(Oh, I've just seen there's another post arrived while I was writing this). Thanks.
So that it may not be said that I ran away from this discussion, I'm happy to metaphorically burn you a new one and continue:
Although you denounce scepticism in case it never ends.
All arguments are statements and all statements have a degree of ambiguity on how a word is defined.
I'm glad we agree on that.
The Nyaya arguments work with one who has a common understanding of the word "sound" and "eternal" Most people would have no problem comprehending the argument because we know what sound and eternal generally mean.
Nevertheless, this does not solve the fundamental problem above. People having "a common understanding" of the words used in their philosophical discourse does not automatically confer insight into nature. Indeed, it is a good explanation for why there are probably thousands of different philosophical systems of belief, all of them - until recently - considering themselves the only absolutely valid one.
What Navya Nyaya logic does is express a statement in a formal symbolic form using qualifiers and qualificands and defining the locus of the statement - so for example a statement like "The monkey is on the tree" will generally be interpreted as a monkey sitting on a tree, but the statement technically is false at the same time, because monkey is not on the entire tree, the monkey is only sitting on a part of the tree thus a qualifier needs to be inserted into the statement which makes it specific which part. Similarly in the case of the statement "sound is eternal, because it is produced" which is the old Nyaya way of expressing the argument, the Navya Nyaya qualify that sound which has hearingness has producidness. I do not hear sounds all the time, but if all of a sudden I hear a loud crash, I infer something caused it.
Yes, you "infer", notice. But inferences like that are not necessarily true.
Hence all sound that I hear has a cause which produced it.
Incorrect use of "hence", and incorrect conclusion. Just because the only animals someon ever saw with four legs were dogs, they may not assume that the next time they see four legs they belong to a dog. Similarly, just because in our experience all sound has a cause, we cannot be absolutely sure that there is not a sound that is without cause, or eternal.
I am very familiar with it, and you know the postmodern idea also applies to modern science - it's all just narratives, stories, social constructions!
Yes, that's why it is flexible.
But why on Earth would you be arguing that now all of a sudden,
Er, because it became a current issue between us, obviously.
because throughout this thread you've been arguing about science, how stuff has been verified
Nope, never said that, or if I did, I mustn't have been concentrating. Clearly it would contradict what I have very clearly stated about science being empirical, but flexible.
, how one system of thought has more truth-value than another(modern science vs Indian science;
I rather think this is you making up stories about what I have said. Although, now that YOU mention it, this is what we are trying to discuss, and I obviously believe that science is truer than Indian philosophy, or we would not be having the discussion.
Another false syllogism - because I consider science to be better than mystical rationalization, you imagine that I think science is absolutely true (or "verified"). Shall we go through the sick ironies of that again?
Yoga vs modern physics) So now you are being inconsistent - backing up my idea all skeptics are inconsistent lol
Keep lolling, buddy.
The contrast is methodological - The West prefers empirical methods; the Indians prefer rational methods. However, they both are valid epistemologies.
That is to be decided.
If I say the statement "Paul is not in the house" you infer automatically "Paul is outside of the house" you have not obtained this knowledge through your senses, but through a priori deduction.
Except for that pesky definition problem we mentioned. It just will not go away. Paul may be neither in the house nor outside the house. Paul may not exist. Paul may exist, but be neither in or out because he exists in a different dimension to houses. These may appear slightly tortuous, abstruse objections, but if one is trying to approach the fundamental reality of nature and experience, they must not assume anything.
Another way of knowing whether Paul is outside the house is to directly see Paul outside the house.
Unless seeing is unreliable. This is crucial. My scepticism of mystical philosophy mostly rests on this. The evidence that we imagine all sorts of things, and my current belief that there is no absolutely sure way to discern true apprehension from illusion, means I cannot just sit in meditation, think I've witnessed Universal Oneness, and conclude that there is Universal Oneness because I just witnessed it. I witnessed waking up in a forest with a man stamping on my back. Then I woke up from that dream. Now, if I believe I am talking to you on the Internet, it is possible, is it not, that I may wake up from this, finding it to have been only a dream?
