Russian Name Worshipper mystics and Cantor's set theory
Marko Amnell
There is an interesting new book out about the
history of Cantor's set theory. It seems to
me that the book lends support to Feyerabend's
philosophy of science in _Against Method_.
Science can progress through *any* method,
including the paradoxical fact that the progress
of mathematics was aided by the mysticism
of Russian mathematicians who accepted
Cantor's set theory because it fit their
mystical beliefs.
http://www.amazon.com/Naming-Infinity-Religious-Mathematical-Creativity/dp/0674032934
Naming Infinity: A True Story of Religious Mysticism and Mathematical
Creativity (Belknap Press) (Hardcover)
by Loren Graham (Author), Jean-Michel Kantor (Author)
Editorial Reviews
From Booklist
*Starred Review* How did a country wracked by civil war, devastated by
famine, and overshadowed by tyranny incubate a major breakthrough in
modern mathematics? In the origins of descriptive set theory, Graham
and Kantor (both self-described secular rationalists) confront the
puzzling cultural dynamics that converted religious mysticism into
mathematical insight. The authors particularly probe the surprising
way that a religious heresy (Name Worshipping) emboldened the Russian
mathematicians who finally surmounted the theoretical difficulties
that had overwhelmed earlier pioneers in set theory. Though readers
unschooled in higher mathematics may stumble over some concepts (such
as denumberable subsets or the hierarchy of alephs), the authors
generally succeed in translating principles into a nonspecialist’s
vocabulary. Readers thus share in both the perplexities of the French
rationalists defeated by the mysteries of infinite sets and the
triumphs of the Russian scholars who penetrated those mysteries by
deploying strategies strangely similar to devotional practices for
naming the Divine. But the authors illuminate more than the psychology
of a mathematical revolution; their narrative also exposes the tangle
of ideological ambitions and sexual passions that transformed some
brilliant researchers into treacherous tools of Soviet inquisitors and
doomed others as their victims. A candid and searching analysis,
restoring human drama to seemingly sterile formulas.
Review
The intellectual drama will attract readers who are interested in
mystical religion and the foundations of mathematics. The personal
drama will attract readers who are interested in a human tragedy with
characters who met their fates with exceptional courage.
--Freeman Dyson (20090423)
At the end of the nineteenth century, three young French
mathematicians--Émile Borel, René Baire and Henri Lebesgue--built on
the work of Georg Cantor to conceive a new theory of functions that in
a few years transformed mathematical analysis. When their work met
with skepticism, they began to doubt it and abandoned further
investigation. In Russia, under the leadership of Dmitry Egorov, a
group of Moscow mathematicians picked up the torch. Animated by a
mystical tradition known as Name Worshipping, they found the
creativity to name the new objects of the French theory of functions.
And they changed the face of the mathematical world.
--Bernard Bru, emeritus, University of Paris V (20090322)
A passionate confluence of mathematical creation and mystical
practices is at the center of this extraordinary account of the
emergence of set theory in Russia in the early twentieth century. The
starkly drawn contrast with mathematical developments in France
illuminates the story, and the book is electric with portraits of the
great mathematicians involved: the tragic, the unfortunate, the
villainous, the truly admirable. The authors offer an account of
Infinity that is brief, deft, serious, and accessible to non-
mathematicians, and their evocation of the mathematical circles of the
period is so intimately written that one feels as if one had lived,
worked, and suffered alongside the protagonists. Graham and Kantor
have given us an amazing piece of mathematical history.
--Barry Mazur, Harvard University (20090430)
Last week I read one of the most interesting books I've encountered so
far this year, Naming Infinity: A True Story of Religious Mysticism
and Mathematical Creativity, by Loren Graham and Jean-Michel Kantor,
just published by Harvard University Press. I'll be writing more about
this book, but in the meantime I wanted to let you know about it. Many
books in the science-and-religion conversation tediously cover the
same ground. This book comes from a fresh angle--the world of
mathematics and the world of "science" are not the same, but they
overlap--and it tells a fascinating story. I found it absolutely
riveting. And it's encouraging to see two secular scholars doing their
best to be scrupulously fair in representing religious thinkers whose
worldview is very different from their own.
