels right. Mostly instrumental. Great. I would love to hear it when you have it done. I checked out your website the other day. Looks interesting. Sadly there was no music to download. I love the guitar and used to collect guitar music, mostly instrumental, but I have not done much of that lately. |
|
zvs
New Member
Posts: 40
|
Post by zvs on Jun 15, 2009 12:14:42 GMT -6
Great. I would love to hear it when you have it done. I checked out your website the other day. Looks interesting. Sadly there was no music to download. I love the guitar and used to collect guitar music, mostly instrumental, but I have not done much of that lately. The link in my profile is for a repository of writings that doesn't exist yet; I'm guessing you followed the parent directory back to my record label's site. I do have an album recorded, but I'm holding off on promoting it too much until I actually have the money to put it out. It's not nearly as good or interesting as what I'm working on now, though. It's mostly vocal and is heavily experimental. I noticed you name-dropped the Incredible String Band on your website. I found that comical (in a good way!). Ever get into anything like Jan Dukes de Grey? You say you like solo guitar; what about Django Reinhardt, Sir Richard Bishop, John Fahey? |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jun 15, 2009 12:24:17 GMT -6
Great. I would love to hear it when you have it done. I checked out your website the other day. Looks interesting. Sadly there was no music to download. I love the guitar and used to collect guitar music, mostly instrumental, but I have not done much of that lately. The link in my profile is for a repository of writings that doesn't exist yet; I'm guessing you followed the parent directory back to my record label's site. I do have an album recorded, but I'm holding off on promoting it too much until I actually have the money to put it out. It's not nearly as good or interesting as what I'm working on now, though. It's mostly vocal and is heavily experimental. I noticed you name-dropped the Incredible String Band on your website. I found that comical (in a good way!). Ever get into anything like Jan Dukes de Grey? You say you like solo guitar; what about Django Reinhardt, Sir Richard Bishop, John Fahey? I have listened to some Reinhardt, but I don't know the others. I like him. During my heavy listening and collecting days I mostly listened to Steve Vai, Greg Howe, Tony McAlpine and other metal guitarists like them. That fast and furious stuff kind of wears you down after a while. The synapses need a break. I still listen to them occasionally, though. |
|
zvs
New Member
Posts: 40
|
Post by zvs on Jun 15, 2009 12:34:08 GMT -6
I have listened to some Reinhardt, but I don't know the others. I like him. During my heavy listening and collecting days I mostly listened to Steve Vai, Greg Howe, Tony McAlpine and other metal guitarists like them. That fast and furious stuff kind of wears you down after a while. The synapses need a break. I still listen to them occasionally, though. I did not expect to hear those names! I think the only "fast guitarist" I really like would be Robert Fripp. That early King Crimson stuff was both technically unbelievable and compositionally brilliant. |
|
zvs
New Member
Posts: 40
|
Post by zvs on Jun 15, 2009 15:27:50 GMT -6
I did not expect to hear those names! I think the only "fast guitarist" I really like would be Robert Fripp. That early King Crimson stuff was both technically unbelievable and compositionally brilliant. Oh, and add John McLaughlin (Mahavishnu Orchestra) to the list! |
|
|
|
Post by ST on Jun 15, 2009 16:59:33 GMT -6
"Their freedom from religion allows them finally to really relate to other people and things."
Well thats an assumption, isn't it? And oversimplification, even if convenient. First of all, who are "they"? (Sounds like Shiva and his hord of Iskonian Theys, a class of beings absolutely known to Shiva down to every throbbing detail of body, mind, soul, and svarupaless misfortune. ;D)
Anways, has there even been a study somowhere showing that there this specific group of people experiencing exactly the same thing, i.e., freedom of an specific sort, and consequent 'actual' relating to "other people and things", who do feel this way because of choosing to be official atheists? That freedom may not be felt at all, or bondage was never there for some such atheists. The point being, surely there are nuances in the picture, surely absolute statements such as yours are made out of biased enthusiasm. Surely, too, atheists are not relating to "other people" any more realistically then religiously inclined people are.
|
|
|
|
Post by malati on Jun 15, 2009 20:00:07 GMT -6
Nitaidasji, I honestly don’t like to debate you. Afterall, this is your forum and you can have the last word if you decide to pull the plug. But I know being an academic you are game enough to engage in a healthy debate. Still, I feel like walking through the tulips because I don’t want to look like I’m duelling with. I have great respects for you because of the translation work you are doing for trads.