Now science in the West is largely done by preference through empirical methods, largely because the West never actually developed scientific epistemological logic - in the West logic has always been deductive "All x's are y's, z is an x, therefore z is y" The classic example "All ravens are black, here is a raven, therefore it is black" This type of logic considers the truth of the statement irrelevant, the conclusion is always valid based on the premises. Your statement could be "All women are bad drivers, Paula is a woman, therefore she is a bad driver" The statement is logically valid! This has been the biggest downfall of Western logic - because this type logic does not discover anything about reality - it is not scientific. As one modern Indian philosopher of science(author of Indian philosophy and philosophy of science) shows the West never made the link between logic and epistemology and hence have always been plagued by the demarcation problem.
I accept that this is a valid criticism of that kind of deduction, perhaps all deduction (though I'm not sure your version of the history of it is quite right, but no matter). I'm eager to read your contrasting Indian method that reveals absolute knowledge...
Indian logic, on the other hand is scientific, it is directly related to the empirical world(logic and epistemology link) So the classic example of the Indian 5 step syllogism:
- There is fire on the hill(Statement)
- Because there is smoke on the hill(Reason)
- Where there is smoke there is fire, such as in the kitchen(Observable example)
- Similarly, there is smoke on this hill(Application)
- Therefore, there is fire on the hill(Conclusion)
So this is a case of where you can gather scientific knowledge about your world through observing relationships you see around you in the world, such that if P is true, y must always be true! Here is an example of the same kind of similar logic later proposed in by Mills in the West:
- There is sodium in the Bunsen flame
- Because the Bunsen flame is orange
- When sodium interacts with the Bunsen flame it always turns orange, such as in previous experiments
- Similarly, the Bunsen flame here is orange
- Therefore, there is sodium in the Bunsen flame
It is surprising something so simple never occurred to the West till the bloody 19th century!
I'm sorry, is that it!? You must have something else yet up your sleeve.
They were using the useless logic of the Greeks. This is held back science because it was based on silly Aristolian physics up until Newton which declared a "universal" such as "Nature abhors a vacuum" based on Aristotle's theories. Then tried to apply it to the real world coming up with nonsense like "The arrow remains in the motion, because the arrow creates a vacuum in front of it, and the air quickly rushes to fill up the vacuum because nature abhors a vacuum" So when it was realized that Greek logic is invalid to use for science, rational methods were abandoned in the West and the empirical experimental methods was devised(the first to lay this foundation was Galileo, but ironically his experiment was not an actual experiment, it was a thought experiment!)
But, if I understood the Indian and Mills' logic above, you have done nothing significantly different, as far as I can see. You appear to be suggesting that when we observe a yellow bunsen flame, we can know that it has sodium in it, because of the above observations (sodium gives a yellow flame).
How is that any different from "Here is a raven, therefore it is black" based on the observation earlier of ravens always being black? The assumption that the flame is yellow is based on earlier observation of (the only, presumably) yellow flame being known to be associated with sodium. The assumption that there is fire on the hill, or smoke, is based on the assumed causal link (or rather, absolutely certain coincidence) between smoke and fire.
As a side note, if Mills had come up with a reliable philosophical method of revealing the true causes of things, it seems odd to suggest that science is still cursed by not making use of it. It doesn't make use of it (absolutely) because it's clearly as slack as a dead dog's tail. Science indeed knowingly makes tentative judgements about possible implications of observations, even tries to mathematically assess the probabilities that we might reasonably attach to each, but does not fall foul of false logic - THIS IS WHY IT REMAINS ENTIRELY FLEXIBLE (as far as that is possible, which may also have some limits we do not know about!). Hell, modern science does all in the way of humility before empirical complexity but give up and go home!
But the Greek logical fallacies have persisted in Western philosophy and science even up until today and hence why the problem of induction is still a massive problem in Western philosophy of science.
I'm not even an "expert", but I really doubt all of that very much. Why, if you know this, hasn't someone told them? You think the whole modern world is utterly stupid?
Western science is still based on Greek way of hypothetica-deductive. A hypothesis is devised(like Nature abhors a vacuum" The hypothesis is applied to the real world to see if it confirms it(Aristotle observes the speed of an object is proportional to the density, as is seen when we compare an object falling in water and oil) If it is confirmed the hypothesis is kept(for bloody hundreds or thousands of years)
Then one day some guy comes along points out a contrary observation(like Galileo) the hypothesis falls into doubt, but the observations are explained away as statistically insignificant to justify the null hypothesis. Then the quantity of observations pile up and become statistically significant, the hypothesis is falsified. New one is created to account for the old observations and the new observations.
Sort of. So? What is wrong with that? More to the point, have you got anything better?