--John Wilson (Books & Culture 20090616)
It is a story of the persistence of intellectual life against the
wrecking tide of history.
--Jascha Hoffman (Nature 20090701)
In the early 20th century, mathematicians grappled with the concept of
infinity, relying heavily on set theory to prove and define it. The
French mathematicians, rationalists not fond of abstraction
(particularly abstractions with spiritual overtones), went head-to-
head with the Russians, who had always linked mathematics to
philosophy, religion and ideology. Name Worshipping played a key role
in bringing the two closer together. Graham and Kantor do a beautiful
job of fleshing out the key players in this gripping drama--nothing
less than a struggle to prove the existence of God.
--Susan Salter Reynolds (Los Angeles Times )
This absorbing book tells astonishing stories about some of the most
important developments in mathematics of the past century...Perhaps
the most moving section of the book is that dealing with the famous
Moscow School of Mathematics in Soviet times. Its origins are traced
to the Lusitania seminar established by Egorov and Luzin (the source
of the name "Lusitania" is obscure). The enthusiasm that these
teachers inspired in their students is clearly conveyed, as is the
atmosphere of intellectual excitement, despite the freezing lecture
rooms (the rule that lectures could not take place if the room
temperature fell below -5C was ignored)...This is a remarkable book,
illuminating the history of 20th-century mathematics and its
practitioners. The stories it tells are important and too little
known. It is clearly a labor of love and deserves a wide audience: it
is an outstanding portrayal of mathematics as a fundamentally human
activity and mathematicians as human beings.
--Tony Mann (Times Higher Education )
The most unusual book I have read this year.
--Alex Beam (Boston Globe )
Fifty years ago, C. P. Snow gave a soon-to-be famous lecture on the
"Two Cultures" of modern society, the culture of the humanities and
the culture of science, and the need to bridge the gap between them.
Today we are more likely to hear debates about the alleged gulf
between science and religion. Both divides are bridged in this superb
book, which takes us from French rationalism at the turn of the 20th
century to a thriving center of world-class mathematics in Moscow,
where the presiding figures were also devout Russian Orthodox
believers of a mystical bent.
--John Wilson (Christianity Today )
The Mathematical Tower of Babel, June 5, 2009
By Roger L. Cooke "Roger Cooke" (Burlington, Vermont USA)
(REAL NAME)
I had the pleasant assignment of reviewing this book for The
Mathematical Intelligencer (my review is to appear in a few months).
In that review, I invoked the image of the Tower of Babel as a
metaphor for the efforts (ultimately vain) of N.N. Luzin to find an
effective way of enumerating the countable ordinal numbers. It is more
than a coincidence that Luzin was an adherent of a splinter group in
the Orthodox Church that called itself "onomatodoxy" (imeslavie, in
Russian), meaning "name-glorification" or "name-worshipping". This
group attached supreme importance to getting names exactly right in
religious matters. Luzin carried this zeal into mathematics as well,
trying desperately to break everything into clear, unambiguous
definitions. The Polish mathematician Sierpinski had horrified him
with a list of results in analysis that can't be proved without
invoking the axiom of choice, and he actually had insomnia over that
for many nights. It is true that Henri Lebesgue, who shared none of
Luzin's religious mysticism, also tried to deal only with functions
that are "analytic," but he didn't make a fetish of it. Luzin invented
the contrasting terms "effective" and "auswahlistic" to emphasize the
true epistemological status of results in analysis. If they used the
Auswahlprinzip (axiom of choice), they weren't "effective."
In order to make the book as widely accessible as possible, the
authors do not go into any deep mathematical detail (there are no
equations in the book), but they describe it in general terms well
enough to give an adequate picture. In addition to the broad
mathematical trends that are reflected in the book, there are gripping
personal stories of individual mathematicians and their troubles.
