mails2.html
From me Tue Mar 31 14:15 PST 1998
To: [email protected]
[...]
Pointing out flaws/weakness in other's remarks/staements/outlook in itself is by
no stretch of imagination a bitterness. If it was then all the literary criticism,
journalistic critiques, etc would be labelled as such also (But they are not). [..]
I really wish you read the manifesto in its entirety. It is not because of improving
Interpersoanl "Skill" or "relationship" as you have mistakenly quoted me (I never
used those two words ) but for better interpersonal (In this case me and others)
communication/understanding. We have good interpersonal relationship already.
Good interpersonal relationship doesn't imply good understanding of one's mind
and outlook. If you disagree that reading it doesn't improve understanding then it
must be that reading it makes interpersonal communication/understanding worse.
But thats absurd. So it must be better (It cannot be neutral either. Any view/opinion
only adds to one's stock of understanding hence must improve)
While anger/temper IS a natural emotion, difference in an argument/debate hardly
qualifies as a valid reason for its display.
3. The purpose of my manifesto is threefold:
a) To let others get a feel of how I look at life and issues.
b) Hopefully create an awareness in others on many things that
normally escape their eyes/attention.
c) If and when a misunderstanding develops between me and others they
can refer to relevant specific articles in the manifesto in aiding me
to explain/clarify more articulately.
[What is the ultimate aim you ask? The same as that of Nightline, Crossfire, The
discovery channel,... We can all do without them in life. But an active mind
doesn't just rest at the bare essentials. I have a passion for insight into issues
and people's mind. Every debate/exchange provides insight of one sort or another.
I would love to read everybodies manifesto if they had one. (their
assessment/view/observations of life and issues).]
[While replying I also remembered your question regarding my not telling the truth to
SS versus my emphasis of truth. Its very important that I reiterate precisely what
my obsession is with : KNOWING the truth. Not necessarily TELLING. I am in favour of
everyone striving to KNOW the truth. I understand the need of white lies in life only
for defensive purposes. NEVER for offensive purposes. But the absolute statement is
I am always in favour of KNOWING the truth. Hope that clears it up. Reply soon.]
[Ho Ho, 'How conveeeenient" ? Yes, it is. I never preach, never claimed to have.
BUT don't lose sight of the fact that "not revealing truth" (applies to SS) is not =
Lying. We hold back lot of things that we know/feel towards others but never tell them
(This is known as being diplomatic/noncommittal/protective). But telling a lie which
offends someone just for one's benefit is a different animal altogether. (White lies
versus offensive lies, vide my item on the definition of absolute wrongs). After my
discussion with you I have been inspired to add the following item under HMM..
which I will list below for your critical review before putting it up on the web :).]
================================================
HMM..
How come when Arsenio, Sinbad and other standup comedians make their
observations/remarks/quips (Mostly pointing out the pecularities, inconsistencies,
flaws etc of others, at times even sound bitter,specially Sinbad) they are not
accused of claiming superiority or treating others as inferior or making biased
assumption about others (As one can tell by the Amens and nodding heads in the
audience) but when people (SOME) read my manifesto I am accused of the same?
(Hint: Is it because they are celebrities? Or is it because they have mastered
"mass hypnosis" skill? Or is it maybe that they are people of much sharper intellect
than I am? I hope this is the case then I will find the much needed justification
for the huge fortune they are making:):)
The bottom line is I am not inconsistent with my own writings (Preaching if you prefer)
when I hold back unpleasant truth. When my sisters hold back the truth about my father's
serious illness before his death so not to disrupt my studies thats a considerate
thought on their part, it would be insensitive to characterize it as "how conveeeenient".
Same goes for my holding truth with S.S. and similar cases. The honest intent was to
avoid unpleasantness (whether it achieved that purpose is different. It didn't as you
pointed out). So your characterizing it as "how conveeenient" is what I have problem
with. This expression should only be used when one goes against their own preaching
(I didn't) for their own selfish benefits. I never preached that "NEVER TELL WHITE
LIES". I preach "(I)Try to seek the truth (Not just about people, but about nature,
universe also) and (I)never tell a black lie.
About SS's case she hasn't presented her case explaining that knowing the truth
is less hurtful than not knowing it and made a blunt request to that effect. She is
of the type who is very sensitive to what is said to whom and how. She never talked
(To me) about her anguish for not knowing the reason and implored for the truth. If
she did then I would have said it. Now its upto your trust in my truthfulness to
believe it or not.
Now regarding the comedians, they may be comedians but they are just humans like
us. They may be joking most of the time, but they also make observations of about
REAL LIFE EXPERIENCES they go through (Like my hmm..) Those observations were
what I was refering to, not the pure joke parts (Which are fictitious and just cooked up to
make people laugh). Haven't you heard Arsenio say "How come some people ..." ? those
were REAL LIFE stuff he was talking about, NOT JOKES. Now if you want to take them as
jokes and defend him then you might as well have taken my HMM..s as jokes also and
defended me from your own labelling me as suffering from Superiority complex etc.
All I have said so far should have been obvious and still I have to explain it to you.
[..]
the fact is I may be very fussy in my pointing out these incompleteness/flaws but I
am still very patient in actual practice.[..] I just
point out things with no acrimony or emotion. Just dispassionate statements of facts.
[..]
Sometimes you equate my "COMMENTS" = "COMPLAINTS"
You say above:
[..] Impatience should not be judged by "coming across through
your writings.." as you said but by actual words/actions. Perceptions are so personal
and biased and can be misleading in making such drastic conclusions about one's
nature. Again you are imputing impatience/crankiness/ to my observations and
suggesting chilling out. [..]
You say again :
"cranky...and you are far from perfect (like the rest of us)..."
Did I ever say I was perfect? See C8 Please,Please. Please also read the EPILOG in my
manifesto. That will very effectively address this comment of yours. Do you see, most
of the time I am just clarifiying my position vis a vis your conclusions about me whereas
you are characterizing me as a person (impatient, bitter, suffering from superiority
complex etc) rather than just doing a critique of my writings int by point. PLEASE read
the PROLOG in my manifesto. Once again repeating request to read the relevent items
(C8, D12) in my manifesto and definitely the PROLOG and the EPILOG. [..]
I am just taking this free time to make my ideas/thoughts clearer to you as much as I
can. Even couples in happy marriage are known to be complete strangers as far as
their inner ideas/values/thoughts are concerned for years (twenty sometimes) while
enjoying each others company, let alone friends. This is a testimony to the importance
I attach to your friendship and hence the need to have a clear communication
between us.
From me Mon Jul 19 11:54:52 1999
To: [email protected]
Subject: M11 - Re: objective morality
Mails To E.O:
Under Abortion you wrote:
"This is the claim that abortion is immoral because it prevents a possible
future conscious human being from coming into existence. The flaw in this claim
is that we are preventing a possible future human being from coming into
existence every time we decide to not have sex. If a man sees a woman, and
chooses not to rape her, then he is also preventing a possible future human being."
My comment:
The key word here is "prevent". In abortion it is not "prevent" but "destroy" that
applies. In other words preventing something that has not not happened is not
comparable to destroying (a fetus in this case) something that already has come to
exist. So abortion cannot be compared to prevention of the formation of a life.
Also you may want to articulate clearly that killing a sperm is not the same as
killing a fertilized egg, since a stand alone sperm (or egg) has no potential of
becoming a human being but a fertilzed egg has.
Thanks and regards,
cosmic thinker
***********************************************************
From me Mon Jul 19 20:46:52 1999
To: [email protected]
Subject: My response
>
>
>As I wrote in my web page:
>
>"Suppose that we have set up an artificial apparatus where a fertilized egg
>can safely develop into a newborn baby. Suppose also, that currently there
>is only a sperm and an unfertilized egg in this 'test tube'. The sperm is in
>the process of moving toward the egg. This system, which currently has no
>fertilized egg, will develop into an infant if we stand by and do nothing.
>Is it immoral to kill the sperm cell in this situation?"
>
>It seems to me that the sperm and the unfertilized egg in this situation has
>just as much potential for developing into a human being as does the
>fertilized egg. In fact, if we took such a scenario a step further, we
True. But my point was regarding a stand alone sperm (not in the vicinity
of an egg). For example I don't believe masturbation is immoral as
the dispelled sperms were not hanging around possible target eggs for
fertilization. So there IS a distinguishing property between truly
stand alone sperm and sperm in proximity of an egg in a test tube.
Hope you see my logic.
>could say that amino acids had the potential for developing into a human
>being. Therefore, it does not seem as if we can validly use the "potential"
>argument.
Thats an extreme scenario. Like David Deutsch says in his book
"Fabric of Reality" that one can make a long stretch and conclude that
just by sitting in one's armchair one can consider himself guilty
as he is depriving a potential benefit to someone else by not doing
somethiong productive etc. My life.html addresses this issues in
detail.
cosmic thinker
***********************************************************
From me Fri Jul 23 15:11:17 1999
To: [email protected]
Subject: Thanks for your feedback
Thanks for your response and your feedback. I have responded to your comments
below. Let me add one further remark to my last email response to you regarding
killing sperm vs. fetus. I empohasized the distingushing difference between
killing stand alone sperm vs. sperm in the vicinity of eggs and to decide on the
morality or lack thereof was the "potential of becoming human" (No in the former,
yes in the latter case). But really the distunguishing difference should be not
the potential (probability) but actuality(certainty). Prevention of a potential
life formation by killing a sperm (in the vicinity of egg) is not the same
as destroying a fertilized egg since the fertilized egg is certain to become
a human (Not just has the potential), in other words a fertilzed egg is a fait
accompli, a defacto human life in its earliest phase.
Your comment:
>My major disagreement with you about what I have read so far is when you
>condone acts of revenge. I believe that punishment should act only as a
>deterrent, never for revenge. If an inanimate objects causes you harm,
>there is no point in seeking revenge on the inanimate object. I believe
>that seeking revenge against a person is just as purposeless and
>unjustifiable.
>To examine why and when you believe revenge is justified, let us examine the
>following scenario. Suppose there is a person who committed an act in the
>past which harmed you. However, some time after this event occurred (but
>before you had a chance at exacting revenge) this person has a brain injury
>which causes him to loose almost all of his memory. This brain injury also
>significantly affects his personality, to the point where there is little
>resemblance between how he is now and how he was before. In fact, after the
>injury, he is one of the nicest and kindest people you have ever met.
>Do you believe that seeking revenge against him is justified in this
>situation? He has no memory of having committed the harmful deed, nor would
>his present personality condone such a deed. For all practical purposes, it
>is almost as if he is no longer the same person, and seeking revenge would
>seem to be the equivalent of harming an innocent person. If you answer as I
>would, that revenge is unacceptable in this situation, then the next
>question for you is what specifically has to change in the scenario for you
>to start believing that revenge is justifiable. Does he just have to have
>the memory of having committed the deed, even though his present personality
>would never condone it? Does he just have to have a personality which
>condones such an action, even thought he does not have any memory of having
>committed the event? Does he have to have both the memory of the deed and
>the personality which condones it? I would be interested in discussing this
>issue with you, but how we proceed depends on how you answer this question.
>
I believe you were referring to A7. Please refer to artcle# while critiquing.
as I request in prolog#4, it helps in the dialog. Also prolog#3 assumes
importance/relevance here. I used the expression "IF you have to" in A7 which
should absolve me from any putative advocacy of revenge which I don't. I used
similar reasoning to yours using inanimate objetcs in A4 So we are not
substantially different in our views. A7 is to be looked up as an IF/THEN
statement.
Anyway now coming to your question on revenge. Since, like you I also only
believe in the deterring value of revenge(As a punishment), just like a judge
hands down death penalty to a dangerous criminal, so I do't believe in
revenge when the perpetrator is no longer capable (Either through intent, as
when/if he/she becomes remorseful/reformed or through some debilitating
effects some of which you have listed above) of inflicting harm anymore.
But I must emphasize the difference between "revenge" (Inflicting an injury
solely with the intent of avenging a previous wrong, without caring about
any deterrent effect of such or caring for any indemnification to the victim
for the wrong committed) and a "punitive action" against the perpetrator with
the intent of serving as a deterrent to the actual perpetrator or other
would be perpetrator who may be emboldened by any impunity of the wrongdoing
by the oroginal perpetrator and also as an indemnification to the victim for
wrong committed. In other words my revenge is essentially no different from
a legal verdict of punishment through judicial means for a wrong committed.
So to complete my answer to your question: Although morally a wrondoer will
always be guilty (unless remorseful) but the actual punishment for the purpose
of serving as deterrent and indemnification to the victim should be only be
imposed if the perpetrator is not physically incapacitated. (remorseful or
not).
>Another major disagreement I have with you is that according to your rules
>for morality, we would not be able to harm an innocent person under any
>circumstances. Perhaps at first glance, such a rule sounds nice. However,
>imagine a hypothetical scenario where killing one innocent person is the
>only way to prevent the slow painful deaths of four to five billion people
>(the entire human population excluding this one innocent person). Suppose
>that this one innocent person refuses to voluntarily make the sacrifice
>which would save the rest of humanity. In such a scenario, I believe that
>it is permissible to kill this one innocent person against his will.
>
Again you haven't followed the suggestions of Prolog#4. Which article were
you referring to? Anyway to answer your question: My purpose of writing
was to set the guideline for the normal circumstances which covers most cases,
it does not always necessarily include the extreme and exceptional cases like
the one you cited above. Exceptional cases have to dealt with by custom
considerations. For example in the case you cited above the approach I would
take would be to first answer the question: Would killing ANY ONE do the task
of saving the rest or just ONE PARTICULAR person? If anyone, then set an
objective criterion to select one person for the sacrifice. Second, answer the
question: To save at least how many people is it worthwhile to kill one person?
Obviously two=one is not acceptable answer as you had indicated in your objective
morality article. Obviously entire human population is definitely worth killing
one human. But where is the threshold? Once these two questions are settled the
rest follows.
***********************************************************
From me Sat Jul 24 14:10:28 1999
To: [email protected]
Subject: My rsponse
[..]
>
>By the way, when formulating my beliefs about morality, I try to make sure
>that they apply to all imaginable scenarios, regardless of how unrealistic
>these scenarios may be. If there is a hypothetical scenario where a moral
>theory fails, then this may be an indication that there is a fundamental
>problem with the theory, even if the scenario is an extremely obscure one.
>Just think about how the Michelsen-Morely experiment led to the Theory of
>Relativity and how the photo-electric effect led to Quantum Mechanics.
One thing I haven't discussed yet is that morality cannot be even discussed
independent of human existence in the way we can say that 2+2=4 even if
human race becomes instinct. ALl my attempt to define morality was within
the context of human species. My definition of morality cannot affect the
ultimate law of nature: Survival instinct of species. Collective instinct
of survival is a morality enforced by nature so to speak. When human defined
morality conflicts with survival of species then the latter takes precedence
(De facto, not De Jure). Like any scientific theory, morlaity breaks down in
those extreme situations.(In reality, not in principle). Just like all phyics
law break down at singularity, and time loses its meaning before the big bang
etc. I may believe in the morality defined by me but when, lets say in an
extreme but unlikely scenario its a choice only between my death or another's
(For no fault of mine) I may (note "may") act to opt for MY survival.
In conclusion, just like any law can be supplemented by by-laws to accomodate
the few exceptions my definition can be supplemented by few additional
premises to account for extreme cases of esceptions. ABSOLUTE doesn't
imply in one line or no additional postulates. Absolute implied that it is
free from internal inconsistencies and independent of any particular
group of people.
>
>About your comments on abortion: After conception occurs, more than half of
>the fertilized eggs are naturally aborted within one month. In our
>hypothetical scenario with the sperm and the unfertilized in an artificial
>apparatus, the odds of the system producing a human being is far higher that
>are the odds that a typical fertilized egg inside a mother's womb will
>produce a human being.
>
My knowledge so far tells me that only one egg is fertilzed by millions of
sperms. (I have to check on it to confirm. You can check on it too unless
you are 100% sure). But regardless in abortion we are talking about WILLFUL
destruction of fetus not, NATURAL/SpONATNEOUS destruction of the redundant
fertilized eggs (50% According to you above). The difference is that the
natural abortion of the 50% does not prevent the formation of the successful
embryo (i.e eventually a child) whereas a human act of abortion does destroy/
PREVENT the formation of life by killing the only naturally surviving
fertilized egg. So there is still this big distinguishing factor. Similar
things happen for turtles, crocodiles, salmons, where million eggs are
fertilized but only few eventually survive. But we don't equate those natural
deaths to death caused by wilful human intervention. Natural events don't
fall within the purview of morality, but willed human interventions do.
>
>C5 section b. Luck may have had a lot to do with it. One person may have
>had parents who were able to pay for college, and he was able to devote all
>his time to classes, while another student may have not been so fortunate
>and had to have a full time job while simultaneously attending classes. Or,
>as another example, one student may have had better teachers in high school
>and elementary school than did another student. Such matters are not
>decided by the efforts of the student, but by the luck of the circumstances.
>
Its a case of 2+2=4 vs 4+4=8 kind of argument. (see C9).
What you are saying is a vaild general comment that applies to any
major. But luck was not apllicable in the CHOICE of the major which was
the thrust of my article. (If you reread article C5-b, you will notice that
A was calling B lucky due to B being a C.S major, not due to B being
able to afford to graduate.)
>On A26: There are good reasons for a person to be upset about their partner
>cheating on them. As one example, by having sexual relations outside the
>marriage, they have exposed their spoce to a greater danger of receiving a
>sexually transmitted disease.
Well, in that case it is "worry" or "concern" which is logical, not "upset"
Upset carries an implied harmful intent due to an absolute wrong committted
(which it is not). Concern and worry does not carry that intent and one is
free to take any defensive act to address one's worry/concern (Abstain having
sex, divorce etc if that becomes a genuine worry).
***********************************************************
From me Mon Aug 9 17:06:35 1999
To: [email protected]
Subject: Continuing my response
>
>People have a right to not be interested in certain topics. There is
>nothing wrong with them engaging in debates about the topics which interest
>them, and avoiding the topics which they do not have any interest in. Also,
>their interests may change over time.
Rights are duly recognized and not challenged. Let me know if any sentence
implied that (unambiguously). I will certainly rectify it. Remember the
whole premise of my writings were to suggest guidelines, not forfetiting
or questioning rights. My prolog I thought did make it abundantly clear.
In your above comments "avoiding.." doesn't contradict my postion as I was
implyingh a debate where the topic was chosen by mutual consent/interest.
So my objection was towards someone walking out in the middle of a debate
which s/he s/herself inititated or showed interest in.
>
>Except for the fact that we need to address what the proper action should be
>for a person when the individual he is interacting with is not following the
>proper procedures. If we assume that everyone is always going to behave
>properly, then their is not much of a challenge in figuring out how we
>should behave. The challenge comes when we are not guaranteed that everyone
>else will behave properly.
That case was too obvious for me to mention it in A8, i.e if some one
repeats a question then obviously you have to repeat your answer/argument,
thats purely mechanical. That cannot qualify as a guideline for debate
like the other ones I mentioned (Like Not repeating an argument being one).
>
>
>The situation I am referring to is the following (this is something I have
>actually encountered). Both individuals agree that the rules of logic are
>objective and the same for everyone. They also might agree that the rules
>of logic are well founded. However, when they start discussing what the
>rules of logic actually are, it is clear that they are in disagreement. If
>you were to point out to them the rules of logic on a particular web site,
>they might respond that this web site is mistaken, and that the "true" rules
>of logic which "everyone" has agreed to is different from the biased
>interpretation which is posted there.
>
>
If we go very deep intellectually, sure logic itself becomes an area of
research and debate (cognitive science). After all the ultimate principle of
Godel's theorm do point to a limit of human deductive reasoning. But
I am not referring to this frontiers of logic, but logic that we all understand.
(or at least should, if ego or bias doesn't get in the way).
For example If A says "B is a crook and happens to be a widgetian". Then if
C says (either):
1. A is a racist
2. All widgetians are crooks
Did "C" make a logical statement? Can there be any disagreement here whether C
was logical or not? Sadly in most day to day debates such kind of poor logic is
encountered. Just browse through the fallacies listed in the site I referred to
and you will see for yourself countless examples.
>Whether one person is financially backed by a group of people or financially
>backed by a single wealthy individual is not the issue. In both cases, one
>or more individuals has freely chosen to fund the ideas of the person with
>the idea for a business venture. In both cases, this as an acceptable
>situation.
Again my guidelines never calls the free and voluntary act of a wealthy
person(A) to bail out someone (B) from a financial debacle "unacceptable".
I only question the propriety of "B" EXPECTING or DEMANDING such a
bail out from "A" (Often A is discovered after such a debacle!).
>
>Also, even if a person has no financial backer to bail him out in the case
>of failure, I see nothing wrong with a person engaging in a risky endeavor
>provided that he is willing to accept the consequences which go along with
>the risks.
Again my article A12 clearly articulates that: "An example is impulsively
jumping into business involving risks that one is not capable of
cushioning in case of default/failure". "Your willingness to accept.."
equates to "capable of cushioning..". So we are making equivalent assertions.
Please pay particular attention to my wordings as I have been very meticulous
in my writing.
>
>It seems that what you have just done is to redefine the word "fanatic" to
>mean "a person who possesses at least one of the characteristics which you
>listed in D20."
Now how else would you defne a fanatic? Redefine revising a previous
definition. I didn't define it to begin with, but sure I agree I am implicitly
defining fanatic by this artcicle, but I maintain that this is the widely agreed
on definition, not my invention. In other words yes, I am re-defining (i.e
repeating a previous definition), but certainly not revising a previous
definition.
>
>What if you happen to live next to the kid, and he happens to fall into a
>pond once in a while when you are nearby? Would this not constitute a
>relationship?
We are really splitting hair here. It seems like the phrase "taking care of"
in my article is causing this. These acts of saving a drowning person etc
fall into different category (I will have to address them in a new article).
Let me briefly state that: Saving a life when one's own life is not risked IS
indeed a moral act (Also its complement). Again I have always emphasized the
distinction between two types of wrongs: (1) Not doing something good for
others (2) Doing something bad to others. Not saving a child is certainly
immoral, but not an absolute wrong by my definition.
My "taking care of" is of a broader implication like "obligations" as is
traditionally applied to spouses, immediate relatives etc. It was in this
very restrictive range of applicability that I wrote this article.
>
>
>To settle such matter we need observable evidence. We already have evidence
>that environment plays a role. A person who grows up in a culture which
>values skeptical and critical thinking is much more likely to aquire these
>characteristics than is a person who grows up in a culture which does not.
>The issue, then, is if there is any evidence which shows that genetics is
>involved as well. I find it unlikely that a healthy human being is
>"incapable" of thinking skeptically.
In the above "culture" acts as the "shell" in my article. SO I don't see
any contradiction. Those who are more susceptible to culture develop the
shell. But the core still remains inside. Please read my article again
because I believe it adresses your arguments already. Now If the evidence
was clearly established objectively in favour of one or the other this
debate would have been closed, but it is not. The fact is there is evidence
on either side and researchers are equally weighted in favour and against.
(Homosexuality is an example). I believe this is an aquired habit.
I have read studies favouring "nature" over "nurture" as have you the other
way around.
>If the two people in the conversation do not yet agree about whether or not
>humans have the ability to have a certain characteristic, then the debate
>would not be settled by the fact that a word exists to describe that
>characteristic. My point was that although I believe that humans can have
>objectivity, it is not a valid argument that humans definitely have
>objectivity because a word exists to describe this property.
I was quoting the existence of the word "objectivity" as ONE of MANY
arguments (Definitely not the only one or the Most powerful one). So
settling it with this argument only was never my premise as you seem to
suggest above. My argument is that a word's existence certainly
suggests the likelihood for its existence as is the case with MOST
words.
>
>
>Sure, so long as we are allowed to change the definitions for words, then
>lots of things are possible. If we redefine the phrase "Santa Clause" to
>mean "A small furry animal", then we can then legitimately say that Santa
>Clause exists. However, all we have done is to play a word game.
Well, GOD is not a word with unique/universal definition. So your above
comment "allowed to change the definitions for words.." is really not
applicable to GOD. There are influential philosophers and theologicians
who have their own definition creating a partcular school of theology
(Spinozza, Hartshorn, Whitehead etc) not to mention the various schools
of eastern Mysticism. An example of a word that does not necessitate its
existence is "fairy", "heaven" etc.
>
>
>I think I was responding to statements like your example of different groups
>of people which have different average grades, and that one group can have a
>higher average than the other. You did not say anything which contradicted
>my statement. However, you did not mention anything about the potential for
>these "grades" and averages to change with time, so this was the reaction
>which I had while reading the passage.
If you pick skill only then I agree an average can change with time. But again
change with time can apply uniformly to all groups so the relative rank bewteen
groups may still remain the same while they may all change with time. Also
certain characterictics (which are intrinsic, not aquired) MAY NOT change
with time, as they are intrinsic. We should certainly be prepared to accept
such possibility (If an objective evidence suggest that) irrespective of
whether that possibility goes in one's favour or against. Thats is my whole
point.
>
>I was pointing out that it is possible to make a logical argument that
>others should try to finish everything on their plate.
Rather I would preach "Don't take more food in your plate that you
can eat". Anyway my article was very specific. It doesn't contradict
or include what you are saying.
>
>
>I have heard of the following story as to how gift giving on holidays got
>started. When a family hosted a celebration (such as a wedding or a
>birthday) hosting the celebration cost the family a considerable amount.
>Therefore, the guests felt that they should repay the generosity of their
>hosts by providing gifts.
>
>Also, with regards to the question of gift giving in a society without a
>merchant class, I have heard of one society where when a person was ill, it
>was believed that the illness could be cured if others in the community gave
>him gifts. These gifts were things that were produced by the individuals
>giving the gifts, so there was no "merchant class" which profited from the
>endeavor.
If these gifts were given with purpose of curing ills, then I would
characterise them not as gifts but as therapy. My article was
specifically addressing the current practice/custom of gifts. Just
like sex therapy is therapy, not sex. :)
>
>Perhaps a brain injury is not the best example, since the point I was trying
>to make was that our core personality is shaped by our experiences. There
>is considerable evidence that childhood experiences in particular are
>crucial in forming our personalities.