So this justifies Kuhn's objections that Western science proceeds through guesses which he points out are often ad-hoc intuitions and this is why paradigmatic shifts are sudden.
Indeed. And the idea that there are two fundamental kinds of stuff, purusa and prakriti, etc., etc., etc., etc....if you bring the kundalini up to the crown chakra you become enlightened....those aren't "guesses" I suppose? I'm still waiting for anything to bridge reliably between human brains looking out at the world and trying to figure out what it's all about and Absolute Knowledge, whilch you seem to keep saying you Indians have.
Kuhn's objections are taken very seriously by philosophers of science, Kuhn revolutionized exactly how we perceive science and basically humbled us a bit!
I have to say at this point that I have witnessed a great many scientists who are ignorant of this point. I'm sorry it has taken so long for you to discover that I - and probably the most important sector of science - have been well aware of all this for a long time. If you investigate what modern scientists say about the probabilistic nature of their art, you will find I am telling you the truth. The further we go from mixing well-known chemicals together in a test-tube towards trying to deduce the nature of the universe, the more tentative and therefore plural are the conjectures. You really are trying to teach your grandmother to suck eggs here, and I've not even formally studied philosophy.
The problem is this hypothetica-deductive method which has its roots in clumsy Greek thinking is based on the epistemological assumption that "knowledge is justified belief" In other words whatever you know - as long as you can rationalize it is constitutes knowledge(!)
Well I'm sorry, but looking at the history of this thread, that is rich.
The problem with this epistemological theory was pointed out only in the 20th century with the Gettier problem.
I'll google that. I've not heard of it. Thanks.
Oh yeah, I remember the gist now, Gettier seems to prove that there is reason to doubt justified true belief. Interesting. Exactly what I've been telling you...
Indian epistemological method knew from the very start about the Getter problem so never took hypothesis seriously.
Ah, but you're making a false distinction between knowledge and hypothesis, I believe.
It was ruled out as a valid means of knowledge because it was laden with theory and conjecture(what in philosophy of science is known as theory-ladeness) Rather, the Indian method was based on very keen observation of the world around them which they classified into sensory categories. They observed not only what there was, but the relationships between things(smoke and fire; movement and force etc) This happened in every Indian scientific field: Medicine, Engineering, Botany, Meteorology, Psychology, Biology, Metallurgy, Chemistry.
And yet we have established already that "relationships between things" do not prove absolutely either causal connection or even coincidence. And your supposed solution to the Gettier problem relies on this condition: "very keen observation". May I suggest that this is a ridiculous magical obfuscation rather than a solution.
The problem was: how can we observe, form knowledge, and be absolutely sure that our knowedge is true, wasn't it? My view is that we can't - hence science is flexible and probabilistic and practial. Yours appears to be that we can. But the problem exists only because we know that observation is not 100% reliable, and you have solved it merely by supposing that a certain set of people (Indians, surprise surprise) have powers of observation that are "very keen" - i.e. you must, I suppose, mean "so keen as to see direct knowledge".
But this is where I believe I came in. We could avoid all this nonsense and just say that you believe certain people can see truth because they can see truth, or under certain circumstances peoaple can see truth. I am STILL waiting for anything remotely like a justification of belief. If someone provides it, I might then accept that it is True.
It is no fluke that they had so much scientific knowledge
- they had valid methods of epistemology and classification.
As far as I have seen, unfounded assertion.
Let's look at Yoga for instance: Yoga very keenly observed the mind using phenomenology: One of those observations that breathing and thought activity were connected in the form of breath and thought activity were directly proportional: The slower, smoother and deeper your breath lesser the thought activity in the mind. Today, we take it for granted when they tell us to calm down by taking a deep breath. But bloody hell such an obvious observation was NEVER made in the West till they discovered Yoga lol
You are seriously deluded. First of all, I take the assertion that the West didn't know that slower deeper breaths tend to be calming as utter twaddle. But you're still not anywhere near absolute knowledge. And you have just done what you said Indian philosophy does not do - presented a hypothesis: breath and thought activity are directly proportional. For it to be transformed from a hypothesis and considered absolute fact still begs the intermediate step: Indians have infallible powers of observation. I have just disproved it by breathing quite fast and feeling calmer. You're an idiot.
The reason why Western science, technology and philosophy lagged behind India right up to the 17th century by centuries to millenias was because they had bad logical methods.