Alexandrov's tragic loss of his partner Uryson, who drowned in
Brittany in 1924 is just one of them. (These two were known as "the
PS's", because of their initials, Pavel Sergeevich Alexandrov and
Pavel Samuilovich Urysohn. In Russian that is PSY, which means "the
dogs", and Alexandrov once send a memo to Uryson headed "PSU ot PSA",
that is, TO PSU FROM PSA. But in Russian the phrase can also be read
"to a dog from a dog".) Alexandrov also figures prominently as one of
Luzin's accusers in the tense hearing before a tribunal of the Academy
of Sciences in 1936. At that trial he said, "I do not claim that
Suslin named A-sets in my honor, because I never heard anything of the
sort from him." Some 40 years later, that same Alexandrov wrote that
"[Suslin] emphasized that he was naming the A-sets in my honor, in
analogy with the B-sets [named for Borel]." Thus does memory play
tricks on us all!
Read this book. You'll enjoy it if philsophical questions, political
intrigue, or mathematics can interest you at all.
Dave L. Renfro
> There is an interesting new book out about the
> history of Cantor's set theory.
[snip]
> Naming Infinity: A True Story of Religious Mysticism
> and Mathematical Creativity (Belknap Press) (Hardcover)
> by Loren Graham (Author), Jean-Michel Kantor (Author)
Thanks for mentioning this. I've read a lot about the
Luzin [Lusin] mathematical school, both because of some
interesting but little known real analysis work came
out of it (see [1]) and because, off-and-on, I've been
assembling/translating/organizing the historical
development of real analysis and descriptive set
theory (1870s to 1930s, mostly excluding the well
worn paths that lead directly to the Lebesgue, Denjoy,
etc. integrals during this time) -- see [2] for example.
Although I can tell this book isn't going to tell me
anything of significance mathematically, it definitely
looks like it will be useful for some of the historical
facts that can be very difficult to track down.
[1] Kantorov wrote a paper in 1932 that made explicit use
of what are now called porous sets. Kolmogorov wrote
a couple of papers in the mid 1930s on are called
contingents in Saks' "Theory of the Integral", and a lot
of follow-up work was done by F. I. Smidov in the following
decades, which also lead to some interesting but little
known papers in the late 1950s and 1960s by Tuy Hoang
and I. Ya. Plamennov and G. H. Sindalovskii). G. P. Tolstoff
wrote several papers in the 1940s and 1950s, including
one in 1942 that investigated fairly thoroughly what
one can say about the rate at which the Lebesgue density
converges to 1 for almost all points in a measurable set
(some, but not all, of these were independently rediscovered
by S. James Taylor in "On strengthening the Lebesgue density
theorem", Fundamenta Mathematicae 46 (1959), 305-315;
also, some of Tolstoff's results can be found on
pp. 466-468 of Volume 2 of Nina Bary's "A Treatise on
Trigonometric Series"). And there are many more examples
I could give.
[2] Mikhail Y. Suslin and Lebesgue's error
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/fb9d47de618ef57d
Dave L. Renfro
Marko Amnell
Thanks for the link. Your [2] is an interesting post.
There is a good review of this book
by Jim Holt in the August 27 issue of
the London Review of Books:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n16/holt01_.html
Unfortunately, the LRB no longer provides
free access online to their articles.
But you can buy it as a PDF for £2.75.
Dave L. Renfro
> Thanks for the link. Your [2] is an interesting post.
I just remembered that I made a more mathematical
follow-up to that post, which is in the same thread,
but in case anyone reading is interested and didn't
think to look at the rest of the thread . . .
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/714f47a4a2edc7ae
Dave L. Renfro
That One
The general impression I've been getting is that Greater Russia (for
lack of a better term) was a hotbed of genius until Stalin fucked
everything up.
D.
gratis-_+_8_Sum_
On Sep 17, 10:42 am, Marko Amnell <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> There is an interesting new book out about the
> history of Cantor's set theory. It seems to
> me that the book lends support to Feyerabend's
> philosophy of science in _Against Method_.
> Science can progress through *any* method,
> including the paradoxical fact that the progress
> of mathematics was aided by the mysticism
> of Russian mathematicians who accepted
> Cantor's set theory because it fit their
> mystical beliefs.