The point I was trying to say that "shell" personality is shaped by our
experiences. Core, by definition is unchangeable. Core<=>Rom, Shell<=>RAM.
How about that? :)
>
>I was disagreeing. You wrote.
>
> "By this they
> are implying that IF they were on that flight the plane would have still
> crashed. A close examination of this would reveal an inconsistency of
> thoughts/logic."
>
>I was saying that if they were on the plane, then the plane would indeed
>still crash.
Well, as I argued that just by his being in the plane alone
(Assuming all else stays same) the factors have changed (e.g plane weight,
and other chain of interconnected effects due to his not being in many
situations he would have been if he had not been on the flight which may
ultimately have miniscule yet finite effect on the flight itself).
>
>Right, but there also many scientists who will continue to cling on to
>irrational beliefs. I realize that you talk about the "ideal scientists".
>However, this is no different than what is ideal for humans in general. All
>human beings should try to be rational. I do not know if the percentage of
>scientists who think rationally about issues is any higher than is the
>percentage of such people in the general public, but it is incorrect to
>assume that it is higher just due to the fact that they are "scientists".
>
The process of becoming a scientist itself screens out the cases of those
who would cling on to irrational beliefs. I would not call them scientists.
Ther are many PhD's who mainly collect data and devise sophisticated
equipments to gather the most precise data. These types of "scientists
do not need to have the kind of scientific minds needed to be a thinker
and researcher of scientific ideas. Also here I have to inject my own
bias that it is the theoretical physicists who are least likey to be
irrational (or take the complement).
>
>Well, I think that the non-mathematical version of quantum mechanics does
>not have to be "watered down". Many of the popular texts on quantum
>mechanics are watered down, but it does not need to be this way. It is not
>necessary to know how to solve Schrodinger's equation to understand quantum
>mechanics, any more than it is nessary to be able to compute the wave
>equations for water waves when trying to understand the concept of how waves
>travel across the surface of lake.
Again, I am not sure where we areagreeing or disagreeing. We
both know that a lay reader of a non-mathematical book will never gain
the same feel and depth as those who have studied it in its intricate
detail. Solving Schrodinger's equation is a mechanical process. Understanding
Scrodinger's equation is not mechanical but a cerebral process requiring a
background in linear analysis and partial Diff. Equation etc. It is also very
primitive. Advanced quantum theory uses the concept of field quantization.
All the fundamental strucrture of matter and forces are understyood through
Quantum Electrodynamics and Quantum Chromodynamics. For these one needs
to have a background in variational Analysis and Hilbert Space ideas. Anyway,
my point was that if mathematics get in the way of understanding, then I
blame it on myslef, not mathematics. (Its true for me, specially while
trying to understand General relativity which truly requires the ideas of
Differentiable manifolds and Topological Spaces, still struggling. I do
alrewady have primitive ideas about it through popular expositions)).
Understanding a principle non-mathematically while palatable is bound to be
superficial. But I must hasten to add that I am not mandating that all
study them in detail. Only that IF/WHEN someone takes the leap of criticising/
challenging/applying a scientific idea then he/she better have the depth to
do so.
>Humans do not have to exist in order for physical laws to exist. The law of
>gravity would continue to function even if the human race became extinct.
>In a similar manner, I believe that the laws of morality would continue to
>exist even if all human beings were to disappear.
This is where your analogy is totally misdirected. Law of gravity exists
independent of human existence BECAUSE gravity does not require human
for it to act. It requires mass. So your analogy is clearly flawed. Morality
requires human to apply. Can you imagine any moral law that can apply
to/between non-humans? Give me an example. Please Don't cite NATURAL
laws (Animals taking care of their oofsprings etc). Morality is a creation
of consciousness/free will.
>
>If a person has no experience with computer programming by the time he
>starts college, then he will be at a major disadvantage if he wishes to be a
>CS major. My feeling is that people who know how to program learned it by
>teaching it to themselves. Classes in computer programming seem to only
>confuse those who are not already familiar with it. Such a person can still
>be a CS major, but it will be far more difficult, especially if he fails his
>first CS courses due to the fact that he was unprepared. Neither luck nor
>personal choices are the sole determining factors, it is a combination of
>the two.
I will grant only that "no experience with computer programming by the time
he starts college" may be considerd bad luck (Or its complement), but still
the choice of major in college is still there. Its hardly the case that one
cannot make up for that in a college through some extra work. High school
education being as poor as it is, one really starts serious study in college
anyway.
>
>
>However, even if he discloses his affair to his wife, he is harming his wife
>in that she can now no longer safely engage in intercourse with her own
>husband. This implies that she will not be able to safely have children
>with him, and not be able to safely experience the pleasure of intercourse
>with him. If she had known this ahead of time, she may not have wished to
>get married to this individual. Therefore, many people wish to establish
>the agreement of "not cheating" on each other prior to getting married.
Well, the husband may not have known about it ahead of time either. Anyway,
my point is not to justify or make it seem totally innocuous to cheat on
one's spouse, but to suggest a ratonal way to handle such situation. Your
comment: "she will not be able to safely have children with him, and not
be able to safely experience the pleasure of intercourse with him." is an
example of the "Not doing something for someone" type of wrong. (i.e depriving
his wife of children/sexual pleasure). Its not an absolute wrong by my strict
definition, but certainly an immoral act, (In the sense of fairness).
***********************************************************
From me Tue Aug 10 17:20:52 1999
To: [email protected]
Subject: Continuing my response
[...]
>Not necessarily. There are particle physicists who spend all their time
>just regurgitating the theories which have already been developed and
>applying these theories to new special cases. There are even many
>scientists (including particle physicists) who even engage in the censorship
>of new ideas or methods which challenge the established dogma. The
>mechanism of such censorship can come in the form of the "peer review"
>process for publication in academic journals, and in not awarding tenure to
>junior professors who challenge the established beliefs which the other
>"senior" scientists have founded their reputations on.
We may have strayed oiff our original moot issue (i.e whether a layperson
reading a non-mathematical exposition of a theory can understand it at the
same depth as those who study/propose it at its most technical level. Your
comments did not establish that they can) but I will go along. I used the
expression "Least Likely" in my comments. So your comments about some
particle physicists does not affect what I said.
Now you have probably heard the saying among scientific community,
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Mainstream
phyiscists may appear reactionary but remember all revolutionary
ideas require time to be accepted. Alan Guth's "Inflationary" theory
of Big bang is an example. he was a relatively young Post Graduate
student when he proposed this theory. Because of its merit it did
catch on despite its initial unconventional implication. many world
interpretation of QM is another such example. A solid scientific theory
eventually will make it through. The kind of opinion typified by your
comments above is made by many non physicists (Thomas Kuhn bein one
of the noteworthy ones) and frustrate physicists and it has been effectively
refuted. If you read David Deutsch's "Fabric of reality" you will probably
change your views. Physicists cannot afford to miss out an important
breakthrough if it really made by young/less known physicist or for that
matter anyone. But its a ruthless screening (Has to be) process. False
alarms do happen. Supersymmetry and S-matrix theory are two more examples.
The oroginal Supersymmetry theory didn't provide any advantage over the
standard model. But now it is promising to be an improved one and it is
slowly being accepted by Physicists. S-matrix theory never provided any
advantage over the standard model and is still in the same status.
Pragmatism, Occam's razor are very strictly followed in scientific
community. It sure will disappoint many enthusiasts who get carried away.
>I believe that we are in disagreement about this issue. To make matters
>simpler, let us consider what constitutes an adequate understanding of
>Newtonian physics. Suppose a person knows that according to Newtonian
>physics, objects with mass exert an attractive force on each other. Also,
>he knows that this force is stronger if the objects are more massive, and
>the force is stronger if the two objects are closer together. (I could
>continue to list other such non-mathematical concepts). I would say that
>once this person knows all these non-mathematical concepts, this person
>knows all the essential components of Newtonian physics.
Again we have strayed off the moot issue (Which was my assertion that to
challenge/criticise/apply a scientific theory to non-scientific areas by
nonm-scientists is dingenuous. To do that one has to attain the same
level of understanding as the experts. If you debate that then I suggest
narrowing down our bounds of discussion to that)
Newton's law is not itself a fundamental law of nature. It is very crude
approximation to the more fundamental geometrical theory of gravitation.
Besides the term "mass", "force" in newton's law if are to be defined
precisely/logically then that is impossible within Newton's law and we
need to understand the Conservation Laws (Ultimately through the concepts
of field) and mach's principle. So again it illustrates my proposition
that a lay understanding of any physics principle is bound to be incomplete.
>
>He would not be able to solve a single math problem. He would not be able
>to calculate the potential energy of a given system. He would not be able
>to accurately predict how fast a falling object will accelerate. However,
>these are only details. His understanding of the fundamental aspects of
>Newtonian physics is just as good as is that of a person who is able to
>accomplish all of these tasks. It is important to know that when you let go
>of an object while standing on the Earth, the object will fall down and it
>will accelerate. It is not crucial to be able to know how fast it will
>accelerate.
If all of physics was the body of common sense and gut feelings then we
would be in cave days (In physics sense). The fact that physicist's
thinking can go beyond the ordinary (imaginary time in Hawking's
cosmology, 26 dimensional space in supersymmetry etc are examples) is what
makes a true understanding Physics impossible without mathematical language.
How much can you appreciate If you are told that Maxwell's equations
are the result of the compactification of the 5th dimension of the
5 dimensional Kaluzza-klein space? Or that the 4 forces of nature are
the result of the symmetry breaking due to freezing out of the grand
unified force after the big bang. This is how these ideas are stated in
poular book and readers get an illusion they have understood it (Due to
the skill of then authors). But without really developing the concepts
(Not necessarily the equations. One has to understand what the equation
is telling, what are the meaning of the terms in the equations. Many
advanced ideas of physics are really not stated in equations in the sense of
diffential equations at all), it is really impossible to appreciate theses
ideas. I can give other examples like Balck hole entropy etc. There is no
way one can get a feel of the ideas of cosmology without learning the ideas
of Differential manifold and topology.
>
>"Another objection which can be raised is the following. It appears that the
>existence of morality depends on the existence of conscious beings. If it
>turns out that consciousness has not always existed in the Universe, then it
>appears that morality did not always exist either. It is possible to respond
>to this objection by again making the comparison to gravity. You would not
>see the law of gravity being applied in a region of space without objects
>possessing mass. This does not imply that the law of gravity does not exist
>in that region of space. In a similar manner, the law of morality still
>exists in a region of space or in a time period without conscious beings. We
>just do not see it being applied."
You understand that an anlogy is not an argument for its existence.
You yourself have refuted analogy in your articles by citing
distinguishing factors. Your assertion that "morality exists
independent of humans" BECAUSE gravity exists independent of human
is not really an argument is it? I requested you to give one example
of a moral law which does not involve human. You didn't provide it.
I am still waiting for one.
>
>It is possible to harm others by promising that you will do something for
>them, and then reneging on the promise, since the promise caused the other
>individual to do things differently under the assumption that the promise
>will be fulfilled. For example, suppose that I promise that I will drive
>you to a location that you need to go to, since I am going there also. As a
>result, you loan your car to someone else for the day. However, if I now
>renege on my promise, you will not be able to go to the location which was
>important to you.
>
>Similarly, if a man enters a marriage by promising his wife that he will not
>cheat on her, and then reneges on his promise years later, he has in a
>similar manner harmed his wife.
Here what I say may strike at the very cherished belief in your heart.
I believe that in personal life one should not make a promise and neither
should one count on other's promises from . Life should be based independent
of promises. Depending on promises is a symptom of weakness and vulnarability
that one should strive to remedy instead. If at all one insists on promises
then it should be in a professional way with built in checks and balances,
like banks/mortgagors do. If you fail on a car payment you lose the title.
If you back out of a real estate purchase agreement you lose your earnest
money. These are impersonal matters and promises are part of business ethics.
But if one does not formalize a promise then it doesn't matter if one
makes/keeps a promise. Life is full of risky steps and trusts. BUT MIND YOU
I AM NOT DISAGREEING WITH YOU THAT SUCH A BREACH OF PROMISE
IS IMMORAL. IT CERTAINLY IS. BUT IT IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE WRONG
(Which is objective) BY MY DEFINITION. Immoral (which has to be decided in
case to case basis like breach of a promise, unlike absolute wrong) is less in
severity scale than an absolute wrong. But notice there is a thin distinction from
breaking a promise and in my assertion in A24(a): "Causing injury to someone's
body or depriving them of their assets/possessions by force or by deceit". Here
the word deceit almost cobers your case of cheating except that the harm is not
direct but due to a conscious act of thinking in a certain way. Thats why it doesn't
qualify as an absolute wrong.
Regards,
cosmic thinker
***********************************************************
From me Tue Aug 10 20:21:30 1999
To: [email protected]
Subject: Addendum
>
>"Another objection which can be raised is the following. It appears that the
>existence of morality depends on the existence of conscious beings. If it
>turns out that consciousness has not always existed in the Universe, then it
>appears that morality did not always exist either. It is possible to respond
>to this objection by again making the comparison to gravity. You would not
>see the law of gravity being applied in a region of space without objects
>possessing mass. This does not imply that the law of gravity does not exist
>in that region of space. In a similar manner, the law of morality still
>exists in a region of space or in a time period without conscious beings. We
>just do not see it being applied."
>
I forgot to give my reasoning here to disagree with you. General
relativity is a geometric theory of "space-time". The curvature
of space time is determined by mass. The connection of space-time
curvature TO mass is described by Einstein's General Theory of
Relativity. So the very formulation of this theory requires the
existence of "mass"/"matter".i.e general Relativity is about
the geometric relationship between spacetime and matter. Thats why
I disagree with your reason by analogy. I just wanted to clarify this.
***********************************************************
From me Wed Aug 11 16:59:51 1999
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Addendum
>
>General Relativity gives very specific
>mathematical rules for how the curvature of space-time reacts to the
>presence of objects with mass. According to the General Theory of
>Relativity, these
>mathematical rules by which space-time curves are just as
>valid in a region of space-time not possessing
>mass as they are in a region of space-time which does possess mass.
>Therefore,
>although the existence of gravity at a specific location (the rules by which
>space-time curves) is inherently dependent on space and time, it is not
>dependent on the existence of mass in that region of space-time. As a
Incorrect. The "rule" you are referring to itself is an equation relating
space time curvarure TO "Stress Tensor" (The matter part). So to say the
rule depends on space time only and not matter is patently wrong. Let me
refer to Einstein's Field Equation which expresses this "rule". Visit
http://www-th.phys.rug.nl/~schaar/htmlreport/node3.html (Refer to eq 1.10).
The right hand side contains "Stress Tensor". Your argument goes like this:
since F=ma, hence F=0 if m=0, so the rule F=ma does not depend on the
existence of m! You are overlooking the subtle point that if a GIVEN REGION
of space time doesn't contain matter/energy/radiation then curvature is zero.
That is not the same thing as saying the rule of gravity does not require
the existence (as a physical concept) of matter. A local absence of matter
is not the same as matterless universe (i.e where is matter totally absent
as a concept and as a physical quantity).
>matter of fact, General Relativity states that a particular region of
>space-time can have non-zero curvature even if there is absolutely no matter
>/ energy in that region.
Of course the space time curvature is non-zero one foot above the ground
where there is no matter. Is that what are you implying? If not then I
disagree. I would like to get a reference here. It surely violates
Einstein's Equation (cf eq 1.10, if R.H.S != 0 then L.H.S cannot=0)
BUT NOW COMES THE PUNCH LINE OF MY ARGUMENT:
No matter if General Relativity requires matter or not it still according
to you requires "spacetime". Thats my whole point. Every law/rule/principle
involves something that exists. So a law of morality must also involve
something which is obviously (As I contend) human action/behaviour/thinking.
which in turn is a result of consciousness. I have requested you more than
once to give me one example of a moral law which does not involve human in
any way and I haven't got it yet.
***********************************************************
From me Wed Aug 11 17:53:04 1999
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Continuing my response
>
>As a side note, I disagree with the belief that extraordinary claims require
>extraordinary evidence. Which claim is extraordinary depends on each
>person�s perspective. If you lived in ancient Egypt and claimed that the
>Pharaoh is not a God, but just a human being like everyone else, most people
>would probably find your claim extraordinary. However, this does not mean
>that the burden of proof should be on you to provide evidence for the claim
>that the Pharaoh is not a god. The burden of proof should still be on them
>to provide evidence that he IS a god. If there is no evidence one way or the
>other, the default position should be that the Pharaoh is not a God, even
>though most of the people at the time would have found this to be an
>extraordinary position.
Rationality cannot be logically applied retroactively. Rationality is
meaningful in a scientific age which we are in. So your contention of
the burden being on the majority back then saying it from the now (future
relative to Pharao) is an anchronism. It cannot be a logically consistent
argument. Relative to them the burden would have been still on the person
chaleenging the widely accepted belief. But today the widely accepted
beliefs are the ones supported by scince, not by religious/mythical beliefs.
So any challenge to established science is certainly extraordinary by our
scientific yardstick and hence require extraordinary justification/evidence
and my point still holds. This aphorism (extraordinary..) is not mine by the
way, by scientists/philosophers of science
>
>It is not an issue of whether or not scientists are completely biased, it is
>an issue of to what extent they are biased. It is incorrect to believe that
>scientists are completely unbiased and judge each idea based only on the
>merits of the idea. Unfortunately, issues such as the social status of the
>person advocating it and to what extent the idea contradicts cherished
>beliefs does end up playing a role. It is not just non-scientists who are
>complaining about this. There are many individuals within the scientific
>community who strongly agree with what I wrote.
>
>This is not just uninformed conjecture. There have been studies done which
>demonstrate this. I would like to mention two such studies with which I am
>familiar.
>
I never made an assertion that "ALL scientists are unbiased without
exception". I have repeated that there do exist scientists with bias.
Even Einstein had a bias when he introduced the cosmological constant
in his field equation (To make the universe look steady state) and then
took out the term when Hubble's discovery pointed to an expanding
universe. So what really is our diagreement on? :)
>As another example, a study was done in which papers were submitted to
[..]
Examples never establish a general rule, but serve to illustrate exceptions.
I always granted exceptions.
>
>Conservation laws and field theory can also be explained in a
>non-mathematical way. I agree with you that the non-mathematical approach
>might not have all the depth that the mathematical approach does. I think
>that where we disagree is on how much the difference is between the two
>cases. I believe that in many cases the non-mathematical approach gives
>about 98% of the depth which can be achieved when the mathematics is
>included. Getting the remaining two percent would require understanding the
>math, but the vast majority can be understood without it. You, on the other
>hand, probably feel that the difference between the two approaches is
>considerably greater.
>
I think here I have to make a very philosophical remark. the logic here should
not be 98% or 79% etc. Whether a profound scientific theory can be completely
understood (>=98%) non-mathematically can never be judged by a layperson as
they have not studied it in depth. To be able to say so one has to study it at both
level and then make a fair comparison. All the writers/scientists (Good ones)
also do realize this truth but still hopes that the reader will get a "feel" of
the truth and thereby maybe generate enough interest in some of them to pursue
it at a professional level. By the way when I mean a mathematical study I don't
mean studying all the derivations of mathemnatical steps, but at least
developing an undertsanding the mathematical terms/concepts so that one can
understand what an equation means rather than what the solution is. For example
in Hawking's Singularity theorem can take 5 pages to derive. But to understand
what the theorem means one need to understand some concepts from Topology
(Like null cone, Hausdorff Space, Differntiable manifold etc). Similarly
in Einstein's equation (1.10) one doesn't need to solve this equation in
every cases (may take oages after pages) to understand it but need to
understand how curvature is defined and how stress tensor means.
>
>
>I agree that what I quoted was not an argument for its existence. It was
>only a reply to the statement that morality requires humans to apply. The
>point is that if I give you a moral law which involves how conscious beings
>should interact with each other (such as "it is immoral to inflict suffering
>on others just for your own entertainment") then this law can still exist in
>a region of space which does not possess any conscious beings, just like the
>law of gravity can exist in a region of space which does not possess any
>matter.
The subtle point is that yes rule of gravity applies in a region devoid
of matter but it still depends on the CONCEPT of matter in general and its
existence (a ceratin region may not contain it as above, but still it
exists somewhere). The same logic applies to consciousness. Please take
some time to ponder. it may not seem as clear to you as it is to me. By
the way I am still waiting for an example of moral law which does not
refer to human. ("others"/"entertainment" above sure refer to humans).
>
>It seems that if we all followed your advice, then we would be creating an
>enormous legalistic bureaucracy for every personal interaction. Instead of
>just ng that I will drive you somewhere, I would end up having to
>sign a legal document which spells out what punishment I should receive if I
You totally misunderstood my points above. You are making an either
or argument between a "promise" and "a legal document". If you read
my words payting close attention my thrust was on not making/counting
on promises. That was my advice. My advice was NOT substituting promise
by a legal document. The latter is only a necessary evil when one
demands/expects accountability for a broken promise. Let me again repeat
below what I emphasized before as it seems to have been overlooked by
your above remarks :
"I AM NOT DISAGREEING WITH YOU THAT SUCH A BREACH OF
PROMISE IS IMMORAL. IT CERTAINLY IS."
>fail to do so. After all, knowing in advance that you can count on
>someone's assistance is often extremely important, and we would end up
>having to resort to such legal contracts each and every time.
"knowing in advance that you can count on.." should not be based
on a promise, it should be based on a trust on someone built
on credibility and track records. Promise has no value. If a promise
is kept then it would have been kept by him regardless of the
promise and if it is not kept then obviously the promise is valuless,
so either way promise is just for a mental deception of the one being
promised to. The issue is whether "A" does an act expected/requested
by "B" or not. Not whether it is done with or without a promise.
regards,
cosmic thinker
***********************************************************
From me Thu Aug 12 10:11:43 1999
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Addendum
>It is very interesting how many disagreements end up being a disagreement
>about proper wording. When I say that moral laws exist independently of
>human beings, what I mean is that they exist in a "region" of space and in a
>time period in which there are no conscious beings, just like the law of
>gravity exist in a "region" of space-time in which matter does not exist.
The analogy still is mistaken. What you are saying essentially boils down to
saying that the law of morality holds in an island not inhabited by any
human. Does this statement have any value or substance?. Any law has to have
at least one instance of its application. Can you give one such instance (I
have requested you thrice already) where a moral is in action in an island
devoid of human?
>Now, if there was no matter anywhere in all of space-time anywhere in the
>universe, it would be a very different situation. In this case I am not
>sure whether or not the law of gravity (and other laws) would exist in such
>a situation. After all, this is a scenario in which "nothing" exists in the
>universe. We can hypothesize that the mathematical rules which govern how
>matter creates curvatures in space time still exists, even though they can
>no longer be applied since matter no longer exists. But, of course, it is
Again this is straying away from our moot issue. The moot point was
not whether it makes sense to speak of gravity where "nothing" exists in
the universe BURT whether law of morality exists(makes sense) where
HUMANS don't exist (not where NOTHING exists).
Mathematical laws on the other hand, I believe makes sense even in a
matterless universe. This is a Platonist position which Roger Penrose
and other renowned mathematicians/physicists hold. But ALL other laws
need material entity (space-time and matter are unified and are
indistinguishable in modern physics) for its formulation to make sense.
cosmic thinker
***********************************************************
From me Fri Aug 13 16:02:18 1999
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Continuing my response
>
>My point was that if the ancient Egyptians followed the advice of
>"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", then this would have
>lead to disastrous results. By following this advice, they would have
>continued worshipping the Pharaoh. It is not possible to prove that the
>pharaoh is not a God.
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" was made in the
context of science/scientists. Context should not be forgotten in any
discourse. This aphorism cannot be applied retroactively to a non-scientific
era. If we do then we would end up in many absurdities (in our current
thinking) as you pointed out above. So I will grant you the relativity
of this "saying", but the relativity is not symmetric, i.e the ancients
were not equally right in their thinking as we are today. The evolution
of scientific/rational thought is a time-asymmetric process. Thats why the
aphorism (invented today) applies to current scientific era, not to
ancient days.
>
>Imagine that we have two theories. Let us call them theory A and theory B.
>These two theories depict radically different views of the world. Theory A
>has somewhat more evidence for it than does theory B. However, it does not
>have an "extraordinary" amount of more evidence for it, it just has
>"somewhat" more evidence for it. What should a rational and impartial
>scientist do? The answer is that he should view theory A as being at least
>as credible as theory B, if not more credible.
There is a flaw in the presentation of the example which has to do with the
meaning of a theory and evidence. A theory is a way to explain existing
observations and also predict new observations in terms of a a fundamental
law. Evidences are just the new observations consistent with the predictions.
So I can't see how two theories can coexist explaining the same observations
with contradictory evidences. They can certainly point to two different
world view but they have to agree on observations and predictions to survive
as two competing theories of the same reality. An excellent example of this
is the case of Quantum Mechanics where many competing world view (Many world
view, Bohm's Hidden Variable view, and the usual Schrodinger's view) all
yielded the same correct quantum predictions and observations but contained
drastically different world view. Its only after the experiemnt of Alan Aspect
in 1981 that a new observation contradicted Hidden variable world view and it
was essentially overthrown. But the ususal Copen Hagen view (The usual widely
accepted one) and Many world view do have very different world view but since
both reproduce the same reality they are not considered extraordinary relative
to each other and both have reputable adherents.
>
>I think that is clear that a rational scientist should not have his answer
>determined by the accidental circumstance of which of the two cultures he
>happens to be living in. He should judge each theory based only on the
>merits of the evidence for the theory. The issue of what his culture has
>believed previously should not play any role.
