I would say that moral responsibility (as opposed to one that may have a legal dimension) transcends existence (though this would obviously lead to neither punishment nor reward for the person) as one does have access to at least some knowledge and the consequences are always there. But I am sceptical of attempts to judge others from the eyes of the present as if those who came before us were omniscient and that we have reached the apex of ethical progress. I do agree that there is an inexpressible beauty in not losing the trees for the forest.

Just as well for poor old Darwin, eh? — Vera Mont

Darwin does not have to personally be here, he has many millions of defenders.
His number of defenders are increasing, globally.
Jesus, mohamed, yaweh, allah, buddha, Vishnu etc, not so much, except in very poor countries.
All the 'guff' about Darwin's influence and Legacy (or if you prefer the almost synonymous 'inheritance from Darwin.') seems to be alive and kicking and it continues to help to kick gods ass back into non-existence, in more and more human minds. I assume you approve of that affect of Darwin.

I know that this is somewhat off-topic, but I wanted to ask if you have read Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru's The Discovery of India. This book covers the breadth and depth of Indian history in quite a comprehensive manner (which is particularly impressive considering the fact that Pt. Nehru was imprisoned for a long time by the British government). India's current government recently removed the name of Prime Minister Nehru from his own memorial and converted it into a memorial for all leaders. The official position is pointing towards lofty ideals of democff 5⁵55f5racy, but the present regime does appear to have an aversion to Pt. Nehru (who was quite close to Mahatma Gandhi).

You may also be interested in the following articles:

1. https://www.ft.com/content/a0b17ed9-092d-4e83-90fe-2a6cea952518

2. https://indianexpress.com/article/education/references-to-gujarat-riots-purged-from-social-science-books-for-ncert-classes-6-12-8538768/

Alternative if the article doesn't load: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/ncert-textbooks-mahatma-gandhi-godhra-riots-removed-2356040-2023-04-05

3. https://m.thewire.in/article/history/why-rss-cannot-help-hating-jawaharlal-nehru-and-his-connection-with-the-people-of-india

I would highly appreciated your thoughts on these writings. The book, obviously, will take some time. However, I do hope that you (or anyone else who sees this comment and finds their curiosity being piqued by it) will be able to send your views on the articles.

In case the first article asks for subscribing, I would suggest that it is opened through Google. Searching using the following words should be sufficiently efficacious:

"India against Gandhi — a legacy rewritten"

I would say that moral responsibility (as opposed to one that may have a legal dimension) transcends existence — DA671

Another good reason not to do anything significant - you might end up inadvertently inciting riots, starting a civil war, giving a sadistic dictator a slogan or an emblem, providing a war-monger with a novel weapon... Once you're dead, you lose whatever control you may have over your product, but you're stuck with the reputation.

All the 'guff' about Darwin's influence and Legacy (or if you prefer the almost synonymous 'inheritance from Darwin.') seems to be alive and kicking and it continues to help to kick gods ass back into non-existence, in more and more human minds. — universeness

Wonderful. Me, in a soccer game, I'd rather be the time-clock than the ball.

Or, you may end up as a practically infinite source of hope, love, peace, unity, and joy when the night comes. If I am (and many others) are here today, much of the credit goes to such people. At a smaller level, similar goods can be done. I believe that opportunity of being able to play even a minuscule role in making someone's life better, it can be good enough. Once one is dead, reputations don't affect them. But people tend to either entirely forget or unnecessarily demean those who did not even do anything particularly evil. If the alternative to permanent amnesia is a marginally or, possibly, significantly better impression, it would be adequate for me. At the end of the day, however, I only wish to see a happier world (and this product has had and will have countless workers behind it). Whether or not I am remembered or praised for doing anything is immaterial.

Increasing my knowledge of the history of India and it's most influential politicians would be most welcome, but I currently have a large backlog of articles/papers/books/vids etc suggested by others, that I have stated I will read. I think science will have to increase my lifespan somewhat to read and watch all I would like to read and watch.

So true. Infinity is bewitching. Still, if you can ever find the time to have a merely cursory look, I shall await your opinions.

Wonderful. Me, in a soccer game, I'd rather be the time-clock than the ball. — Vera Mont

I couldn't find a TPF emoji for 'confused?'
How about:

I believe that opportunity of being able to play even a minuscule role in making someone's life better, it can be good enough. — DA671

Been lots of places; done lots of that; collected many teeshirts and wore them down to dust-rags.
It'll just have to do.

I can't even get my flippin Stage II book finished, so that I can at least tell you and Vera that I have at least managed to do that! :groan:

That alone is enough to make my day. Honestly, I never many t-shirts as some of my relatives are biased against them. Now, I have a good reason to show them that my interests are not idiosyncratic. Thank you for being there.

couldn't find a TPF emoji for 'confused?'
How about: — universeness

As eye-candy goes, 8.62 - he'll either improve with age or go to fat.

As for the metaphor: controversy over Darwin's work > attackers and defenders > kicking and kicking ass > football > players, object of contention > time-clock > observer > me

The fact that you begun and already have a name is a leap over me and many others. I am sure you will get there someday. Quality matters over unnecessarily restrictive deadlines.

Yeah, I like that excuse! Thanks! :up:

I would say it could probably be seen as a reasonable interpretation.

:victory: (This conveys your triumph, not mine)

As for the metaphor: controversy over Darwin's work > attackers and defenders > kicking and kicking ass > football > players, object of contention > time-clock > observer > me — Vera Mont

Both of those young people have names, mothers, ideas and desires of their own. But they don't own those pictures. The images being in the public domain, they can be objectified, judged, put to whatever use somebody else chooses, and they have no control or influence. And they're probably both still around, and might benefit from/be harmed by any unintended fallout.

Unpredictability has its own charm (mainly when it entails unforeseen positives that one had not/could not have asked for).

I would say that moral responsibility (as opposed to one that may have a legal dimension) transcends existence — DA671

Unpredictability has its own charm — DA671

Sure. But that's a long, convoluted railroad journey from the influence of Socrates on european and subsequently American culture. I do try to stay on a straight line from post to response as long as i can, but the chain of reason, like evidence, tends to break down.

We can only do our best. The rest lies in the lap of the future.

As the number of sources of influence increase, complexity does arise. At the same time, the fragments, even if they break and are consequently difficult to see, can continue to linger.

I read this article.

2. https://indianexpress.com/article/education/references-to-gujarat-riots-purged-from-social-science-books-for-ncert-classes-6-12-8538768/ — DA671

If Modi wants to sell to Hindus the idea that all things muslim are evil, then passages taught to all school children, that demonstrate, that one of the greatest and most learned leaders in India, who was also a Hindu, placed the unity of all Indians above all religious doctrine, has to go, or be diluted as much as possible.
Modi knows that cultural teachings are indeed critical, to establish control over the thinking of a mass of people, that will lead to actions taken by that mass of people.
Gandhi would never accept Modi's demonisation of muslims. So removing text from school books that demonstrate that Gandhi would never have supported a self-aggrandizing narcissist like Modi, makes sense to the Modi agenda.

diluted as much as possible — universeness

This is where the threat lies.

I assume the Identifier DA671 lost favour with you. :grin:

I read the article:
3. https://m.thewire.in/article/history/why-rss-cannot-help-hating-jawaharlal-nehru-and-his-connection-with-the-people-of-india

This is ceratinly a passage that would concern me, if I lived on India:

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) describes itself as a ‘cultural’ organisation, and it is correct in the sense that it aims at changing the very way of ‘being Indian’ and conduct of all private and public activities. ‘Culture’ in the RSS discourse does not refer to the vibrant reality energised by common everyday experiences and creative expressions in India. To the RSS, culture means the rhetoric of hatred and actual violence and a system for concealing those conflicts and oppressions through subterfuge. It also refuses to see the fundamentally diverse character of Indian cultural experience. The pre-independence national movement, on the other hand, recognised this diversity along with dialogue and historical ups and downs inherent in it. Hence the slogan ‘unity in diversity’.

and this:
Despite all its claims to being authentically Hindu/Indian, the RSS nationalism is wholly adopted from Western right-wing nationalisms. The admiration of Nazi methods of ‘purifying the national life’ contained in ‘We, our nationhood defined’ (published under the name of M.S. Golwalkar in 1938; only much later was its authorship denied) can be easily seen reflected in day-to-day informal conversation of any RSS cadre or sympathiser. The glorification of lynchings and other heinous crimes is nothing but putting those methods into practice.

seems to have some kind of presence, in some equivalent shape or from, in every country in the world.
We must all unite against such groups whether we are atheist or theist.

I liked the comparison of Nehru's wish to maintain/incorporate/value the contribution of, all aspects of historical Indian culture. I understood his comparison with palimpsest (once I looked up what it meant) as his idea of not ignoring or disregarding the 'river forms' that form the ocean that could be compared to what modern India could become.
I accept that Nehru or Gandhi had no wish to establish Hinduism as the national religion of India and they were both against partition.

In Discovery of India, he said, “I find myself incapable of thinking of a deity or of any unknown supreme power in anthropomorphic terms… Any idea of a personal God seems very odd to me…I have been attracted towards the advaita (non-dualist) philosophy of the Vedanta… some kind of ethical approach to life has a strong appeal for me.”

Do you think Nehru was just too scared to declare himself an atheist?
Would he have been committing political suicide, if he had, during those times?
Is there any significant atheist movement in India?

It seems to me, this concept of hindutva, is a double edged sword. It seems attractive, in that it offers a pathway to atheism. But it also seems to be a concept/label, to absolutely avoid, as it seems to offer a parallel path of crazy nationalistic fascism.