I’ll tell you why this has became a pet topic for me. Late last year a family friend came to my home for help with his accounts. He is an atheist; an archetypal materialist, drives a sportscar and have a string of girlfriends. (Don’t you all get me wrong ,despite people I know I’m a material loser). He knows I’m a “Hare Krishna”. So every time he sees me he always engages me in a philosophical/religious discussions. That time it so happened that he had the book The Dawkins Delusion by theist-biologist Alistair McGrath which he lent me in exchange for my Scientific American magazines. He then “threatened” me that he will bring next time his friend with a PhD in physics to give me a hard time. At around that period my 18 year old son who is in Univ., who loves physics and discusses the law of physics when he sees something that takes his fancy, taught me quantum physics when he discussed about the green car in front of us. These events aroused my interest about the connection between science/philosophy/God. I thought If I would engage with his friend then I should speak on his terms. So I explored everything on the topic . read books and watched practically ALL the debate -videos on the net between Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett and the theists scientists like Francis Collins, the director of the Genome Project now being considered for the top job at the NIH, Dinesh De Souza, Alvin Plantinga to name a few. Almost all Americans. We are very secular here in Australia. I believe I now have a reasonable understanding where Dawkins and his ilk are coming from.
I thought that C. Hitchens has a point . Religion has become a fossilized philosophy. And that GVism is going the same course. In this regard, I admire Tripurari Swami for giving his lectures a modern philosophical edge and interest to reach out to a more educated group of people. And I appreciate your effort , Nitaidasji , for this forum for an open discussion of GVism. Advaitadasji and I have different approach in spiritual life and he knows that. I actually hope to see devotees reading again Bhagavad Gita and Bhagavatam for their philosophy/theosophy. We are forgetting the rich philosohy of GVism. In my opinion the rasa lila described by the achrayas of the past are their realizations. And all sincere God seekers will have realizations.
Nitaiji, with due respect, I think you are misguided when you try to connect Dawkins with GVism and the love Mahprabhu talks about. Dawkins is a classical atheist. He says he is a secularist though he disparages anyone and everyone who believes in God every chance he gets. If he is not out to convert why doesn’t he just leave believers alone. He goes to universities in the US and UK to “convert” young people. Dawkins is an atheist with the big A. And he earns millions from the enterprise.
I don’t believe in the conspiracy theory that Dawkins is just a puppet of the religious groups to stir the sleeping God loving flocks. There is a resurgence of atheism because of 9/11.
Dawkins believes:
- that us and the cosmos are just random brute facts and that its pointless (whereas in GVism there is a reason for this world and the other worlds and there is hope)
- that there is no true essence of reality ; all there is is matter ( We believe the “ I” is the spirit soul)
- that when this body ends nothing is left -no reincarnation (GVism infers reincarnation)
- everything can be explained by matter, because there is only one reality and that is the physical reality and through memes (even our thoughts, qualia are just the firing of neurons in our brains, the feeling of love and longing for transcendent)
I am reading presently a book The mind of God (science and search for the ultimate meaning) by the physicist Paul Davies ( who is a deist-pantheist ,btw) (check it out, its brilliant) In it he thinks there are 2 planes of reality the physical and the platonic (from Plato) , wherein he claims that mathematics has a world of its own and that it belong to the platonic . I also learned that the physical world can be explained by mathematics in all its form like physics etc.
