02-16-2008, 10:52 AM
Husky,
Despite the variable orientations of the western social theorists, they are always dealing with the feasability of resurrecting an ideal utopian system - this is the set in stone framework in which they operate. You will never find an Indian obsessed with ressurecting the Mauryan or Gupta Empire (unlike West's obsession with recreating the first, second, third, fourth, fifth versions of the Roman Empire). This is what I was trying to show with the Kubrick post.
These individuals are social theorists; they deal necessarily with abstractions as a way of going about the world - which is of course different than the Hindu-heathen reliance on experience. The former way of going about will necessarily lead to
monstrosities of one sort or another since rigidity is an absolute characteristic of theories. I'm sure that Kubrick thought he was analyzing the universal "human
condition" or "human nature" or "natural man," but we know that his analyses pertain mostly to westerners and their derivatives.
That said, let me just say that it's quite possible that Paine is cast in the mold of a Frawley or Danino and that his Deism is akin to the Great Spirit of the Native Americans (as you said in your other post). We should examine why these individuals turned up so different than their contemporaries. Their accounts
usually say that they felt atracted to Dharma since Childhood. I came across a similar statement by Frank Morales on youtube.
Despite the variable orientations of the western social theorists, they are always dealing with the feasability of resurrecting an ideal utopian system - this is the set in stone framework in which they operate. You will never find an Indian obsessed with ressurecting the Mauryan or Gupta Empire (unlike West's obsession with recreating the first, second, third, fourth, fifth versions of the Roman Empire). This is what I was trying to show with the Kubrick post.
These individuals are social theorists; they deal necessarily with abstractions as a way of going about the world - which is of course different than the Hindu-heathen reliance on experience. The former way of going about will necessarily lead to
monstrosities of one sort or another since rigidity is an absolute characteristic of theories. I'm sure that Kubrick thought he was analyzing the universal "human
condition" or "human nature" or "natural man," but we know that his analyses pertain mostly to westerners and their derivatives.
That said, let me just say that it's quite possible that Paine is cast in the mold of a Frawley or Danino and that his Deism is akin to the Great Spirit of the Native Americans (as you said in your other post). We should examine why these individuals turned up so different than their contemporaries. Their accounts
usually say that they felt atracted to Dharma since Childhood. I came across a similar statement by Frank Morales on youtube.