>
Dear Mark Amnell,
You are a rock star for finding this! My 31st birthday is 9/23 and I
gave this title to 1 of the 2 people I know who asked me what I wanted
for my birthday. Thank you so much for finding this. It sounds so
neat, such cool rational thought in the face of mysticism to discover
greater truth!
Thank you,
Martin Musatov
gratis-_+_8_Sum_
You are a rock star for finding this! My 31st birthday is 9/23 and I
gave this title to 1 of the 2 people I know who asked me what I wanted
for my birthday. Thank you so much for finding this. It sounds so
neat, such cool rational thought in the face of mysticism to discover
greater truth!
Thank you,
Martin Musatov
[top+posted-4visibility]
On Sep 20, 1:16 am, "gratis-_+_8_Sum_" <scribio_v...@mail.org> wrote:
Bappa
> There is an interesting new book out about the
> history of Cantor's set theory. It seems to
> me that the book lends support to Feyerabend's
> philosophy of science in _Against Method_.
> Science can progress through *any* method,
Sorry, Marko, this is dead wrong. The only valid *method* in science
is the *experimental* method - meaning, repeatability of results under
controlled and same conditions. The rest is analysis and discussion.
This is what I was taught in my engineering institute (First Year) by
the profs. in the Humanities Dept. IIT Kharagur was the only IIT
where there was a firmly established and motivated Humanities
department.
> including the paradoxical fact that the progress
> of mathematics was aided by the mysticism
> of Russian mathematicians who accepted
> Cantor's set theory because it fit their
> mystical beliefs.
Now what has maths to do with science? The Queen of Arts is
Mathematics, and Science pays the most humble homage to Her.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee.
John Wilkins
<9bdd12fa-2b13-4860...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
Bappa <adda...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 3:42�am, Marko Amnell <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> > There is an interesting new book out about the
> > history of Cantor's set theory. It seems to
> > me that the book lends support to Feyerabend's
> > philosophy of science in _Against Method_.
> > Science can progress through *any* method,
>
> Sorry, Marko, this is dead wrong. The only valid *method* in science
> is the *experimental* method - meaning, repeatability of results under
> controlled and same conditions. The rest is analysis and discussion.
>
> This is what I was taught in my engineering institute (First Year) by
> the profs. in the Humanities Dept. IIT Kharagur was the only IIT
> where there was a firmly established and motivated Humanities
> department.
Never take as gospel what you are taught in first year anything.
Marko Amnell
> On Sep 18, 3:42 am, Marko Amnell <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>
> > There is an interesting new book out about the
> > history of Cantor's set theory. It seems to
> > me that the book lends support to Feyerabend's
> > philosophy of science in _Against Method_.
> > Science can progress through *any* method,
>
> Sorry, Marko, this is dead wrong. The only valid *method* in science
> is the *experimental* method - meaning, repeatability of results under
> controlled and same conditions. The rest is analysis and discussion.
I was referring to Paul Feyerabend. He was engaged in an argument
with philosophers of science such as Karl Popper over the question
of whether there is one single correct Scientific Method. The argument
is not over the necessity of experiments in science, but other issues.
Here is one summary of Feyerabend's arguments:
Science is an essentially anarchistic enterprise: theoretical
anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress
than its law-and-order alternatives.
This is shown both by an examination of historical episodes and by an
abstract analysis of the relation between idea and action. The only
principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes.
For example, we may use hypotheses that contradict well-confirmed
theories and/or well-established experimental results. We may advance
science by proceeding counter-inductively.
The consistency condition which demands that new hypotheses agree with
accepted theories is unreasonable because it preserves the older
theory, and not the better theory. Hypotheses contradicting well-
confirmed theories give us evidence that cannot be obtained in any
other way. Proliferation of theories is beneficial for science, while
uniformity impairs its critical power. Uniformity also endangers the
free development of the individual.