Davies is not exactly wrong because the Srimad Bhagavatam tells about layers of reality—the physical , the mind, the astral body, the intelligence, and other layers and the ultimate reality which is the abode of Krishna.
About love. Dawkins explains everything through evolution. He says that biology can only be understood in light of evolution. So therefore love for him is only for survival factor. Whereas the love that Mahaprabhu came down for is unconditional love as exemplified by the gopis. Although noble women, gopis break taboo and conventional morality to engage in extra marital affair with Krishna. The love of gopis is not for survival effect. it is actually like committing suicide in a society where social mores is what makes you as a person. That is the climax of bhava, the highest love, prema.
Of course , we all may fall short of the requirements of that kind of love, prema, but that does not negate its essence- unconditional. Not for selfish survival.
About evolution. I agree with you NItadasji. I believe in evolution. That we came from a common descent, from animals and our genes have 98.5% similarity with the chimpanzees. And I agree with you that, that is the way God chose to present the world.
About the Augustine, big bang stuff. Sorry if I was not clear or missed something. English is my second language as you know. I mentioned them to build up my case. Mentioning them I believe Is not anachronistic in anyway. If you do analytic philosophy you build up your case from the bottom up, you look at the fundamentals. That was just to show that Subala was being logical when he analogized mayavada with meme. That is if you believe in the memes. I DON’T.
Enough for that ramblings. This is my last post. Thanks for giving me the chance to say my piece.
Haribol
Malati
|
|
|
|
Post by vs on Jun 15, 2009 22:27:33 GMT -6
I'm confused. I didn't read anywhere that Nitai accepts everything Dawkins says wholesale. I thought the point was just about the concept of memes.
Regarding memes, from wiki;
A meme (pronounced /miːm/ - rhyming with "cream"[1]), a postulated unit or element of cultural ideas, symbols or practices, gets transmitted from one mind to another through speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena. (The etymology of the term relates to the Greek word mimema for "something imitated".)[2] Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes, in that they self-replicate and respond to selective pressures.[3] Memeticists have not definitively empirically proven the existence of discrete memes or their proposed mechanism — they do not form part of the consensus of mainstream social sciences. Meme theory lacks the same degree of influence granted to its counterpart, genetics.
This sounds an awful lot like cultural samskaras to me, and that is the context in which I use the word. Am I mistaken to do so?
Continuing on;
Aaron Lynch described seven general patterns of meme transmission, or "thought contagion":[11]
Quantity of parenthood: an idea which influences the number of children one has. Children respond particularly receptively to the ideas of their parents, and thus ideas which directly or indirectly encourage a higher birthrate will replicate themselves at a higher rate than those that discourage higher birthrates.
Efficiency of parenthood: an idea which increases the proportion of children who will adopt ideas of their parents. Cultural separatism exemplifies one practice in which one can expect a higher rate of meme-replication — because the meme for separation creates a barrier from exposure to competing ideas.
Proselytic: ideas generally passed to others beyond one's own children. Ideas that encourage the proselytism of a meme, as seen in many religious or political movements, can replicate memes horizontally through a given generation, spreading more rapidly than parent-to-child meme-transmissions do.
Preservational: ideas which influence those that hold them to continue to hold them for a long time. Ideas which encourage longevity in their hosts, or leave their hosts particularly resistant to abandoning or replacing these ideas, enhance the preservability of memes and afford protection from the competition or proselytism of other memes.
Adversative: ideas which influence those that hold them to attack or sabotage competing ideas and/or those that hold them. Adversative replication can give an advantage in meme transmission when the meme itself encourages aggression against other memes.
Cognitive: ideas perceived as cogent by most in the population who encounter them. Cognitively transmitted memes depend heavily on a cluster of other ideas and cognitive traits already widely held in the population, and thus usually spread more passively than other forms of meme transmission. Memes spread in cognitive transmission do not count as self-replicating.