Again "merit" above means evidence. No subjectivity can enter into
evidence. Subjectivity can enter into prefering one world view over
another as long as both world view reproduceg the same reality and their
predictions agfree with observations (Like in QM as noted above). I agree
on your last part : "He should.." (Thats a given) I also agree that it is
not faithfully followed by many (many != most) "scientists". It is science
(or scientific method) which I call objective not scientist. Science can
force objectivity in a scientist who understands and follows the scientific
method. Case closed :)
>
>
>I think that the disagreement is about what percentage of scientists behave
>irrationally. As I side note, I do not think that the cosmological constant
>is really an example of the type of irrationality I am referring to.
>Einstein was just trying to make his equations consistent with the steady
>state model of the universe. Since the cosmic background radiation had not
>yet been discovered, this seemed to be a reasonable thing to do at the time.
>
Irrationlaity can exist in any human. A scientist is a human too. But as
I pointed out the strict regimen of scientific methodology can/should
force one into adpting a rational (translated objective in scientific
context). If it doesn't then the "scientist" in question is at best a
second grade one who will face impediment in a deep understanding of
reality or contribute to its understanding.
>
>But which is the rule, and which is the exception? Is the rule that most
>scientists are usually rational, and the exception that a few are
>occasionally irrational? Or is the rule that most scientists are usually
>irrational, and the exception that some are occasionally rational? It seems
>to me that scientists are not much different in this regard from the general
>population from which they are drawn. If you doubt this, you might be
>interested in looking into some of the Internet discussion forums for
>physics, which are the sci.* newsgroups. I do not know if you are already
>familiar with newsgroups. You may wish to take a glance at groups like
>sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity. The groups are set up for
>discussing physics, but it can be an enlightening and entertaining
>experience to watching the Ph.D. possessing physicists hurling irrational
>and venomous personal attacks at each other during the discussions.
I will not say much here as it is about scientist and not science
it is bound to be of subjective nature. You may be right. I haven't
tracked all the newsgroups. I can imagine many irrational/biased/angry
participants in such forums. But not all of them are scientists
anyway. Feynam had the bad reputation of losing temper and putting
others down ruthlessly. Pauli was notorious for his intolerant
demeanour. I guess despite their shortcomings they eventually straghtened
out once they got down to serious business. Internet is free form and
anyone can project their bias/agenda in full force.
>
>When I say that it captures the main essence, I mean that it is far more
>than just a superficial understanding. I believe that the math is just the
>details. As an analogy, if you know that there is an asteroid which will
>collide with Earth tomorrow which will end all life on this planet, then you
>know the important aspects of the situation. If you also happen to know the
>asteroid's mass and velocity, then you just know a few additional details.
>There are many theories and principles which I know mathematically. For all
>of them, just like in this example, I view all the numerical aspects of them
>to be just details.
>
>I would like to point out that by non-mathematical, I do not mean just vague
>analogies and catch phrases. A non-mathematical description could involve
>sophisticated geometric images and arguments, just without any specific
>numbers attached to any of them.
This is exactly what I was referring to in the example of understanding
Hawking's Singularity Theorem vs proving it or deriving all the mathematical
consequences of it. So by the same token by mathematical I don't mean
going through all the steps of derivation of a theorem or all the gory
steps of the solution of an equation. But understanding (In sufficient depth)
the terms/concepts that are so,vital in the formulation of the theories/equations.
For example knowing what curvature precisely means in a four dimensional
differentiable manifold (Which in turn requires understanding what a manifold
and differentiable means) etc. But a popular expostion cannot even do that, so
necessarily it is at a higher (i.e superficial) level of understanding. Of
course there are technicians in any field who do not need not know the details
of a theory. An auto mechanic does not need to know Carnot's cycle etc but
an do their job within their limited domain of activity. I must repeat again my
original assertion that "If/when someone takes the leap of criticising/
challenging/applying a scientific idea then he/she better have an in depth
understanding of it before doing so" Please resctrict your further comments
on this issue on this premise of mine instead of the genralities which we
are pretty much in agreement.
>
>Coming up with an example which does not involve humans is fairly easy. For
>example, I believe that it is immoral for a chimpanzee to rape another
>chimpanzee (it does happen). The real issue is whether or not an example
>can be found which does not involve conscious beings. And by the way, as I
>stated on my web page, I use the word "conscious" in a way in which it is
>not usually used. For example, I believe that there are insects which are
>conscious.
>I believe that all such examples of moral principles would involve conscious
>beings. However, the point is that even if you had a region of space in
>which there were no conscious beings, this space has the property that if
>there were to be conscious beings in this region of space a few moments
>later, then the rules of morality would still apply to them. In other
>words, there is nothing about this region of space which allows one to
>escape the laws of morality by going to this region.
Well the vey act of "going to" will cause this region to contain conscious
being (i.e whoever is "going to"). But anyway your position basically is
a Platonist view similar to the Platonist view of Roger Penrose that
mathematical truths exist "out there" in nature irrespective of human
consciousness. But whereas for mathematical truths I can appreciate the
Platonist stand more easily it is harder do so for "law of morality" as
morlaity is so intimately tied to human consciousness. Even the imperative
statement "it is immoral for a chimpanzee to rape another chimpanzee" is
hard to detach from a supervenient conscious entity (Whoever is saying that,
i.e a human with a consciousness). Basically at this point saying that
"law of morality exists in vacuum with no conscious being necessary" is
really not saying anything. It cannot be denied or accepted. It has no
precise meaning even. Your affirmation that "this space has the property
that.." is a statement that has no way of verifying or falsifying. It is
saying no more than "Wednesday exists without human consciousness".
>
>I know that you were not claiming that we should replace all promises with
>legal contracts, but just that we should not rely on promises. I was just
>stating what I thought would end up happening if we did not rely on
>promises, since there are many times where we will have to act very
>differently depending on whether or not others will behave in a certain way.
>When I use the word "promise", it includes a situation such as one where a
>person says "I will do X for you". It does not necessarily have to include
>the word "promise" in it so that it sounds like "I promise I will do X for
>you." So I am not saying that we should believe in a promise just because
>the other person said "I promised". We are still going to weight the
>credibility of the statement based on what we believe about the individual,
>and not based on whether or not the individual used the word "promise".
>Perhaps this is another one of those areas where we really agree about the
>fundamental principles involved, but are just quivering about what the
>proper wording should be. I am not really sure.
Yes! Relying on a statement indicating an intent should depend on "trust"
(a priori or a posteriori), not on the self-imposed binding clause of the
intent (I promise that.. or I swear that.. etc). I have updated article
A16 to articulate the notion of commitment/promise etc. (Thanks to your
thought provoking input). Let me post it below:
Don't base any decision/action on someone elses non-obligatory statement. If you
do then you are responsible for any side effect not them. Examples: A says to B :
"If you do (act2) then I will do (act1). So let me know if you will do act2 then I will
go ahead and do act1". If B answers that B will do act2 and asks A to go ahead with
act1 then B is obligated to do act2 if A does act1. On the other hand if A asks B :
"Will you do act2?" and B answers 'yes' then B is not obligated to do act2 if A does
act1. Also avoid MAKING promises/commitments to others as well as COUNTING on
other's promises or commitments. By promise/commitment I mean a formal or semi-
formal oath binding on oneself to do something, not a statement of compliance to a
request or an intent of doing something. For example if one requests you "Can you
give me a ride to the airport tomorrow?" and you answer "Yes I will", thats not a
promise or a commitment. A commitment is an expression like "I promise I will..."
or "You have my words that I will.." or "I swear I..." etc. It is more appropriate
to use expressions like "I will try to.." etc in response to requests. First of all
in personal human dealings it is the degree of sincere willingness inside the heart
that decides the priority of whether to do something or not for others. In the
absence of a binding clause and and accountabilty it makes no sense to place much
value on the commitment in such an informal personal dealings. It is pretty much left
on the goodwill, sincerity and trust of individuals. Even a positive commitment is
better not to make. If one means to do something from heart then s(he) will try to do
it regardless and a commitment to do it is redundant. If one fails to do it then its
better not to have committed in the first place. So either way its better not to
make any commitment. Only in a formal or business dealings a commitment (e.g a
contract or an agreement) assumes a value since there is binding clause which
obligates one to be accountable and fulfil a commitment e.g a breaking a commitment
to purchase a real-estate is penalized through forfeitur of earnest money etc.
cosmic thinker
***********************************************************
From me Tue Aug 17 16:25:57 1999
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Continuing my response
>identical for those beliefs which contradict cherished beliefs as it is for
>those beliefs which conform to the present dogma. Ideally, the outcome of
>judging the validity of a belief should not depend on what type of culture
>you happen to be living in.
My only point of dissension is that I don't see the scientific theories/paradigms
as DOGMAS (As you refer to above) but derived through best evidence and logic and
changeable through counter/new evidences. Thats why I believe that "extraordinary.."
applies to today but not before.
>
>I believe that everyone should feel free to criticize, challenge, and apply
>any idea which they feel like, scientific or otherwise. A person, for
>example, does not need to be intimately familiar with the history of India
>and Pakistan in order to comment on the present conflict between these two
>countries. A person does not need to know anything about the details of how
>poison gas works in a gas chamber, or have any knowledge of German or
>Jewish culture in order to condemn the Nazi concentration camps of World War
>II. Similarly, a person does not need to have an in depth understanding of
>Quantum Mechanics in order to comment that Quantum Probability may be
>integrally tied to our free will and our consciousness. Discussing such
>issues should not be limited to a small number of so called elitists.
Again I did not question the "rights" (Going back to my prolog). My remark was
specifically in regard to scientific principles. maybe you ovelooked that.
Anyway It is just my intellectual verdict that to make an authoritative
criticism of an established scientific theory/principle one is intellectually
obligated to aquire the in depth understanding/tecnical expertise of the
principle/theory. Otherwise it would be wastage of time and an intellectually
futile exercise. Same verdict is applicable to those trying to apply these
principles to justify/validate one's pet ideas. For example a scientologist
/Quantum Healers etc trying to justify the validity of their healing ideas
by invoking the principles of Quantum Mechaincs (By some fudging of words).
These are all allowable rights. So I am not challenging the rights. But
certainly they seem disingenuous to me.
>
>
>Your comments can easily be applied to any other phenomena as well. You
>have probably heard the old question of if a sound is made by a tree falling
>in a forest while no one is there (let us also suppose that there are no
>recording devices their either). Regardless of how we answer, the answer to
>this question can also not be verified, since verifying it would require an
>observer (with the term "observer" extended to include recording devices).
>Nevertheless, I believe that it is reasonable to assume that the tree does
>indeed make a sound in such an event, and that it is unreasonable to assume
>that it does not make a sound.
>
>
Yes, I agree my comments can apply (effectively) to other phenomena as well.
But the question if a falling tree makes a noise when no one is in the forest
can be meaningful if noise is interpreted in its acoustic wave in air molecule
sense, but it is meaningless if sound is interprested as the sensory perception
of a human since human is not there to begin with.
.....end
From me Wed Dec 2 16:35:17 1998
To: [email protected] #1
Subject: Thanks for the call
..
>Aryans were the original invaders of India. And they did much
>severer atrocities to the original inhabitants. Look all the
>north-western states are almost exclusively populated by white
>Aryans, the indegenous population had been almost completely
>exterminated, a few that were left had been pushed to the inhuman
>condition of "Harizons". Look at the Hindu Barno discrimination.
>Look at how so many Hindu kings almost completely exterminated the
>Buddhists from India.
>
>I think, these Aryans, their blood or culture whatever, is a deep
>suspect. These Mahmud of Ghazni, Nadir Shah, etc. are mostly Aryans
>too. Compare the differences between the attitude of north and south
>Indians. Is it not interesting ? What you think ?
All true. But there is a crucial difference between Aryan invasion and the
Muslim one. The Arryan invasion was in prehistoric times (Dates back to
probably 4000 years). There was no concept of a government, no organised
society. It was like a frontierland and open to pioneering adventures by any.
No moral/ethical standards of today could conceivably apply to that time frame)
But the Muslim invasions came only recently (In the 11the century A.D) when
rule by kingdom had taken shape and the society was well formed with concepts
of right/wrong was well formulated. There was no justification of invading and
plundering by force from outside. The moot point still remains Aryan invasion was
not BY Hindus ON Muslims so as to justify a Muslim invasion of Hindus by Muslims
three thousand years later as a revenge. It is true a substantial part of present
day Indians are rooted in the Aryans, infact the whole basis of Hinduism (Ved,
Sanskrit etc) were created by the Aryans themselves, so Hinduism is intimately
connected with Aryans. It is true the Aryan Hindus feel a sense of superiority
over the native Indian descendents (The Ravanas, mainly of the South and
Srilanka). But thats an internal imperfection of Indian society like all other societies.
In BD this imperfection takes the form of regionalism, where Some members of
Faridpur looks down on residents of Comilla (Just randomly picked theses two
regions, actually it happens in various permuations and combinations) and would
not even consider marrying their daughters/sons to them no matter how qualified
they are in any other respects. I am nort even touching on the Sylheti's view
about "Bengalis" :) etc. Muslims boast about egalitarianosms and no cast systems.
But its widely known how Arabs treat the Non Arab muslims since the middle ages
up to this day. I am just giving my views on this related topic, not
contradicting you. We are in general agreement.
I am at times ruthlessly critical (In a polite way) of my own self (and my parents
when they were alive) if my logic tells me they (Or me:) are wrong. This can also
carryover to race/nation etc also. I play devils's advocate and believe in paying
the devil its due (All in allegorical sense). I have argued with some Hindus when
they have a wrong impression of Muslims (Specially of BD) and they thought I am
just reacting to being attacked as Muslim (Although I am non-religious), and when
I argue with BD Muslims when they have wrong impression of Hindus/Hinduism
they have labelled me as Hindu Ghesha etc etc. You see the path of truth is the most
non-rewarding (Not philosophically though). Thats why I have no qualms in admitting
the wrong the Muslims did on Hindus in the middle century. many of the accounts
of the havoc wreaked by them (Raping of Hindu women included) are not taught in
our history books. By the way I would suggest reading the book (Whenever you have
time. It can be read anytime in future, will never become outdated) "Why I am not
a Muslim" by Ibn Warraq, if you haven't already.
From me Tue Sep 21 16:18:04 1999
To: [email protected] #2
Subject: Re: Selfish gene and Religion
You Wrote:
>However, these never altered my attraction for a beautiful woman or
>love for my son, empathy for my friends and neighbors, or
>the pleasure from a nice piece of music :) Whatever might be the
>grand plan of the God or the Gene, I am born with certain
>characteristics and I would pursue along them. The world is
>always very charming :)
Thats the whole beauty of this genetic view of human attributes. Your
appreciation of beautiful women (mine too:), empathy, pleasure etc etc
they are all part of the complex dance of the genes (As perfected through
millions of years of evolution into the complex wiring of the neural
network in our cerebral cortex, engaged in the continuous feedback with
our midbrain and stored memory), in as much as at the bottom of dance of
the clouds, snowflakes, rainbow are the dance of quarks interacting with
the strong, electroweak and gravitational forces. This is just like arguing
that since right and wrong are programmed into our genes, or that future is
determined then why act at all? But the beauty of it is that the fact that
we act to prevent/reddress a wrong, or appreciate a right, or "try" to
change the future is all driven by the same impulse that is programmed by
genes (as blue print) and implemented (by our neural network formed through
epigenesis). Love, art, music is a result of human consciousness which in
turn resulted from the complex evolution of gentic patterns. I am still
learning. To get an idea of my effort to learn please see my site at
http://www.ee.pdx.edu/~me/mind_etc.html
Thanks again
Regards,
cosmic thinker
From me Wed Sep 22 14:13:23 1999
To: [email protected] #3
Subject: It was not me
You wrote:
>
>So far I remember, quite a while ago you commented like - this land
>("New World") was sparsely populated before the European invasion and
>has been "developed" by the Europeans. You must not die with that
>concept :) You must read at least one of the above books or a
Actually it was not me. I also remember someone saying that (Ishtiaq
Chishti maybe? Not sure). Anyway I take a very general view on issues
like this, which I will post below. A corollary of my views is that
yes, it is important to know the history correctly to have an objective
perspective of things. No doubt early Europeans did commit brutal
aggressions on the native Indians. But this historical fact should not
be used to vilify current generations of Americans (which is rapidly
turning into miltiethnic anyway. I am a US citizen myself :). It should
only be used as an effective counter argument to debunk any criticism
by Americans of similar acts of aggression of other pioneers (Spaniards
in South America etc, Muslims in Spain, India etc). One common example
of this guilt by association is us. We (as Muslims by birth) are looked
upon with suspicion and in some cases contempt by many Hindus for the
barbaric acts of loot and murder by Muslim invaders (Mahmud, Md. ghauri
& many others.) and the subsequent conquest of India and by some Mughal
rulers, specifically Aurangjeb etc. Many of the beautiful ancient temples
were completely destroyed forever. But we are surely not part of that
barbarism, but common man cannot see through this distinction. Thats my
whole point. here is my more general view on this below: Let me know if
if you disagree with any point. I have carefully worded and phrased it.
(I hope).
Best regards,
cosmic thinker
From me Thu Sep 23 15:09:25 1999
To: [email protected] #4
Subject: My long thesis:)
Dear S.M.,
I appreciate your opinion and share with your deep anguish at the historical
acts of barbarity Although I look at the global aspect of this universal
negative human impulse in a more logical way. So I request that you try to
see my views wearing a purely logical cap on while reading it. Let me
address some specific comments and then give you my more general views. It
is probably a bit too long winded, so please forgive me. Even if you don't
agree completely, at least it will give you some alternative way to look at
things, I hope.
>by any other race, nation, whatsoever. Modern day proud white
>americans has a lot to do with it. Modern world has got a lot to
Now, how can present affect past? We cannot take traits like
"proud" and "white" and attribute it to an act of past. Both of
these traits are in themselves are harmless. We constantly exhort
our fellow Bangladeshis to be "proud" of being a Bangladeshi etc,
so being proud is obviously not looked as bad, although I personally
consider it to be redundant and a form of chauvinism which can result
in malignant nationalism if it exceeds certain threshold, but to be
fair I cannot condemn "proudness" by one group and approve it for
others. "White" is an attribute of skin color so obviously it cannot
by itslef be bad by its sheer quality.
>
>Believe me, you have no idea about the last 500 years of human
>history, the darkest chapter indeed. It would not be possible for
>you to imagine, unless you read through it. It made a different man,
>I believe it will make you too.
Well, actually no amount of data can make me different in the sense that my
fundamental belief in a principle (which I have presented to you in my last
email, article A18.) will not change. History to me is nothing but a data sheet
of past events. A data can only change a subjective conclusion/opinion in
specific cases, but not a general principle. I am not disputing the data. Its
the subjective conclusion that can result from data that we may be differing on
(In this case the conclusion being that the proudness and whiteness of CURRENT
Americans being the cause of PAST actions of a different generation). So I
differ on two grounds. (1) Those attributes alone cannot be the sole cause of
this universal negative impulse of human in general. (2) A past action cannot be
effect of a current event/ trait as being the cause. Correct history is valuable
in setting the perspective right. As I stated before it is important to let
history be the guide as being the benchmark which levels the plain for all
humanity and serves as a lesson that makes us all realize that we are all
vulnerable, that we all succumb to our selfish gene impulses, that there is no
room for "holier than thou" or "unholier than self" kind of attitude. History as
fact sheets of past can be very useful in setting the records straight when too
much finger pointing is floating around. It can be used to substantiate
conclusions or debunk contradictory claims. To me the US invasion of Iraq was a
total hypocritical act, although that does not make the other nations less
hypocritical, its only in different context they appear hypocritical. But in the
context of Iraqui attack I always debunk an American by pointing out how
hypocritical it was to demonize Saddam Hussein and launch a massive attack on
Iraqui nation with the justification that it is right to eliminate a ruthless
dictatot whereas the same kind of repressive regime rules Saudi Arab. Anyway Let
me now move on to some more general discussion of my views on this issue. I
think its not just the last 500, but the entire history is filled with dark
chapters. Which one is darkest may be a matter of subjective conclusion. To a
Nazi victim, 20the century may be the darkest, a Bosnian/Kosovar victim the late
20th century, etc. But regardless of a difference of degree, it does not alter
the any difference in biological impulse which is at the basis of it all.
Individual instances of aggression can vary in magnitude between races at
different times, but on the average they all even out in a statistical sense,
although technological and scientific revolution is putting more and more
negative feedback on these impulses as we approach an evolutionary stable state.
As I mentioned, there are many similar examples of atrocities committed, viz by
the Muslim invaders and conquerors in India, Spain and other places in the
mediterranean. Khalid bin Walid expanded Muslim rule in Europe with ruthless
hand. He was under the order of Omar to kill brutally. The great library of
Alexandria was destroyed (One of the greatestb tragedies of this century). Then
there were the Spaniards in South America, killing the Aztechs and not to speak
of the endless series and counter series of occupation and slaughters in the
biblical times between jews, phillistines, Egyptinas etc. The British we know
today were Germans who migrated into the British Isles in the fourth century
after defeating the Druids. Then as you mentioned before the Aryans came and
invaded India and drove out the natives into the South etc. Even modern times
will look dark if seen in future vantage point. How about Hitler's Germany?
Almost the whole of Germany was united under Hitler and unleashed the worst
genocide of history. But do we incriminate modern Germans for that? How about
the Bosnian genocide or the Kosovars? To a victim of Nazi genocide it will not
sound convincing that Nazi aggression is less dark than European aggression of
the Red Indians. So there are no end to this examples of human negative impulses
giving way to acts of conquest through aggression. In fact we can go back to the
dawn of human history. All humanity originated from Africa. Then it slowly
started migrating all over the globe. Once they spread around enough then
started the process of conquest and elimination. Neanderthals eliminated the
Cro-Magnon (Both Europeans). African negroids left Africa and settled in islands
far away, as far as Australia. Even the negroid inhabitants of ancient Americas
have their origin in Africa. But they at least arrived their first, as far as
all records show, then replaced by the invading Red Indians (See Below). When
no resiatnce is faced (If no prior inhabitants exist or if they surrender with no
resistance) the migration and subsequent occupation is bloodless, but any
resistance always met with ruthless elimination.
Let me now come to more specific case of the native Americans which is our main
focus. It is a well known archaeologicval and anthropological fact that the Red
Indians were not the first settlers in the American continent. There are ample
archaeological evidence and wall engarvings/drawings that show that there used
to be early race of negroid origin in the American continent before the Red
Indians migrated from Mongolia through Berring Strait thousands of years ago.
Not only that there are clear fossil evidence of massive disappearance of the
negroid aborigins after the migration of the Red Indians. The wall paintings
also show how the locals were hunted by the aggressors and ruthlessly
eliminated. Some remnants of the negroid race have survived and now live in the
Southern tip of South America. There was a documentary of this interesting
archaelogical and anthropological fact on the Learning Channel. Anyway the
point is that migration/conquest by groups and ruthless elimination of the
conquered have been observed that cross beyond all racial boundaries.
Back to the assertion of the European conquest of the New World and its causal
connection to today's modern White and proud Americans. The early European
settlers who invaded the American continent were quite homogeneous group (From
specific European nation). Today we have a mixture of all Eurpean nations in
America. We cannot pick an Irish exclusively and point fingure saying your
ancestors killed the Indians. It may well have been the Dutch. Besides this
country is slowly becoming more multiethnic. It is projected that by 2030 white
Europeans (Including the East europeans who are not usually attached to this
negative stain of the past) will be reduced to 2/3 or less of Americans. This
trend will continue. Forced conquest of past is now giving way to conquest of
immigrants through peacefulk means. Thats the modern payack. Living in the
South you may not notice as much the cross cultural aspect of American life as in
other areas. When I was working in Motorola in 1994, their was a specific
workshop that I also had to attend (Compulsory) about diversity consciousness as
the top management saw it inevitable that by early next century the compant`y
woul be forced to employ from various diverse ethnic background and it is to the
advantage to the company to prepare for that slow transition (Already back then
one of the seven major sector of Motorola Worldwide was being headed by an
Indian). Anyway this was digressing a bit far from the main topic.
In conclusion the lesson I learned from "The Selfish Gene" is that we all are
driven by the same biological impulses (Aggression, mating and dominance, owning
and possesing private property, and propagation) irrespctive of race, color etc.
We all have the same ancestor (Pithecanthropus Afranisis) in Africa. The
negative impulses can and will show up in any human race at different times. But
we as humans can only guard against all such impulses from whoever it may come
and not take a narrow view of one group vs another and rank them in these
negative impulses.
Anyway thanks for bearing with my long spiel. I got inspired by your mail to
write this thesis:). I want to be logical. So please point out any logical flaw
in my views. I would certainly see if any, being logical myself. As I emphasize
I only believe in some very general principle. I didn't try to advance any
specific subjective conclusion/opinion here. If at all I ever draw any any
subjective conclusions it can be changeable by more data as I mentioned.
cosmic thinker
From me Sat Sep 25 17:08:44 1999
To: [email protected] #5
Subject: Need your help
>How strange, you have known the prehistory before knowing the history
>- the invasion of the Blacks by Reds before knowing the invasion of
>Reds by the Whites ! Is it the "White" media ?
Again I see some real problem here. If we dismiss any book, TV documentary,
report etc just because it is by "White", then we are in a real bind. Can we
dismiss Newton's Law, Einstein's Theory, Darwin's Theory etc just because
they were white. Or can we disbelieve the picture of murdered Kosovars by
Serbs on ABC TV, or the countless documentaries of Jewish Holocausts on
network TV, or EVEN the documemtary on the massacre of Red Indians by the
early Americans on Or the documentary on Racial discrimination that
happened (or is happenning to some degree) by the white American TV? I can
go on and on. Even the books you recommended to me are also by White men.
So should we dismiss them as propaganda? (See more under my general views
below)
About reading prehistory before history. Now that was your assumption that I
have not read at all the history of Red Indian massacre by early Americans. I
have not read the recommended book though (I will soon). But regardless, reading
history in any order (but with an OBJECTIVE mind) is acceptable, as it is just
a fact sheet, not mathematically connected logical steps which require reading
in correct sequence.
>
>Your logic is fine. But some important premises/data are missing.
>Given those premises you might have reached a different conclusion.