There is no idea, however ancient and absurd, that is not capable of
improving our knowledge. The whole history of thought is absorbed into
science and is used for improving every single theory. Nor is
political interference rejected. It may be needed to overcome the
chauvinism of science that resists alternatives to the status quo.
No theory ever agrees with all the facts in its domain, yet it is not
always the theory that is to blame. Facts are constituted by older
ideologies, and a clash between facts and theories may be proof of
progress. It is also a first step in our attempts to find the
principles implicit in familiar observational notions.
As an example of such an attempt I examine the tower argument which
the Aristotelians used to refute the motion of the earth. The argument
involves natural interpretations - ideas so closely connected with
observations that it needs a special effort to realise their existence
and to determine their content. Galileo identifies the natural
interpretations which are inconsistent with Copernicus and replaces
them by others.
The new natural interpretations constitute a new and highly abstract
observation language. They are introduced and concealed so that one
falls to notice the change that has taken place (method of anamnesis).
They contain the idea of the relativity of all motion and the law of
circular inertia.
Initial difficulties caused by the change are defused by ad hoc
hypotheses, which thus turn out occasionally to have a positive
function; they give new theories a breathing space, and they indicate
the direction of future research.
In addition to natural interpretations, Galileo also changes
sensations that seem to endanger Copernicus. He admits that there are
such sensations, he praises Copernicus for having disregarded them, he
claims to have removed them with the help of the telescope. However,
he offers no theoretical reasons why the telescope should be expected
to give a true picture of the sky.
Nor does the initial experience with the telescope provide such
reasons. The first telescopic observations of the sky are indistinct,
indeterminate, contradictory and in conflict with what everyone can
see with his unaided eyes. And, the only theory that could have helped
to separate telescopic illusions from veridical phenomena was refuted
by simple tests.
On the other hand, there are some telescopic phenomena which are
plainly Copernican. Galileo introduces these phenomena as independent
evidence for Copernicus while the situation is rather that one refuted
view - Copernicanism - has a certain similarity with phenomena
emerging from another refuted view - the idea that telescopic
phenomena are faithful images of the sky. Galileo prevails because of
his style and his clever techniques of persuasion, because he writes
in Italian rather than in Latin, and because he appeals to people who
are temperamentally opposed to the old ideas and the standards of
learning connected with them.
Such 'irrational' methods of support are needed because of the 'uneven
development' (Marx, Lenin) of different parts of science.
Copernicanism and other essential ingredients of modern science
survived only because reason was frequently overruled in their past.
Galileo's method works in other fields as well. For example, it can be
used to eliminate the existing arguments against materialism, and to
put an end to the philosophical mind/body problem (the corresponding
scientific problems remain untouched, however).
The results obtained so far suggest abolishing the distinction between
a context of discovery and a context of justification and disregarding
the related distinction between observational terms and theoretical
terms. Neither distinction plays a role in scientific practice.
Attempts to enforce them would have disastrous consequences.
Finally, the discussion in Chapters 6-13 shows that Popper's version
of Mill's pluralism is not in agreement with scientific practice and
would destroy science as we know it. Given science, reason cannot be
universal and unreason cannot be excluded. This feature of science
calls for an anarchistic epistemology. The realisation that science is
not sacrosanct, and that the debate between science and myth has
ceased without having been won by either side, further strengthens the
case for anarchism.
Even the ingenious attempt of Lakatos to construct a methodology that
(a) does not issue orders and yet (b) puts restrictions upon our
knowledge-increasing activities, does not escape this conclusion. For
Lakatos' philosophy appears liberal only because it is an anarchism in
disguise. And his standards which are abstracted from modern science
cannot be regarded as neutral arbiters in the issue between modern
science and Aristotelian science, myth, magic, religion, etc.
Moreover, these standards, which involve a comparison of content
classes, are not always applicable. The content classes of certain
theories are incomparable in the sense that none of the usual logical
relations (inclusion, exclusion, overlap) can be said to hold between
them. This occurs when we compare myths with science. It also occurs
in the most advanced, most general and therefore most mythological
parts of science itself.
