‘Declare India a Hindu Rashtra’

[Loafer]

Says so the RSS Chaddi gang of India

What you are worshipper of Allah or Jesus those Middle East Gods. What do you teach your children and community how those mythical figures of middle eastern history did for the last thousand years in Arabia Syria turkey Italy Vatican.

So you have nothing to do with India or Indian history. In fact we are enemies of your religion. By extension you consider us as enemies.

They used to be "abrahamics within India"

What are current Indian Muslims and Christians?

 

[Gadkari]

What are current Indian Muslims and Christians?

The long, painful and thankless job of integrating them back into our culture.

 

[Loafer]

The long, painful and thankless job of integrating them back into our culture.

Unfortunately that is not possible otherwise there would have been no Pakistan.

 

[Gadkari]

Unfortunately that is not possible otherwise there would have been no Pakistan.

We don't really have a choice, do we ?

Besides, impossible is nothing.

 

[Mangus Ortus Novem]

I am in the middle of reading a commentary on Frank Jackson's moral functionalism. That will I've me a better understanding of the subject. Although I must say that I am wary of the term deconstruction that you use. The reason that is so is because although it is a powerful analytical tool, it tends to work as a universal acid and cannot be contained. Read the transcript of Foucault vs Chomsky on Power and Justice (1971). I think moral relativism may be a revelation for an unquestioning mind, but it leads to the same uni-dimensional approach that is the fatal flow of Marxism. Reducing everything down to a single function - power, economics, ideology, produces perverse outcomes. I will readily admit that I am yet to assemble all the complex tools required for the job, but one thing I know for sure I'd that using a single approach such as deconstruction will not suffice.

About genetic makeup - Jonathan Haidt calls the "blank slate" theory the greatest mistake in psychology. It seems to me that all of it flows from Kant's claim about experiences being structured by the "necessary features" of our mind. More specifically, recent research (2011, PLoS ONE) shows that the single gene that controls the level of serotonin in our brain seems to decisively alter our perception of moral acceptability of foreseeable harm.

Natural selection and our environment also bear upon us to produce our moral landscape. Let me point out here that this issue of values, morals and ethics is vastly more important than it seems at first look. I am referring to Artificial Intelligence. Taking apart and re-assembling all that we know about this subject has become critical in view of certain needs.

Everyone is familiar with Asimov's laws of robotics. However, they are rather simplistic assertions about things that not many have thought through. It may be possible to code ethics into narrow AI, but what we are faced with is the quest for general intelligence. So to begin with, we would need access to the entire schema of our mental intuitions and processes in order to understand how we code normative values into AI.

Understanding the part played by all determinants (genes, natural selection and environment) becomes even more important, as we are realizing that this AI may be so invested in rapid self-improvement that it may outgrow the values and controls that we put in place in the blink of an eye. So the only way we can know what this AI is up to is if we know how we have gotten to this stage and the exact process.

Since the question of post-scarcity economics, singularity and technological disruption is so inter-twined, it will inevitably be addressed together. That part of our assessment will be heuristic in nature, at best, because it is based on future probabilities.

Apart from the pressing problem of AI, there are two other areas that will concern everyone in the coming years. First, the inevitability of mass unemployment as a result of automation, and its effect on humans. Second, would be the economic model needed to tackle this issue, including the moral framework that needs to be brought to bear.

This would include such things as what does a human really want and find meaning from? Is productive work so essential to human well-being that simply getting paid for leisure (universal basic income) is a recipe for human misery? Is it moral to let the tiny elite control all emerging technology in the name of intellectual property, and how do we handle the resultant concentration of wealth and power?

P.S. : Since I type on my phone, there are a lot if typos. Kindly disregard these.

Ah, my good friend,

There is nothing wrong when one is searching to find a direction. In fact it is a good thing.

However, some direction needs clarity to start our journey. I am extremely aware of Deconstruction as a tool and what it can lay bare. Painful findings. Yet, without such a framework how can we answer the burning and evolving questions?

All humans are technically equal. Yet it is because of our individual neurosis that we can claim a personality. Same for socieities...hence a thing called Culture.

Genetics, Tech, Culture, Form of Government, Environment and Disease play a collective role in shaping of morals, ethics and values. How else?

Please, don't misunderstand me... I am so fully aware of these dark alleys and the monsters that abode there. Yet, an Original Dialouge requires courage. Or we can remain lurking at surface reality and indulge in our Escapism... pandering Fake Morality at the coffee table.

Unless we can find answers in our shared quest... all political -isms or policies or religion would remain subject to proponents' bias and we, you and I, would not have a solid, agreed ground to perform our litumus tests.

In the back of your mind you can be asking the relevance of our Dialouge to this title of this thread. Good thing!

It is so intimately related to this topic that without it...the discussion here is just an opinion, produce of auto-reaction, germinating from deep bias without knowing.

What creates a bias? Surely, you would know...


Now then...dazzel again time for you!


Regards,


SPF

 

[El Sidd]

The continued oppression of the Hindu culture, religion and tradition will finally end under a Hindu Reich. Congress is scared of losing its influence and power among the Hindustanis.

 

[Banglar Bir]

 

[footmarks]

View attachment 408440

jehntnhn thonkls alla nniteioi tala nknon g@ndu

 

[salimpheku]

No need to declare anything.
Whether anyone likes it or not, India is well on it's way to becoming a Hindu Rashtra.

