Then I invite you to debate with me, as long as you going to be honest and sincere and open. I just ask the following of you
1) Stop the name calling, sarcasm and condescending comments
2) Stop misrepresenting my arguments, making strawmans
3) Engage with my arguments
4) Drop the believer vs skeptic bigotry
These are hardly unreasonable requests.
Then evidence for this came in. When I concentrated on this actual problem, my argument was that you can't have a reasonable argument and make contradictory statements (unless you clarify that the contradiction is only an illusion for some reason) - these are the rules of what I called "normal logic" (just meaning this is how everybody must be expected to debate). But he came back with another twist, another way to get off the hook for the moment, another lie, by "educating" me that there are different kinds of logic, not just what I called "normal" (binary), but also quantum logic and fuzzy logic. He didn't miss the opportunity also to use this to emphasise my stupid Western blinkered mindset.
In Jainism there is a fallacy know as "nayabhasha" It means the fallacy of absolutism. The reality that we see can be seen from multiple angles and views - like a glass can be half full from one angle or half empty from another angle. Similarly, we need to qualify our statements by saying exactly which angle we are perceiving reality from.
In our ordinary classical, binary newtonian way of perceiving reality we see reality as made up of discreet, individual and particular entities. So A is not B and B is not A, they are distinct. There is an entire worldview based on this view of reality in Indian philosophy known as Nyaya-Vaiseshika. It is the same worldview as GTR and classical physics.
But is this the only way of perceiving reality? No, there are many other ways:
Buddhism: Yes, we do perceive an apparent reality of particularity and plurality - but Look closer, and tell me can you find anything in reality which isn't constantly changing? Look within yourself can you find anything within your mind or in your personality that isn't constantly changing? How can you say then there are distinct, individual and particular entities when everything only exists momentarily? Furthermore, if there are no distinct, individual and particular entities how can you insist that such thing as subjective and objective/mind and matter clear cut divisions in reality exists? If you are true to your perception of reality than you will see reality is phenomenological It is not made out of physical things, it is made of our sensory forms(qualia) desires, concepts.
Is this the ultimate way of looking at reality? No there are more ways
Samkhya-Yoga: Yes, reality is constantly changing, but at the same time it is not changing haphazardly, but there is an coherence and order to the change - there is a logic behind the change and one who is observing the change. In our manifest or classical binary reality we see things to be distinct, individual and particular occupying particular position in space and time. However, underlying all is an unmanifest quantum reality the substratum of all changes and transformations which we cannot observe but must infer to exist to explain how evolution happens. How reality goes from a state of pure potential and possibility to actuality.
Is this the ultimate way of looking at reality? No, there is another way:
Vedanta: Yes, it is true that reality is always appears to be constantly changing to the observer, but the status of the observer is dubious because we do not only find human observers in reality - we also find animal observers and it is not tenable to say the animal observes reality exactly as a human observer will. Moreover, we find the relationship between the observer and the observed collapses in different states of consciousness: In dream it becomes fuzzy and in dreamless sleep it disappears. Thus we find the common denominator in the the waking state, dream state and dreamless sleep states is consciousness which remains unchanging. There is no reason to assume the waking state is more real than the dream state or vis versa, because they both disappear in the dreamless sleep state. Hence, consciousness is the fundamental ground of reality and all multiplicity we observe is consciousness differentiated into many names and forms(This was the viewpoint the father of quantum mechanics accepted, Erwin Schrodinger)
I don't want to brag - but what I am telling you here and I how I am describing it is gold. You will find few places where it is summarized so well and for free(consider it my service) What I want you to understand is to see the logic behind each viewpoint. You will find these are entirely logical viewpoints based on the angle they perceive reality as.
I do not blame you for holding the Nyaya-Vaiseshika or classical viewpoint(Actually, you do not hold this viewpoint, because you do not accept mind and consciousness as distinct, which contradicts the viewpoint)
but you need to appreciate that while we all humans apprehend the same perceptual observable reality, it can be interpreted through various angles using logic and each interpretation is valid.
I wanted to ask what kind of logic it is that allows him to assert that I compared Indian philosophy with "Neanderthal Africa", since nowhere in my text does the word "Neanderthal" appear, nor would I write this since I know that Neaderthals didn't live in Africa (apparently he doesn't).
