Monday 8 June 2015

[www.keralites.net] Re: Indic world view - what is it?

 

My dear Carpentier,
You write "I did not start this discussion. I only forwarded recent ..." Obviously you are trying to wash your hands of the responsibility for the article you forwarded. 
There is no person in the world with whom you or I agree on everything and that goes for even our wives, children, friends etc too. For instance, I have not been able to convince my wife that there is no god even after so many decades of our marriage. However as social animals we try to get to a modicum of agreement which we call consensus which often means we agree to disagree. However for arriving at such a consensus, we have to debate and discuss things for which there are certain rules. Three of these main rules are 1. Define the terms used. (As Voltaire said "If you want to discourse with me first define the terms you use") 2. Another important rule  is that any proposition made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence (This is called the Hitchen razor) 3. The third rule is that the onus of providing such evidence falls on the man who makes the proposition. Thus if a man says that Jesus is the son of god, the onus of proving it or providing evidence for falls on the man who says that Jesus is the son of god even if the man is the Pope.
In this discussion you have broken all the above rules - you have not clearly defined the terms you use. Also the onus of providing evidence falls on you. Instead you tell me to collect evidence for the propositions you have made. And since you have made a proposition without evidence it can be dismissed without evidence according to the Hitchens razor.
However I tried to find some evidence for your propositions. Unarguably the biggest source of knowledge today is the internet. So I googled and binged the internet for the search term "Indic Worldview" There is not a single site on "Indic Worldview" among the billions of internet sites - they say that there are far more many internet sites than there are people on this earht. Then I searched the biggest encyclopedia on earth - Wikipedia - for "Indic Worldview" with the two quotation marks which means that it will ferret out only articles with both the words Indic and worldview side by side. Surprisingly there is not a single article on Wikipedia with the term "Indic Worldview"  I searched Wikipedia for Indic Worldview without the quotation marks. Wikipedia responded with The page "Indic Worldview" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, . That I think is a good way to resolve our dispute - to create an article on Indic Worldview. So Carpentier if you are an authority - as you boast you are -  on this "Indic Worldview" and its relationship with quantum mechanics then pl write a full length article with all the reference you have asked me to pursue. Then you can upload it on wikipedia for all the world to read and for the Sanghis to sing in ecstasy about their great quantum heritage. 

On 8 June 2015 at 16:50, Come Carpentier <comecarpentier@gmail.com> wrote:
I did not start this discussion. I only forwarded recent scientific conclusions made by a number of physicsts and published in the media. Mr. Williams argues for the sake of arguing about things of which he knows next to nothing and I cannot waste anymore time answering his uninformed and prejudiced comments which reflect staple materialistic reasoning of a low quality. I suggest he takes up the issue with the scientists I mentioned to him and attack them for promoting the :"Indic perspective" that he is so hostile and I am sure they will be shaken by the criticism leveled by such a well known and pioneering intellectual as Mr. William. Meanwhile I don't wish to hear from him again as he is only interested in demolishing what goes against his own narrow minded convictions.

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Eddie <gdigest@btinternet.com> wrote:
Hi Xavier,
You are engaged in an exciting discussion and I couldn't help wading into it as a neutral outsider.
I don't know Mr Carpentier at all but you are right to demand what this Indic world view is that Mr Carpentier is talking about.
I hope he will respond.
 