Now we are in the most crucial stage. You say my logic is fine. Earlier you
said my principles are fine. About me reaching a different conclusion, what
is the *conclusion* you are referring to? Maybe thats where we are having this
problem in reconciliation. I didn't know I made a conclusion. Please help
me identify it. On the other hand I was trying to argue against the conclusion
that is implicit in your statements, the conclusion being that "white" are
inherently MORE prone to committing acts of violence than others. (Thats implicit,
I repeat, you didn't say it. If you didn't imply it then I don't see where we
differ at all). Somehow I feel uneasy at any preferential selection of one
race/color over others on any negative human traits. (More below under my general
views). Also what are the premises and data that are missing as you say above?
Again I was making some general statements of principle that does not depend on
the data. Let me emphasize that I have not disagreed with you on any data (viz
the killing of Red Indians).
OK now on to my more general views:
I will summarize it in an axiomatic way. Let me know where you differ. Then we
can hopefully narrow our discrepancies.
My Axioms:
1. Human as a whole, being a biological species is identical in respect of all
biological imperatives regardless of physical (ethnicity/race/color) differences.
2. Any potential negative traits (Genocide, discrimination, racism, propaganda
etc) and postive traits (objectivity, fairness etc) are not the exclusive
attributes of only one entity "A" (A = ethnicity/race/color/etc.)
3. Any quantitative difference in one instance of one negative trait between "A"
and "B" does not make "A" inherently inferior/superior to "B" but only reflects
the variability in the external situations that accentuate or constrain these
negative for "A" or "B" in a given situation and not in the other.
4. Negative traits of a subset of a set "A" should not be used to draw an
extrapolated conclusion about the traits of the remaining members of the
set and hence about the set "A" as a whole. One has to completely detach
any predisposition in favour or against a particular group (It is usually
the hardest specially if one holds some particular dogma, religious,
racial, or political). Religious zealots are predisposed against all
secular and other religious groups (Which virtually includes all except
the Islamic nations). Leftists are predisposed against all Western
Nations. White supremacists are predisposed against all colored races.
Radical black activists are predisposed against all white nations, radical
feminists are predisposed against all males (All men are evil) etc.
You will notice that one differs in any one of the above axioms he/she will
in effect be subscribing to a form of racistic belief.
(Racism = belief that a race/color INHERENTLY possesses more of one
negative or less of one positive traits respectively than that of another
i.e "me holier than thou" or "thou unholier than me")
5. Granting that negative traits don't have any predetermined group "A", a
conscientious and objective person should condemn/criticize any instance of
negative traits regardless of which group "A" is involved in a given case
(including his/her own). One has to completely detach any predisposition
in favour or against a particular group (It is usually the hardest specially
if one holds some particular dogma, religious, racial, or political). Religious
zealots are predisposed against all secular and other religious groups (Which
virtually includes all except the Islamic nations). Leftists are predisposed
against all Western Nations. White supremacists are predisposed against all
colored races. Radical black activists are predisposed against all white
nations, radical feminists are predisposed against all males (All men are evil)
etc.
In view of these axioms, if you agree to them and reread my earlier responses, then
please make a reassesment as to if I have deviated from my own axioms. If not then
by a logical inference we should not be differing at all. Also, although I will
read the recommended book, you can see that due to Axiom #3 above, it will not
change any other axioms (And any conclusion resulting therefrom), but will only
increase my knowledge of negative traits of early Americans. I do hold extremely
idealistic postion, but thats what fairness requires.
Regards,
cosmic thinker
From me Mon Sep 27 17:17:18 1999
To: [email protected] #6
Subject: My even longer answer :)
Dear S.M.,
First let me assuer you that I have placed a hold on "American Holocaust" and
I will be picking it up this evening from the library and get to it immediately.
But let me still provide my responses and views that are independent of any
reading of the book. As I insisted, I am already shocked and saddened by the
mass extermination of the Indians by Early pioneers. That shock or sadness would be
my dominant theme in a hypothtical exchange with anyone (white or non) who would
(for whatever reqason) try to deny or minimize that. Since with you I don't have this
reason (We both feel and know the same about this historical tragedy.), the main
theme of my exchange with you is to emphasize that we should not be divisive and
hold past acts of past generations (That also of a segment) against all future
descendents. That is the only point I am trying to drive through all my painstaking
deliberations as you haven't yet agreed 100% with this universal principle. If we
stubbornly perpetuate "us vs. them" kind of attitude and always hold a permanent
grudge against an entire color/race then we will never achieve that idealist goal
of perfect harmony of all natiuons/races that I and I am sure you to dream of. We
have to see the unity of all race and color and use history to serve only as a
lesson that the potential for breakdown of human values can happen in any race and
color. It is the moral imperative for the CURRENT generation to try to prevent or
at least condemn any such breakdown at the CURRENT time. Prediction or condemning
the present for the past is not a moral imperative. Please reread my article A18
which applies for the past. My defense is really of a very general nature and not
a white defense anyway, but due to the present context, it is coincidentally
assuming that nature. I have debated endlessly in soc.culture.bangladesh against
Indian prejudiial writings against all Bangladeshi Muslims due to the acts of SOME
violent Muslims against the Hindu minority and pleaded not to stigmatize the entire
Muslim population. So the context determines which side I am taking. I hope you see
that. Please reread my article A18 which applies for the past.
>
>Now, even when we pick up an example from such an area, say for
>example a "TV documentary" on the "First Americans". Then of course
>I would not dissmiss anything for the skin color or race of it's
>author or source. We must judge by their facts and arguments. In
>fact almost all the books I referred to you, I guess, are written by
>Whites.
That was my point. So why dismiss the program in the Learning Channel
just because it was in "White media"? A TV channel should not be
labelled as White media to begin with as it would be politically
incorrect and divisive. As I gave so many examples, a host of
TV programs do present what can be rightly labelled "anti-white"
views as well. Facts are facts. The arrival of early negroids in
Americas and their possible elimination by the later Indians does not
and (was not) justify genocide of the Indians by Early white settlers.
One wrong does not justify another. We all say that.
>
>However, if there happens to be any racist propaganda in this
>particular context, then it must be "White/European" racism. I think
>you won't disagree.
One sides' fact is another sides propaganda and ad infinitum. To assume
any view (where evidence is also presentd) to be racist propaganda
without doing any research to judge its validity in itself generates
the very same infinite loop of propaganda theory. On the other hand
it is also possible to have instances of propaganda. But no matter what
my basic axioms don't change whether or not thatis a propaganda. (That
past acts of soem segments do not make all segment of present guilty for
ever)
>
>First, I did not assume at all that you have not read it "at all".
>Next, I would not say I "assumed", rather say I "deduced" it from
>your comments that you did not read enough to have the ESSENTIAL
>idea of the nature and severity of the massacre and oppression.
>Still, I agree that it is quite possible that you read all what I
>read, but just have different evaluation.
I didn't have any different evaluation. Atrocities/genocide
are just depressing "data". I see the same data as you do. I
am as shocked and anguished as you are. I am addressing a different
concern. The concern being holding a belief about inherent nature
of a race/color forever for the acts of one segment of its past.)
>
>Now, the reason I suspect "White" racist media and not reading of
>enough unbiased documents are that:
>
>Historically, the White American "documenters" tried to portray the
>Native Americans as "savages", so that the exterminations look
>justified.
granted, SOME White American "documenters" tried so. But the very
fact that so many books were written also by whites themselves
to point out these unfortunate mentality of some whites, testifies
to the fact that not all white views are biased either.
>
>Recently the Native Americans are not portrayed as mere savages,
>still the massacres what has been done on them are considered
>natural, history is filled up with such massacres everywhere in the
>world, that is the eternal law of biology. Finally, the Native
>Americans are made guilty of the same crimes on others too.
>Therefore, everything appears even. Even if their forefathers are
>guilty of some war crimes, the present generation should not take any
>blame for it (Although they are very ready to take the pride of what
>their forefathers have "given to the world"). -This is the typical
>educated White American evaluation of the American-Indian history.
This is typical of every race/color who are tainted with this legacy.
My axiom is at work. Bangladeshi Muslims (many ) take pride in the
Muslim Invasions everywhere as Islamic valour and are brainwahsed
into believeing any massacre of non-Muslims (In India, Spain etc)
as Jihad and thus holy, as is killing unholy idolators etc. You
may have heard the derogatory term "Malaun" used very widely (even
at present) by many in Bangladesh by Muslims referring to Hindus.
It already indicates an inferior perception or hatred. Whereas the
term "Mlechha" was used by Hindus about a century ago , not now. More
recently the massacre of the Jumma peoples in CHT by the Bengalis
(see http://members.tripod.com/jumma/background/index.html). Again
I am not disputing the magnitude factor of red Indians. But magnitude
does not change a fundamental truth about all humann race/color,
only instances do.
>
>Did you not essentially represented the above view ? Now, you might
>think the above view as quite historical and objective. But I think
>it as a "White" (racist) propaganda and justification. Here exactly
I didn't see any "justification". Without seeing the program it is
not fair to label it as a justification. Describing two wrongs
does not mean using one wrong to justify the other. The only lesson
as I mentioned many times that is that by exposing wrongs of all,it only
proves that it is not the sole stigma of only one race/color. But
Resist/condemn ALL wrongs, not selectively. Thats the bigger picture
view. And let all wrongs be exposed without any exaggeration or
downplay.
>You are partially correct, of course. The key word here is
>"INHERENTLY", which I did not imply (I did not exclude it either).
>But I do think that "European Whites" are "HISTORICALLY AND
>CULTURALLY", if not genetically, more predisposed to violence, and we
>could not afford to remain unconcerned about it.
You used "are" in the above. Will you also add "forever" to it?
Violence, aggression is in itself not as much cultural, but a
an anomaly in all cultures which is unleashed by external factors.
And it is unleashed by only the vilonet segments of any culture.
Aggression and violence is not itself due to culture, but arises
in a race/nation DEFYING culture, due to prevailing mileau,
turn of events, natural disasters etc. The whole nation of germany
was triggered into a frenzy of anti-Jew slaughter by Hitler. But
that is by no means pure German Culture. Series of historic
events, economic depression due to WWI defeat of germany etc
snowballed into a finger pointing of Jews, a view effectively
nurtured and sustained by Hitler's oratory and caused this
aberration in Germany's culture. I have not resd your book yet,
but as I understand from my other reading so far, the early Europeans
were driven by plague and other social disasters into launching
this aggressive adventures outside. These were violent segments of
the then European society, the reckless desperadoes. It is well
known that the most daredevil, violent and macho segments of
a population are the ones to leave the country and migrate
to faraway places (Usually the bandits, war generals, Greedy
mercahnts etc. They don't represent a society and its permanent
culture and values of the remaining peaceloviing segment)
By the way after seeing http://www.ee.pdx.edu/~me/sadnews.html
would it (Or should it) justify a foreigner (Including an Indian)
to conclude that CULTURALLY" Bangladeshis "are" violent and
perverted?
>
>I feel uneasy too. Even though I did not associate any negative
>human traits "inherently" or "genetically" with the "White" race, yet
>it is quite probable that my assertions would be misunderstood as
>racist, as just happened :-)
You said, Culturally, Is culture changeable? If not, then you are
in effect implying it is a permananet (hence indistinguishable from
inherent). I don't see the white "race" (i.e entire) NOW culturally
as violent as the early marauding Eurpeans invading the Americas (See
above).
>
>Moreover, logically it is not deniable that if genetic segregation
>and assortment of neutral human traits as "skin color" is possible,
>then it is also possible with non-neutral traits, positive or
>negative. The thinking of this possibility makes me feel uneasy.
It can go either way, if it is ever establshed, i.e there is no apriori
reason to associate all the negatives with "white" and postives with...
if you (or anyone) does, that would be a prejudiced belief. As I am
repeatedly asserting "instances" of negatives do not establish an inherent
tendency of a group as the same negatives are obserevd (to a less degree
maybe, but degree does not establish "inherentness") in others as well.
>
>> Let me emphasize that I have not disagreed with you on any data (viz
>> the killing of Red Indians).
>
>Difference (not really disagreement yet) is in the peception of the
>nature and severity with respect to world history.
Did I disagree with you on "severity" or "nature"? Which sentence of mine
indicated that? Even after agreeing with you on these you are asserting
that I disagree! I disagree with your implied conclusion that resulted
from these severity/nature. I would still be optimistic in my idealistic
belief (based on observations) that the severity is only due to the time and
place, prevailing mileau and the people involved in the genocide, not a
characteristic of an entire race or color for ALL time.
>
>However, my point here is, whatever happened in the evolution has
>happened. What nature has done we could undo it. If nature has
>segregated or assorted some traits, then let us desegregate it again.
>Mix up all human traits in the world-bowl. That is my ideology.
Exactly. Mine too. For that to happen one cannot attach any PERMANENT
negative attribute to one race/color ("Whites" "are" more violent etc)
>
>But my frustration is that I do not see any possibility of mixing the
>world population in near future. The rate of mixing is very slow.
>The differences in power and wealth between the races and nations are
>too much.
Wealth and power differnces vary WITHIN race/color. So that is not a
prerequisite for race harmony (You meant harmony by "mixing" right?).
The prerequisite is a non-judgemental attitude against any wrongs
without adopting a divisive attitude by permanently attaching a
negative label selectively.
>
>> 2. Any potential negative traits (Genocide, discrimination, racism, propaganda
>> etc) and postive traits (objectivity, fairness etc) are not the exclusive
>> attributes of only one entity "A" (A = ethnicity/race/color/etc.)
>
>However, even temporary expression of some negative and positive
>traits (e.g. culture of violence and knowledge) in one racial or
>communal group could be anathema to the others, e.g. European-Native
>American encounter, etc.
Are you contradicting my axiom by your remarks above? I am not sure. Y
You are not clear. Sure one entity "A"'s negative act on "B" is an ANATHEMA
to "B". Thats a tautology. My point is A and B can be any. Your insistence
is that "A" = white and B = (all others). I don't take that prejudiced
view as it goes against common sense and observations. For example "A"
could be Muslims and "B" = Hindus etc, or A=Bengalis, B=Jumma people and
the examples can go on.
>
>> 4. Negative traits of a subset of a set "A" should not be used to draw an
>> extrapolated conclusion about the traits of the remaining members of the
>> set and hence about the set "A" as a whole.
>
>Perfectly logical principle. No scope of exception.
But you did state : "But I do think that "European Whites" are
"HISTORICALLY AND CULTURALLY", if not genetically, more predisposed to
violence". Isn't "European Whites" an extrapolation of white miltary
generals, former slave traders, blood thirsty thugs of 15th century plague
ridden Europe to ALL white Europeans TODAY? Thats gigantic leap of
biased faith to taint an entire race in present due to the historic acts of
the violent leadership in distant past?
>You did not deviate. But we differ, don't we ?
But if I didn't deviate and you don't diagree with my axioms then
how can you differ with my views that directly follow logically from
my axioms, unless you differ with my axiom(s) in the first place ?
>
>I think, you missed one vital axiom in your framework - culture and
>practice, hopes and desires, ethics and mores could be transferred
>from generation to generation. Transfer of a manifest behavior or a
>value from one generation to the other occur mostly through
>association, a gene special and different from others is not
>necessary.
What is that vital axiom ?. You are narratng here a "WHAT IS". A
genocide is not happenning NOW by ALL Europeans because SOME
Europeans committed genocide 500 years ago. A culture can never
prompt a genocide. A genocide is due to an aberrations in the
culture of a race (Not just white) brought about by natural
disaters, unpredicatable events like war, famines, plague etc which
can temporarily drive a violent segment of the society into carnage
and slaughter. But these cannot be permanent feature of that
society/culture that each successive generations inherit. It is like
stigmatizing all children born of bad parents, irrespective of how
well they are reared and how good a human being they become. I see
no differnce in the views.
>
>I expect that reading the books would also change your evaluation of
>the attitude of the present day White Americans/Europeans. The
What is the "attitude of the present day White Americans/Europeans."?
Can you be VERY specific? And what was my evaluations (other than the
very general and idealistic statements that past wrong of SOME past
ancestors do not legitimize stigmatizing the entire present). I see all
kinds diversities in the views of white Americans/Europeans where the
majority seem to be very sensible and moderate (Albeit naive at times,
for example, believing that US attacked Iraq on moral grounds like
ending the cruel dictatorship of Saddam and saving Kuwait. But naievette
is not predispostion to violence. By the way I definitely don't see
George Bush as much different than early American pioneers. Can resort
to violence for selfish reasons. He not only initiated the Iraqui Holocaust,
but cleverly brainwashed all intoi believinh it was a "holy" war). In all
talk shows, TV debates, writings etc I see frank and outright criticism
of any racistic belief, prejudice etc by whites themselves. There are of
course some fringe elements who do hold violent racist supremacist belief
(KKK and some other white groups, and some radical black groups who ALL
whites are evil and need to be eliminated from earth, some Islamic Zealots
who believe that ALL idolators should be eliminated from earth etc etc).
Then there are some are SOME whites who believe (in a non-violent way)
in their superiority in no different way than many Koreans/Chinese/Bengalis
etc believe in their own superiority. (We Bengalis are more intelliegent
than..). Again I have to oppose any preferential selection of ALL whites
on this or any issue.
>purpose of reading history is not merely to get the knowledge of the
>past for knowledge's sake. Rather, I think, it is needed more to
>understand the present and predict the future. Therefore, reading
predicting future (of a race/color) based on past and present is
inherently a biased act. Basically we call a person prejudiced when
he/she thinks anyone of "color A" CAN/WILL do some wrong act because
some people of that color did some wrong act in past. It creates an
endless cycle of bias and counter bias. All the prejudice against
black. yeloow etc all originate from some memory of a stored data
of past worong. Your justification of prediction will justify all
prejudice by logical extension (Example, Hindus predicting a Muslim
to be violent due to the violent act of Muslim Invaders in India)
>some essential history of the "early" Americans would definitely help
>you to understand and predict the thoughts and actions of the
>present day Americans/Europeans.
No it cannot predict. For example 500 years watching the genocide
of the Bloodthirsty pirates of Europe you woiuld not have predicted
the current American society (Most, but not all of whom do believe
in racial harmony and tolerance and its a long way since the days of
Columbus, culture and science have progressed enough to hold all the
primitive impulses in some males in check) which is not engaged in any
genocide of the different non-immigrants. There are unpredicatble events
which can precipitate a genocide in any race/color. We should be open
minded and judge and oppose actions as they arise on a case to case
basis on its own merit(or demerits rather).
>Why "idealism" and "fairness" ? Deriving logical conclusions from "a
>fact sheet" do not need them :-)
More logic : "do not need them" but certainly "implies them"
Logic does lead to ->Fairness/Idealism. Doesn't it? :)
In conclusion. My plea to you (or anyone) is not to give up on
the idealistic belief in the universality of all human race/color,
no matter how severe a negative burst of trait a given race/color
in a given time exhibit. Giving up would be to close the door forever
in the effort to achieve the goal of harmony between all color/races
etc. Let us all try to resist/prevent such instances and at the end
try to analyze the causes objectively and learn from it any lessons
that may help all in future.
Best wishes,
cosmic thinker
From me Thu Sep 30 17:52:50 1999
To: [email protected] #7
Subject: Re: Thanks
Dear S.M.,
As I write I am still reading Stannard. Have read wuite a lot already.
I will save any comments for later emails. Now I will just reply to your
current email.
>
>You are right in guessing that I did not take such a cruel, inhuman
>and bloody picture of the "Muslim" conquest of India seriously
>so far. I found such articles in the propaganda of BJP, and
>discarded them for the obvious communal bias of the source. However,
And therin lies a generic problem that many of our intellectuals are not
immune to. There are two sides to this problem: (This has to do with
the predisposition I was referring to in an earlier eamil to you)
1. When some facts are presented by members of a group A which does
not favour group "B", a member of group "B" reflexively dismisses
those factys as propaganda and VICE VERSA. When some facts are
presented by a certain member 'X' of a group "A" which does not favour
group "A", other members of group "A" reflexively labels 'X' as being
brainwashed by members of another group "B" and members of group "B
welcomes the facts by 'X' as being objective . We have to get
out of that vicious circle.
2. When some facts are presented by members of a group A which favours
group "B", a member of group "B" reflexively accepts the facts
unquestioningly as true.
Unfortunately the view that all Muslim atrocities of Muslims in India being
a BJP propaganda is itself a Pakistani/Bangladeshi Muslim propaganda. If you
read "Why I am not a Muslim" by Ibn Warraq you will find innumerable
references and research by many authors, not necessarily Hindu.
As I said it is VERY important to detach oneself from any predisposition
(Very hard as you have confirmed). I am yet to see anyone in Bangladesh
morally brave enough to accept wrong acts by Muslims as it is hard to swallow
one's own religion's blamishes. The West have been able to overcome that
moral hangup and have learned to be self-critical. Thats how a nation race can
improve itself. By showing the frankness to admit its mistake. Whites here
do ADMIT the wrongdoings of their past ancestors. They don't declare a price
on someone's head for writing about White genocide. Thats why you see White
press freely publishing Stannard's and countless others books, both the
author and the publisher are not harassed by Govt. or the public. (Stannard
is enjoyong a full professorship in a State University), whereas any book
Taslima is swiftly banned by Government (Any book that ever admits any Muslim
torture of Hindus). And Ibn Warraq (A Paksitani born Muslim) has to write
under pseudonym even in a free country like USA just to avoid being targeted
by Muslim fanatics here.The fact that so few Muslims have written about Muslim
atrocities is that it can potentially cost them their lives and also because
culturally self-criticism is foreign to Muslims. I believe the key to ending
the endless cycle of hatred, mistrust among races is to guard against two
things:
1. Failure to admit/see the fault/wrongdoings of one own's race/color etc.
2. Developing a general hatred/bias against an entire race due to the
wrongdoing/hatred of some elements of its ancestors against anmother race.
>since now you referred them to me, I will definitely read them
>thoroughly. Please give me the full reference of the sources.
The article I attached was copied from the internet quite sometime ago. I don't
remember the site. But you will get plenty of sources and references in "Why I am
not a Muslim". Another source is Colin Maine's "Dead Hand of Islam" (Written by a
Australian Rationalists Association memeber, not a christian fanatic).
But just use your knowledge about Koran and you will be less hard pressed to
believe all this historical facts. In Koran it is repeatedly said "kill all
idolators", Tax the infidels, keep the booty and treat the women of the
non-believers as war booty etc. Now in view of all that does Muslim atrocities
in India seem unbelievable to you?
Once again I have to repeat and repeat what is the main theme of my writing to
you. Its NOT (emphasize)
1. That I disagree with you on the fact of Indian genocide by early American
settlers.
2. That I question the magnitude of those atrocities.
By now it should be clear what my main purpose of the long responses are for.
I will write more later after I finish Stannard.
P.S. Hope you are enjoying Selfish gene.
[...]
regards,
cosmic thinker
From me Tue Oct 5 15:08:34 1999
To: [email protected] #8
Subject: Re: Some more
Hello S.M.,
Hmm, interesting, have you noticed how the main focus of our exchange has
drifted off to a totally different tangent? The main focus was my assertion
that the crimes of 15th and 16th century early Spanish and English settlers
cannot justify making a far reaching and *permanent* stereotype about a race
like "Europeans" or "white" (Covers too many. It covers Greek, Irish, German,
Dutch, etc and women, children etc, not to mention a great number of tolerant
and fairminded males of English and Spanish origin TODAY). That was my only
point. Somehow it got sidetracked. But anyway I will respond to your last
email. Later I will wrap up my exchange with a review of Stannard's book in a
separate mail.
[...]
>
>Yes, it is true that many writers and intellectuals are writing about
>it. But note that they are still marginalized. Note what the
>condition of the Native Americans are at the end of the twentieth
>century.
Note that the condition of many "white" Americans too. Many are homeless,
unemployed, facing hunger, etc. Misery has no color, race. Past cannot be
blamed for future forever. On the other hand many native Americans are
now doing well also. There is no legal/racial discrimination to prevent them
from improving their lives. Yes, the past was very cruel to them.
But one has to move on. Now the playing field is level. Nothing can stop
a native from pursuing the goal anyone else is pursuing. Besides the Federal
and state loans that are availbale to them like all other Americans they
are entitled to specific funds set aside for them.
>
>No, you do not have much reading about the history of Muslims. It is
>true that whole Muslim-world is in a very precarious condition now.
>But it was not the case always. Have you ever read about Al Razi,
>Alberuni, Ibne Rushd, etc. ? Then please let me know your evaluation
>about them and that period of Muslim history.
You seem to have forgotten my replies to Dr. M.F. and Parvez on
religion in Alochona where I discussed in detail the myth of "Islamic"
glory in science in the 8th and 9th century. All of the above were secular
free thinking scholars who challenged the views of Islamic orthodoxy and
were promoting free and skeptical thinking and thus were targeted by the
rulers, specially Al-Razi. Its like saying that you (Dr. S.M.) being a
distinguished Molecular Biologist and a born Muslim proves that Muslims
didn't commit any atrocity! Or that because Prof Abdus Salam was born in
Pakistan and a Muslim hence Pakistani is a very intellectually free and
tolerant society. Its not. Did you see the ABC nightline on honor killing
of Pakistani women? The tragedy is that the secular and intellectual regime
that emerged under Harun-ur-Rashid and Abdullah Al mamun in Baghdad
around the late eightth century (Remember the House of wisdom of
harun-ur-Rashid, where scholars were encouraged to import and discuss
ideas of Greek Philosophers?) was short lived and replaced by the later
orthodox Khaliphs who put an end to the free thinking era in Islam around
Baghdad which never remerged since then. The greatest damage to free
thinking was done by Gazzali.
But we have totally digressed. The issue was Islamic atrocities. Not if any
science developed at all under Islam or not. By the way even the claim that
math and astronomy flourished under Islam (e.g AlKhwarizmi and Al-hazen etc)
is disputed by many researchers who trace those ideas in ancient India which
were then imported to bagdad and were published by these scholars. I have
many references for that. But I am not a history scholar myself to judge any
further, but just wanted to emphasize that nothing is above controversy.