No. It had a lot to do with circumstances - like wars, climate, and who knows what else. I've demonstrated that you have no superior philosophy. YOU have demonstrated that you have no superior philosophy!
<snip - racist assertions ->
Let's face it when it comes to philosophy, the West are like school children before the Indian-Eastern philosophers.
Every moment talking to you proves how irrational, prejudiced and wrong you are.
No, your objection is valid - just because there are 5 senses does not mean there are 5 building blocks of matter. This is actually the arguments posed by other schools against Nyaya-Vaiseshika realist school, who also brought up the argument there maybe other senses like the sense of balance. The other senses you mentioned like internal sense of magnetism is included in the feeling category.
Convenient. Or you'd have to make it 6, or 7...but really who gives a shit - these are just primitive guesses about magic numbers. We've also got 5 digits on each hand, 4 fingers and a thumb. Hmmm, that must mean something. It means as much as the categories of existence based on human senses! None whatsoever.
The entire reality that we perceive is made up sensory data: visuals, sounds, tastes, smells, feelings. The mind is included as the 6th sense because through that we get cognition, knowledge, thoughts, imagination, ideas that are not apprehended by the 5 basic senses.
Yes, I know. I've read a bit on yoga. So as well as there being 5 basic kinds of stuff, there are also 4, plus one being ineffable ground to everything else, but then there are 6, because of the mind...and two only, purusa and the other one....why do I get the distinct feeling someone is just making shit up?
This is why Nyaya-Vaiseshika system classifies the substances of reality as only 9: 5 basic sensory elements, space, time and consciousness(later a controversial 10th substance is added after arguments with Buddhists: Negation/absence!)
Yay! Now it's 9! Good old Buddhists - trust them to be so barking mad as to include a category of things that is a Nothing! I propose another - yellow - you can't deny some things are. Far too normal, PJ - combinatorialness.
So if the ancient ones had such good powers of observation, how come they had to keep adding categories?
BUT, and this is a big but the Samkhya challenge the Nyaya-Vaiseshika ontology that because we perceive a plurality of 9 substances, this does not mean there are 9 substances - because if there are 9 separate substances how can we perceive their relations, in what are they contained? How do we explain their interactions with one another? Therefore, there can only be once ultimate substance of which the 9 substances are products which have evolved and transformed.
Fanciful nonsense. Running away from the Gettier problem. Or they thought that they'd solved it by making this false dichotomy between knowledge and hypothesis.
We could have got here ages ago if you'd not kept telling me all the details of Samkhya fantasies. Here is the truth: you may experience something and say that there is some experience. It may seem to have certain characteristics and come in different kinds, moments, etc., but AS SOON AS YOU FORMULATE ANY LINGUISTIC THOUGHT ABOUT IT, you can not say that the thought describes the experience with certainty. I can sit in meditation and think I feel something that Hindus tell me is samadhi, but I cannot conclude what samadhi is, perhaps not even that samadhi exists. Even if I have a certain degree of faith in the statement "there is a condition called samadhi", there is no way of knowing what its meaning is, whether it is divine or incidental, a meaningless happenstance in the brain or some deeply spiritually significant route to something else. These are hypotheses. And the lie - I'm sorry, but it is - of your philosophy is simply to pretend that they are pure, absolute, undoubtable.
This is why Samkhya are called "evolutionists" for they say all substances we perceive are actually evolutes of the same continuous substance i.e., the quantum field. Hence they reject the atomic thesis.
The argument equally applies to GTR modern physics which is based on the Standard model that reality is made up of 50+ different particles(!) which is a pluralist realism like the NV................
I'm going to stop now and delete the rest unless something interesting turns up later.
There cannot be 50 distinct particles, because if they are truly distinct then they are isolated from one another and cannot combine or interact with one another.
Assumption. Hypothesis. Maybe distinct kinds of particles can interact. Did you consider that!?
The problem is resolved by quantum theory there are no particles, it is all one single continuous quantum field made out of superpositions of wavefunctions.
And yet "quantum" means a little bit. And particles are fired at each other all the time at CERN. Yes, they sometimes appear to act as waves, but this is under dispute and not proven either way - not even by MODERN DAY HINDUS WORKING IN PARTICLE PHYSICS!!!
That there are particles, space, time(i.e, locality and realism) has been falsified by the Bell and Legget experiment - but still we preciously hold onto GTR? Why? Because it's bloody useful!