Eddie
I have been through many encyclopedias and there is no article whatsoever on this Indic worldview. I am also an Indian and have lived here in India for 60 of my 67 years and I am not aware of any such thing as an indic worldview. I have been through your site http://comecarpentier.com/ and I dont see how you with no apparent degree in any sciences is more qualified to advise me an engineer on such things as the scientific outlook and state that the scientific outlook is outdated.
According to your site , you are also a consultant to Indfos Industries Ltd, a company founded and chaired by the well known Indian philosopher, futurologist and engineer J.C. Kapur, and continues to provide consulting services to various other companies in India and Europe. If you are a consultant to a well known Indian philosopher, futurologist and engineer, then you must be even better known and accomplished as an Indian philosopher, futurologist and engineer than Kapur is. It is also apparent from your articles that you are a post-modernist or something like that and according to me postmodernism is a hotchpotch of spirituality, meditation and other superstitious nonsense in scientific clothing a-la wolves in sheep's clothing.
Your biography also states "In 1987-88, while living in the USA and working on the project for a globally broadcast environmental concert called LIVE EARTH, he (you) drafted and promoted a blueprint for a World Environment Bank (WEB)." If I am not mistaken the term Live Earth refers to the Gaia Hypothesis which has been thoroughly discredited except by post-modernists who are more romantically inclined though they claim they are scientific in outlooks. "
In conclusion: Carpentier, I cannot find anywhere in any encyclopedia the meaning of the term "Indic Worldview." What is more I dont have the time or the inclination to go through all the books you have suggested. So I am afraid that since it is you who started this discussion, the onus falls on you to read all those books you have suggested - I am sure you have not read even one of them - and then explain succinctly how quantum physics endorses the Indic worldview.
One of the common fallacies in argument is explaining one mystery with another. In the same fashion you are explaining one mystery - Indic worldview - with more things which few can understand. I think that the truth is often very simple. Instead you are trying to complicate it so that people are bamboozled into thinking that you are the ultimate fountain of knowledge. This is chicanery which according to dictionary.com means trickery or deception by quibbling or sophistry - sophistry such as quantum physics, live earth, cosmic energy etc which few if any  can digest.
 
On 7 June 2015 at 12:53, Come Carpentier comecarpentier@gmail.com [aryayouthgroup] <aryayouthgroup@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 
Dear Shri Xavier ji,
 
The Indic worldview has been defined for many decades by, among others, a number of eminent scientists from various disciplines beginning with Werner Heisenberg, Schrodinger and David Bohm but even before them Swami Vivekananda and Nikola Tesla had a very significant discussion about this and Tesla subsequently expounded on it very eloquently, pointing out how his own scientific conclusions were confirmed by the Upanishadic and Vedantic insights.
 
Since then many other luminaries of physics, biology and chemistry (Josephson, Sudarshan, Goswami, Prigogine, Pribram etc...) have written and lectured on those matters and you seem not be aware of this as your readings are apparently confined  to a particular concept of science that prevailed during most of the 19th and early 20th century when you probably had your education. I urge you to read some books written by scientists on this subject, including those I already referred you to. Otherwise this conversation is unproductive since you are only interested in debunking what you don't understand or what goes against your own convictions. You are fully entitled to them but you may want to keep in mind that I regularly hold debates by email and face to face with various professsional scientists and although naturally there are disagreements, broadly speaking no one objects fundamentally to the concept of reality emerging from contemporary research and its resonance with certain statements found in Sankracharya's texts, in some of the Buddhist sutras (like the prajnaparamitas for instance) and in other documents from India and China,
 
Before opposing or agreeing you should familiarise yourself with some of those texts as otherwise you are not qualified to argued meaningfully. repeating time and again that "the sea is material because you can drown in it" or such sophistries indicates that you are not familiar with the notion of "matrix" as context in which the observer is a participant and which is only 'real" in relation to him and everything else. This is the meaning of Maya and so your attempting to reducing Samskrit philosophical notions to trivial superstitions shows your lack of understanding of them.
 
