Skip to content

So, this one’s about…

July 16, 2008

… things that matter and things that don’t, things that are important and things unimportant, things banal and things exceptional, things interesting and things boring, things you’d like, things you would not, and about things that aren’t “things”. So that was a bit of an introduction to what this ‘yet another horizon’ is all about. It’s about that which follows and that which goes along with ‘another horizon’. Truth be told, i don’t know what this is all about! I’ve no plans as such. I’ll write “things” along the way. There is no predetermined order to it. Determinacy is forbidden. Only probabilities are allowed. Probably, it’ll be about science, physics in particular, andย about philosophy in general,ย or about society and some words that intrigue me or interest me. Probably, it won’t be about any of these; they might be just random musings. Probably, i won’t write at all. Probably I would. Probably…

Advertisements
4 Comments leave one →
  1. July 17, 2008 6:12 am

    That’s really funny ๐Ÿ˜€ To paraphrase it into set theoretic language, if P is any post on this blog and Q is the set of posts that possess any named quality Q then Blog = {P} = Q U Q’ = E (any kind of post). To be sure, in the Indian tradition there are things that are without any named quality, called Nirgun, and as far as I know only God is supposed to be Nirgun; so perhaps what you are saying here is that this blog is not about God ๐Ÿ˜€

  2. ravithekavi permalink*
    July 17, 2008 7:22 am

    Indeed. ‘Any kind of post’ is a simple enough description. For a “description”, however, one has to articulate it in indirect terms. The crux of the matter is indeed ‘any kind of post’. But the crux alone would not do. The crux is covered with layers of “descriptions” lest the reader sense the crux without enough reading.

    “so perhaps what you are saying here is that this blog is not about God”

    That’s a clever one! But then, you see, Nirgun is pure existence without any associated properties (if you don’t consider ‘existence’ a property). So, you can’t know “God” for to know God you need to ascribe certain properties to God. Now, since you can’t know “the thing in itself” (read “God” for the ‘thing’) you have to do the best that you can – ascribe certain properties to the concept (of “God”) and then try and understand what they imply. As you understand more and more you go higher and higher into the realm of the Abstract; you realize that the properties you once used to understand the concept are but a manifestation of the Abstract concept that you eventually (if there is an “eventually” to it) arrive at.

  3. July 17, 2008 8:18 am

    Well, if existence is a property/quality, and if God is nirgun, then that leaves you only one choice that God does not exist ๐Ÿ˜‰ However, if God does not exist then surely it is a member of the set that contains all non-existent things (such as unicorns and fairies). I guess its a bummer for God, after all existence and non-existence are named qualities, so if God has to be a true nirgun then it should exist in a limbo state between existence and non-existence ๐Ÿ˜€ Now that I recall, God has both nirgun and sagun manifestations. The ancient hindu philosophers were really cunning, they knew how to avoid such trivial loop-holes. So I guess you are free to discuss God or for that matter everything under the Sun and yonder.

  4. July 17, 2008 10:20 am

    “Well, if existence is a property/quality, and if God is nirgun, then that leaves you only one choice that God does not exist”

    that gives me reason to believe existence is not a property; for to assert the absence of God you need some evidence in support of it (and evidence, by definition, has sensible properties), not an assumption as to the nature of “existence”…

    “if God does not exist then surely it is a member of the set that contains all non-existent things (such as unicorns and fairies)”

    When do we say a “thing” exists? It’s when we can make sense of some parameter(s) associated with it, some describable property. So, existence or non-existence is immaterial to us because of the limits of our perception. We can’t say a “thing” exists nor can we deny its existence unless we have some evidence to support either assertion. So, really

    “Absence of evidence (read properties) is not evidence of absence”

    – Carl Sagan

    “after all existence and non-existence are named qualities, so if God has to be a true nirgun then it should exist in a limbo state between existence and non-existence”

    Much like the horizon that being there isn’t there. For though you can sense its property (the sky meeting the earth) the moment you reach out for it you find another horizon, and if you reach out for this horizon, you’ll find ‘yet another horizon’ and yet another… ad infinitum ๐Ÿ™‚

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: