Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by suryaz

  1. What does "touchy-feely '90s" mean? [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-17-2001).]
  2. What does "touchy-feely '90s" mean? [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-17-2001).]
  3. Gauracandra, Yes I liked that bit too. It brings into view the elasticity of that which underpins human endeavor. Through our will we cannot only fulfill our desires, our dreams, but there is more, we can also expand on from there. Thanks Gauracandra – Yes I will check the other movie out soon [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-17-2001).]
  4. When I was a child I was fascinated with taking a part of a plant, placing it in water and watching it grow roots. There was one particular plant I liked more so. I cloned the plant over and over again. It did not const me $5M, but then I did not need $5M to clone the plant I chose to propagate. So money was not a problem. Could it not be the same thing for the people who want to clone their dog? Obviously $5M is not a problem for them, but the personal mysterium they receive from offering affection to another (even if it is a particular other, or part of it) is worth more to them than whatever else the money can buy. So what we are looking at here is personal differences. For persons x the $5M can be spent differently because x place different values on the affection offered to the dog and/or its pure offspring. That is all.
  5. According to Fakir Mohan Das (1999) in 1881 Bhaktivenoda Thakura initiated his son, Bimal-prasad Datta (1874-1937), into the chanting of the Nrisingha and Hare Krishna maha-mantras. "Choti: The Native Place of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura". Orissa: Sri Baladeva Research Institute Krishna Towers. Does anybody know what this Nrisingha mantra is? Did Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati offer it to any of his disciples? If so who?
  6. Gauracandra, Gattaca, humm yes, I finally got around to watching this movie. I agree with you Gauracandra, it is one of the most wonderful movies produced. It transcends the nature-nurture debate and brings into play a Sartrean existentialists approach Viz: “You are what you create yourself to be” (as opposed to what others (whether social or scientific) create you to be). In his society, Vinny’s inherited genetic code overtly left him with not much opportunity to fulfil his desired destiny. For him society said he could only dream of his desired goal. Further, the movie is based on the premise that there is no gene for “faith”; and faith in this movie, is faith in one self as the creator of one’s own destiny. I would imagine there is such a gene. But what impressed me most is the last statement in the movie: “every atom in our body was once part of a star”. Yes we are stardust. –Suryaz PS Some say the soul fell from the brahmajyoti, is that not stardust? Are there not many ways to view this? -- I think it is so. [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-16-2001).]
  7. Humm! Yes, the research subjects were older Japanese men
  8. In Buddhism there is the concept of the “anatma” the “no-self”; there is neither a single eternal metaphysical principle nor a multiplicity of such.
  9. In Buddhism there is the concept of the “anatma” the “no-self”; there is neither a single eternal metaphysical principle nor a multiplicity of such.
  10. Loneliness??? What is it???? I know in theory that Krsna is in our hearts and therefore we should never feel lonely. While I cannot say I have had practical experience of such, I can say I have experienced moments of inspiration in some small way, that were meaningful to me But there again, I like my own company so I do not feel lonely too often and feel inspired by my thoughts. But when I think of what loneliness is, it is for me when I have negative thoughts. Even when I just have my own company and I have good thoughts I do not experience what I call loneliness. So is loneliness just being ill at ease with the self? [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-11-2001).] [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-11-2001).]
  11. No! Gauracandra, I hate to break your dream my good man, Could it be you just forgot you drank the last bit, and then later discovered how much you drank? I saw a documentary on TV once upon a day. Its focus was the research into the affects of soy-tofu on older men. The results of the research showed that if men eat tofu at least 3 times/week in their younger years they struggle with memory loss in old age. "They say the body can tell what it needs (nutritionally) and often will develop a craving to satisfy it". Is your body telling you you need to forget? Are you drowning out your memories? Or could it be you are drinking some super soy with increased benefits, modified outcomes and of course some added bonus? Humm?? [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-10-2001).]
  12. Ananga, What issue of People Magazine is this in?
  13. YES! YES! YES! Right On Talasiga YES - A mistake, surrounded by confusion.
  14. The object only has appealing value when I superimpose my notions about that onto it. You cannot designate it temptation just because it exists. That defies by anybody's estimation any kind of morality. From such immorality notion such as fascism deception, dishonesty delusion and the rest of it arise. If you cannot get that then what can else can be said. bye for now [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-07-2001).]
  15. Humm OK Tala, Let us begin again For Talasiga: SD = Subject with desire acknowledging it For me : SD = Self with desire acknowledging it as coming from me For Talasiga: SD/D = Subject with desire not acknowledging desire) For me SD/D = Self with desire and not acknowledging that the desire is from self but viewing the O as the cause of desire would put into play the grounds for creating the T notion. But When self acknowledges that the desire is from self, the O cannot be the cause of desire. Thus the T bit cannot come into play. Thus in one bit, or sense of it, through logic a person is in a state to transcend (in that one can honestly acknowledge the origin of that which some call) the temptation bit [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-06-2001).]
  16. No wrong again © I choose (D) Desire involves a composite of body-mind and soul. Desire always comes from me. (O) The object of desire is always passive (T) In this cognitive frame one can never be in – ‘a state of temptation by another’. Why? Because the cognitive frame (the schema) does not permit such. Yes! I know of the schema that develops such T bits; but for me T bits are of cognitive fallacy when presented as fact in the real world. Why? Because the T bit it is of imaginative content (which we can all construct). [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-06-2001).]
  17. Talasiga, No in my view T (temptation) is not real. There is desire D and there is choice C. Desire for me in more in tune with René Descartes’ (1596-1650) “animal automata” theory - “interfibrillar nerve mechanism” produce reflexive reaction, conscious sensations that affect the mind (Descartes 1646:204). These reflexive reaction Descartes (1646:204) identified as “animal spirit” or “quasi-spirit”. In human beings however, Descartes regarded the soul as the initiator of “the outflow” of “animal/quasi spirit” (Descartes 1646). Like wise for me the self is the initiator of D and the self makes a choice – Yes I realise I take Descartes’ theory a bit further so as to include not just reflexes but biological and psychological needs and wants (wherein psychological is directly correlated to the biological world), but at same time I maintain (as Descartes does) a metaphysical principle. For me psychological constructs that are the creation of other psychological constructs are imaginary Temptation only exists as an imaginary archetype; it is not of the real world, or of the self. The T notion is a mistake at best. It turns into self-deception, or at the extreme abuse of another when promoted as real. It is an illicit construct of the human psyche when presented as fact. I asy illicit because in all honesty it does not really exist although it is presented by some as fact. It only functions on the basis of fallacy; when one refuses to realise one’s human frailty and/or refuses to accept the limitation and/or responsibility that goes along with that human frailty. suryaz: No! …In my view the object in itself never attracts. Desire for the "object" (which is in your view to object of attraction) always comes from the perceiver; the one who desires the object. In itself the object of desire is never the cause of attraction. It is I who chooses to find the object attractive or otherwise. It is I who desires the company of/achievement of/gaining of the object of my desire. TalasigaHave you ever known anyone to be tempted by something they are NOT attracted to ? For me this question would read – “Have you ever known anyone to be tempted (wherein temptation is an illusory construct) by something they are NOT attracted to (do not desir) ?” My answer: yes it is possible but would function where there is some psychotic derangement. Schizophrenics and multiple-personality types get confused about themselves, their expressions, things and their environments all the time. But that is not to say that the temptation bit is not a distortion also. The above mentioned personality typologies are more complex in their delusion than those that possess the temptation model. [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-04-2001).] [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-04-2001).]
  18. quote: -- Originally posted by Gauracandra: Here is a list of virtues from "The Book of Virtues": 1. Self-Discipline 2. Compassion 3. Responsibility 4. Friendship 5. Work 6. Courage 7. Perseverance 8. Honesty 9. Loyalty 10. Faith -- NOPE!!!!! wrong - it is all in the approach Kids need to know and understand why adherence to something is for their benefit. To insist your kids follow 1-10 mention above is an extremely authoritarian approach. I would suggest an authoritative approach. Discuss with your kids why x is acceptable or otherwise. Then ask the kid to help you work out what the is best. To help the approach I would add the following to the above list : 11. Understanding 12 Critical analysis 13 Aspects of rationalism And of course: 14 Love and affection Definitely affection – all kids need affection. Our kids are not robots. They are little people right now – but really they are souls. As souls they heave free-will and we should respect that. I am not saying one should not guide one’s offspring. I am saying to demand they function to (or dance to the tune of) our terms (alone) and not let them be active participants in decisions (we as parents) made about them is also to impinge on the intrinsic right of the soul to choose. Yes; as parents we are responsible for the growth and development of our kids, but on the other hand the kids are also individual souls with free will. We cannot turn them into instruments of our pleasure. They are not objects we make demands of. They are not robots. Guide you kids, Explain things rationally to your kids, Let them be participant in the decision. And remind them that whatever decision they make, they have to take responsibility for. If as a parent you feel the decision the kid makes is wrong – then discuss with them/him/her what, how and why, the decision is wrong in your view. [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-04-2001).]
