| Sajha.com Archives | |
| Username | Post |
| Nepe | Posted
on 13-Jan-04 12:27 PM
Now that the missing postings of December 9-10 are back into the archive (Thank you San for your commendable job to keep the archive complete), I thought I would continue one of my shastrasta with Gokul ji on the interesting subject of God that had got discontinued after that technical mishap. Unfortunately the threads in the archive are closed. Hence this new thread. Gokul ji, if you are around and don't have any other pressing commitments, I would like to invite you to our old discussion. It would be even nicer if other Sajhaites too joined in. I am not adding anything here. Just in order to get back to the old thread of thoughts, I am reposting the last three postings from the old thread "Memory Lane : Pulp Fiction" - http://www.sajha.com/archives/openthread.cfm?threadid=13146&dsn=sajhaarchive2003 Gokul Posted on 08-Dec-03 04:46 PM "I think we do not have any disagreement regarding, let's say, the scope and possibility of human life to experience the supreme beauty, grandeur and richness of life and universe. If life has this potential, then it will be a great waste not to have a purpose. That is how, at least to me, life gets a purpose. " The grandeur and richness of life comes from something that is sublime and subjective. "Once we make the purpose of life free of someone else's game plan, we can safely say each individual should invent/discover his/her own purpose of life. " Absolutely. But each individual’s purpose or goal cannot be arbitrary. We all are bound by the cosmic law of Karma. Karma should not be construed as fatalistic resignation. In fact, it is the psychosocial counterpart to the physical law of conservation of energy. "I think the only condition is that it should be compatible with the sustenance and continuity of life on earth and wherever we can take it to. And it is always preferable to have a purpose that enriches life. " Exactly, it is the greater goal for the humanity that gives each individual a purpose. Individuals act in their own way but all their actions are aligned toward the betterment for humanity. Like swarms of bees creating the elixir. "However, the later, being highly subjective and desirable but not compulsory, should be left to each individual to decide. " This is completely wrong. Once you identify the goal and agree that we should strive for it, then we cannot just leave it. We may not have enough will power or resource. But at least we have to acknowledge our weakness. "So, it is not easy to determine/define/decide the purpose of life. 'To be happy' sounds a reasonable purpose, because it fulfils both the obligatory and desirable criteria outlined above. The alternatives of it- to remain unhappy (makes no sense but suppressive regimes of the world is what makes it a reality) or feel nothing (Buddhist purpose) can not contest with the promise of the purpose of being happy. " contd.. |
| Nepe | Posted
on 13-Jan-04 12:29 PM
Gokul Posted on 08-Dec-03 04:47 PM Happiness is all we live for though it is always changing and we never stop. "In any case, it is important to note that it is not necessary to assume that happiness is the ABSOLUTE purpose of life. Just to make a point, you may still have less desirable alternatives if you want. " Ultimately it boils down to happiness. Our ambition, sacrifice, jealousy, hatred all geared toward giving us happiness. Of course, the nature of such happiness is quite different. "Happiness is something that happens in our brain. It's basis is pleasure which in turn has a biochemical basis. Depending upon the level at which we observe, we can call it Physiological or biophysical bases too. We know very little about it. But with continued scientific research, we will know more and more about it as time goes by. " Whatever is its root, it exists and we are driven by it. Do you believe one day we will discover a chemical called "progesteronophoria " , that explains all our happiness? "Meditaion, sex, food, reward, beauty and mood elevating drugs look so different on the surface, but they become the same at biochemical or rather biophysical level." I am so sorry for you and your reductionism. A wise man and a child are so similar. Does that mean they are the same? "Pleasure is the central motivation of our voluntary decisions. So it makes sense to say that happiness is the purpose of life. But it is obvious that the sources of pleasure are diverse. Which is nobler/superior is an artificial distinction." Artificial it may very well be. But one is surely everlasting and law-abiding (Karmic) while the other is just a temporary escape. "I am not qualified to discuss about the meditation because except for the Bhavatit Dhyan in my high school and some my own brand of meditation which is rather some moments of refelection mostly when things I have done go wrong, I have not practiced meditation." I have not practised it either though I intend to do. However, I know it exists from account of others¡| experience. "However, I believe that, similar to how physical work-out strengthens our body, mediatation, which is a mental work-out should strenghten our mind. And similar to how over work-out damages our body, over meditation damages our mind too. It may be a temporary damage, it may be a parmanent damage. Hallucination like effect of intense meditation, in my humble view, are malfunctioning of mind rather than something mystic." There is no such thing as intense meditation. Meditation is letting things go, not holding things on. Intense is when you struggle. Meditation is being yourself. "It is in no way to trash the power