>
>The statements made even by Ibn Warraq are nothing compared to the
>ones made in your Internet piece. I have not had the opportunity to
>read "Dead Hand of Islam" yet. I really need the specific references
>of such claims as made in the Internet piece, it would be something
>revolutionary to me.
Again, have you read Ibn Warraq? he does provide a lot of sources and
refernces in his book. But anyway no amount of reference can ever
settle any historical account as an absolute truth. There will always
be that biased disposition as I mentioned before. All references in
turn refer to other refernces and this will create a cycle of references.
So you still have to believe some sources at the end. After all we
cannot go back to the past in a time machine ourselves and verify the
events. The only way to arrive at a plausible account is through a
consensus of historical sources, excluding the sources that belong to
the group that are being accused of past crimes, because such sources
would always deny their own crimes, a common human impulse (with
exceptions of course,like Stannard). We cannot expect Pakistani and
Bangladeshi historians/intellectuals to officially beat the drum
about misdeeds of Islamic plunderes in India. That will be suicide.
Besides we have not cultivated the culture of freedom of thought to
even allow a single dissenting author on these issues.
>
>It is not a question of believing and unbelieving, or whether it
>fits to the theoretical framework of Islam or not. I want to know
>the source of the knowledge and how was it derived.
But you are showing disbelief by dismissing the books and writings as
false or propaganda. Quoting the Koranic verses do provide the theoretical
framework for a plausible cause of such alleged Islamic atrocities.
Plenty of historical books and artcles have been available in India on the
Muslim invasion and atrocities in India, I have read many of them. I have
also seen programs on TV here that have confirmed these historical accounts.
You may again call them all propaganda. Of course the Muslim writers will
never discuss or admit it (We haven't achieved that state of self-critical
independence or intellectual courage yet. Not to mention the fundalmentalist
threat). In terms of plausibility it is far less likely for one group to
falsely allege atrocities committed against them than the perpetrating group
to admit having committed such crimes, i.e it is more likely that an
allegation by Hindus of crime by Muslims to be true than a denial by Muslims
of having committed such a crime, since it is the Muslims who invaded and
by the track record of Muslim invasions elsewhere and Koranic verses on
killing and looting idolators it makes it even more plausible.
cosmic thinker
From me Wed Oct 6 15:06:14 1999
To: [email protected] #9
Subject: In my defense
Dear S.M.,
It is sad to see our corespondences end up into
this unfortunate misunderstanding between us and
you having to express your resentment. I have
focused on being logical in my approach but I
realize I may not have been too polite, although
it was never intended. I will be defensive in this
email in order to dispel the incorrect impression
you have drawn about me. If I fail to do that and
it doesn't change your mind then I stand guilty in
your book (Although I plead not guilty) and I have
no choice but to offer my sincerest apology. I know
it takes up too much of your time and it maynot be
worhwhile for you spend time on writing to me specially
in view of the outrageous postings by Zafar Sadique,
Bashar and Mohammed Hossain, your time may be better
spent in refuting them, so I will just offer my
humble attempt to defend myself and offer my apology
if you are not convinced, and you need not reply.
But I do realize that my language was not very polite
(But no ill intended) and I definitely apologize for
that.
[..]
>
>In all the last three or four letters you are constantly teaching me
>your theory about not using the terms like "European", "white" or
>such. I was trying to overlook those issues, as you took me way
>down compared to the level I was wishing to stand and talk with you.
>May I just request you to take a look back about your using of terms:
>
>
>Note the use of "Muslims" here. Similarly, let me give a few quotes
>from your favorite "Ibn Warraq"
>Would you please teach your favorite author and yourself first, about
>your "ideology" ?
Ideally speaking yes I am wrong to use "Muslims". Its a common
mistake we all make. However the ideology I was referring to was
about not holding the present generation of an entire race/religion guilty
for the past misdeeds of SOME of its ancestors. That is not defeated
by my inexact use of terms above. But Ibn Warraq was making allegations
of past and present actions of Arab nations and not drawing a general
conclusion of ALL Muslims in the world. Stannard used the expressions
"American genocide" of Indians in the past, but never made a general
conclusion about ALL Eurpeans or white of TODAY. So I was not going
against my own ideology by that lack of precision. So I am pleading
not guilty here.
>
>> Note that the condition of many "white" Americans too. ... There is no
>> legal/racial discrimination to prevent them from improving their
>> lives. Yes, the past was very cruel to them. But one has to move
>> on. Now the playing field is level. Nothing can stop a native
>> from pursuing the goal anyone else is pursuing. ...
>
>Like a typical conservative, irresponsible white American.
Here logic has to be the guide. Is any information above incorrect?
Please let me know. Maybe I am wrong. Aren't the native Americans
entitled to all priviledges and rights as any other American? Maybe
its incorrect. If they are not incorrect then comparing me with
"conservative" (Republican?), "irresponsible" white American would be
very unfortunate. I differ too much from them to be lumped with them.
I am never sympathetic towards Republicans, and I don't believe I am
irresponsible.
>
>cosmic thinker, enough is enough. I think, you have given me enough information
>about yourself. I know now who you are, and what your ideology is. Let
>the discussion end. Have a success in the "pursuit of your happiness"
>on this stolen land, with your great civilized modern western friends,
>by your self-serving "ideology".
Making a blanket judgement about me really hurts when its based
on so little and is certainly incorrect. It takes a lot to really
"KNOW" a person. You are talking about ideology. I don't have any
ideology (Religious, politicial (left/right), etc etc). All I
care for is sticking to logic and some fundamental principles like
the one I have mentioned to you earlier (A18), and all the others
that are in my site. Its because I have no ideology that I seem to
never have friends, since my logic invariably puts me in disagreement
with ALL ideologies. I have learned that to have a guaranteed friend
you have to believe in an ideology. I have argued with some of what you
call "great civilized modern western friends" when my logic demanded
so (Like Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombing, bombing of Iraq etc) and have
alienated myself from them (Although many conscinetious truly civilized
white Americans also condemned American policies). I have argued with
some Indian "friends" against blaming the entire Muslim religion
for the Islamic aggressions and have lost their friendship (I was seen
as understandably defending the Muslims, myself being one by birth. I
have argued for Bangladesh's genuine concern about Farakka and that
the concern has nothing to do with religion, but I was still seen as
indulging in anti-Indian communalism), and here I am being labelled
as friend of the great civilized white American for arguing in favour
of fundamental principle of not blaming an entire current generation of
a color (quite general. It is only white for this particular case)
for the crimes committed of some partcular members of that color
in past and I am now being seen as a friend of the white. Logic does
make one lonely and it does make one pay a heavy price.
I am very hurt by the implication of your "pursuit of your happiness"
by my "self-serving" "ideology". That was indeed a reflection of a very
low impression of me based on a pure debate on general principles. Its
an irony that we don't differ on the very essence of the debate, i.e that
there was a genocide of native Americans. We don't also differ in our
shock and pain at the genocide. Its only what general conclusion to draw
from it that we differed and you made such a judgement about my
"self-serving" (That sure implies dishonesty doesn't it?) ideology.
If I was so occupied with "pursuit of my happiness" by my self-serving
"ideology" as you say above I would not have been wasting my time writing
on the internet, exchanging long emails with you, (including this lengthy
defense), I could have spent better time with practical matters, career,
overtime, mortgage etc, not bothered to have spent so much time reading
and pursuing other non-materialistic pursuits. You don't know my personal
life style, my day to day activities etc, so it is quite unfair to make
such a characterization about me (sigh).
I have tried to defend myself above and if I failed to do that then I again
offer my sincerest apology for any impolite and careless expression. I am
not very skilled in being very apologetic (I certainly need to improve that).
I understand that sometimes in a debate I can get carried away with my logic
and forget to cosmetize my expressions with advance apologies etc which
you do so consistently.
In the end, let me express my admiration for you and I greatly value your
opinion and views. We have more in agreement and we certainly share lot
of common grounds in our difference with other postings in eshomabesh. So
please don't take any difference in our views so personally or give up
on me. I guess we can differing views and still value each others
opnion and gain from it. Even differing ideologies (Although I have none)
should not come in the way of a friendly exchange, as long as their is
mutual tolerance.
Best regards,
cosmic thinker
From [email protected] 11 Nov 1999 20:34:58 GMT
Subject: Posting on Re: CULTURAL STIGMA AND SHAME-
In article <[email protected]>,
Artho-niti-bid wrote:
> Racism should not be confused with other forms of
> discrimination. I have seen Bengalis being discriminated in
The distinction between the two is more semantic than substatntial.
These terms are all sociologocal constructs and when deconstructed
and examined under the microscope of sociobiology these semnantic
differences all disappear and what remains is the basic human
imperatives rooted within territoriality, aggression and dominance.
Discrimination IS one consequence among many of racism as are all
the other negative acts and thoughts. So they are all related if not
same. So this pedagogical distinction is irrelevant here. The word
race is a social construct and has no fundamental ontological
significance. The fact that is relevant and of consequence is that
humans tend to identify and distinguish themselves as groups with
any distinguishing attributes (Ethnicity,religion,language,color etc)
and look down on and/or harbour hostility towards members of the other
group. So race in a general sense can assume any of the attributes above
depending on the context and depending on which attribute is relevant
at the time. When attribute 'X' is absent they will use attribute 'Y' to
engage in racism. There is no white man in bangladesh. So color is not
a viable attribute for racism. So accent and region will provide the
fuel for racsim. In Hitler's Germany Judaism was the basis of racism.
There was racsim of British towards Irish in the past (Same color).
These all spring from the same fundmamental human psyche, so
drawing puritanic distinctions don't matter in the final analysis.
From me Fri Jan 3 15:27:53 1997
To: [email protected]
Subject: M14 - Re: Dr Laura & feminism
mails to soc.feminism
[...]
>
>In response to your query, we may all agree women (in general) are denied
>equal pay for equal work. Men (in general) are able to collect more wealth
>than women. Knowing this, I assume many women still look to men for
>financial protection. No one wants to be old and destitute.
>
I do agree that women have been denied equal rights and and have been/are
being subjected to violence by men. These are the two issues/problems that
society needs to address thru education, cultural reforms(fostering androgynic
thinking and habits) and legislature. Although you have focussed on financial
protection but I had a more general concept in mind. Its the instinct that prompts
a women to insist her male companion to walk on the side facing the street
when walking together and similar instincts that seem to stem from a need to
be protected from things other than financial. I, being a strict believer in
equality cant rationally accept this mentality.Will welcome your thoughts.
From me Sat Jan 4 16:13:09 1997
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Dr Laura & feminism
[..] The problem is if its a learned behaviour then what does it take
to make one unlearn it in a given person when it comes to one on one
relationship. Yes we can make the point that society needs to change thru
socio-political reforms and activism. Thats a long term provess and is
essential. But is it not possible to unlearn it at least in the case where in a
relationship the man is treating the women in with sense of equality. Even
in that case most women seemed to act the learned way. I have talked to
some of my friends(female) who although appreciating my belief in gender
equality yet felt that at the end of the day it is the man who have to provide
protection to the women. I just wonder what would it take to change them.
From me Mon Jan 6 09:06:00 1997
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Dr Laura & feminism
[..]
I agree. But as in any group there are radicals/fanatics that ruins the image
of the mainstreamers. There are radical feminists that believe that male
gender is born sinner like Christians believe that human are born sinner.
They also believe in vicarious retribution for the unfair treatment of women
by chauvinist males and would hold the entire male gender guilty and not
just the chauvinist ones.
>I understand "instincts" to mean nature as opposed to nuture. When it comes
>to male/female interpersonal communication and related behavior, I believe
>we learn a great many of the behaviors we exhibit in this context. I believe
>most girls learn it is more acceptable to act subordinate to a male,
>including males of inferior age. To ask a boy to walk on the side facing the
>street is to ask for protection from the muddy splashes of passing carriages.
> It is also allows an opportunity for the boy to polish his ego as both
>people are taking traditional and acceptable social roles. Obviously, for
>the girl to offer to "protect" the boy from the splashing mud would provide
>
"disasterous results." is a generalization. Absolutely not true in my case.
I would be as much thankful to her for providing me the protection as I
would be to a man. Why does a woman have to follow the law of average
in interpersonal communication and not adapt to each case and be able to
act in a rational rather than in the learned way when in a relationship with
a non chauvinist male. That was my concern.
>[..]
>There are a myriad of "negative training" signals given to girls when they
>(we) behave in dominant ways. Our cuture does not like "bossy" girls/women.
> They are called nasty names like "bitch" and are shunned in small
>communities. This presents an intelligent, confident female with a double
>bind. Neither the captain of the mixed soccer team or an important
>department head can be a good leader making tough decisions and be "a
>sweet girl" at the same time,
>
"Bossy" has a negative connotation equally for male or female. If we are to
believe in strict equality then no one should be bossy over the other or if we
accept the idea of a male boss then we should also accept the idea of a
female boss and vice versa.
I agree that the general attitude in the male society is the way you have
described but its time women stopped letting that attitude shape their learned
beahviour/instincts and rather start applying their judgement call. I think that will
help prevent the perpetuation of this cycle of male chauvinistic attitude.It may be
hard in the beginning but eventually it will catch up and will get entrenched. I
am doing my part in not conforming to the male learned behaviour/instinct(i,e
showing all the chauvinistic traits), women should start doing their part.
my point is what will it take for women not to succumb to learned behaviour
and apply that behaviour indiscrimantely to every situation but instead try to
understand each case in its own merit and decide how to act.
Re: My thoughts on your comments about 'potency'!
Date: 8/16/01 (magnet65)
Thanks for your clarifications on my remarks. Yes, I agree with you
on the salubrious effect of sex in human loves. Actually that is already
an well-established fact of psycology/health. I can refer to some nice
documentaries on Discovery/ABC. There was a three part documentary
on TLC(DISCOVERY AFFILITAE) channel on human sexuality. It was
really excellent. After all we are biological machines. As I said in one of
my article (Life, Death, Immortality) Sexual impulse is dictated by the
Law of Entropy without us being copnsciously aware of it. But it is also
equally true fundamentally that we human animals are differenet from
other animals in that many of us (hence my contradicting Lina) has the
ability to use our cereberal cortex( which other species lack in) to inhibit/
modulate our biological urges coming from the limbic syetem. Its true
also as you said that traditional society puts a taboo on sex except under
the canonical circumstances. It is an inherent rension in humans. More
permissive societies like in the West this tension exists too but is tipped
quite a bit towards permissvity, whereas in our societies it is heavility
tipped against it. Human life is inherently based on tension. It has to be,
because sex, like nuclear energy can be misused even if it is meant to be
for good use ). Besides, sex is inherently linked with the biological
imperative of aggression and dominance (Lessons from sociobiology),
hence it is notviewed exactly in the same way as acts of altruism ) by
humans. As a final comment, I agree that what Lina said is true for many
as well. But that was implicit in my post refuting her "stereotypical
generalization". It is true for those who are unable to use their
cerebral cortex to modulate their limbic system. Humans have a
wider intra spec ies variation than other animal species.
best wishes,
From me Sat 26 Aug 2000 13:56:00 -0700
Subject: E2: ON GENDER ISSUES:
E2. ON GENDER ISSUES:
-----------------
My own view is that much of this attitude is rooted in the priviledged status men have
been given over women in religion. That is made worse by the intrinsically male
dominating nature of our society. It will be hard to rectify that attitude since
religion is so firmly ingrained in our society. The best way to deal with this would be
a strong secular leadership who will integrate men and women in ALL walks of life not
just in certain professions (like clerks in post office etc). In Thailand, women work as
bus conductors. In Calcutta men and women share seats in bus, no special seats for
women. There is much less rape in these countries.
In all Arab countries (except Iraq) culturally women are viwed as subordinate to men. A
good woman is defined as one obedient/compliant/submissive towards men. They are not
allowed to work in the physical presence of men. Men can marry four women but not the
other way around etc etc. They simple can't take no for an answer from a woman and
interpret the "NO" either as a desire on the part of the woman to challenge him to win
her over through additional display of his masculinity or out of her humility (Like
saying no when a guest is offered a food but actually desires it and eventually eats it
after some persuasion). Anyway thats my opinion or impression (general) but know that
there are always exceptions to a generality. It is ironic that the most secular and
progressive country has been relegated to the status of a foe and demonized (ONLY
because of its contention with Kuwait) whereas the other obscurantist and fanatic
countries are being cajoled and befriended by US.
[..]
Belief in the equality implies one can criticize BOTH without special
bias for or against any particular sex. My similar criticism of males
didn't prompt you to call me mysoandroist (Male hater), how convenient.
Let me illustrate whats going on here (By an example):
If someone remarks that:
SOME women do (a bad act)
SOME men do (another bad act)
A biased woman will read the above as "women do (a bad act)" and jump
to the conclusion that the sayer is a women hater.
A biased man will read the above as "men do (another bad act)" and jump
to the conclusion that the sayer is a man hater.
An objective man or women wil read the above exactly as it is (Two lines)
and conclude that where SOME women do (a bad act) MOST do not and that
SOME men do (another bad act) but MOST do not. So the sayer is neither
man or woman hater but is just describing the way it is. - To Denver]
[Most emotional experiences are genderless (including the ones you mentioned
above). Their can be differences and similarities in emotional makeup between
any two individuals irrespective of gender. Gender to me is like any other
idetifying label such as race, color, religion etc. Just as members of two
nation/race etc can different culture but similar emotions (and vice versa)
same is true for gender. Culture do have some acquired effects on gender. For
example Western women may feel different emotional experience by loneliness
than a traditional Asian women etc. - To E.C 10/98]
E3. ON MARRIAGE,RELATIONSHIP,TRADITIONS ETC
---------------------------------------
[Indeed, as you say, sharing and caring IS the important point in a meaningful
relationship. But can sharing and caring be enforced by a legal contract of marriage
when it doesn't come from the heart? And if it does come from the heart then it doesn't
matter if there is a marriage document/ritual. In that case the marriage document/ritual
is done just to please the society and hence is an meaningless and unnecessary
capitulation to society. I am being too idealistic in saying so. But I do realize that
since most of us are so much dependent on society that we do things to please the
society even when we don't truly believe in those things. I accept that reality. But I
was just expressing my idealistic views.]
[Well, completely ignoring traditional values is not necessary. Some traditional values
are good common sense and will be accepted universally. A true good is good for all for
all time. But most traditions are orthodox ideas not based on reason or common sense
enforced by vested elements of society with narrow range of thoughts.]
[Well, marriage for me is primarilky for companionship. Children, only if BOTH feel
strongly enough. GOD? After reading all my manifesto, still not sure about my
beliefs/outlook? But, the institution of marriage is not that vital for me anyway.
Companionship and right chemistry is the most important ingredient.]
Well, I never had to "tackle" society for anything, I can think freely what I want. As a
child I was busy playing and attending school, enjoying all that a child enjoys. When I
started attaining adulthood (college), I became more introspective, began to think
freely. But it never interfered in my daily life, as I was quite alone, in my own world,
doing things that I liked. Society had nothing to do with my private life. My parents
never imposed any traditional ideas and practices on me. Even if they had done so
that would not have prevented my free and analytical way of thinking.
In describing your problems while growing up, you have painted the general
problem of growing up as a woman in a male dominated society.
Unfortunately after all these years in our nation's history, it hasn't
changed much. The fear of society is the main hindrance to proceed with
one's individualistic ideas and beliefs. Only way you can overcome this is
by becoming totally INDEPENDEDNT. That would be hard struggle. But may
women have indeed succeeded in this struggle. Economic freedom is also
vital. Women have been traditionally made economically dependent on men so
that they can control them. This has to end in my opinion.]
[First, in any mature loving relationship there shouldn't exist a feeling of "ego". Ego
is a pathological sentiment which is not a a desirable state of mind in an ideal case by
any psychological theory. A natural mutual feeling of love should lead to a spontaneous
expression of such that will be obvious to each through words, actions and the sheer
dynamics of the relationship and one need not "SAY" in words one's feeling for the
other, let alone ego getting in the way of such a verbalization. Second, Riaz either
truely loves you or doesn't. If he does love you truly, then that love should empower
him to think and decide for himself as an adult and pursue his relationship with and
take any decision in this regard irrespective of his parent's views. A true feeling of
love should accompany a strong conviction in one's own personal feelings and not
compromise on such an important emotional aspect of one's life. I have known many
marriages that have broken apart just because the husband was too much his papa's boy
ormama's boy even after the marriage and would follow his parent's unreasonable/
wrong advice even at the cost of marital relationship. As an adult one has to be able to
decide their own personal matters and not let their parents decide for them specially
matters relating to their heart.]
[I am not waiting for a WOMAN to make me happy. Happiness is a holistic concept and
for me it derives from a host of things including friendship/love, wonders of nature,
music/arts, sights and sounds, food. and the list goes on. Is your happiness on hold
due to lack of one man? If someone's happiness is contingent on ONE person of the
opposite sex then thay have to be pitied.]
[That is the reality. Life is most often a compromise. Because we are practical after
all. We calculate the net benefit and are willing to trade off one inconvenience for
greater benefits. But to some people certain principles are never to be compromised.
They are the idealist type.]
[There are many happy couples who don't even think that way. They stay together, raise
children, grow old together and die peacefully. Love is not essential for a steady
partnership/relationship. Love is sort of an optional/extra feeling over and above that
is needed for a stable mating of two individuals. This is how we differ/excel other
animal species. Not all are romantic at heart. And this "Being made for each other"
applies to romantic love (category 1, remeber?). So, no not all couple have to feel
romantic love for each other, just a bonding is enough for most like in animals (Lion
and a lioness for example)]
[ just another small comment. Even a positive commitment is better not to make. If
one means to do something from heart then s(he) will try to do it regardless and a
commitment to do it is redundant. If one fails to do it then its better not to have
committed in the first place. So either way its better not to make any commitment. Any
loophole in my argument or any thing I am missing here? (here I am being too idealistic)
Sometimes practical considerations require one to SEEK a firm commitment from others
(We see that even between businesses).]
[This was a totally personal (slanted as I warned before) view of marriage so there is
not much room for debate here. Yes, marriage is deeper than (or at least should be)
"routine" friendship but it may still be considered as the deepest level of friendship
(ideally that is). That "something" is of course rooted in the nesting instinct of all
animals (Home->offspring-> propagation of species->continuity(Shantati)". As I
postulated without that a deep friendship can cover all the other elements in a male-
female relationship.]
[ Well, I am looking for a marriage that is not for one to act as a provider for the
other but for a companionship. I am not looking for a materialistically inclined
partner. I really don't look for anything or expect anything in a marriage other than
companionship with someone I feel emotionally and physically attracted to and can
communicate with and who in turn also feels the same towards me. This is the bottom
line. Not being traditional myself, other people don't matter to me in a marriage. Its
an affair that should concewrn only the two. What makes me most happy in life? Hmm,
don't know. For sure it hasn't happened yet! Money is only important for meeting basic
need for sustenance. Anything more is optional and one has to be accountable oneself
for meeting the optional needs.]
[Social norms and standards are for the teeming avergaes just as a ballpark attempt to
maintain social order and can by no means address individual needs and circumstances.
So use your heart as guide and thoufghtful discretionand and as long as you are
committing any of the absolute wrongs you are fine. .
YOU decide what is right for you (Avoiding the absolute wrongs at the same time)]
[First let me express my appreciation for thinking of me as a friend to write about your
emotional distress and seek emotional support. I will try as best as I can. One thing I
do realize that your anguish is REAL even if it is unjustified. So I am expressing my
genuine sadness at your distress. As to what you can do about it, the key is your MIND.
Remember its MIND over MATTER. We can adjust our perception of the scale of
pain/distress by auto-suggestion and by trying to see through the bigger picture of
life. Life is like a river, dynamic and continuously flowing. It cannot stop at any
point, though temporarily it can be halted by some obstacle, but soon it will work its
way around. You have to look beyond and move on towards the ultimate destiny that
your life is headed for (no one knows what/where is that). Like all traditons of the world
say "Everyone has some one made out for them". Through these temporary setbacks,
you are being propelled forward to your inevitable fate, equipped with more insight.
Experience/Pain etc purifies the heart as they say. You should very soon gain some
deeper significance of this experience. Every momentous event in one's life (pleasant or
sad) contributes to one's growth. And its GROWTH that adds meaning to our existence.
If growth stops , life ceases to carry any meaning. It is common to feel that only "A" is
the right person in your life. This feeling is an indication that there is room for lot
of growth in you. Once you grow enough you would realize that its an illusion to think
that way. The right person is something we may never know. You just have to let your
life flow and let the right person fit naturally into you at the right time which also
you don't know when and where. The meaning of life as I mentioned before should not
be tied to one person, one thing, one experience, this wish not coming true or that etc.
Life is a beautiful experience if you see it in its totality. There are interesting
people in every society, culture etc. Just getting to the diversity of human thoughts,
minds, outlook and gaining insight into them itself is a rewarding experience. Once you
feel a zest for life it shows in you and radiates out from you that in turn draws people
towards you and the impact/effect of one person in your life will seem to be trivial and
will be absorbed by your interactions of the multiple personalities providing their
input to you and the resulting increase in your self esteem and making you aware of more
about yourself and others. The bottom line is ONE person, ONE thing etc is too small in
the big picture of our life worth being consumed by and letting it ruin/damage your
precious life in any way.
If something is not meant to be it should be left at that and accepted and then one
should look ahead and move on without losing any precious moment in our transient life.
You must remember the simple natural rule that if a feeling is not mutual (With the same
intensity) then he is not the right person for you. If you didn't have feeling for Riaz
but he had then you would not be the right person for him. This is the mental aspect of
self therapy I can think of. As to what you can do in a practical way, I am not sure
about the details of your problems. As I said, unless you are in a medical emergency (In
which case its advisable to take some medicines, in controlled dose of course, for
temporary relief) the best thing for you is to look ahead and spend time with your good
friends (I wish I was there, so I could spend time with you), talk to them and keep
yourself busy in things that interest you and hope for the pleasant future waiting for
you. As for your question as to whether I went through the same experience, in a way,
I did, that is I have felt interested in someone who didn't feel for me in the same way.
