[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Becoming Hindu
( Janahan J. Skandaraniyam 1D41 BNR )
<janahan.skandaraniyam.1752033@bnr.ca> wrote:
> >shrao@nyx.net (Shrisha Rao) wrote:
>
> >These things are related to the "third eye," not to spirituality;
>
> How exactly are they related to the "third eye" ?
>
> >just as a "third eye" is unseen, so are these. If the "third eye"
> >is a "spiritual phenomenon," then so are these.
>
> The above comparison is pathetic.
You should really choose your adjectives with greater care. A
_comparison_ cannot be pathetic, for it is not easy to see how it
would evince pathos in someone. Disgusting? Maybe. Inappropriate?
Very possibly. Pathetic? Huh?
> When comparing feces and chocolate, this is what your above statements
> would look like:
>
> >just as chocolate is brown, so is feces. If chocolate is
> >tasty, then so is feces.
Except, that
1> In the one case, viz., "third eye vs. rabbit's horn," both entities
are absolutely unknown from any source.
2> In the other case you mention, both are known, and have no quality
in common with the discussed.
That is to say, the property of "yellowness" which is common to faeces
and chocolate (I'm taking your word on that for argument's sake;
chocolate is always brown when I see it) is a property of
qualification, whereas the property of "does not exist" that is common
to rabbits' horns and third eyes, is one of existentiality. One is a
physical, corporeal property, while one is a logical, truth-value
property. Thus, there is no match between the example and the case,
and the example is thus inappropriate. This would be called in the
classical literature as "saadhya-drshhTaantaasangati" -- mismatch
between the case and the example. Just FYI.
> 'Nuf said.
Not quite, but there's progress even so. This is your first honest
attempt at proper rebuttal, and certainly not bad for a first effort
-- not many would be able to give a proper, non-dismissive response.
My sincere compliments.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
> J.