Since that is a hypothesis, it's falsifiable, and since "we hold onto it preciously", quite a number of particle physicists must disagree with your preferred interpretation. But of course, the great Surya Deva is not only a supreme philosopher (ha!) he can also tell particle physics what it ought to believe....tell them there are 5 types of stuff - or maybe 9 or 2 - based on Hindu scripture. See how they like that. Burn them a new one.
You see Indian philosophy applies very neatly to modern philosophical problems.
Bollocks...oh, i forgot I was trying to get out of here...
The reason I have accused you off being dismissive and chauvanistic of Indian science and technology is exactly that you keep on comparing it to cavemen stuff
Liar. I clearly said there were phases of knowledge. I appreciate Indian philosophy, maths, etc., in historical context.
, but constantly overlook the fact that none of this stuff was achieved in the West till the bloody 17th century.
As knowledge increased through history, different countries took the baton, you might say. Yours had its go. At other times, people in India didn't know anything, but somewhere else they were discovering and thinking - as I suggested before - Africa. You know EVERYONE came from Africa, don't you? Do you hear Africans saying "Them Injuns wuz iggerunt bastards right up until about 500BCE"? And now we live in a global economy, we have the opportunity of working together without racism and nationalism.
I am sorry but this is the problem I have with the West in how it treats non-Western cultures and traditions. The west are arrogant, not humble, dismissive, disparaging, disrespectful self-congratulating and pretend they are the the only civilization that had science, technology, democracy etc.
And I'm sorry, but only you can remove this bigotted chip you have on your shoulder. Start trying to think of people as individuals, and less as masses of one culture or another, and stop generalising what everyone in one group thinks and says about another. This is what makes you a racist. It may be because you have had unfortunate things happen to you. But it doesn't make it not racism, and it doesn't belong to anyone else but you. Your racist prejudicial over-generalizations are coming from your fingertips onto the fucking internet and I'm frankly getting pig sick of it.
Unfortunately, what this does is it breeds resentment to the West from non-Western cultures. I often hear Western people say "Why do they hate us so much"? --- This is exactly the reason why - get of your bloody high horses, there are other civilizations in this world too that have done a lot of stuff wayyyy before you did, and in fact a lot of their stuff you stole lol
I did not steal it. Don't tell me I - or "we" stole things. If someone in the past, with a pointy helmet, stole things from India, a) it's over and done with, and b) being a pig-ignorant racist isn't going to get it back. Fuck, did you learn NOTHING from Gandhi? Although he was a pretty sarcastic SOB anyway - what do you think of Western civilsation? - I think it would be a very good idea.
In any case I am not nationalist, I am globalist.
Well when you get over your racism, you can begin to acheive that aspiration.
I would like to see a multicultural and globalized world based on all cultures and traditions in the world, and as long as the West continues to undermine other cultures and traditions this is not going to happen. In fact what is more likely to happen is a massive third world war
And chucking nationally-based and culturally-based over-general racist aspersions around isn't going to help.
No brainer really. I am a second generation Indian. I was born in the UK, but my parents are both Indians who emigrated to the UK. Technically, I am British Indian, because I have two cultural upbringings: Western and Indian. I have aligned myself more to the Indian side of it in forming my ethnic identity, but my wider identity is human and even wider than that identity is I am existence(but perhaps too wide for ya lol)
Yeah, people like me don't understand deep things like being part of existence.
There are no new Yogas? Yoga is a system of Indian philosophy. All types of Yoga whether they be Jnana Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga, Mantra Yoga, Kundalini and Hatha Yoga, Kriya or Tantra Yoga, as well modern vinyasa systems follow the basic framework of the system. If you get rid of the basic framework then it is no longer Yoga. As B.K.S Iyengar says, one of founders of modern Vinyasa Yoga if Yoga just becomes bout only postures and physical exercise, it is "un-yoga"
A reasonable opinion, which is quite a refreshing change coming from you. OTOH, before there were lots of types of yoga, there was just one or two, and all sorts of inovations had to happen, no doubt with long arguments into the dusty Indian night, until the unthinkable became thinkable, and the heretics stopped being persecuted by the authoritarians, and another sect was born. The Charvaka, for instance, who you say were thorough disproved or something - I could say they were oppressed. Virtually all their writings were destroyed in your barbaric history by those who thought themselves very superior and divine. But they were materialistic, just like me. And they were named after their fine distinctions in the way the used words - the Sweet-Tongued Rebels, IIRC. But you're too reactionary for rebels. No, it's all be worked out and fixed now (despite not having been at some arbitrary time earlier) and nobody has to mess with it now!