But I accepted it and moved on. It didn't cause any damage to my life other than some
temporary disappointment. To me life is a big picture and also very short lived so I
cannot waste any precious moment by stagnating myself with that. As I said if the
relationship is not based on reciprocal then its an artificial/forced one based on
obsession and inner vacuum, preventing one from looking beyond. Any way thats all I
have to say now. I sincerely hope you will put yourself back on the right track and get
over this emotional setback and restart with a positive outlook. Be aware that I am your
friend always and I will try to help you emotionally with all my sincerity. Write to me
if you have any other concerns/questions and if I can help in any way.] (To TJ)
[To: T.J 3 Dec 1998 :
You wrote:
>S's problem is that whenever someone ask about her past, she
>normally tell about her past without being emotional and she think
>this as her abnormality. But in reply, I told S, may be she has
>been so shocked about her past that she has lost to react. She want's
>to know whether it is right or wrong to act like this?
[ About her problem, the bottom line here is whether
she feels "comfortable" with herself talking about her past. It should
not be a question of whether it "seems" proper or not to be emotional
while talking. Not knowing her details I am not sure what emotional side
effects such talks can produce. It is always traumatic to lose a person
dear to one's heart. I can fully relate to that fact as that happened to
me a year ago when I lost my mother. It is a deeply tragic feeling that
I will carry for the rest of my life and her memory is in my heart
every moment. But it doesn't cause any extra trauma talking about her
to my friends. The trauma is already there in my heart and I am
dealing with it every moment. My questions about life, soul immortality
has been infinitely magnified in importance after her death. Talking
about it doesn't add too much extra element to the trauma. So in a
similar way, I think if she is deeply affected by the loss of her
husband then the impact has already (Or is being) absorbed internally
in her heart. Mere verbalization should not cause any extra trauma. We
are very familiar with picture of a person bursting into tears (Or
sobbing, choked voice etc) when discussing personal tragedies. But
that is not an absolute. That is more a reflection of individual
needs and personality traits. Some may resort to more dramatic display
of an emotion of the same intensity as someone else. But that does not
make one more right or wrong than the other. Also the display helps
to release inner tension for those who cannot deal with the trauma
internally as well as others. Here I must emphasize that the impact
of a trauma may be equally great in both, but one may absorb the impact
better than the other due to different inner strength. A simple analogy
may help. Some people (Even adults) scream/groan when pricked by a
hypodermic needle (for blood test or a preventive injection etc), while
others may stay calm and make no noise. Does it mean the pain was less
in the latter.? No, the physical pain was equal. But the processing of
the pain was different due to internal differences of the two people.
So if one does not show an external display of emotion while talking about
it, one should never conclude from it thet the person did not feel the
impact of the tragedy. We should not attach more substance to the external
DISPLAY of emotion, but to the real emotion that exists internally, which
one can know through being friend to that person. In my case the traumatic
impact of my mother's death (Not just due the fact of death itself, which
is inevitable/expected and is common with all other humans, but due to the
facts of her life before her death and my realization that those facts
cannot be changed or remedied AFTER her death, but was possible before
her death) will be strongly felt for the rest of my life and also shape life
itself. But by just merely talking about it isn't going to change that
impact, except for some mental satisfaction that I may get if someone
understands the nature of that impact through hearing me.
Now let me add the last angle on this. For yet some people it may very well
be the case (MAY. Not saying it WILL) that there may come a time when
talking to a CERTAIN person he/she may unconsciously display external symptoms
of internal emotion (In whatever form ) that he/she never showed before to any
other person before while talking about it. This is entirely due to a special
resonance of emotion that occurred between them (In physics this is called
a "sympathetic vibration") and was spontaneous, not due to conscious decision
of his/her. It may well be that I may show some external sign of emotion while
talking about my mother to some person (I don't know if he/she even exists).
Similarly S may someday talk to a special person that will spontaneously
bring out her inner emotions outside. But in both these cases this act was a
spontaneous one beyond my/her control and not due to CONSCIOUS decision
by us to be emotional. So the conclusion is: NO, its not an abnormality or wrong
not to display emotion externally. It may be common in many and less common in
others. Thats all one can say...]
>
>I am whole heartedly praying to supreme power that you would
>definitely find that person whom you could burst your felings!
>
Thanks. I trust your sincerity. But you have failed to notice the
important tone of my writing. As a "counsellor" I was just trying to
illustrate a fact of life by "USING" my own case as an example. I was NOT
expressing any DESIRE or WISH about MYSELF. I was only thinking of
conveying some insights to help your friend to gain some insight. I NEVER
intended to express my own wish or desire about any "bursting into tears!".
I don't even have any wish/desire of "finding" someone to "burts" in tears.
I don't see any reason (As far as I can tell) for that. Sure, it will be
great pleasure to know someone sensitive who would want to understand me.
Isn't that anybody's wish? But I was just "stating" the "possibility" of
getting emotiional while talking about my strong feelings to certain someone,
because of some unknown emotional dynamics that works subconsciously beyond
our conscious wish or control. I was just being academic in my discussion on
human emotional and psychological complexities. Just as an author of a book
on Psychology may try to illustrate the possible explanations or nature of
a human emotion, we don't ascribe any personal wishes or desire to the
author him/herself. You went took a step beyond the message and focussed
on the messenger's personal wish/desire. Thats OK. As I said I am very
grateful to you for your sincere feelling for me. That counts a lot to me.
Miss S,
Thanks for your kind words in response to my views. I am touched to know
it was received in a postive way by you. I am glad to know you have been
a good friend of TJ in such a short time. It is indeed a precious gift
to find a good friend these days. As you are trying to express above, I know
very well the anguish of losing a dear one. We as human have been burdened
with two difficult emotional trauma to deal with. Accepting the death of a
loved one and accepting the fact of having to leave this world one day.
Being able to accept both with a sense of tranquility at heart reflects the
most fortunate state that one can be in (It is not be under our own
conscious control though). But we must realize the obvious fact that the
deceased are not going to come back. So we have to balance our sense of
grief with the need to move forward. This is the eternal law of nature.
We see this law at work most ruthlessly in animal world. We humans having
developed our intellect beyond the the minimum surviavl level so we tend to
reflect and brood over tragedies, and consequently experience pain internally,
something lower animals are spared. But we are reawrded with many other
pleasant emotions, the gift of friendship, expreiencing the beauty of life
and nature. I don't know what to say any further to comfort you. But at least
know that I understand your feelings. best regards.
Sincerely,
cosmic thinker
Hi S,
Nice to hear from you again. Well, I think I tried quite sincerely to
answer any question you had in a general way. As I mentioned that there
is nothing to be worried if you have not burst in tears. Letr nature take
care of things by itslef. Time is a great healer goes the saying. But if
you feel comfortable to burst into tears with someone you trust and feel
close to then that could also be very therapeutic emotionally, but that
is something that can happen sponataneously, and only you can initiate that,
it is not something I can make it happen through my email advice. I can
understand you must be feeling very lonely and withdrawn from life. But
in my opinion at some point in time you should look beyond the past and move
on with life, and not feel guilty in deciding to remarry or enter into a
loving relationship with someone you like. This is natural. If you believe
in destiny then consider the loss of you ex husband as the inevitable act
of destiny and if someone else comes into your life then accept that as your
destiny too. Accepting someone again doesn not mean you are forgetting or
disrespecting the memory of your deceased husband. This is the most important
and difficult emotional step to overcome. But this has to happen after you
have given yourself enough time to remember your departed husband. After
that you should not feel guilty in looking forward. That is accepted in most
religious and philosophical beliefs. But ultimately its you who should decide
what is right for you. I am not sure if I answered your query to your
satisfaction, if not please ask me again in more specific words and I will
try again as best as I could.
Best regards,
cosmic thinker ]
To: [email protected]
Subject: M1: Mails to S.S
Dear S.S.,
[..]
In critiquing my follwing remark,
"THE ONLY RELATIONSHIP THAT IS NATURALLY BOUND BY OBLIGATION
IS THAT OF PARENTS TOWARDS THEIR MINOR CHILDREN. IN ALL OTHER
RELATIONSHIP THERE IS NO INHERENT OBLIGATION OR RESPONSIBILTY
TO TAKE CARE OF ONE BY THE OTHER BUT MAY RESULT FROM A
SPONTANEOUS LOVE/AFFECTION."
you have added that its also bounden on grown ups to take care of their old
parents. You missed the very important "naturally" in the first sentence above.
What you are saying is not a universal truth but reflection of your own belief
which is cultural in its origin. Western society doesn't say its a "MORAL/NATURAL"
obligation. Look at animal kingdom and you will understand the "natural" part
of it. Again don't forget we are talking about an inherent obligation. It still
leaves open individual spontaneous feeling which is not obligatory or morally
incumbent. It is important that you pay attention to each word used in my
writings and not just make a summary conclusion of the entire writing.
[..]
cosmic thinker
[quality of the passion as an indication. In fact I tend to show my passion
towards someone with a nice heart and who shows feeling for me. I wouldnt
show any passion for someone not so nice in their heart. You seem to know
exactly what you need and want. Unfortunately I don't seem to know. I have
in a way fallen victim to my own rational way of approaching things. Since
my rational mind cannot guide me here I rely on my gut feeling on this. when
and if my gut feeling directs me I will follow it. I do consider you as a very
dear friend of mine. I will understand whatever you decide to do in your
own interest consistent with your needs and wants. You can count on me as
your good friend as well. I cannot articulate my thoughts any better at this
You have emaphasized the differnece between "friend" and "partner". To me
difference lies in only the practical aspect of living together and not in
any quantum factor of significant magnitude. Maybe here is where we differ in
our perception. In your critic of my views on friendship and spouse you differed
with me by adding that a spouse(probably also partner in your view) is MUCH
more than friends in that a partner can ask for BIG favours and sacrifices which
friends cannot. To me this reflects a desire latent in the mind of a NEED based
relation. The ingredients that I have listed in my views is all I expect
(in both directions) even in a living together situation...]
[There are very few unique situations where my actions or thoughts causing
certain actions cannot be analyzed/explained logically. Not knowing exactly
what/who is the right partner for me (Or whether at alI I need a partner) is
one such thought and the decision/actions resulting from that. Thats because
this is one of those rare cases where one has to completely understand one's
self(soul) or make an assumption about it as a guide to help in this. In the
absence of such an assumption (my case) all decisions/actions will be based
on gut feeling and are bound to be unexplained. I can accept similar situation
in others also. But I cannot accept non-explanation of thoughts/actions of
others that are due not to a lack of knowledge of one's inner self but to
reasons well known to them...]
You said:
>No I have not because I have not been in a situation where my car broke
>down. During the transition (from Hawaii) I rented a car because how I
>spend my money is my own business and does not affect anyone because I am
>single. However, if living with another perdson in a committed
>partnership, if my renting a car depleted money from a joint account which
>could affect both persons, borrowing his car might be better than renting
>if that worked efficiently. You seem to be confused between independence
>vs. dependence vs. interdependence. The need for a favor does not change
>because of a partner, only the option. I cannot make this any more clear.
Continuing with this example let me emphasize that the issue here is not
the either/or of borrowing vs. renting. Its an outlook issue. By borrowing
a car from your partner you are depriving him the same advantage/need that
prompted you to borrow. You will be making the selfish assumption that he
does not need the car and your need is far more important. The logical thing
to do (I would do if I were in such a case) would be to request rides from him
(In fact the request will not be needed as the partner will be offering it
anyway) as long as is needed and make do with as less car travel as possible.
We do that even when we are single. Friends do give us rides when our cars
break down temporarily. As I mentioned the whole thing is a lifestyle issue
and the practicality you are bringing in to justify is based on one's
preferrential view of the need.
You said:
>Am I to understand that in a partnership, there should be no "duties"
>only what comes naturally if the couple was just friends? Question for
>you: You are taking so much tuime to take care of your mother presumable
>because you love her as well as consider it your duty as her son. If T.J.
>lived in another country, would you do the same for him (a friend)?
Very easy and obvious. Do all I say/preach ever implied that all friends
are equal or that all love/feelings for others are equal ? Is it hard to
figure that my feelings (natural bond) with my mother is much stronger than
a friendly feeling for T.J.? First of all there is this biological factor
of me being born out my mother's body. Secondly add to that all the close
associations throughout my formative years upto adulthood with her that
adds so much into my heart and soul that stay forever and creates a
lasting bond that is so strong that in itself is enough to motivate me to
leave my job and take the trip to be with her specially in her last days.
There is no strict sense of duty here. If my sisters were not here to look
after her then I would have an ADDED motivation (humanitarian consideration)
for coming.]
Excerpts on gifts and special days:
[To: D.K Apr 4 1999 Subject: Special Day?]
[..]
OK, now to get to your more interesting question. You know "special" days like
Eid, New Year's day etc seem so preset & prepackaged to me, I fail to see whats
so special in theses days for me. There is no personal touch. There's nothing
visible in the air, sky etc on these days. Neither is the mechanical celebration
of birtrhdays. etc. Once you set these days ahead of time and celebrate it, it
loses its persoanl touch and becomes a predicatble mechanical observance of a
ritual. A special day only becomes special through some special and unexpected
events/happennings that are not preset. Fixing a date ahead of time and calling
it special seems so artificial to me. Besides what if on that day an accident
happens, or I am seriously ill etc? A special day to me is after the fact. For
example if I come across a rare record in a garage sale which I have been looking
for many years that certainly makes the day special for me. If I meet someone
nice and make friends with, that becomes a special day. To me a note from someone
saying "I miss you, wish you I could see you again" on a random day is million
times more precious than a note "Thinking of you on your birthday/New Year. Wish
you a very happy birthday/New Year" etc. The first one is very deep and did not
need an excuse like birthdays whereas the second one is more like once a year
predictable remembrance. So special days are MADE, not PRESET.
[ To E.C: 3 Dec 1998 ]
>i think it is good and to show your feelings and sometimes it is needed.
We are going in circles. My whole emphasis was "celebration of special
days" is not a must to show feelings. I never said feelings should not be
shown. There are other ways to show than CELEBRATING special days.
We are going on different tracks it seems.
>there are people who says that is is not necessary to celebrate these days
>but they are the ones whodont bother to express his/her feeling.of course
You are saying "those who say that is is not necessary to celebrate these
days are the ones who don't express his/her feeling?" It is in writing. I
cannot be mistaken? Do you realize this translates to "You can ONLY express
feelings by celebrating special days"? Are you sure? My close friends never
celebrate my birthday or anyday but have enough feelings for me to treat
them as my close friend.]
>who have this tendency to be less expressive about thier affection and
>they use these excuses ..(dont take it personally.)..though my comment was
>based on personal experience.....
Yes, SOME people have tendencies to be less expressive (BECAUSE THEY
DON'T HAVE IT MAYBE !!) about feelings. But less expressive should not be
defined as someone who does not express it on a special day, though may express
it other days. A less expressive person is defined to be one who does not
express feeling PERIOD (special days or non-special days) See the consistency?
>
>and for me i would want special attention on special day from special
>person....and i think it is natural for me...maybe i was programmed like
>that...
That was my whole point!. It is about being programmed of EXPECTING
special day celebration. But it is not needed if the dynamics between "special"
persons follow some natural pattern of spontaneity/genuineness. Hope its
getting clearer.
>i agree that you dont need any special day to express your feeling...but
>on special days if an extra effort makes the other person
>happy...at times happier...i would do that...i would do things to make
>the other person happy...here i am talking about somebody special...
"I would do it" is not a logic. Its a description of your habit. I know
you would do it and so would sop many others. My logic was that not doing
it does not imply "non exstence of special feeling". Again I have to
repeat (Since it gets lost in the debate) that my contention was that
1. "Feelings between special persons can be communicated without celebrating
aspecial day" 2. Not celebrating a special day for a special person DOES NOT
imply thet there is no special feeling between them (Ther are many other
ways to communicate special feelings). An extra effort is already included
in the "other ways". An "extra" does not have to be on a special day of the
calendar. The word extra does not have a date attached to it as part of its
meaning. :)
dear EC,
[ In fact my argument can be applied to any ___day, [..]
You agreed with me about the symbolic nature of such days. But I
think your interpretation of the word "symbolism" and mine were
far apart. To you "symbolism" means a small act "symbolizing" a more
substantial and genuine feeling and is NECESSARY for expressing such
feelings. To me "symbolism" means just a small act, which may not
necessarily imply always a deep feeling nor is it a PREREQUISITE
for such. ]
To TZ:
[Just missed one other point. Since I addressed all your points then might as well
complete the catharsis by addressing the remaining point you raised about my
view on gifts. All I have said about gifts is really directed at the society's (or
individual's) BELIEF in and more importantly EXCPECTATION of gifts and
the institution thereof. My giving gifts has nothing to do with belief and does
not imply my belief in it. It is a bribe. I HAVE NEVER PREACHED NOT TO
OFFER GIFTS AS BRIBES. I am consistent within myself.]
On My Mother:
Mails to EC (3 Dec 1998 )
>
>were you very close to you mom? i know it is very personal, so you dont
>have to answer if you dont want to. parents are the greatest support adn
[...]
OK, now to answer the question, yes I was very close to her (mentally), as
I felt that she was very lonely and not understood by anyone and her
childish simplicity annoyed others and I was the only one understood her
inner soul, although i had my own share of hurting her as well (which i now
regret)...
Mail To TJ(3 Dec 1998 )
>Please tell me about your mother(if you don't think as inappropriate
>to express about her to me)? May be she is very liberal in a sense
>that she never try to impose her thoughts upon you fully. I really
>mean it
Yes indeed, she was like a child buried in her own world, didn't even
bother to impose her thoughts and ideas on me or any other as much as a
child is is engrossed with his/her fancies and whims but never really
imposing on others. It is actually more true that I understood her
rather than she understood me. As I said she was just a child in heart.
She used to ask curious questions about all the things in nature. Asking
me about strange animals of faraway places, exotic foods etc. Her mind
seems to have been wandering beyond the worldly affairs. I can say so
much more about her..
E5. ON WB AND BD
---------------
....
>YES... finally, someone who comes out and says it like it is. West Bengalis
>and Bangladeshis are DIFFERENT. Having a common language is not enough, if it
....
I disagree with the flat usage of the term DIFFERENT. They are no more different
than a Chittagongian is from a Sylheti, or for that matter a Bankuran from a West
Dinajpuri. If religion is taken as the sole DIFFERENCE that also is not very
conclusive as majority of the minorities in BD and WB are still not thinking of
migrating. What really is true is the fact there exists mistrust and prejudice
between them. It may have derived from the legacy of British times when Hindu Elite
based in Calcutta did look down on the East Bengali Muslims as inferior, uncultured
species. Unfortunately that feeling has permeated thru generations and even today
many of the WBengalis while being non communal still dont look at the BDeshis as
peers
but with a superiority complex. They havn't been able to adjust to the mindset of
having to treat the BDeshis of today as peers in art/culture/education/technology
etc. forgetting the mentality of colonial days. Many BDeshi's have also been
reminded too much about how their forefathers were treated like untouchables by the
Hindus in the British times. This is what explains why so many BDeshis aggressively
assert their differences and even goes even as far asserting that the new Bangla IS
the real Bangla and so forth
E6. Article Posted On SCB (On WB/BD):
---------------------------------
I want to approach the whole debate on this mutual suspicion/criticism/cynical attitude
between BD/WB and related debates that ensued from Mr. Subain's posts and and
Rashiduzzaman's article and its reponses from either side. I would focus on a purely
analytical/objective aspect of it and hence would also acknowledge many of the flaws on
the BD part. But for a lasting understanding and harmony between at least the
intellectuals of BD/WB there has to be a corresponding humility on the WB side to
acknowledge its own flaws. Having set the stage let me proceed. The problem of mistrust
and prejudics between WB/BD is rooted into the way Islam came to India. For most Hindus
the memory of Mahmud's invasion of India in 11th century and his subsequent plunder of
temples and slaughter of Hindus are permanently ingrained as a Barbaric aspect of the
religion itself. Although Islam does not clearly sanction unprovoked attack (Which
Mahmud did) in reality we hardly separate the message from the messenger. So quite
naturally after the Muslim conquest of India through the Barbaric invasion of Mahmud and
the subsequent Muslim rulers from the West the image of Muslims/Islam got stuck as
barbaric, plunderous and inferior. (If it had been the reverse. i.e a Hindu ruler
invaded a Muslim India, the same would have happened and everythiung would be true if we
made substitution Hindu=Muslim). Even though the later converts to Islam (From low caste
hindus) had nothing to do with this barbaric acts of the Muslim kings from the west they
were doomed to this stigmatic perception due to the one common factor with the
plunderers: religion, which they are carrying to this day. The fact that most of the
Muslims were converts from low caste Hindus added to this contempt of Muslims by upper
caste Hindus. Most BD Muslims have grown up with the perception that Hindu Babus of
WB/Calcutta hated and looked down on them. This is reinforced by the common stories of
Hindus not touching any utensils used by Muslims etc. This in turn created a counter
hatred of many Muslims toward Hindus and the cycle went on. Now there is a minor segment
of BD Muslims whose hatred for Hindus is more than just a reaction to this backlash of
Hindu contempt for Muslims. Their hatred for Hindus is rooted in the hatred for
idolators. That is pure fanaticism. And yes it exists BUT among a minority. Next let me
address the issue of communalism. The nature of communalism seems to be different for WB
and BD. To BD muslims the communalism is soley the superiority complex and the
condescending and contemptuous attitude towards the BD Muslims (Rooted in History as I
mentioned above). On the other hand to WB Hindus, the communalisnm in BD is the forcible
dispossessions of Hindus of their properties and occassional riots and destruction of
temples and rape of Hindu women etc, i.e its an actual ACT and not a mere perception of
inferiority and contempt by Muslims towards Hindus, which does not exist,except for the
minority of idolator haters as I mentioned, which is perceived as communalism in BD by WB
Hindus. Now let me examine this "communalism" in BD as is perceived by Hindus. First,
these acts of riot, plundering of Hindu properties, riots etc are committed by criminally
disposed people. Those who have criminal instincts are always on the lookout for any
pretext to let loose their criminal aspirations. Take the case of Rape of hindu women.
These rapists would rape ANY women if they felt they could get away with it, since it is
RAPE they are after. There are countless reports of Muslim women being raped by Muslim
rapists in the village they would not qualify as communalism. The fact is Hindus being in
the minority these criminals with rapist instincts would bet on the fact that they would
face less resistance and retaliation if they raped a Hindu woman. So here the prime
motive is RAPE and a religion of the minority is providing a convenient pretext to act on
this instinct. They would do the same to any other minority community (Buddhist,
christians etc, the fact that we don't hear about these cases are due to the fact that
there is virtually no Buddhists/Christians in rural BD). A rape can be judged to be truly
of communal nature when a person would refuse to rape a Muslim woman even if
impunity is guaranteed (And the woman is pretty) but would readily decide to rape a
Hindu woman, pretty or not. I don't think that is the case in BD (maybe in Pakistan). So
it is the problem of criminals who are exploiting the inherent insecurity of the Minoruty to
perpetrate their crimes, not the issue of Muslims deciding to commit crimes againsts only
Hindus. Now cynical Hindus would argue, well, if the Government and people by large are
non communal then why don't they prevent these heinous acts of goondas? How can they
get away with it? The sad answer to this question is, the governemnt and people are equally
passive in preventing rape and plunder against ALL, irrespective of religion, caste etc
because the minority are so violent and vengeful and they have the powerful weapon,
religion to distract any crackdown on them as a crackdown on religion and draw sympathy
from powerful economic sources from abroad. We all are hostage to the evils of the
minority. If we open the newspapers of BD we read of rampant rape, looting mugging,
extortion etc with no redress. Even the police are committing rape. All these are
happenning against Muslims by the way. So BD cannot be accused of communalism in
an insular way, but should be accused of passivity against crime, period. In fact BD is
very secular in a perverse way, no body gives a damn against crime, no matter if it is
committed against a Hindu or a Muslim. We are scared to act, the majority have
become silent spectators gripped with too much fear to act. Hope this analysis helps
to set the perspective right and Mr. Subain, Rashiduzzaman etc can start afresh with
a more rational and unbiased/unemotional approach to a better understanding/relation
between BD/WB.
So in summary, the sequence seems to be
Muslim Invasion of India-->Hindu Contempt for Muslims-->Muslim backlash for
Hindus and so on. How do we break out of this cycle? Surely not by simply
blaming one side as Mr. Subain seems to be doing. That only perpetuates the
cycle. I believe a starting point could be acknowledging the facts about the
origin of this problem as stated above and then proposing contructive
suggestions and self criticisms.
From [email protected] Wed Jan 1 12:29:13 1997
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: A Woman Dies: Islamic Law or Eastern Culture?
Dear Mariam,
I am writing to you in response to your original post to express my\
outrage and sadness at what happened to Noorjahan and and others at
different times. Its unfortunate that not much outrage is shown in
public and in private as is shown when a there is a political feud
between parties. Ours is a male chauvinist society and in response
to your question "..based on ISLAMIC LAW, our EASTERN CULTURE,
or both?" I thing its little bit of both. Also its tragic that it happened when
a woman was in power and still she didnt show enough guts to address
this issue. We need strong leadership to tackle this. When Zia came to
power in '75 he took the first step in integrating women with men in
every walk of life. He inducted women in th active positions in police
force and with his strong personality did this with no hue and cry raised
from the religious zealots (the spirit of secularism was still strong).
Unfortunately after his death Ershad came to power and he reverse
the trend and limited women to only clerical posts is police (where she
has to wear saris only). The spirit of secularism started a decline from
then also and the religious zealots started gaining ground. Today they
are so vocal and rabid that there is no hope of mass movement or action
against them. Its sad and I dont know how this can be solved. I dont
think there is going to be any more inspired mass leader like Sheikh Mujib
or Ziaur Rahman who could change mass thinking and initiate radical
social change. Although Sk Mujib comanded that inspiratory leadeship but
he didnt utilze it. Zia started it but could finish it. Also he was under
heavy pressure from the Arab countries.