Thus science is much closer to myth than a scientific philosophy is
prepared to admit. It is one of the many forms of thought that have
been developed by man, and not necessarily the best. It is
conspicuous, noisy, and impudent, but it is inherently superior only
for those who have already decided in favour of a certain ideology, or
who have accepted it without having ever examined its advantages and
its limits. And as the accepting and rejecting of ideologies should be
left to the individual it follows that the separation of state and
church must be supplemented by the separation of state and science,
that most recent, most aggressive, and most dogmatic religious
institution. Such a separation may be our only chance to achieve a
humanity we are capable of, but have never fully realised.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/feyerabe.htm
>
> This is what I was taught in my engineering institute (First Year) by
> the profs. in the Humanities Dept. IIT Kharagur was the only IIT
> where there was a firmly established and motivated Humanities
> department.
>
> > including the paradoxical fact that the progress
> > of mathematics was aided by the mysticism
> > of Russian mathematicians who accepted
> > Cantor's set theory because it fit their
> > mystical beliefs.
>
> Now what has maths to do with science? The Queen of Arts is
> Mathematics, and Science pays the most humble homage to Her.
Many people would include mathematics as part of science.
There is an element of mathematics that is similar to the
arts but I would not call mathematics an art. Aesthetic
considerations play a role in mathematics, but they also
play a role in theoretical physics. There are no experiments
in mathematics but the use of logical deduction sets it
apart from the arts. The fundamental concepts of mathematics
have a basis in experience, but the concepts have been
abstracted.
Marko Amnell
> Dear Mark Amnell,
>
> You are a rock star for finding this! My 31st birthday is 9/23 and I
> gave this title to 1 of the 2 people I know who asked me what I wanted
> for my birthday. Thank you so much for finding this. It sounds so
> neat, such cool rational thought in the face of mysticism to discover
> greater truth!
>
> Thank you,
>
> Martin Musatov
Glad you liked the book. I ordered it myself
from Amazon. Only 17 dollars, so the recession
is good for something.
John Wilkins
<6bdccf42-3c8c-45cb...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Marko Amnell <marko....@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> On Sep 20, 12:50�pm, Bappa <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 18, 3:42�am, Marko Amnell <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> >
> > > There is an interesting new book out about the
> > > history of Cantor's set theory. It seems to
> > > me that the book lends support to Feyerabend's
> > > philosophy of science in _Against Method_.
> > > Science can progress through *any* method,
> >
> > Sorry, Marko, this is dead wrong. �The only valid *method* in science
> > is the *experimental* method - meaning, repeatability of results under
> > controlled and same conditions. �The rest is analysis and discussion.
>
> I was referring to Paul Feyerabend. He was engaged in an argument
> with philosophers of science such as Karl Popper over the question
> of whether there is one single correct Scientific Method. The argument
> is not over the necessity of experiments in science, but other issues.
> Here is one summary of Feyerabend's arguments:
>
> Science is an essentially anarchistic enterprise: theoretical
> anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress
> than its law-and-order alternatives.
Feyerabend did not advocate, probably, anarchism. He said that if there
is supposed to be a single method, it is anarchism. But he did not
think that; he thought that there were a number of methods in play.
...
I gave a talk on this at one point:
<http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2007/10/how_not_to_feyerabend.
php>
Marko Amnell
> In article
> <6bdccf42-3c8c-45cb-b3ab-9cf06736c...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
I read the text of your talk. I think you point to
some important dangers in advocating
methodological anarchism, such as politically
motivated distortion of science. Clearly, this
is an ongoing problem, as demonstrated by
Sarah Palin's candidacy, for example.
I am not an advocate of Feyerabend's position.
If I have to declare my position, I am closer
to an "Enlightenment fundamentalist" (a phrase
used by another student of Popper, Ernest Gellner)
or neo-positivist. I think Feyerabend
makes some good points, however.
I think the historical facts recounted in the
book _Naming Infinity_ do, however, pose a
problem, not only for those advocating one
fixed scientific method, but more broadly,
for many modern notions of rationality.