The abuse still carries on and that is why we are fighting it. Fortunately, it is not physical abuse as it was in the past were we flogged, tortured, deliberately impoverished and left to die in famines(As Will Durant points out, the British were inhumane to the Indians and drained India of all her wealth and prosperity and left Indians in abject poverty) Today, the abuse is more subtle and intellectual - in representations of our history, culture, philosophy and civilization(some have coined the hinduphobia is a new form of academic anti-semiticism) Our gods are made fun of(such as in the Simpsons spoof of Apu) Our achievements hardly acknowledged. We are depicted as a superstitious, backwards, poor curry-guzzling people. Films like "Slumdog millionaire" which are still made today, like the older films like "Gunga-din" or "Indiana Jones and the temple of doom" depict us in the most negative light.
I have faced a lot of racism myself living here in UK - and before you deny that racism against the Indians does not exist in the UK - recall what happened in Big Brother, Shilpagate - she was ganged up on and bullied by the "whites" and made fun up based on racial stereotypes "Do you live in a shack or a house" they ask, "She undercooked the chicken, no wonder Indians are so unhealthy and unhygenic" "Shilpa Poppaddum"
I recently was in the pub and some white people started talking to me "Are you a taxi driver" they asked me! One person once said to me, who could hardly speak English themselves, "Your English is different to our English" When I can English better than half of the country lol
That is terrible behaviour.
My philosophy teacher in no uncertain terms said to me "Only the Greeks did philosophy"
Seriously, if this is not abuse, then what is?
Jesus, it's not abuse. It's an opinion. If it's wrong argue and correct it. Wow, you tell me to take a chill pill, and acuse me of not being open to other views, and you describe that as abuse! That chip, sonny boy, that chip is enormous.
So who are you?
There's the big question. I'm sorry you distracted me with so much verbiage that there may yet be interesting bits later on leading up to this, but it looks to me as though they are all predicated on the earlier crucial philsophical point (error, in my view) that you think you have overcome the Gettier problem. A dangerous error. Check your thinking. Essentiallly, we have just reviewed my thought process, which is what led me where I am now, a rational empiricist - until someone can persuade me of anything more reasonable. If we'd skipped all the BS, I could tell you deeper things - that actually I have got to the point where I believe it is ultimately a decision people have to make (assuming they ever get that far in philosophy) - reason and true empiricism OR mysticism. Either you believe what you sense to be true, in other words, at some level you have faith, or you work things out, are sceptical, and test things. You could say that I don't believe things. But then maybe you could also say that. Funny kind of convergence. The mystic says he doesn't believe things, he just knows (based on what he observes and then trusting observation and thought). The empiricist says he doesn't believe, because although he has some trust of his observation and thought, he knows that it may suddenly surprise him, and it looks as though - from mathematics and reason itself, that absolute knowledge may be impossible. I hope that's clear enough. I wish you peace.
You are the conscious observer, the pure consciousness.
Hypothesis. Culturally received intuitive guess. Sorry.
Sit in meditation, become the detached observer, allow all sensations, thoughts, emotions to rise and fall without reacting to them. Remain like this indefinitely(Buddha did it for 40 days and 40 nights) and you will know enlightenment and realize who or what you really are
I have not seen anything to persuade me that this is based on anything other than self-hypnotic confirmation bias instigated by the seed of the philosophical hypothesis one arbitrarily (due to culture) inherits or chooses. I have, however, a fair amount of evidence that what you conclude is culturally biased, can be shown to be - different religions being chief among them, but a lot more is coming from brain science. Certainly, I consider the idea of sitting meditating indefinitely in the hope of discovering such a thing untenable, given the length of a person's life and the dubious nature of the philosophy. I haven't completely wasted my life trying, I learned a lot, it was relaxing and I am definitely better for it, but I rather wish I'd spent my life persuing knowledge through (proper) science.
Talking to you has reaffirmed my scepticism. I do hope you will reconsider and I offer the invitation to tell you more if you're interested. But I'm not going to be bothered with anymore 2 - 5 - 9 - category-no-category-everything is one - but different - absolutist mushy doublethink that is ancient indian philsophy. Ta.