of mind. Mind is definietly very powerful, not only in metaphoric sense, but in proper physical sense. What is mind ? It is simply a very complex biophysical activity of our brain. Although it sounds futuristic, I think as we understand more about our brain, we will discover or, if you like, rediscover the power of mind. However, there will always be physical explanation for that power. Because mind is a physics at the end of the day." Researchers thought in the seventies that they would know almost everything about human brain with Artificial Neural Networks within a decade. However, they realized that it was not so easy. I don¡|t want to discuss about it but let me ask you, If human mind is so simple, then can it understand itself? If human mind is so complex, then can it understand itself? "Mind is not abstract. It is abstract to our mind only. In the brain, it is a mere matter and energy." I wish things are so simple! "There is no subjectivity as such. Subjectivity is a set of complex objectivities that we have no tool, knowledge and time to determine individually. " It is not only the matter of tool, knowledge, and time. It is the very nature of unknowability that distinguishes it from the objectivity. "The fluidity, beauty and magic of poetry is nothing but biophysics at the end of the day. Some day in future when we will have sophisticated brain scanner, we will able to watch a movie of Nepe's (or Nepe's grand grandson's) brain writing a ghazal and next day one critique analyzing the influence of another poets in his works by using digital fingerprints of poetrying of the other poet ! " First of all, I hope such day never comes. If it comes, then there will be no poetry and human beings that we know as of today. "I know this version of life sounds boring as compared to the one of who believes in the existence of a higher consciousness independent of life and our potential to communicate with that power. But until the day I find reason to step in that version of the world, I will have to keep on living in my boring world and keep wondering what the purpose of my life should be or should have been." By your own admission, you find your present life boring. Does that indicate something to you? However, let me tell you: We shall not cease from exploration, And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time. ¡K In my end is my beginning. (T. S. Eliot) |
| Nepe | Posted
on 13-Jan-04 12:32 PM
Nepe Posted on 09-Dec-03 09:29 PM Gokul ji, There is no doubt that an atheist's world is cold, lonely and scary as compared to a believer's world. Perhaps for this reason, human sought mysticism very early in his civilization. Deepak Chopra says human mind is hard-wired to believe in God. I think there is some truth in it. I think it derives from our fear, our need to feel safe and secure. And with this understanding, I am totally in peace with believer's God. As for myself, I am still in search for a good or rather a noble or at least an unselfish reason to surrender to God. I know surrendering is giving your 'self'. So, isn't it an unselfish act by definition ? No, it is not. The expectation or at least the anticipation of something good happening to myself when I do so makes it a selfish act. But before all that nitty-gritty I must know more about Him. And Gokul ji, you have been scaring me by using this word 'unknowability' whenever you talk about Divinity or it's manifestations, supposing human mind is one of them. I have some questions, doubt and curiosity about this notion of 'unknowability'. Let me try to put them here briefly. My first question is, is there any basis, apart from a hypothetical possibility, for the existence of the unknowables ? I know it is paradoxical question because if we *know* it exists or may exist, then it is already not any more unknowable. So, it appears to me that we will never ever know anything about the unknowables. I also speculate that among the unknowables, those who have consciousness, will never *know* about us too. As you should have noticed, I am using 'unknowable' not to mean 'undetectable' and certainly not 'unpredictable'. Undetectability would be tool-dependent whereas 'unknowability' is tool-independent. And 'unpredictable' goes to the realm of statistics. You had used Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in similar context somewhere. But I suppose Heisenberg's uncertaninty which is about the precision does not lead to any notion of Unknowability. Or does it ? ****** >If human mind is so simple, then can it understand itself? >If human mind is so complex, then can it understand itself? You have asked a brain-teasing question, Gokul ji. My answer is Yes and No. No is straight forward. Because mind is not an independent entity, it is simply a data processing activity of an active brain. Yes in the sense of understanding about it by simulation, education etc., which I suppose you did not mean. Although you did not mean it, let me share an ordinary but interesting enough experience of mine about what I meant by understanding about one's mind by simulation of your own mind. Until I entered into the world of politics and got corrupted, I was the least aggressive boy among my friends. My maternal grandmother even called me a Buddha once ! Anyway, I never initiated fight with anybody. When I had to fight, argue or show my anger, my person used to get split into two- one used to be a mere observer while the other used to engage in the business at hand. So I used to see myself live doing things, my face, it's reaction, it's intensity etc. This often used to moderate my reaction, which was good, if I was