Mainly interesting to my Oxford crowd

[liv]

Poking around some of my old bookmarks (yes, I'm displacing), I discovered that Gerv has finally succumbed, despite all his former protests, and is now keeping a blog.

It's called Hacking for Christ and the title pretty much sums up the content, as far as I've read: mostly highly technical discussion about Mozilla and other computery things that I don't even know how to classify, and quite a lot of that deeply offensive right-wing Christianity that Gerv does, but we still love him anyway cos he's Gerv and he's so very sincere and well-meaning. I'd syndicate it here but the feed is in a format that is too cool for LJ.

Edited 6.9.04: Now public, with permission from Gerv.

Comments

[lisekit.livejournal.com]

I think reality is objective and outside ourselves. I wish that I could define reality, but sadly I can't - if I could it wouldn't look much like this.

In that case, there is no common ground on which we can agree. I'll add that I think reality is a concept that can be plaed with. Hindus call this play Lila, which also makes a nice girl's name.

As everyone has to.
There's assumptions that are necessary to make sense of the world and stay sane, and there are assumptions that go beyond that necessity. I think yours overstep the former and move into the latter.

For me, I would like to say that I see distinction between faith (personal faith, devotion, bhakti), beliefs (ways of seeing the world and ideas about organising those ways), and religious practice (rituals, scritpures, and also social practice). The three are not to me equivalent, and I think they are often conflated - sometimes by practitioners of a certain faith, sometimes by outsiders. One's ideas about the world are not the same as one's respose to those ideas. One's faith is not one's practice.

I'd also like to add, that in other posts you have described yourself as a "weak atheist" - someone without substance or evidence for un-belief. Yet you attack others for lack of evidence. This to me seems inconcsistent. You also describe yourself as one who in the past was a "foaming at the mouth evanglical". By this I understand that you mean you were dogmatic, aggressive (I note you used the word "agrressive" yourself when describing talking to Safi). You seem to have exchanged your belief for unbelief, but not your behaviour.

Mere opiates are palatable only to junkies. But they like 'em.

[robhu.livejournal.com]

I'd also like to add, that in other posts you have described yourself as a "weak atheist" - someone without substance or evidence for un-belief. Yet you attack others for lack of evidence. This to me seems inconcsistent.
The weak atheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism) term is poorly thought out - I am in a state now where I don't know what to believe - but so far the evidence (or rather lack of it) leads me in the direction of atheism. I'd like to believe that a God exists though.

You also describe yourself as one who in the past was a "foaming at the mouth evanglical". By this I understand that you mean you were dogmatic, aggressive (I note you used the word "agrressive" yourself when describing talking to Safi).
The term "foaming at the mouth evangelical" is meant in a comical way - I was certainly dogmatic but not aggressive; using the word aggressive was a poor choice, I was tired and couldn't think of the right words... I've never been aggressive towards Safi in all the time I've known her.

You seem to have exchanged your belief for unbelief, but not your behaviour.
That I think is rather unfair, all I did was question what you believe and you've thrown your defenses up.

I'm sorry if my questions upset or offend you - I'd like to understand your position, I don't mean to anger you. I would honestly like to understand what you believe and why. To me beliving that one can change reality is quite absurd, but I have learnt that usually that is because there is something that the other person knows that I do not. I would appreciate it if you would share that knowledge with me.

[lisekit.livejournal.com]

You misunderstand me; I am not defending anything, because as far as I'm concerned, there is nothing to defend. As i said, if you're happy in your position, then I have no issue with that.

Wrt reality, it may not change, but one's realtionship with it and understanding of it certainly can. A good read on the matter is Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty's "Dreams, Reality and Other Illusions". I think the title says it all ;-)

[robhu.livejournal.com]

Does your view point have a name? Is it a particular philosphy or is it something Buddhist? I'd like to know so I can read more about it.

[lisekit.livejournal.com]

;-) Buddhism, in its core expression, is a philosophy rather tan a religion - it does not have a God, and essentially is a route to self-soteriology. I wouldn't call myself Buddhist, but it's a way of thinking I have a lot of appreciation for. I've never met an unhappy Buddhist. Some books you could read are:

Gombrich, R. Theravada Buddhism: a social history from ancient Benares to modern Colombo. (London: Routledge, 1988)

Hinnells, J R. (ed.): A handbook of living religions. Harmondsworth: (Viking, 1984)

Saddhatissa, H. Buddhist ethics: essence of Buddhism. (London: Allen and Unwin, 1970)

Williams, P. Mahayana Buddhism: the doctrinal foundations. (London: Routledge, 1989)

The medieval philosophies of Kabir and Nanak (later Guru Nanak, the first Sikh Guru) which arose in response to mainstream Brahmanical Hinduism also interest me greatly - you can read these, alongside some more bhakti oriented writers, in the collection Songs of the Saints of India, ed. John S. Hawley and Mark Juergensmeyer (Oxford University Press, 1988).

[robhu.livejournal.com]

Thankyou.