This move has nothing to do with BJP but the new found political assertiveness of Hindus which they are wielding now.

Down the line, the political fights in India will be fought between two Hindu parties, one a little to the right and another a little to the left.

 

[Jacob Martin]

Ah, my good friend,

There is nothing wrong when one is searching to find a direction. In fact it is a good thing.

However, some direction needs clarity to start our journey. I am extremely aware of Deconstruction as a tool and what it can lay bare. Painful findings. Yet, without such a framework how can we answer the burning and evolving questions?

All humans are technically equal. Yet it is because of our individual neurosis that we can claim a personality. Same for socieities...hence a thing called Culture.

Genetics, Tech, Culture, Form of Government, Environment and Disease play a collective role in shaping of morals, ethics and values. How else?

Please, don't misunderstand me... I am so fully aware of these dark alleys and the monsters that abode there. Yet, an Original Dialouge requires courage. Or we can remain lurking at surface reality and indulge in our Escapism... pandering Fake Morality at the coffee table.

Unless we can find answers in our shared quest... all political -isms or policies or religion would remain subject to proponents' bias and we, you and I, would not have a solid, agreed ground to perform our litumus tests.

In the back of your mind you can be asking the relevance of our Dialouge to this title of this thread. Good thing!

It is so intimately related to this topic that without it...the discussion here is just an opinion, produce of auto-reaction, germinating from deep bias without knowing.

What creates a bias? Surely, you would know...


Now then...dazzel again time for you!


Regards,


SPF

I have been exploring two more aspects. One is the effect of natural selection on desirable group behaviour such as altruism. It seems to me that whether or not one subscribes to group selection, one can use individual selection to understand some fairly obvious aspects of how genetic traits would be fine-tuned. Richard Dawkins may have shown that the selfish Gene is the most likely to survive and multiply, but what may work still the individual level would surely not be so functional at the group level.

I think a group would weed out patently selfish or violent behaviour from its midst. I see no reason such a generous would increase with each successive generation. The gradual trend must surely work in favour of those who are able to work closely and cooperate with others in a group.

Also, we tend to look at religion from an individual's perspective. What about the needs that it serves society? Religion is a binding force which gives common identity and brings people together at a vast scale, more than any other identity. This aspect of religion must be understood, and I say should be replicated in any future paradigm.

I think that while individual rights are supreme, that should not take away from the fact that groups do more legwork. Whatever we have achieved is through cooperation. The significance of groups should not be undermined.

About bias - I assume you are referring to Kahneman and Tversky's work. Heuristics are an evolutionary tool - instant flight at the sight of an alpha predator is necessary stereotyping. I think evolution has armed us with a fairly accurate sense of statistical probability - unless it is tampered with. Heuristics that aid survival would have obviously proliferated and any bias arising from these will undoubtedly have a practical purpose.

There is, however, one specific scenario in which I think they may pose a challenge. Attribute selection is a well-known cognitive phenomenon when it comes to decision-making. It effects our moral judgement in a perverse manner as we tend to avoid rational thinking in favour of deferment to a higher religious or political authority. Similarly, we let our personal emotion such as hate or disgust guide our attitudes towards issues.

A proper introduction to these heuristics, their practical purposes and dangers should be part of any critique of the human mind. What Kahneman describes as System 2 thinking - slow, deliberate and rational, is a very small part of our decision-making process.

 

[salimpheku]

I have been exploring two more aspects. One is the effect of natural selection on desirable group behaviour such as altruism. It seems to me that whether or not one subscribes to group selection, one can use individual selection to understand some fairly obvious aspects of how genetic traits would be fine-tuned. Richard Dawkins may have shown that the selfish Gene is the most likely to survive and multiply, but what may work still the individual level would surely not be so functional at the group level.

I think a group would weed out patently selfish or violent behaviour from its midst. I see no reason such a generous would increase with each successive generation. The gradual trend must surely work in favour of those who are able to work closely and cooperate with others in a group.

Also, we tend to look at religion from an individual's perspective. What about the needs that it serves society? Religion is a binding force which gives common identity and brings people together at a vast scale, more than any other identity. This aspect of religion must be understood, and I say should be replicated in any future paradigm.

I think that while individual rights are supreme, that should not take away from the fact that groups do more legwork. Whatever we have achieved is through cooperation. The significance of groups should not be undermined.

About bias - I assume you are referring to Kahneman and Tversky's work. Heuristics are an evolutionary tool - instant flight at the sight of an alpha predator is necessary stereotyping. I think evolution has armed us with a fairly accurate sense of statistical probability - unless it is tampered with. Heuristics that aid survival would have obviously proliferated and any bias arising from these will undoubtedly have a practical purpose.

There is, however, one specific scenario in which I think they may pose a challenge. Attribute selection is a well-known cognitive phenomenon when it comes to decision-making. It effects our moral judgement in a perverse manner as we tend to avoid rational thinking in favour of deferment to a higher religious or political authority. Similarly, we let our personal emotion such as hate or disgust guide our attitudes towards issues.

A proper introduction to these heuristics, their practical purposes and dangers should be part of any critique of the human mind. What Kahneman describes as System 2 thinking - slow, deliberate and rational, is a very small part of our decision-making process.

Can't believe I am agreeing with you.
BUT.... excellent post.