We have the fact that descriptive set theory,
an important part of mathematics, was developed
by Russian mystics who believed that by
repeatedly chanting God's name, they could
achieve fusion with the divine. And this mystical
belief was intimately connected to their
mathematical research. To quote Jim Holt's
review in the August 28 issue of the LRB:
"They carried their Name Worshipping into
mathematics, seeming to believe that the
act of naming could put them in touch with
infinite sets undefinable by ordinary
mathematical means - indeed, that they could
summon into existence new mathematical
entities merely by naming them."
While French rationalists were reluctant to work
with Cantor's hierarchy of infinities, the Russian
mystics embraced Cantor's new theory. While
the French rationalists rejected the Axiom of Choice
because it represented an infinite number of
arbitrary choices, the Russian mystics saw no
problem. The substantive mystical beliefs of the
Russians had a substantive effect on their
mathematical beliefs and practices at many levels.
Luzin, for example, because of his belief in the
mystical importance of naming, made a great effort to
resolve everything into clear, unambiguous
definitions. How could one advocate one fixed
scientific method in the fact of this historical
example? Note that Imre Lakatos's efforts to
develop such a method focused on mathematics
in particular, not the empirical sciences.
The arguments and proofs provided by the Russians
do not diverge from ordinary standards. There are
no cases of some mystic saying "I believe this theorem
because I saw it in a mystical vision." Nevertheless,
the intimate connections between the mystical and
mathematical beliefs and practices of these Russians
makes it difficult to support an empiricist model of
human rationality that excludes non-empirical mystical
beliefs. At the very least, it shows that (to adopt some of
the terminology of the philosophy of science used by
Feyerabend and Popper) the "context of discovery"
indeed has no rules at all, at least in pure mathematics.
Mathematical discovery and creation can be inspired
substantitely by mystical beliefs and practices. The
"context of justification" did not, however, diverge from
ordinary mathematical standards for proof.
I have not read _Naming Infinity_ yet, so I cannot
try to come to any conclusions. But one idea that
occurs to me is that because pure mathematics is
not an empirical science, it is possible for its
practioner to believe, while doing mathematics,
in just about *any* metaphysical notions (including
non-empiricist ones). One might develop a good
mathematical theory while believing that the world
rests on the back of a giant tortoise, which rests
on the backs of an endless tower of tortoises.
When someone else studies this theory, he can just
ignore the tower of tortoises, and focus exclusively
on the formal structure of the new theory. The formal
structure of the mathematical theory can go together,
as it were, with any metaphysical content. That is something
that is not possible with the empirical sciences.
I'm not sure my interpretation is quite valid, however,
as the Russian mystics who developed descriptive
set theory also extended their mystical beliefs into
the very substance of their work. They accepted
the Axiom of Choice because it fit their mystical
beliefs. They accepted Cantor's hierarchy of
infinities because it fit their notion of the divine.
They paid special attention to clear, unambiguous
definitions because of the mystical importance
they attached to the act of naming.
Marko Amnell
Yes, that is the horrible part of this story.
Egorov starved to death in a Stalinist prison
in 1931, and Florensky was tortured and
sent to an Arctic concentration camp, and later
executed in Leningrad in 1937.
Patok
> On Sep 20, 12:50 pm, Bappa <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 18, 3:42 am, Marko Amnell <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>>
>>> There is an interesting new book out about the
>>> history of Cantor's set theory. It seems to
>>> me that the book lends support to Feyerabend's
>>> philosophy of science in _Against Method_.
>>> Science can progress through *any* method,
>> Sorry, Marko, this is dead wrong. The only valid *method* in science
>> is the *experimental* method - meaning, repeatability of results under
>> controlled and same conditions. The rest is analysis and discussion.
>
> I was referring to Paul Feyerabend. He was engaged in an argument
> with philosophers of science such as Karl Popper over the question
> of whether there is one single correct Scientific Method. The argument
> is not over the necessity of experiments in science, but other issues.
> Here is one summary of Feyerabend's arguments:
Marko, I admire your patience and level-headedness in dealing with
certified wooden philosophers.