I thought that this new username represented my philosophical inclinations in a more apposite way. @Wayfarer was kind enough to help me change my username

Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru was unafraid to voice his opinions when it came to superstition and religious extremism. He writes about the "horror" that organised religion arose within him in his autobiography. He also frequently emphasised the necessity of having a "scientific temper" (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thehindu.com/society/nehru-did-not-set-the-natural-experimental-and-exact-sciences-in-opposition-to-human-sciences/article37988383.ece/amp/). The person who keeps going on despite facing multiple assassination attempts (https://theprint.in/opinion/the-many-plots-to-kill-jawaharlal-nehru-from-1948-to-1955/170035/?amp) is unlikely to not present themselves as they honestly were. I believe that Pt. Nehru genuinely loved the culture of his nation and the pantheism of Advaita Vedanta. The analogy of the palimpsest demonstrates the former and the latter gave him a spiritual/transcendent vision that did not have to involve a personal God (as Advaita's "God" is essentially impersonal, beyond any qualities, and identical to the individual). He also used to give addresses to the Hindu pluralistic organisation Ramakrishna Mission (https://swarajyamag.com/culture/it-would-do-a-great-deal-of-good-to-the-present-generation-if-they-went-through-swami-vivekanandas-writings-and-speeches) without really publicising what he was doing (which we would have expected from an insecure man). I believe that Pandit Nehru ended up suppressing many of his religious/spiritual views as he did not want to encourage religious extremism in any manner. It is due to this that most people thought (and still do) that he was an atheist. Many don't have any idea about his sympathetic position towards the non-dualistic Advaita or his relationship with the Ramakrishna Mission.

India has had non-theistic schools of thought like Charvaka and most forms of Buddhism (many Buddhists). The increasing popularity of the atheistic Mr Savarakar appears to show that having a belief in God is not the most important thing for numerous Indians

Those who belong to the concerned organisations would, predictably, deny that their ideas were influenced by the views that emerged in 20th-century Europe. There are those who argue that such claims as a consequence of a "colonised" mindset and that India needs to think about "decoloniality" (which means criticising principles that are a part of India's constitution, such as secularism). The person who popularised Hindutva, Mr Savarkar, was actually an atheist. He was primarily concerned with the relationship Hindus have—and should have —to the political and cultural realms. Pt. Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi were both against Hindutva (despite being Hindus themselves).

Thank for sharing your insightful comments on those articles. The first one ('India Against Gandhi—A Legacy Rewritten' by Ramchandra Guha) is also quite fascinating. If you have any difficulties accessing it, please do let me know.

I certainly, personally think, that a much less religious India and a much less religious Pakistan would have much more reason to find enough common ground to consider reunification based on aspects of common cultural historicity. BUT, I don't know enough about Indian common cultural historicity, to have a great deal of confidence, in such a prediction, apart from the times when all Indians had common enemies, such as the British.

As a Hindu, I would not outrightly reject such an idea (though I don't think that it would be necessary if Mahatma Gandhi's version of Hinduism prevailed). At the same time, there are many factors that influence the formation of nations. Culture and religion can have a link that is deeper than what meets the eye. One cannot know what could have taken the place of existing structures if they never existed. In India, it's difficult to know if religion is the means or the end. People have no objection to embracing someone as long as they are willing to support their ideology. Mr Savarkar believed that cows (and other animals) only deserved to be treated well for the value they had for humans, but he is seen as a hero by some Hindus, even though it was Mahatma Gandhi who believed in ethical vegetarianism (The Moral Basis of Vegetarianism).

Pt. Nehru's The Discovery of India does a decent job in trying to boost the confidence, I think.

My goodness I am flattered.

In the hot tub this morning I spoke with a very nice couple. The woman was confident about there being a heaven and it became evident she had not given much thought to what she believes. I mention this because you said

most of us do appear to require novel experiences that constitute an enduring chain of days of value — Existential Hope

. So when the woman spoke of heaven, I mentioned I think we all desire novel experiences and a sense that we are needed and our lives make a difference, but how does that work in a perfect heaven? I can not imagine enjoying life without a sense of being needed and that we can make a difference.

My friend who just had a stroke seems to be doing well lying in a bed watching TV but his brain is not fully active. Oh, who was it who said something about our laws would be different if we were different? Augustine? I mean, Eve never would have touched the forbidden fruit if she had a less active brain. A God could have programmed us like the rest of the animals, some that are mated for life. :lol: But some are naughty, like the squirrels that steal each other's nuts, and use decent to bury a nut so that another will not dig it up. God did not have to give us free will and I don't think heaven could be perfect if He did not take away our free will. What do you think? As long as we have free will, some of us will pay a quarter of million dollars to risk our lives. :starstruck: You can't have that happening in heaven. Once we get there aren't we immortal? That might take all the fun out of those mountain hikes where people die trying to get to the top. What do you think?

The pleasure is all mine. :pray:

I would imagine that such a perfect state would simply not involve the desire for novel experiences, or it would somehow be fulfilled without significant effort (perhaps like a simulation). However, in this existence, new journeys will continue to await us.

Why does heaven need to be bland and unchanging?
Imagine a preferable alternative - and that's your heaven. Custom made for every angel.