03-09-2005, 03:37 AM
Sunil's reply to Manav's post
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->>>In order to do this, the moral foundation uses a logical trick. It creates two artificial constructs in ideological space, dharma (right) and adharma (wrong).<<
Hmmm....perhaps the '(im)moral' warrior fighting for (a)dharma is operating within the 'fog of illusion'? This (ontological) condition does not seem to be the (ontological) condition of the 'warrior' in the first place - as per the Bhagavad-Gita!
Regds<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry for the delay in replying, I have been very busy and this slipped my reading.
Irrespective of whether there is a "fog of illusion", it can be said that both participants pick a rationality for their "War". Whether couched in the language of reactivity or pro-activity, each side picks a definition of "acceptable" and "unacceptable" and around this notion fashions the justification of its conduct. Given the extent of thinking that goes into manufacturing the "Justification of the War", I would be more inclined to call it the "fog of reason" as opposed to a "fog of illusions".
The ontological aspect of this quite complicated and beyond the scope of this thread or forum.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->>>In order to do this, the moral foundation uses a logical trick. It creates two artificial constructs in ideological space, dharma (right) and adharma (wrong).<<
Hmmm....perhaps the '(im)moral' warrior fighting for (a)dharma is operating within the 'fog of illusion'? This (ontological) condition does not seem to be the (ontological) condition of the 'warrior' in the first place - as per the Bhagavad-Gita!
Regds<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry for the delay in replying, I have been very busy and this slipped my reading.
Irrespective of whether there is a "fog of illusion", it can be said that both participants pick a rationality for their "War". Whether couched in the language of reactivity or pro-activity, each side picks a definition of "acceptable" and "unacceptable" and around this notion fashions the justification of its conduct. Given the extent of thinking that goes into manufacturing the "Justification of the War", I would be more inclined to call it the "fog of reason" as opposed to a "fog of illusions".
The ontological aspect of this quite complicated and beyond the scope of this thread or forum.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->