  19. "attraction to the Divine" I do not know Talasiga. "Attraction to the Divine" is for me: desire for the company of the Divine "in a form that one has not yet recognised as Divine" humm desire for the company of the Divine that is un-recognised by one as such ???? OK - so (in this view) I really want the company of the Divine but I think I want something else. So temptation (in this view) goes back to the needs and wants of the individual and what the individual proposes to do about the fulfilment of such. So we come back again to choice and desire. If one feels bad about one's desire for X but does not want to see it as coming from the self, but then tries to reconcile the inner struggle by shifting the focus situation onto the ‘other’ he/she will say I am tempted by X. If we see the desire as coming from the self we say I desire X. I will make a choice about X. Then one is at leas starting off with a honest and responsible approach. To say I was tempted by X - is not this only a halfway honest approach. As such, on this matter, is not Thomas a Kempis "half a thinker"? Or his religio-cultural cognitive frame only permits him to be “half a thinker”
  20. Talasiga, I only have time to address "half" of your post right now I will get to the other bit later OK S = Subject acknowledging desire (attracted) X = Object of desire (attracting) T (Temptation) = X minus S No! This is not my view. In my view the object in itself never attracts. Desire for the "object" (which is in your view to object of attraction) always comes from the perceiver; the one who desires the object. In itself the object of desire is never the cause of attraction. It is I who chooses to find the object attractive or otherwise. It is I who desires the company of/achievement of/gaining of the object of my desire.
  21. I do not know Satyaraja. From my part, when I desire something, I make a choice about it and then take it or leave it. If I fail to acheive/get it the first time, and if I still want it, I may or may not try for it again (what ever I choose to do). When it is evident that I cannot have it, I then leave it alone. But it is not uncommon to hear some say: I desire X and I am tempted by it. Is not the notion of “temptation”, and/or the promotion of the object of desire as an allurement, nothing other than a fallacy? Gauracandra, I am a bit worried about where Thomas a Kempis' “temptation” bit and/or his promotion of such is coming from. For me, Thomas a Kempis’ premise is a faulty one to begin with. I know Thomas a Kempis is trying to be level headed, profound and in search of the good. But is not the notion of “temptation” not only a fallacy, but also brings into play issues of bewitchment, or at the extreme possession by the Devil or other evil spirits etc., etc. un-necessary struggles with guilt complexes, self-abuse, witch-hunts and more. Moreover, many innocent people throughout history have suffer greatly just because some people or a person are/is not clear on the matter of the "temptation" fallacy bit, and the oppressive, unfair, unjust, undue, unmerited and unreasonable reality such an approach brings with it [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-03-2001).]
  22. Gauracandra The following are segments from an essay I wrote once upon a day. I hope they help you somehow Durkheim was the first anthropologist to recognise the power of enculturation in human society; in this connection he wrote (1895:6): “...it becomes immediately evident that all education is a continuous effort to impose in the child ways of seeing, feeling and acting which he could not have arrived at spontaneously. From the very first hours of life, we compel him to eat, drink, and sleep at regular hours; we constrain him to cleanliness, calmness, and obedience; later we exert pressure upon him in order that he may learn proper consideration for others, respect for customs and conventions, the need for work, etc. If, in time this constraint ceases to be felt, it is because it gradually gives rise to habits and to internal tendencies that render constraints unnecessary.” Thus by the time a child is two or three years old the child is already conditioned by a particular cultural tradition (Barrett1984:55). In other words the child has learned the stereotyped verbal language, gestures and cognitive symbols that make up language and etiquette, of the primary ideologies recognised and established by the child's group as part of their culture. In this connection Geddes (Lecture 3:1994; Ainsworth 1967; Wellman 1990) further explained that before a child learns to speak, the child has begun to classify and categorise his/her environment in ways that are particular to that society. As the child develops a cognitive cultural frame, the child is able to put sentences together and identify categories in both positive and negative terms. Through this action the child becomes reflexive and self-aware (Astington 1988:850). This culturally conditioned self-awareness not only "provides a key to inward identity" but it unites society as a whole and puts into motion a process whereby society reproduces itself from one generation to the next (Folson 1973:75; Bates & Plog 1990:240). This process is called enculturation. Enculturation involves both the explicit and unconscious moulding of a child's character, to the cultural understanding thehis/her environment through the application of culturally defined rules and regulations imposed on the child by his/her family and society. And since all cultures are different then all cultures will have a different set of primary ideologies or ways of categorising the universe, making sense of their world, creating systems of socialisation, defining the socially accepted role of adults and ways of preparing their children for adulthood…. ….According to Herslovits (1955:453) there are two aspects of enculturation; one is "early life" conditioning, or the acquisition of primary ideology described above. And the other aspect of enculturation continues throughout adult life. For maturing and mature members of a society, this process of enculturation involves preparing people for adulthood, teaching people about new concepts and new responsibilities associated with changing positions and changing circumstances in society (Herskovits 1955:453;Seymour-Smith 1986:261). [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-02-2001).]
  • Create New...