Motivational: ideas that people adopt because they perceive some self-interest in adopting them. Strictly speaking, motivationally transmitted memes do not self-propagate, but this mode of transmission often occurs in association with memes self-replicated in the efficiency parental, proselytic and preservational modes.
Again, family samskaras, religious samskaras, pop-culture samskaras, these seem to be what memes are.
I didn't read the entire wiki entry and I see there is a theory that genes and memes evolve together simultaneously, this to me sounds a lot like the reasoning vocalized behind the South Asian caste system (from those who support it).
But just because the theory of memes makes sense, how does that equate to Nitai supporting Dawkins in all his views?
I currently use the word "meme" as a replacement for "samskaras" when I speak to people unfamiliar with the concept of samskaras.
|
|
|
|
Post by vs on Jun 15, 2009 22:39:33 GMT -6
In addition to the above, here are some more definitions of "meme":
a cultural unit (an idea or value or pattern of behavior) that is passed from one person to another by non-genetic means (as by imitation)
Any unit of cultural information, such as a practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another. ... (my comment: diksha, bhajan siksha and hari katha)
is an element of a culture or system of behaviour that is passed from one individual to another by non-genetic means; or, more simply, that which is passed on by imitation.
An idea or pattern of thought that "replicates" like a virus by being passed along from one thinker to another. ...
So "meme" basically means "samskara" as far as I can tell.
|
|
|
|
Post by vs on Jun 15, 2009 23:31:28 GMT -6
In addition to the addition above, we have Deepak Chopra waxing eloquent about memes here; www.intentblog.com/archives/2005/09/memes_part_2_a.htmlThats Part 2 of "Memes". Haven't found Part 1 yet. Below in the comments section Deepak writes; In sanscrit the word " sanskara' would be the closest to a meme. A sanskara influnces cognition, perception,emotions,behaviour,relationships,social interactions enviornment etc.Furthermore since a sanskara is part of "store consciousness' it is in the soul.Since the soul cannot be squeezed into the volume of a body or the span of a lifetime;it reincarnates and recycles itsefBelow that some other commenters chime in with their take on meme vis a vis samskara. I'm under the impression though that samskaras are not stored in the atma but rather in the composite suksma sarir; mun, buddhi, ahankara, which travels from one incarnated lifetime to the next. |
|
The meme and the cream
Guest
|
Post by The meme and the cream on Jun 16, 2009 7:38:58 GMT -6
It is not clear whether Nitai is or isn't "supporting Dawkins in all his views". But he definitely painted himself in a corner when he said things like "Their freedom from religion allows them (atheists) finally to really relate to other people and things." There are several problems with this statement, and I pointed out a couple already. The statement is an opinion but he states it as if fact. The adjective "finally" and especially the adverb "really" would have a very different aplication in the language of a knowledgable (well in Nitai's case lets say caring) gaudiya vaishnava. 'Finally' in the language of Mahaprabhu does not mean just embracing a new type of fundamentalism because of getting fed up with a previous one. 'Finally' in CV means the end of the cicle of samskara (just for you vs  ) and beginning of a life of meaningful spiritual cultivation. And 'really' means in accordance with reality, sanbhanda, the particular feeling in relation to the real other. Then there is love. Even though Nitai knows very well that, in Dawkins estimation, the idea of love itself is a meme, he carelessly presents it to be very close to the love propounded by Mahaprabhu, so close that it might just do. To be fair, Nitai did say atheists do not relate in absolute terms. But then, why did he earlier objected that bhakti has to absolutely be gotten from an specific line of human beings? This contradicting shows carelessness, to say the least. Making as we go we are, but then, perhaps that too is a dynamic of CV. Its all good, and its all God. ;D |
|
) and beginning of a life of meaningful spiritual cultivation. And 'really' means in accordance with reality, sanbhanda, the particular feeling in relation to the real other.