From: psc@sei.cmu.edu (Peter Capell)
Subject: Thank you all
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 02:26:32 EST


Eric Sotnak sums up this thread well.  I appreciate his perspective best.

Steve makes my original argument for me best of all by citing a zen master.
Clearly, in his citation, the intellect is placed in a position inferior to
practice.  I never said the intellect was to be ruled out.  What I really
can't stand is talk without direction.  In my view, Nietzche is talk.  When
you look death in the face, or even your life, "...that which does not kill
him makes him stronger..." is only an inspiring phrase leading nowhere.
Anyway, if you love this stuff, hell, do it.

Irrespective of that, no one has questioned the fact that we have been using
the term "enlightenment" as though we knew what that was, or as though we
could define it.  I think some of you actually believe it is a state of
thinking.  I think this is a peculiarly western view.  No wonder you feel as
you do about the western philosphers.  An eastern definition might be
something to the tune of: having one's total perception meld with the
universal consciousness.  It is a state accessible to all, for all, by all.
The west, by contrast has produced Christianity as its core of spiritual
baggage.  It is in my view one of the most exclusive and rigid forms of
thought that has ever manifested itself.  And it ignores the Asian Jesus, in
favor of the Roman one.  I believe the Asian Jesus is the one I love.  The
Roman one can go screw himself.

Again Steve patronizes with the presumption that because I defend what is best
of the east that I think east is best in all ways.  At least one person wrote
to me privately saying how impoverished the east is compared to us and how
they come begging to the west for our technology.

Certainly you are aware that it is the west, principally the west (and the
great philosophies of the west) that have for at least 200 years sapped Asia
of its wealth and its technologies.  The Japanese, having given way earliest
to the ways of the west have profitted most it seems--except that as a
Japanese friend of mine reports, most of their arts and crafts have suffered
as a result.  There are so many gadgets that hand skills are dying. Even the
quality of martial arts are dying in the face of the grand materialist
impatience that causes black belts to be awarded in 2 and 3 years, as opposed
to 10, 15 and 20 years.  This according to my friend Mukaino.  Interesting too,
is that Japan, greater than any of its neighbors has, displayed similarly
hegemonistic tendencies (Manchuria, WWII) as its western cohorts.  The great
sickness spreads its wings.

India was a wealthy nation before the colonialists came.  Only after being
driven to its knees by force, robbed, raped, and pillaged, were they able to
force out the Brits. What was left was "modern India."   The idea that India
may (for example) come to the west for aid is like marveling that a junkie
comes to the dealer for coke.  The difference of course is that India, and the
colonized nations were forced into their position.  Yes, I have no doubt that
through the marvels of western thought and western science, that one day there
might be a McDonald's on every road in China.  Why my wife tells me that in
Iran (before the revolution), they had "Green Acres" and "Starsky and Hutch!"
Wow!  

Indeed, "eastern ways" as such, probably are once and for all destroyed. I
know this is the view of my friend from Shanghai, who feels that China has
"lost all of its virtue."  

Quote of the Age:

"I think therefore I am" 

	-- obvious genius.

And to Pinyin Pinheads

The various arguments raised about the universality of romanizing a language
which is inherently unromanizable are as globally stupid as perhaps mine
provincial.  There seems to be consensus (among our own intelligensia) that
the selection of a variable, say "x," into the middle of an alphabet, where
the "x" is used to define a pronunciation of a sound transliteratable to any
use of the alphabet could only have been devised by a *real* intellect.  In
other words, where nothing really works, use a well-defined kloooge.  Very
very good.  I have no doubt that this convention is equally useful in every
language it serves.  In other words, the linguists have a scheme which 
renders transliterations equally unusable for all. Wow! Thank you.

But I agree with Mikel, no point in griping too much over three letters.
Still, you should see the gov't Persian language materials for speakers of
english.  I think I could make you question the premise of this method pretty
quickly.  Anyway, Mikel gave the best examples.

Khodanigahdar,

         ..
	__/__/__/
       /   ..  O	
      /