doing less desirable things. However, this strange self-consciousness used to occur even when I was doing nicer things. I suppose this is more or less normal to everybody. Anyway, I learned a great deal about myself by this way. Back to mind, you mentioned Artificial Neural Network. I did not know much about it before, except that the little bioinformatics I use sometimes to analyze my DNA sequence employs this method among others. Now I am curious to learn more about it. Of course the researchers of the seventies that you mentioned hoped too much too soon. But wouldn't you agree, in every new decade we will be learning more and more about functioning of our brain and building smarter and smarter machines ? Never mind if we never ever be able to build a machine with a feeling and intellect of a human mind. In any case, nobody except we human being ourselves has told us what we can or can not do. Therefore, there is no reason to set a limit before knowing there is one. End of the previous postings |
| Gokul | Posted
on 14-Jan-04 09:50 PM
Nepeji, While I believe that discussing God is exhausting and yet not exhaustive, I could not keep silent and not respond to your sincere desire. You said that: "You had used Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in similar context somewhere. But I suppose Heisenberg's uncertaninty which is about the precision does not lead to any notion of Unknowability. Or does it ?" I believe Heisenberg's principle implies the inevitable unknowability of physical observation, which is independent of the precision of devices employed to make such observations. For me, the notion of God is tantamount to accepting the existence of unknowability. My framework that integrates science and religion Both microcosm and macrocosm are infinite. However, it is the world in the middle that we live in and hence the most important to us. We need to explore micro/macro world with science and use its findings to improve the quality of life (middle). Religion is absolutely useless to understand both micro and macro world while it is necessary for the life in the middle. Science is the detail map, religion is the compass.Titanic sank not because individuals were careless but because the team as a whole was not attentive enough. Unless one knows where the whole ship is moving to, understanding its parts in isolation cannot avoid the inevitable encounter with the iceberg. |
| Gokul | Posted
on 14-Jan-04 10:27 PM
SOME HEISENBERG JOKES: Historians have concluded that W.Heisenberg must have been contemplating his love life when he discovered the Uncertainty Principle: -When he had the time,he didn't have the energy and, -When the moment was right,he couldn't figure out the position... Heisenberg is stopped by a traffic cop who askes: "Do you know how fast you were going?" Heisenberg replies: "No, but I know exactly where I am" Bohr moved in atomic circles while Schrodinger waved and Heisenberg hesitated. (This is not a joke!) Pauli asks Heisenberg the big one .............. Wolfgang Pauli: "Do you believe in a personal god?" Heisenberg: "May I rephrase your question? "I myself should prefer the following formulation: Can you, or anyone else, reach the central order of things or events, whose existence seems beyond doubt, as directly as you can reach the soul of another human being? I am using the term "soul" quite deliberately so as not to be misunderstood. If you put your question like that, I would say yes." |
| Nepe | Posted
on 15-Jan-04 10:40 AM
Gokul ji, Thank you for your reply. I do agree that a discussion on God is exhausting and yet never exhaustive. Generation after generation did it in the past and so will the generation after generation in future. And I do not think they will ever find better answer than what our ancestors already had. What one can learn, discover and experience in one's life time is all about God and spirituality. There is no more knowledge to be discovered than that. There is no more experience to be experienced than that. The knowledge and experience of God is not to be accumulated and passed to the next generation. It is to be discovered and experienced by an individual in his/her own lifetime on his/her own- without anyone else's help. God did not manifest himself to Adam and Eve and expected that they will pass that knowledge to their children who will pass the knowledge to their children and so on so that God does not have to manifest himself to future mankind ever again. Nor He relies on accidentally appointed spiritual Gurus to be taught to the rest of the mass. God also should not require high intelligence (high IQ), hard work and dedication to be discovered. It should be accessible to every average Ramey and Shyamey with average effort of their own in a short period of time. Otherwise the notion of God, personal or universal, will become absurd. Mystery is no God for me. Mystery is too game-wise, too arrogant to be God to me. Nevertheless, I have just got this book 'How to know God: the sould's journey into the mystery of mysteries' by Deepak Chopra. I am going to read it. I just finished reading first few pages and I already have so many things to say. I hope I will find chance to share them with you and other Sajha readers when I finish reading the book. And I am a very slow reader. On Heisenberg's note, thanks for sharing the jokes. Heisenberg's conditional answer is interesting. Wolfgang must be thinking Heisenberg was trying to ascertain the extent of uncertainty in uncertain terms. Bohr moved in atomic circles while Schrodinger waved and Heisenberg hesitated. (This is not a joke!) Oh, yes. it is a great joke. |