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Xavier William varekatx@gmail.com [aryayouthgroup] <aryayouthgroup@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 
My dear Carpentier,
The subject line of the discussion you started is "How science is confirming the Indic worldview" and you gave a link describing quantum mechanics and its outcome on reality. In your next mail also you have given some referrals on quantum mechanics. But you have not explained how science - here quantum theories - confirm the Indic view.
According to the basic principles of a logic debate you have to explain what exactly you mean by 'Indic World View.' You have not done this. Instead you are harping on quantum mechanics of which neither you nor I know anything. You also have not explained the connection between quantum mechanics and the Indic worldview nor how quantum mechanics or modern science is confirming the Indic world view.
Some months ago Modi boasted that the Vedic people had highly developed capabilities for plastic surgery and stem cell technologies by which they developed Ganesh. Almost at the same time Rajnath Singh boasted that for knowing about the stars and eclipses all you have to do is consult the neighborhood astrologer. Your subject-line 'How science is confirming the Indic worldview' smacks of the same bull crap and that is why we rationalists oppose such propaganda. Obviously you have an axe to grind in propagating a ridiculous proposition such as How science is confirming the Indic worldview. As for my propagating Western agnostic materialism we have no political gains. All we are interested is the propagation of a scientific outlook, and if the Indian philosophies or any philosophies for that matter is opposed to the scientific outlook, we will challenge it and ridicule it as I have done here.
Our moderator has reminded us at least a few times that we should give the precise meaning of the terms we use. So pl give the precise meaning of the term 'Indic worldview' before we can proceed even a step further. Once that is done you will have to prove that modern science - here quantum mechanics - endorses the Indic worldview. Since you have started the discussion the onus of proof falls fairly and sqarely on you and not on me.
 
On 6 June 2015 at 17:06, Come Carpentier comecarpentier@gmail.com [aryayouthgroup] <aryayouthgroup@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

Please do your reading instead of waging a polemical battle to dismiss what you don't agree with,. I referred you to some authoritative books but don't expect me to repeat what they say for your information.Talking about mercenaries, can you not be accused of being one in the service of particular ideology (western agnostic materialism) in the war against Indian philosophies which are obviously opposed to in principle?
 
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Xavier William varekatx@gmail.com [aryayouthgroup] <aryayouthgroup@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

You bring in quantum physics into a discussion and when I bring in Newtonian physics to counter your views I am accused of (quote) " ... 
​
As always Xavier Williams is trying to muster Newtonian-Cartesian scientific theories to avoid acknowledging" (unquote) Why is that so? Why is it that you can bring in quantum physics whereas I cannot bring in Newton or Descartes?
You are resorting to what is called the quantum physics fallacy in argument by which you are trying to bamboozle or intimidate me into accepting your views. I suggest you read again the link I sent on the quantum physics fallacy.
I guess we have to start from where you started this discussion. The title of the discussion you started is  "science is confirming the Indic worldview." Whether you like it or not the first thing to do in a discussion is to define or clarify the terms used in the discussion. However you have not bothered to explain what exactly  the Indic world view is. Instead you have gone directly into quantum physics without explaining how quantum physics gels with any philosophical world view. Now you are bringing in more intimidating stuff to qualify your nebulous but bombastic assertions. As I understand it quantum physics, chaos theory etc apply only at near-light speeds or at less than nano-sized particles. On the other hand our worldviews are applicable only to normal speeds and to normal sized particles. Even the link you have given states "'It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,' So your nonsensical post does not prove anything at our reality level.
If everything is illusion then the sea is also an illusion. So go jump in the sea and prove that you are right.
If you want to go ahead with this discussion, first define what the Indic world view is all about and then explain how quantum physics ratifies the Indic world view. Any fool can use high sounding terms and many Indians will be taken in by such chicanery especially coming from a white mercenary writer like you. But beware, all Indians are not fools to swallow whatever you say.
 




--
Regards

Xavier William

"Ridicule is often the only possible weapon against ridiculous propositions" Thomas Jefferson
Propositions which are revered today as sacred may prove to be ridiculous tomorrow - me

__._,_.___
Posted by: Xavier William <varekatx@gmail.com>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1)
KERALITES - A moderated eGroup exclusively for Keralites...

To subscribe send a mail to Keralites-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.
Send your posts to Keralites@yahoogroups.com.
Send your suggestions to Keralites-owner@yahoogroups.com.

To unsubscribe send a mail to Keralites-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.

Homepage: http://www.keralites.net

.

__,_._,___
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)