I said to you that Indian science and philosophy was actually very sophisticated and they had anticipated many later discoveries that were made in modern times. I gave you the explicit example of Nyaya-Vaiseshika and how they had told about the laws of motion and gravity(before Newton) the physical states of change and the law of conservation(before Boyle) and atomic and chemical reactions(before Dalton and Bohr) and light as being made of particles(before Einstein) In response, you said "It's obvious, intuitive guesses" and then brought up comparisons with Neanderthals in Africa. This is why I accused you of being a Eurocentric chauvanist, because you failed to appreciate that these same discoveries were not made in the West till modern times.
I also gave you examples of how relatively advanced Indian chemistry and applied physical knowledge was. They could produce tons of wrought iron that does not rust(we can't do that even today) They could produce carbon-nanotube reinforced steel(we only just doing that today) They used nanoparticles of metals in medicine(again, we are only just doing that today)
They were doing advanced surgery in 1000BCE with 125 surgical instruments, their techniques and instruments were adopted by modern surgery in the 19th century.
I then gave you examples of how advanced Indian logic was, particularly its linguistic theories which I showed you experts today consider post mid-20th century(if not more advanced than today) Indian logic is being used today to solve problems in AI research, at places like NASA.
Despite all the examples I have given of just how advanced the scientific tradition of ancient India was you have constantly been dismissive, denied all the evidence and explained it away as "guesses" Even when I give a direct citation from a modern eminent Western logician who said Indian logic was superior to all of Western logic, you deliberately misread it and misrepresented his position and says "Okay, so Indian logic is better than Aristotle" This is why I feel justified to think of you as a Eurocentric bigot.
There are lots of pairs of these contradictory positions in his statements:
1. "There is no real class distinction between religion and science for us"
(and, when I pointed out that he was describing religion and science as different categories...)
2. "No, this knowledge is not divided into two completely separate categorical areas. It's not a category division but a class division."
(so it's back to a class division, whereas it wasn't a "class distinction" earlier. No doubt he'd argue next that a division is different from a distinction)
Here is an example of quibbling with me over what is admittedly initially a bad choice of words, though I did explain to you what I meant. If you had understood what I had said the first time, you would not see any contradiction. I told you the Indian/Eastern outlook on life sees reality as an interconnected, dyanmic and organic process; in contrast the Western outlook on life sees reality as a compartmentalized and mechanic system(machine view of life) This is why in the West we see very sharp divisions between religion, science, art, philosophy etc - but in the India we see no sharp division between religion, science, art and philosophy - they are all rolled into the same category of knowledge(vidya) However, we do recognize class distinctions such as religion is seen as spiritual knowledge and science is seen as material knowledge - but both are considered important.
Anybody who wants to see that I did in fact explain this to you can review my earlier posts on this point to you. They will find that though initially my wording may have been confusing, I did in fact explained what I meant and you have deliberately quibbled over the semantics and made not attempt to understand what I am saying.
- (paraphrasing - life's too short to find the quote) Only Indians are qualified to tell you whether you're doing yoga or not.
- "This does NOT mean that a member of the Indian race has more value in informing on Yoga"
Again, I invite readers to go back to the earlier posts discussing this point. I explained it very clearly what I meant: I said that Yoga can only be understood within the context of Indian culture, history and philosophy(including epistemology) In the same way the steam engine can only be understood within the context of Western culture, history and philosophy. I explicitly said this does not mean that a member of the Indian race is more informed than a member of a white race on Yoga, or a member of the white race is more informed on the steam engine than a member of the Indian race. I gave examples of how I met many white yogis who are far better informed on Yoga than the average Indian.
So I submit to our readers that Peejay is deliberately quibbling over semantics of words, deliberately turning coherent statements into contradictions. I had made my point explicit, there is no reason why Peejay should have not understood - as English is his first language as it is mine.
I think this is borderline troll activity.
Oh, one more irony - he's called me a "failed yogi" at least twice, and then I found a thread where he says he doesn't practice yoga now, he's too busy indulging his desires, whereas I still do practise yoga. Not that he would accept it as yoga, because I'm sceptical about the existence of:
There is no irony - I am still on the path of Yoga, just another subset of it. I am sure most people can recognize I am very deeply immersed in Yoga and very deeply immersed in its philosophy. I intend to return to the path of meditation, and in fact recently I have strongly cut down on "indulgence" with my desire. I have been out partying for 2 weeks now. Your case is different - you started on a spiritual path of Yoga looking for enlightenment - for much of your 30 year of practice you claim believed in this stuff, and then all of a sudden you have abruptly come off the path and turned hostile to the ideas, and replaced it with a new belief system of materialism. Although, I should not be saying it, you have failed on the path of Yoga. 30 years would have been enough for you to experience the deeper spiritual truths of Yoga if you practiced sincerely - you obviously did not practice properly.