I think the only solution is enforcing a strong secularist policy which
now even AL is hestating to do(although it was their guiding policy once)
and integrating women in every sphere of society, free mixing of boys and
girls (these now seem to be wishful thinking for Bangladesh) can come a long
way in minimizing these tragic events.
Regards
C.T.
Posted on SCB in July 15 1995:
I will try to enumerate the reasons. Bear in mind that I favour a united secular WB/BD.
Ideally I believe in one borderless world where everyone will peacefully live together
with a lingua franca and with no prejudice/ill will against other. But until that
happens(if ever) for fairness's sake I believe we have as much right to protect our
interest as you or anyone else have. Please keep this in perspective while judjing my
reasoning below:
First one thing you have ignored or are not aware of is the fact that there has been a
major change/evolution in the middle class Bengali Muslim society in former East Bengal
since 1947. Under India/British rule this demographic segment were treated like a
stepchild and were neglected by India and more so by the WB hindu elite as reflected in
the word Bangal. No denying the fact that here is/was prejudice against Bengali Muslims
and were looked as illiterate uncultured etc. Under Pakistan there was some improvement
and an elite Bengali Muslim class began to emerge. But Pakistanis also treated us in a
condescending manner and never treated us equal partner. That led to the Bengali
nationalism which then led to an independent Bangladesh. For the first time Bengali
Muslims found an identity and were in charge of their own destiny. At leat now they didnt
have to suffer the insult of Hindu Babus and Pakistani elite class. Now we are enjoying
the stature of an independent nation with all the advantages/benefits that come with it.
We are getting international exposure, Bangladeshis now are receiving Scholarship from
Unesco/ Commonwelath/Fulbright etc, plus innumerable awards from many countries.
We are spreading all over the globe. Under Pakistan/India we would have to comptete
with all the other states on an uneven playing field. You and others may think that all the
bangladeshis here are from elite and affluent class in BD. But the fact many of them are
from remote villages and came on their own merit. I was never funded by by family or
Governement. Granted our political system is in shambles, but no denying that we have
access to unlimited opportunities to comptete globally. So you see our nationalism rose
out of a defensive reaction rather than a chauvinstic one. You havent put forward any
convincing reasons yourselves to convince us that the there would be no prejudice and
stepchildly attitude towards EB under India. The onus is on you.
Uniting under India is going to change the clock backwards for us. There has been no
fundamental change in the attitude towards the (secular) Bengali Muslims in EB by
WB/India. Only a sovereign EB/WB with a new name can instill fresh mentality and
inspire the truly secular minded Bengalis of both side to think anew and forge an equal
partnership and effectively combat religious intolerants on both sides and prosper as a
Sonar Bangla.
On July 18 1995 [email protected] (cosmic thinker) writes:
(In response to (Debashis Bhattacharya) wrote on 17 Jul 1995)
I never mentioned DISCRIMINATTION in my post. I used the word prejudice which is
widespread among most WBi. Its even apparent in the net. Discrimination is easy to
redress thru legislation. Prejudice is a mindset. Unfortunately this prejudice is a
blanket one towards all BDi's including the progressive/secular intellectuals leaving
no room for any constructive dialog.
[..]
I dont think under Pakistan/India he would have been able to get so much done.
The vested interests would have prevented him from achieving what he has been
able to in a free BD. The Gono Shasthya Kendro is another example. I can go on and
on. Elite like me? What about you? What are you doing here for the poor common people
of WB? You are not doing anything nobler for them than any BDi is doing for BD. This
holier than thou attitude doesnt help in a a constructive dialog.
Please illuminate me. I think anyone on the net is an elite. A non-
elite in the net is a logical contradiction. You are implying that you
feel for the common mass of BD more than BD elites? Thats insulting to
us with whom you intend to engage in dialog. Its ridiculous to, suggest
that the BD elite wants a sovereign BD for its selfish motive. You are
mocking us for wanting to remain sovereign? Sounds like Ultopuran! Normally
corrupt/selfish intellectuals are eager to compromise sovereignty for their
selfish gains. History abounds with such betrayals. Comments like this is
an insult to the the millions of lives laid down in the war of independence
Now that you found no support for merging with India among BD elite
there is no room for a constructive dialog in the net. You have two choices.
Go to the villages of BD, convince them that BD elites have no interest
in their lives and you as a WB elite care more for them and they should
join India. If you can stir up a grass root movement for merging with India
then all the power to you. I will be the first to respect Vox Populi.
The second choice is be a Hawk and work for a military takeover. Take your
pick.
From me Tue 20 Dec 1996 15:20:51 GMT
Subject: M15 - Re: more armament??
Instead one should ask do we need more Hartals costing miilions of dollars, masochistic
self destruction of public and private properties for the most trivial reasons
dissatisfying some group, corruption at at all walks of life costing millions. Defence
expenditure per/capita in Bangladesh is among the lowest. Sounds like the cynics in US
who opposes Space program here although it only would only cost the price of a pizza per
year per person to send human to Mars although they dont raise any hue and cry at the
lavish wastage and extravagant consumeristic spending. As long as there is a defence
there should be enough equipment for its effectiveness and professional quality.
From me Mon Dec 23 09:23:20 1996
To: [email protected]/scb
Subject: Re: more armament??
On Dec 21, 5:43pm, [email protected] wrote:
> ..............
> discussion. As all the political quarters are busy 'keeping the army
> happy', there must be some concern about the un-checked, un-scrutinized
> military expeditures. The mysterious silence of the political parties
Providing the routine tools and implements appropriate to a defence force is
'keeping the army happy'? New concept. All the countries in the world is doing it.
How did you arrive at the conclusion "Unchecked and unscrutinized..". Are you
looking at any data or just your intense dislike of the concept of armed forces? Let
me provide you with some facts and data:
Bangladesh army has about 100 or more outdated Chinese Tanks mostly given as free
gifts and some artillery. Navy has 4 frigates alkso mostly outdated ones, Chines and
British (Most of them are gifts or at Rock Bottom prices) and Airforce has less than
20 Chinese Mig-19 and some Chinese J-6 ground attack fighters also mostly gifts. The
Soviet MIGS (Also gifts) are mostly grounded. TERE IS NO ARAMED
HELICOPTERS! After this pitiable picture you are STILL paranoid over
overspending !
According to 1993 statistics the defence expenditure as a % of GDP for
various countries are :(Listing selected few for Space limitation):
Country Defence budget as % of GDP
1993 1996
.......
Burundi 2.3% 2.6%
.......
Bangladesh 1.6% 1.7%
India 2.2% 2.7%
Pakistan 6.9% 5.3%
Myanmar (Burma) 10.6%
Sri Lanka 4.75% 5.7%
........
Rwanda 7.3%
Notice that this figure represents % of GDP so it is a uniform benchmark, doesnt
matter how large or small, poor or rich a country is. Also note that if population
is ever a factor then that would put more weight on BD in favor of a higher number
for this figure.
Most of the rest have higher number than Bangladesh. As you can see India, Pak,
SriLnaka, Burma all have significantly higer defence spending than us. I never saw
any hysteria over overspending in soc.culture.[India| Pakistan|SriLanka|Mynmar] or
in any other forum. These countries also dont engage in masochistic self destructive
activities like uprooting rail lines, closing down ports, vandalizing private and
public transports,setting factories on fire, closing down daily activities for months
, all this in the name of mass movements or expressing grievances on an issue
affecting a group. All these combined have costed Bangladesh much more than
defence budget.
>
> Now back to the original question, how do we find out what is 'enough'? In
> the context of a third world nation how do we really make it sure the army
> to be free of over-spending and corruption?..
Corruption was not the subject of this thread. Corruption should always be opposed
and criticized, be it by army, politicians, civil officials, etc etc. Again the
overspending concern is unjustified in view of all the facts and data I have provided.
If you are a pacifistic idealist who believes that there should be no war in this this
world and no army, navy etc , then I would at least ideally agree with you, but that
should apply to all countries equally, not just Bangladesh. Loving your country
implies loving all its institutions including its defence. Equipments are the food of
a defence. Denying that is taking away its food. Checking corruption is a logical
issue but irrelevant to this thread.
From [email protected] 13 Jan 1997 00:47:49 GMT
Date: 13 Jan 1997 16:46:51 GMT
Subject: Re: Uniting the Two Bengals
In article , [email protected] writes:
> You think the BJP or the Jamaat will stand for that?
> A more realistic goal would be increased cultural and trade exchange.
>
Thats not the issue at all. We on the BD side clamour that Jamat doesnt represent the
mainstream majority (they got less than 4 seats in the last election), as do most in WB
clamour that communal elements dont represent the mainstream there. So if we believe in
democracy as we clamour to do, then a simple plebiscite can resolve this issue. Raising
the bogey of Jamat/BJP is a pathetic surrender of the majority to minority when we
constantly beat the drums of people power, ganoshakti etc. But we must clearly make the
distinction between the two scenarios, as I have mentioned in another posting, 1) United
bengal under India, 2) United Bengal as a separate Sovereign entity. Case would be
rejected by almost all Bangladeshi, as it is like changing from one master to another,
not to mention the realistic fear of being marginalized as a stepchild by Central India
vis a vis WB. I see as the true realization of the concept of a Sonar Bangla based on
the common secular values of Bengalis and equal partnership. We have a lot in common
for its cultural viability. There are enough secular and bi-religious elements in Bangla
culture to provide the unifying force, for example the legends of Satya Pir (Satya
Narayan, whom muslims and hindus revered equally), Lalan Fakir, Kabeer, etc. Also
among the secular elements who can deny the influence of Rabindranath ,Nazrul and
Sharatchandra. I remember in the last year of United Pakistan, when I was in my junior
school, our head religious teacher , who was devoutly religious and wore a Tupi, was a
good friend of our Hindu teacher, and they used visit each other's place and discuss
politics and other matters of common interest for Bengalis vis a vis the exploitation
of Pakistani rulers. They would also exchange religious ideas in a friendly manner. I
dont know if they are still alive. But their example can still inspire and guide us.
From [email protected] 13 Jan 1997 00:47:49 GMT
Date: 13 Jan 1997 20:38:56 GMT
Subject: Re: Uniting the Two Bengals
In article ,
Pundalik Prabhu writes:
> I can understand the nature of Jaamat-e-Isalami party in it's attitude to
> India in general. But I am puzzled by the very unfriendly relationship of
> BNP to India. I am sure India can be blamed to some extent too.
>
>
The label "Anti Indian" is often applied mistakenly to a "Pro Bangladeshi" stand. BNP
has been vocal (although didnt get much done) about Farakka issue(A purely economic
issue with no religion involved). During BNP rule there has been quite substantial trade
and cultural contacts between the two countries. In fact even AL accused BNP of turning
BD into Indian market in the name of free trade and destroying BD industries. Now you
would call Anti-Indian ? BNP started out with pretty much the same secular platform as
AL. In fact Zia, its founder declared in a huge meeting in race course just after he
was catapulted into power thru a chain of events, that secularism will be upheld amidst
thunderous applause. There has been powerful pressures from oil rich countries to
integrate more and more religious elements into the government. But Bangladesh
successfully resisted all pressure to declare itself an Islamic Republic. (Although many
from India/WB still think BD is an Islamic country. Its pathetic). The only "anti"
Indian rhetoric that BNP uses are of reactive/defensive nature like BD not getting fair
share of water or allegation of arm twisting by India into making BD give
trade/economic/strategic/ concessions. I haven't heard aything proactive/offensive like
"India is evil. Destroy India. They are our enemy" etc etc from them.
From [email protected] Mon Jul 21 17:29:27 1997
Subject: Re: WB is WB, and BD is BD, and never the twain shall meet
cosmic thinker wrote:
>
> [email protected] () writes:
>>[..her comments]
> By average Bdeshi people if you mean the labourers, peasants etc then
> you are right, since they are busy making a living and hardly even
> think issues like merging of two Banglas etc. So it is inaccurate to
> ascribe any opinion to them since they dont have any (or at least
> there is no way to tell even if they have since there is no forum for
> average mass to express their opinion on issues like this). On the other
> hand the literary/educated community do have opinion and views and are indeed
> influenced somewhat by writings of Nazrul and Tagore and others. There is
> a visible dichotomy in these views and there are quiet undercurrents of
> of an yearning for a united Bengal (in spirit and culture if not in geography)
> as well as vocal opposition to it. Since silent views are not noticeable
> hence even if they happen to be a majority the vocal opposition may give
> the illusion of representing the majority.
> I feel if there has to be any basis its not just few poems of Nazrul
> but the commonalities/bireligious aspects of the Bengali culture like
> the works of Lalan Fakir, Kanu Fakir, the legends of Satya Peer(SatyaNarayan),
> Banbibi, Hason Raja etc and the richness of Bengali Fairy/Folk Tales loved
> equally by the kids of both Bengal.
Could not agree with you more , we should delve more and more into the
inherent syncretism of these kinds .
From [email protected] 2 Oct 1998 20:34:58 GMT
Subject: Re: Hasina:"Secularism/Communal Harmony linchpin of liberation warn"
You were picked unfairly maybe, however I think he had in mind those posters who
tend to paint all Bangladeshis/Muslims with a broad brush of religious fanaticism and fail
to recognize the fact that their exists many true secular at heart. To them anyone with a
Muslim name is a fanatic. Maybe the seculars don't create as much noise as the bigots but
they do abhor all form of religious bigotry, violence and prejudice. Minorities are by
nature are more likely to be noisy and violent in giving vent to their feelings than the
majority, thats why we have the expression "silent majority". It maybe true Hasina was
playing politics in her speech to the Hindu community like BJP and all Indian leaders and
for that matter ALL political leaders do (Democrats wooing Blacks etc). But I think to be
fair to Hasina, making a clear announcement that Bangladesh is a secular country is a
bold enough statement not to be dismissed as a statement for sheer political gain. No one
else made a clear use of the word "secular" although they all utter cliches of "communal
harmony" on such religious occasions. The only other leader (since August 1975) who made
a strong unequivocal statement (and deserves higher mark for this) was Late Ziaur Rahman
(Not Khaleda) in his November 1975 post coup rally in Race Course Maidan, where he
announced Bangladesh is a secular nation to the thunderous applause of the audience. That
same night I remember Debdulal Bandopadhyay in his then popular nightly news
commentary "Sangbad Parikrama" of Calcutta radio cited in a laudatory tone Zia's defence
of secularism. Now all these posters who always refer to "Islamic Bangladesh" implying a
nonsecular mentality of Bangladeshis in general should have heard those applauses and
heard all the private conversations of average bangladeshis. I like to end this
discussion with a memorable article posted in scb by Saptarshi Bandapadhyay recounting
his visit to his ancestral home in BD in 1992 (When BNP was in power). This will show the
sentiments of people at the grass roots level.
Repost of Saptarshi 's article on scb :
From [email protected] Jan Sep 1999 20:34:58 GMT
Subject: Re: debarring all retiered civil and military personel from bangladesh politics
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Celeti) wrote:
> it is about time that all of us give a serious thought of not allowing the
> retired civil and military brucrates from joining politics in bangladesh.these
> bunch of stupidasshole has never ever had the guts to do anything worth
> mentioning while they were in position.they enjoyed all benefits during their
[..]
As if all the non-military political leaders were honest, hardworking, farsighted,
wise, good administrators. All that has been said apply equally to all the leaders,
politicians, military or not. I don't see what military background has anything to do
with this. It is the very character/nature of these people that is the root cause.
Militaries are no aliens from outer space, they are as much Bengali as you and I are.
They are the brothers sisters of many civilians (Politicians and not) They are no less
stupid or more than the rest, nor are the non-military politicians any better/smarter
just by the fact of not having served in the military.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:
> In 1971 Sheikh Mujib, the bengali muslim leader won enough seats in the
> election to be prime minister of ALL of pakistan
> West pakistan did not want this and started the genocide.
> During the genocide ALL muslim countries supported pakistan
> To date, no muslim country has ever condemned the genocide
> ( 3 million in 9 months ) 2-3 times faster than hitler
> No muslim country recognised bangladesh, until pakistan first recognised
> bangladesh
> During the 1971 war, ALL muslim countries supported pakistan
> Many such as Jordan sent tanks, planes to pakistan.
> ( which is why I hope king husein rots in hell )
>
> Yasser Arafat supported pakistan
> Israel offered recognition to bangladesh govt in exile in April 1971
> but was turned down due to 'islamic solidarity'
>
> Bangladesh still does not recognise israel.
> At OIC ( organisation of islamic countries ) bangladesh
> votes regularly against Indian 'atrocities' in kashmir and
> Israeli 'atrocities' in the west bank.
> The only 2 countries that offered it support in 1971
> ( our crime is that we are non-islamic )
>
Well Hula(gu)khan, let me try to turn the strangeness into an obvious realization. Its
all rooted in "money". Money is the primary motive force in geopolitics. Religion is the
secondary. When the secondary only helps to reinforce the primary, so much better.
Islamic countries have money. And there are more than one such rich Islamic country.
Israel not being rich and and Muslim it makes no practical sense for BD (The fact being
majority population of BD are Muslim even though BD is not an Islamic Country) to irk
all the Muslim States by staking its fate in one not so rich, non- Muslim country. Even
India makes a lot of compromise in its principles to woo Arab economic support. The fact
is BD risks a lot by befriending Israel, which India doesn't.
Secondly, AL and Sheikh Mujib were truly secular (They were accused of being Hindus
by Pak regime) and never initiated any anti-India or anti-Hindu step. On the other hand it
is risky to undo a pro- Islamic (Or anti-India/Hindu if you like) step already in place.
It originates from basic rule of "don't rock the boat" if you don't need to. It took AL
enough courage to reverse the Anti-Hindu enemy property act. The moral imperative
behind that was strong enough to dicate such a bold step. Nothing else requires such
moral imperative. The fanatic minorities can wreak significant havoc and no secular
force want to mess with them. Sadly, pragmatism takes precedence over principle.
In article <[email protected]>,
"irgun1943" wrote:
..
> However, I congratulate you in being as good a Moslem as your Arab
> brothers. They too like to imagine enemies and conspiracies.
When engaging in debate based on logic, it is wise not to hypothesize about one's
affiliation and background. Nothing above (a statement about a conspiracy (verified
or not) makes one a good Moslem or a brother of Arab. Its a statement made by anyone
in the proper context. He could be an aethist Bangladeshi and still logically make
the statement. Just stick to the issue). India/Israel was not mentioned as "enemy"
either, only a highly plausible fact of geopolitics. You are naively projecting
individual morals and ethics into state poltics. Mention of perceived conspiracies
abound in the rhetorics of Indian leaders as well. Thats perfectly acceptable.
Democrats and Republicans also accuse each other of conspiracies too. As does
Congress to BJP etc. Why pick on this case only? Since no body knows the absolute
truth about the intention of India helping BD, by using Occam's Razor one has to
pick the most plausible reason and which makes mighty good sense in the prevailing
subcontinental geo-political zeitgeist around 1971.
> Dear Sir,
> Because it's a new concept found outside the Koran- it's called
> GRATITUDE in the West. Try it. You'll like it.
Again naively projecting personal ethics to State. Firstly Israeli recognition was not
SOUGHT, it came unsolicited and was politely refused, so there is no obligation to show
gratitude. In India's case BD did do enough like signing the 25 year treaty, which was
very much to India's advantage, preventing BD to seek strategic help from many
Western nations and sticking to it to the letter till its expiry. BD did support India
in many International forums, granted many concession in Jute trade at least in the
early years. But at least BD never took any Anti-India initiative. "Not doing something
for India" is not the same as "Doing something (bad) to India". And trying to defend its
own interest cannot be interpreted as hurting others interest. One cannot be expected to
pay a permanent price for one act in past. US helped Europe after World War II. But now
Europe occasionally enters into serious trade and other issues with US. An example is
the problem between US and France on agriculture and US routinely imposes and
threatens to use sanctions on "freindly" countries. It would be unethical/unreal to expect
BD to sacrifice its national interest for India permanently.
... reesponse to Ziak Sardar
>Very well written article! our so called "atelectual" lankies needed
>this booting in the backside. My sincere thanks to the West bengali
>intlectuals for ignoring these self hating mongooses that claim
..
Its not the the so-called "atelectual" but its the poltical lackies who are to be blamed
for this disgrace. Most BD litterateurs on the other hand are too anxious to prove they
are different, superior to WB and always aggressively asserting the difference of
Bangladeshi version of Bengali language and culture showing pride in the difference. I
can't think of any BD intellectual/litterateur who thinks proudly of Clasic WB Bangla as
part BD culture. None of therm seem to bother about the fact that Rabindra songs/dramas
are poorly representd in TV Radio, no Bengali films from WB being shown on TV/
Theater etc but seem to be relieved at that. Most of them dismiss WB based litterature as
irrelevant to the socio-economic reality of BD and don't seem to value the pure literary
value of it. The political clowns on the other hand went in hordes to Calcutta expecting
a VIP welcome To them its the fan fare, attention etc that they cared for, not the
literary cultural/literary significance of the visit. So for the conscious literary
individuals who know about the perception of mediocrity among WB intellectuals of BD
litterature the matter of fact reception should not have come as a surprise.
In article [email protected] wrote: (3/29/99)
> [email protected] wrote:
> BNP may not be liberal but they are not communial.
> .......................................................
>
> I do not agree with this. There are thousands of examples about their
Actually BNP as originally founded and conceived by Late Ziaur Rahman was
indeed secular (Non-communal) as Zia himself was a vocal advocate of secularism. He
publicly declared that secularism would be the basis of Bangladesh in his landmark
speech in Suhrawardi Udyan in 1975 November just after the sepoy revolution when the
other powerful Chief Martial Law administrator Air Vice Marshal Tawab was insisting on
declaring BD as an Islamic State with Libya's support but Zia did not give in and
eventually pushed Tawab out. After Zia's death BNP gradually started leaning more
towards exploiting religion for cheap political gains to gain an edge over AL.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (SuBain) wrote:
>
>no Ziaur Rahman was by no means a secularist. He deleted secularism from the
>constitution. He put 'bismillahi rahmanur rahim'at the beginning of the constitution.
>As far as I know, he had no minister or advisor from the minority communities. (If I
>was unaware, and if he actually did, that must have been in no significant capacity.
>Correct me with specific facts if I am not correct.)
>
If putting a token 'bismillahi rahmanur rahim' to please the Arab countries
for money (Every country resorts to certain level of prostitution) makes him
non-secular then why not declaring Bangladesh as a secular nation in front of
thousands of people in Suhrawardy Udyan against the wishes of other powerful
military men (And eventually pushing them out) make him secular? The same logic
should apply. I think the latter is more forceful logic in favour of secular Zia
than the former in favour of a non-secular Zia.
********* Posting on Re: CULTURAL STIGMA AND SHAME-.. **************
Date: 1999/11/09
Author: cerebral
In article <[email protected]>,
the_virtuous_vulcan wrote:
>
> Being anti-Jewish is actually a part of the Mohammedan Manifesto
> (Quran). [I can cite quotes from the Quran which rail Jews.] Also
> CNN had a picture of Saddam Hussein praying on Friday (with the
> caption stating that he (Hussein) was praying.) Thus Hussein is
> not an atheist. Same goes for Gaddafi and Assad - that is they are
> NOT atheists. They are believing Moslems and have aligned with the
> Communists but not with the ideology of godlessness as preached by
> Communist Manifesto.
Taslima Nasreen was wearing a Burkha (Islamic veil) when she arrived in
Dhaka. Why is Saddam Hussein despised by the other truly Islamic countries?
Why if he is a believer in Islam as you claim he did not declare Iraq an
Islamic republic? Anti-Jew does not automatically translate to Islmaic
belief in the same way that it does not translate to Christian belief
(Hitler). After being bombed to death and merciless sanction by US, and
lack of any support from other Islamic countries some semblance of
Islam (Not from heart, but a ruse) may bring him some succour. At least
thats his hope. A drowningh man will catch any straw. My point is that
one can be aethist/non-religious(at heart) and still be hateful
towards another race. Hope you get the point this time.
In article <[email protected]>,
the_virtuous_vulcan wrote:
>
> Maybe you have recently learned the word "oxymoron". And it shows
Lets makebelieve for a moment that your false assumption (recently)
was true. At least I "learn". You are yet to learn something vital.
Nice try. Didn't make any point though :)
> your innate naivety in grasping the reality. Fanatics also have an
> agenda of rationalizing their viewpoint. The radical Maoists (i.e.
> the Tupac Amaru, Shining Path and the Naxalites) were fanatics. They
> used their own version of the worldview and state of things - as they
> saw fit to rationalize. And many Bong intellectuals had openly given
> support for the murders ("shrenishotru nidhon") that these rascals
> committed. The rationale that was given these "intellectuals" was
> that unless class-struggle reached a peak these "enemies of the class
> struggle" will continue to be eliminated. Examples are Utpal Dutt,
> Ritwik Kumar Ghatak etc. from Bengal who openly supported the murders
> that these Maoist radicals carried out in the early '70s. Many of
> these "intellectuals" who were extremely sympathetic to the Naxalite
> causes and beliefs were progressives.
It shows your innate inability to get the point. A religious fanatic
is by definition hates a progressive(emancipated, so by what logic
should a fanatic "pose" as a progrsseive? You are confusing the
term progressive with leftist/Marxist/communist/Naxalite etc. yes,
Almost all the leftist/Marxist(intellectual)s in both Bangla and
Bangladesh call themselves progressive and thus have abused the term
enough to change its defacto meaning to leftist/Marxist. A progressive
person in the true sense should not believe in any dogma (religious
or Leftist/Marxist). On the other hand since the above people do use
the word progressive in that wrong sense they are not posing as, they
are consistent. Just stating the logic. So
>
> Same analogy goes for the Moslem fundamentalists, and I must submit
> that not every Moslem fundamentalist carries a gun to kill. But, many
> will rationalize the coercion and derogatory treatment of the "kafirs"
> or non-Moslems (in Bangladesh and elsewhere in Moslem-majority places)
> in any which way they can. They will do it even putting up a very
> "progressive" face. Just as Utpal Dutt, Ritwik Ghatak did when
Again, result of your not getting the terminology straight as I
explained above. Your many in "many will rationalize the coercion.."
still is refering to the fanatics. Don't you still see my point that
not all are fanatics. I was referring to the profgressive/emancipated
why harp about the existence of fanatics when my point was that not all
are fanatics and not to equate the fanatics with those who are not?
