From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:58:00 GMT

Thank you, Thyagi; I have to say that yours was the most reasonable,
level-headed post I've seen around these parts in quite a long time!

Tagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) writes:
>9211.20 e.v.

You really think this conversation is that high-charged?  ;)

>Hello.  I followed kalki and Brian right through to the end here.  Very
>lovely.  Radical subjectivism meets radical objectivism.  Result: no
>real communication.  However, the points each of your makes are very
>important to the study of religion.

Mm, I wouldn't consider myself an objectivist, although I was at one
point in my life (until I became disillusioned with Ayn Rand's
teachings).  I also hope I'm not that much of a radical, but I'll
admit that I play one when I'm faced with someone who seems to be
stubbornly clinging to (and preaching longwindedly about) a deeply-
ingrained faith that appears to have little more than just a
superficial foundation in reality.  In Kalki's case, this was that
"Krishna is God and you can come to know him by chanting this,"
a claim which he repeatedly asserted, but never backed up.

In reality, I try to be as open-minded as I can, and I appreciate when
people like you evaluate how well or poorly I'm doing at it.  I'm not
against religion in all cases.  If Kalki were to have said, "This is
what I believe, and this is why I've come to these conclusions, and I
understand what you're saying but here's why I disagree, and I feel my
religion has made me a better person," I would have wished him well in
becoming the very best Hare Krishna he could be.  I believe that my
atheism is "correct" but I won't impose it on other people, and I
expect the same courtesy from people of other faiths.

>1) kalki: Knowledge can be assumed based on authority if there is
>reason to believe that this authority is reliable.
>
>2) Brian: Knowledge can never be assumed without reasonable justification.

An example of Kalki's view can be seen in the Catholic Pope's recent
statement that people in heaven don't have sex.  He has no way of
knowing this, he only derived that belief from one line in the Bible,
and yet doubtlessly many devout Catholics are going to use that to
better wield their distaste for certain kinds of sex like a torch of
Righteousness.  "Blind faith" is ALWAYS risky.

You've summed up my opinion remarkably well, as you do again below:

>3) kalki: Subjective processes yield absolute truths.
>
>4) Brian: Empirical tests yield tentative truths.

... as is how it should be, ne?  I've long had a bone to pick with
people who follow a religion like sheep, going about their reasoning
as follows: I prayed, and something good happened, therefore God
exists, therefore Jesus is with me, therefore all of Heaven is above
me and everything the Bible says it true, and I better go preach the
Good News to my neighbors until they agree with me!

>5) kalki: The instruction of a definite model without acknowledging that
>the motive was instruction is a supportable reason to post.
>
>6) Brian: One model of reality is simply that and placing it in the form
>of a test is deceptive.

I don't like intellectual dishonesty.  I like to cut to the heart of
issues, not "play dumb" and ask things which beg the question.  That's
why I took great offense at Kalki's arrogance.

>My perception of the situation is that it may be helped by the following:
>
>a) Kalki - Explain why it is that you think that the Vedas, Krishna and
>Bhaktivedanta Praphubananda are reliable sources of authority.
>
>b) Brian - Explain why it is that one must prove something in a consensual
>and empirical manner in order to demonstrate a transcendant truth.
>If it cannot be proven with words but only through processes, then what
>will argumentation yield?

Hmm.  Let me try to figure out what you're saying: that it's not
necessary to establish something as true before demonstrating it?  I'm
not really sure what you're trying to say here.

My main objective in this thread was to get Kalki to realize that
there are those of us who, although we seek truth, do not end up with
the same conclusions he's arrived at; and conversely, that non-Hare
Krishnas are not stupid people who don't want to know the truth.

>c) kalki and Brian: If you both take the time to learn each other's
>language and come to understand the models of reality that each of
>you are using (in this thread at least), then you'd find, I think, that
>your approaches are not that far apart, nor are your conclusions very
>unorthodox.

I see no inconsistencies in my own understanding of how the world
works, and I don't really understand how Kalki could believe something
so far-fetched as he does.  He probably feels just as strongly about
his beliefs and is every bit as puzzled about mine.  At least one of
us has completely misinterpreted the lessons life's taught us.

>d) kalki: Study some elementary materialist Science to see where Brian
>is coming from.  Especially that which is very modern in its view.
>
>e) Brian: Read some of the Krishna Consciousness literature and then
>do a light read on basic Hinduism.  You'll find that kalki's ideas are
>quite common among those who integrate Christianity and Hinduism and
>that he is an orthodox Krishna devotee.  There are a few around on
>the nets and simple belittlement (however deserved) won't breach
>the gap between you.

Good idea; you've got me interested now.  I guess part of my problem
with Hare Krishnas is that I've never met one who's _not_ an
'orthodox' 'devotee'; I've been accosted by them many times in
Washington DC as they tried to get me to chant just a little bit, and
I've had conversations with a few of them, in which I decided that, as
far as I could tell, they were completely out of touch with the
reality _I_ was familiar with.

>Enjoy.
>This has been a 30-second announcement from the Tantric corner, where
>we see all coherent points of view as valid yet incomplete expressions of
>ultimate truth. ;>

What are your own views on religion, Thyagi?  I'm curious to know.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /  carborundorum.                                               -- Rousseau