> The very fact that someone on this thread asserted that West Bengal
> is an illegitimate name and only Bangladesh has the rightful claim
> to such names, is a sign of fanaticism. The author posed as a Ph.D.
His points were challenged by progressive Muslim Bengalis too. So whats
your point? Besides if you respect any logic the statement (wrong though
maybe) about of who can legitimately claim the name "Bengal/i" etc has
no religious connotation, so it is not a statement of religious
fanaticism, but of an extreme position on Bengali identity.
> (from some place) and delivered a paper on this issue. This shows
> that there are situations when even highly qualified (and assuming
> that they are emancipated) persons will lobby for a fundamentalist
> cause.
Again get your definitions right Fundamentalism = Claim to Bengali name?
Maybe yuou have redefined fundamentalism. If this term is extended so
cavalierly, I wonder who can ever escape it (Not you either).
> I think you are orbiting around your cocoon of stupidity and crass
> ignorance. That is why you have failed to see this connection.
Profanity != profundity my friend. You didn't earn any points in
logic by the above. You are guilty of the same qualities you attribute
to the fanatics: Name calling withg no logic. Instead of frothing with
misdirected bitterness here, I suggest you try it on the fanatics
(Followers of Bin Laden maybe) next time you meet one. Only then you
will have scored some points.
[..]
In article ,
"Arindam Banerjee" wrote:
>
> So far as this ng is concerned they seem far too much interested in what Hindus
> do.
Who are "they". Isn't this stereotyping? What are you implying by "too much
interested in what Hindus do"? If you are using it in a negative connotations
that what "bad" are Hindus doing thenm you are dead wrong about me or Mr. Murshed
any many others. There are some bigots who may do that. If you are usinh it in a
positive/neutral connoation then obviously you wouldn't be making it an issue. I am
intetested in learning about all religions and sure I try to read and understand
Hindu Philosophy and religion and thus what Hindus do (Not necessarily what wrong
the Hindus do, but what Hindu philosophy says etc), but not out of hatred, but
out of pure interest just like interest in the works of Hume, Karl Popper,
Oscar Wilde etc. Of course like in any religion/race there are bad practices like
Satidha/Sahamaran was once in Bengal. But I never believed that it was an injunction
of Hindu scripture (Geeta never said that), but just the cultural practice of certain
bigotted segment at certain time. Same thing is true for Christianity and Islam where
evil practices have been committed in the name of religion. Buddhists are relatively
free from this stain.
I guesss everyone has some sort of interest in things other than
practicing religious rituals at home. Thats not wrong is it? Please don't stereotype.
One stereotype begets a counter stereotype and the cycle can go on forever.
>
> >I don't think there are many that care to take their faith beyond that. As for
> >their culture, that is a different matter. I don't think this really qualifies
> >as being an Arab culture, it's simply exercising your faith.
>
> Which is Arab.
It is factually true that "praying 5 times a day, fast at Ramadan, do Haj, give
Alms and mind what you eat" as Mr. Murshed said is Arab in origin (Via Islam). But the
issue of this thread was whether that has anything to do with being bengaliness. Your
curt answer "Which is Arab" indicates you disagreed with Mr. Murshed and insist that
since the belief is Arab in origin hence it cannot be compatible with Bengaliness. Now
what about the large number of Bengali Christians? By your argument they cannot be
Bengali either, right? If just by believeing/practicing in something alien disqualifies
one from bengaliness then what about socilaism/Marxism? Then Jyoti Basu is not a
Benagli by your draconian criterion. And by extension believing/practicing anything
non-Bengali in origin, like secular humanism, aethism, Taekwondo, Dianetics etc
should disqualify a Bengali from Bengaliness etc?
>
> >Arab culture is something of which I know very little, indeed I do not care to
> >know much of it.
>
> Really?
Is "really" a disbelief/surprise. Then maybe its time you did a reappraisal. maybe
you are so mired in your stereotype that you failed to see the diversity among the
Muslim born "Bengalis". There are significant number of truly secular (Mr. Murshed
surely proved he is one) Muslim born bengalis who may not have any preferentail
interest in rabaic or Arabic culture. The diversity covers the entire spectrum:
Secular Humnanist, non-secular humanist, outright communal, non-communal fanatics,
non-religious yet communal.. Do you know Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad etc are
aethists yet communal (anti-jew) etc.
> What happened to those cultures, say in Iran? Won't you say they were replaced
> by Arab culture?
Yes, it was. The same way that Druid, aztec etc cultures got invaded by
Christianity. But was it relevant to issue of Bengaliness and (Islamic) faith?
>
> >I might one day wish to see the mosque in Medina, but that hardly means I value
> >Arabs more than Bengalis?
>
> Perhaps, if they would have you as one of them.
The "perhaps" was not a logical conclusion. It may at best reflect your
predisposed view of Mr. Murshed. Accepting does not automatically trigger
a preference. I will be gladly accepted in a Mosque and a Church. That would
never generate a prefernce for them over Bengali(culture). I cannot speak
on beahlf of Mr. Murshed but I can bet he would say the same. So the perhaps
was a an unfortunate putting of words in his mouth.
>
> >Why would something like that be of so much significance to you?
>
> Because, unlike us, Muslims want others to be Muslims. So one should know
> what one may get, and what one must give up, and what one must be like, in case
> they are successful.
Again stare at your statement "Muslims want others to be Muslims". It is NOT a
general truth. As I clarified above it may be many Mulsim's desire, but by no
means by all. There are all assortments of persusasions among the Muslim borns.
Even the large segment of passive believers (praying, fasting etc) do not bother
about preaching, activism etc, let alone the secularists. Only the hard core
ones do. So such a stereotype was unconscionable.
> I think this is wrong. Pre-Islamic Arabia seems a much better place for
> women, by the sole example Islamists cannot deny, that of the independent
> lady Khadija.
Again digression (irrelevant to our thread): This may be debatable. Pre Islamic
Arabia was an abyss of vice. Cases Daughters being buried alive were common.
One example may not make a rule. Maybe that they were not officially reduced to
a lower staus as they were in Islam. But in no way they were better overall. Their
plight just changed form.
>
> But the facts and the rules are the same for all.
Yes, but they are not rigidly adhered to everywhere. Can you equate Saudi
Arabia with malaysia. There are Chinese Muslims too. Do you have any issue
with those Chinese Mulsims who just do what Mr. Murshed was pointing out
above? Indigenous Ingrained cultural traits can modulate the religious dictums
in a powerful way
>
> >If you still cannot separate a faith from a race then it's not worth writing on
> >is it?
>
> Probably not.
You mean cannot still separate faith from a race (and hence its probably not worth
writing..). But sure you should see it now that a passive faith (or lack of it among
those born in it) at least can be separated from race. Or you will still disagree
(Because you have to?: Agreeing is not in your book ever ?)
>
> >What you seem to be saying is that Hinduism is proof of 'Bengali-ness' and that
> >anything else is a rejection of the Bengali identity.
>
> Not quite so drastic - but rejecting the Hindu identity, belittling it, is certainly
> not-Bengali. Trashing the caste system, which many Hindus find use for, amounts
> to showing disrespect for the Hindu identity. Using a perverted view of the
> caste system to debunk the entirety of Hinduism is plain villainy.
Here I would agree with you. But Mr. Murshed and many other secularists would not
trash Hinduism. You will always find someone from religion 'X' trashing religion
'Y' (Take you pick for X and Y). That does not justify a wholesale stereotyping.
How much do I need to belabour this point? But sure I have to state that Satidaha
was inhuman. Progressive Hindus like Rammmohan Roy and Ishwarchandra
Vidyasagar persuaded the British rulers to outlaw it. Were they trashing Hindus?
There are always legit issue to gripe about without prejudice. Caste system may
have been the order of the day but sociteies evolve and we now have universal
declaration of human rights which is in direct conflict with Caste system and India
is signatory to it. But that was another digression.
> would not like to impose Islam upon Hindus. Since Islam and Hinduism are
> completely different, psychologically Bengali Hindus and Muslims are
> different,though that should not matter at all in real life, rather the
> different cultures should enrich each other.
I disgree with the "psychologically Bengali Hindus and Muslims are
different" part. This statement can only be true if the word rabid/fanatical
is appended to "hindus" and "Muslims", or to either one of them. certainly
agree they can enrich each other as has Lalon Fakir, Kabir, etc.
>
> I do not care for what people with pseudonyms have to say about me.
> They do not matter. Really, as a matter of principle I should not
> reply to any of them.
Your principle of not not replying to anonymous post was never
challenged or questioned. (That would make no sense anyway). Its
your assertion that "anonymous posts do not carry any credibility
just BECAUSE the posters identity is missing" was questioned. My
point is that it is the content/substance that lends credibility
or not, not the name of the author. I am amazed that I have to
belabour this simple point.
>
> I do not think so. You probably cannot understand that by my reckoning
> Nazrul was a more Bengali poet than Tagore, though of course Tagore
> was a far greater poet.
Then you are obviously running into a self-inconsistency. On one
hand you are maintaining that only believing and worshipping Kali
makes one a true Bengali and then declaring that Nazrul is a Bengali
(More so than Tagore to boot) is showing a serious self-contradiction.
Nazrul never "believed" and "worshipped" in Kali (Remember you clearly
rejected "respect" for Kali as the criterion as Bengaliness). But at
least I am encouraged that you are accepting (Not that it really matters)
Nazrul as Bengali despite the inconsistency mentioned above.
>
> I seem to have much to learn from anonymous characters! :) :)
> Do you think you should learn anything from anonymous professors? :)
Oh sure, learning is my passion, from anyone, anywhere. To me a truth
spoken by the devil is still sublime. And it is far easier to learn
from anonymous 'X' since then one can concentrate one's full attention
to the content without being distracted/biased by the identity
of 'X'. :)
And thank you for lightening up :)
>
> The main point is that Bengali Hindus who are passionate in seeing
> Babri Masjid taken down, *DID* condemn when some hoodlums just stormed
> the place and reduced it to a rubble.
And my main point was that similar condemnation by Bengali Muslims
in Bangladesh also do occur when hoodlums commit communal crimes.It
was your stereotyping of ALL Bengali Muslims that I was making my
points against. And you seem to harp on examples that do nothing to
validate your stereotyping nor invalidate my points against your
stereotyping.
>
> In contrast, Moslem community in India had never made any condemnation
> on the militant's activities in Kashmir. When 18 Hindus were beheaded
> in Kashmir in April, 1998 by the militants, simply because they did
Examples don't validate a stereotype or prove a principle. For every
example I can cite a counter example as I mentioned about Bangladeshi
Muslims' condemnation of communal crimes. If Moslems in India choose
to be silent about Kashmiri miulitants thats their prerogative. Bengali
Muslims of Bangladesh have nothing to do with it. Americans in 1945
didn't condemn the bombing and killing of Innocent millions in Hiroshima
and Nagasaki in 1945. And they were Christians. Why not stereotype all
the Christians then?
++++++++++
> It sure does. Your incapacity to comprehend is making things
> difficult for you. Also, there is nothing called "bengali Moslem"
Then by the same token their is nothing called "benagli Hindu",
"bengali Christian", "bengali Buddhist".. It seems like things
are getting difficult for you rather. A helpful tip: think from
your cerebral cortex, not hypothalamus.
"Bengali" Muslim is appropriate and relevant as your venom is
directed against ALL the Bangladeshi (and possibly West bengali?)
Muslims and they are also Bengalis. So it is an appropriate reference.
> A Moslem is Moslem. The dialect s/he speaks is secondary to his/her
> religion (Islam).
>
> > Examples don't validate a stereotype or prove a principle.
>
> They certainly do. You are just blabbering nonsense here.
>
> >For every example I can cite a counter example as I mentioned about
> >Bangladeshi Muslims' condemnation of communal crimes.
>
> Maybe those examples are valid. However all you are proving is that
> there are exceptions and they limit the applicability of the
Exceptions?. It is the fanatics which are the exceptions. The
majority are not fanatic and are the "rule". Its only that they
are not "actively" opposing the fanatics out of a passive
resignation and/or unwillingness to take the risk of direct
confrontation the rabid and vengeful fanatics. But they condemn
the fanatics at heart.
> principle. But, you have not shown/cited anything that shows that the
> "bengali" Moslems from Bangladesh have exhibited anything positive. I
> am reluctant to believe it. Sorry.
All the examples I gave seem to bounce off like a rock. They have
condemned all act of communal violence (Check out Bangladesh newspapers
and even some postings here in past if you really want to verify).
Doesn't the dismal performance of fanatical parties in the election
say anything about the people's in general(Let alone the progressives)?
I will only grant you that the Muslim fanatics are more vengeful and
backed by powerful sources abroad, than the Hindu fanatics, so they
make their presence more felt (And by logiocal extension make the
presence of Muslim progressives less felt than their Hindu
counterpart). But that does not in any way change the fact that the
Bengali Muslim progressives are as numerous and good in their
intentions at heart as their Hindu counterpart. Its just that the
Hindu progressives are lucky that they don't have to face a small
but powerful and violent fanatic group backed by outside sources
like their Muslim counterpart has to.
>
> >If Moslems in India choose to be silent about Kashmiri miulitants
> >thats their prerogative. Bengali Muslims of Bangladesh have nothing to
> >do with it.
>
> I see ! But, when it comes to clamorously shouting for the demolition
> of India's National Shame - Babri Masjid - these asswipes (Bangladeshi
> Moslems - of all stock) have raised a lot of pandemonium against India
> and Hindus. When it is Kashmir, B'deshi Moslems keep quiet; when it is
> Babri Masjid these creeps will raise hell ! Talk about equity !
>
No you still don't see. Pandemoniums were raised only by religious
parties. Of course proggressives always condemn in their heart any
act of religoius violence and destruction and killing of innocent
people. The progressives condemned the destruction of babri mosque
BUT ALSO condemned destruction of temples by Muslim fanatics too.
Get it??
Reply to Arindam:
>
> Theoretically satidaha, or the self-immolation of a noble and
> virtuous woman, was the ultimate and public show of
> conjugal love and extraordinary female courage and devotion.
> Tagore has written touchingly about a Rajput princess committing
> sati after her husband's death, in a poem in "Katha o Kahini".
> So it was a personal issue, not a religious issue by any means.
Voluntary self-immolation (suicide) is not an evil, it is sad
though. So yes, as far as voluntary self-immolation goes, it
is a matter of personal faith and right, not religious.
> Interest is fine, abuse is another. If Bangladeshis have developed superior
> systems then they may have a right, for our best interests, perhaps. I do
> not think they have, so they should first see to their own affairs.
Again, you are bringing in the entire nation/religion. Abuse is
not fine. Thats an agreed tautology. Those who abuse are culpable.
> As far as I am concerned, those people of Bengal
> who do not respect the original culture of Bengal, which is the worship of
> the
> great mother-goddess Kali, are not Bengalis. That does not mean that
Wow, now you have made the crux of the issue clear. This probably
was your main contention, and we spent all this time side tracking!
OK, not let me make my points here. Lets be very careful here. Are
you implying by "respect" above as actual worship of Kali or believing
in her existence as real and not mythological? Or by respect you mean
just respecting (accepting, not opposing or making a disrecpectful
comments/gesture and also participating in Kali Puja as an attendee)
the tradition of Kali Puja itself? If you are implying in the first
sense then you may find a very small number of true bengalis (i.e passing
your criterion). First let me tell you I respect Kali(Puja) in the second
sense, as would many other (Not all) non-Hindu Bengalis I know. When
I visited Calcutta few years back I wanted to see the famous
Kalighat Mandir. So I went near the area. I asked a young man if he
could help me lead to kalighat. He (Name was Apu) gladly offered to
lead me but said that he never himslef went there as he never cared
religious beliefs and practices. But having lived in the are he easily
led me to the Mandir. I did whatever I am supposed to do to show respect
(Like taking off shoes, followingn the dos and don'ts etc). Now
I was respectful. But I don't believe in the actual existence of Goddess
kali or the story that the right toe of Kali fell on the banks
of Adi ganga near Kalighat after being cut by Vishnu's wheel. Neither
did Apu. SO by your definition Apu is not a Bengali either. Apu was a
an employee in Eastern railway trying to make aliving. In USA I had a
a friend , a Hindu born bengali who did his PhD in physics and wen back
home. He also mentioned he did not believe in Hindu Gods and Goddesses and
treated them as just mythological figures in the same way Greek Gods and
Goddesses. So he cannot be a Bengali either by your definition. Now between
these people on two extremes I am sure there are a lot who have similar
views. So the number of true benglis in your first definition would really be
small. But if you meant "respect" in the first sense, then surely I can
qualify as Bengali (according to your definition) too. But if you go one
step further and say that you have to be "born" in Hindu family to be
a Bengali, then I cannot logically continue anymore. You can think
and believe anyway you want, thats your personal freedom of thought, I
respect your thought. But I must express my view that the first criterion
(i.e actually believeing and worshipping Kali) of bengaliness to be
absurd. Even Arobinda, Vivekanada probably would not have taken such
a drastic view.
>
> I judge only from my point of view. I am aware that others have theirs.
> Such is being tolerant. I fail to see any difference between people who
> say they are Muslims. They are all subject to the same rules. In fact,
Again we are going in circles. Yes, orthodox belivers in religion all
are same. They follow the same rules. But not all are orthodox. Whatever
Islam says its a fact that there exist a broad spectrum of religious
views among Muslim borns.
> uniting people under the same rules is what Islam is all about. If they
> do not agree to that they are not Muslims, according to my logic.
Yes, they are not Mulslims according to the fanatic Muslims too.
majority of the poets, writers, artists etc of Bangladesh are not
considered true Muslims by the fanatics. So what?
>
> However they may not have the guts or energy to adopt a different
> identity based upon name and manners and philosophy, rather like
> our Hindu Marxists.
Whay should they have to display guts and energy? personla beliefs and
faithn can be kept inside. No need to publicise it or make speeches
about it. Very few take their internal beliefs (Like Rushdie, Nasreen,
Anwar Shaikh etc) to public. A vast majority of aethists, secular
or non-secular humanists don't need to advertize themselves.
>
>
> Yes. There is practically no vibrant Hindu culture in Bangladesh now, as
> once there was. Now why is so?
This is true (sadly). I know you would like to think its just communalism.
But its not true, at least not directly. Let me explain how. This lack of vibrancy
is due to economy and its link to communalism. Communalism, in
the forms of riot, plundering of Hindu properties, rape etc are committed by criminally
disposed people. Those who have criminal instincts are always on the lookout for any
pretext to let loose their criminal aspirations. Take the case of Rape of hindu women.
These rapists would rape ANY women if they felt they could get away with it, since it is
RAPE they are after. There are countless reports of Muslim women being raped by
Muslim rapists in the village they would not qualify as communalism. The fact is Hindus
being in the minority these criminals with rapist instincts would bet on the fact that they
would face less resistance and retaliation if they raped a Hindu woman. This is afct
which is true in any society with majority and minority. So here the prime motive is
RAPE and a religion of the minority is providing a convenient pretext to act on
this instinct. They do it to less protected Muslim woman too. The same argument applies
to all other crimes. So it is the problem of criminals who are exploiting the inherent
insecurity of the Minoruty to perpetrate their crimes, not the issue of Muslims deciding
to commit crimes againsts only Hindus. The governemnt and people are equally
passive in preventing these crimes against ALL, irrespective of religion, caste etc
because the minority are so violent and vengeful and they have the powerful weapon.
The majority are hostage to the evils of the minority. If we open the newspapers of BD
we read of rampant rape, looting mugging, extortion etc with no redress. All these are
happenning against Muslims by the way. So BD cannot be accused of communalism in
an insular way, but should be accused of passivity against crime, period. In fact BD is
very secular in a perverse way, no body gives a damn against crime, no matter if it is
committed against a Hindu or a Muslim. They are scared to act, the majority have
become silent spectators gripped with too much fear to act. Hope this analysis helps
to set the perspective right
From [email protected] 21 Nov 1999 20:34:58 GMT
Subject: resp to Shabbir Bashar on America West..
In article <[email protected]>,
"Dr. Shabbir A. Bashar" wrote:
> Source: The Leader, Corning, NY - National News p. 6A -
> Date: Sunday, November 21, 1999
>
> Title: Racial profiling blamed for America West
> incident
>
[..]
> Article ends above.
>
> The reason I decided to post this article is not to show
> that the US is full of racists, but rather to follow up from previous
> debates on SCB on this topic and to challenge those who maintain
> that the US is immune to this vile human illness. Those xenophobes
> know exactly who they are.
> --
> Shabbir A. Bashar, Ph.D., AMIEE
> http://www.betelco.com/bd
>
>
It is surprising to see this issue raised here in scb. But anyway once
it has been raised lets dissect this issue and examine its face as it
shows up in different societies in different times. If you are a
Bangladeshi holding US passport going through te airport customs in Seoul
or bangkok you will be treated as gulilty and you have to wait until you
are proven not guilty to get through immigration. Other far eastren
countries get much better treatment. Europeans and Americans fare even
much better. And you can't do anythuing about it. You can't hire a Korean
lawyer to file a lawsuit. Not that we are vocal against it and cry racism.
It is much more fasionable to cry racism when an isolated incident occurs
in USA where a US lawyer defends the "supposed" victims and eventually
court passes a fair verdict if truly a racial motivation is demonstatred.
Japan wouldn't grant citizenship to any foreigner even if married to a
Japanese. In India the ethnic Chinese were never granted Indian citizenship
until, very recently even after having lived in India for generations.
Those Bangladeshis who have been to Saudi Arabia and other Mid Eastern
countries know in their bones what racism is. The Arabs treat them as
low bred animals, deny any respect deserving of any human. There's too
much that has been written about it in various forums. Then look at
Bangladesh itself. There has been frequent riots in mills and factories
between Noakhlai factions, Chittagong, Mymensings etc. It si very common
to see in matrimonial ads, Noakhalians/../.. etc NEED NOT respond.
In private conversations one is always bombarded with negative sterotypes
about one district by the others. The incidents of "racism" like the one
mentioned in the article is not the norm in USA and is indicative of the
fear (burnt cow syndrome) and suspicion generated by the terrorist acts
of some in past. Those two passengers are being represtented by "US"
lawyers and America West Airlines will have to compensate them if found
guilty of racism (illegal by US constitution) by court. I have flown
America West airlines many times and I have never felt any racism. I am
much better off enduring the risk of isolated incidences of racism here
in USA where racism is officially banned and there is hope of justice
through legal recourse rather than endure racism in those other countries
where individual rights and dignity are made a mockery of and one has
to silently put up with unbearable humiliation with no legal reddress.
To: khorshed
Date: 10/13/01
Re: AL, BNP etc
Dear Khorshed,
��� Nice to hear from you. I heard about your illness from Mahia� and was
��� going to write to you soon. Anyway I am relieved that you are all well.
���� Yes indeed, seesm like we are entering a new wolrd both here and the
���� world at large. I am quite depressed about the dmamage that sep 11
���� incident has done to the goodwill and harmony that existed in North
���� America that we all enjoyed for so many years. I only hope this will
���� be a temporary thing.� Here at home things are also not good either.
���� Unfortunately we are faced with some evil choices. People were sick
���� of the terrorism and corruption� under AL rule so they voted AGAINST
���� them, quite justifiably, it would be unethical to reward a wrongdoer.
���� AL can only blame themselves for this. It is very unforunate that
���� being the party that was associated with� the liberation of� Bangladesh
���� and the party� that� upheld secularism before now has degraed� this
���� far.� Even secularism is not a priority for them anymore. They haven't
���� done much to undo what Ershad did. The could if they had the will
���� and moral courage. They have no less stigma associated with them
���� either. They also� cooperated with Jamat to overthrow Ershad and
���� against BNP. In other words all the parties in BD are willing to sacrifice
���� principles to suit their political agenda. Politics is dirty everywhere.
���� But it is obscene here in BD. So it is inconscientious for any anyone
���� to blindly� defend any party. It is a no win situation. Personally I will
���� be content with a CTG type governemnt run by reasonably professional
���� and honest technocrats/judges. Politics is a curse in a country where
���� political parties are based on village politics and Mafia culture.
���� Democracy is a farce here. Bangaldeshi psyche is not suited to the spirit
���� of democracy.� Seems like only three types of rule can be stable here:
��� 1. Religious dictatorship� 2. Communist dictatorship� 3. Military dictatorship.
��� While (3) can be good in some cases, (1) and (2) are necessarily evil.
��� I am afraid it is the fiorst one that seemsd to be the destiny if� BNP does
��� not act any better than AL.
���� All the parties are just obsessed with making money. As the
���� party associated with liberation it was more incumbent on AL to
���� offer a leadership with vision and integrity.� It is sad to see the home
��� minister of such a party lead a procession with sticks to threaten the
��� the judges, and a leader openly display guns. And then you know the
��� story of Tipu Sultan.� Unfortunately none of the� parties have shown any
��� inspiring visionary plan and leadership and the integrity that is expected.
��� If� I were to vote, I would prefer to vote for "None of the above".� More
��� civilized parties like Kamal Hossain's Gonoforum can't even contest in the
��� election. Who are we to blame other than ourselves? We ourselves
��� don't like the nice guys, but the mean ones. (AL, BNP, JP, Jamat etc).
��� It is very disturbing to see Jamat getting a foothold. I am concerened
��� about the potential increase of religious extremism through the
��� active support of the� bigotted Jamat ministers. I blame AL again for this.
��� Their greed, egoism, ramapant corruption and Mafia culture forced the
��� public to look for alternatives, even though the alternative is no saint
��� either.� Thats all my iompromptu thought on the current situation. We
��� have to wait and see how it unfolds. Take care and write from time to
��� time.
���
Best wishes,