(A "wooden phlosopher" is a term used in some Eastern European
languages to describe pretend-intelligents --educated cretins, in other
words-- like this Arindam Banerjee).
--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
Bappa
>
>
>
>
>
> Bappa <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 18, 3:42 am, Marko Amnell <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> > > There is an interesting new book out about the
> > > history of Cantor's set theory. It seems to
> > > me that the book lends support to Feyerabend's
> > > philosophy of science in _Against Method_.
> > > Science can progress through *any* method,
>
> > Sorry, Marko, this is dead wrong. The only valid *method* in science
> > is the *experimental* method - meaning, repeatability of results under
> > controlled and same conditions. The rest is analysis and discussion.
>
> > This is what I was taught in my engineering institute (First Year) by
> > the profs. in the Humanities Dept. IIT Kharagur was the only IIT
> > where there was a firmly established and motivated Humanities
> > department.
>
> Never take as gospel what you are taught in first year anything.
Actually, what I take as gospel is what I learnt before I was ten. I
had to unlearn many of the bad stuff since, such as relativity and
quantum bullshit. Thirty years of professional engineering experience
validates what I learnt from the humanities profs. Yes, they did
teach us a lot of nonsense, such as conservation laws, relativity etc.
which over the years I have painfully unlearnt, thanks again to the
sterling lesson that I received.
obBook: "Science Speaks" - I do not remember the author. This was the
text book, from which I learnt this most important lesson. There was
a chapter on the difference between the *experience* and the
*experiment*, in that book. Too often, fools and scoundrels
pretending to be scientists confuse the two very different things.
When they do that, we have pseudo-science, and Einstein worshippers.
Ugh.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > including the paradoxical fact that the progress
> > > of mathematics was aided by the mysticism
> > > of Russian mathematicians who accepted
> > > Cantor's set theory because it fit their
> > > mystical beliefs.
>
> > Now what has maths to do with science? The Queen of Arts is
> > Mathematics, and Science pays the most humble homage to Her.
>
> > Cheers,
>
> > Arindam Banerjee.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bappa
> On Sep 20, 12:50 pm, Bappa <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 18, 3:42 am, Marko Amnell <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>
> > > There is an interesting new book out about the
> > > history of Cantor's set theory. It seems to
> > > me that the book lends support to Feyerabend's
> > > philosophy of science in _Against Method_.
> > > Science can progress through *any* method,
>
> > Sorry, Marko, this is dead wrong. The only valid *method* in science
> > is the *experimental* method - meaning, repeatability of results under
> > controlled and same conditions. The rest is analysis and discussion.
>
> I was referring to Paul Feyerabend. He was engaged in an argument
> with philosophers of science such as Karl Popper
If one cannot be a scientist, one can be a philosopher of science,
evidently! Heh-heh.
> over the question
> of whether there is one single correct Scientific Method. The argument
> is not over the necessity of experiments in science, but other issues.
> Here is one summary of Feyerabend's arguments:
Thanks for posting this. I will go through it.
> Science is an essentially anarchistic enterprise: theoretical
> anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress
> than its law-and-order alternatives.
The scientist can be anarchic, if he is independent and not under some
institution. Science is not anarchic. It follows extremely well-laid
and well-defined patterns and principles. The anarchy of the
scientist lies in his revolt against a corrupting establishment, that
corrupts science. Like, a person like me, who has debunked Einstein's
wrong theories, is anarchic. But I have the greatest regard for the
scientific method - which is EXPERIMENT. Beyond the experiment, there
is the analysis. Wrong analysis, repetition of bungles and blunders,
lead to disaster even when the experiment is correctly done. Check
out
www.users.bigpond.com/adda1234/MMInt.htm as an example, that shows
how a correctly done experiment led to very bad and wrong and in fact
disastrous results as a result of wrong analysis.
> This is shown both by an examination of historical episodes and by an
> abstract analysis of the relation between idea and action. The only
> principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes.
No, that is wrong. Immoral and cowardly approaches do not help in the
least. In the long run, at least.
> For example, we may use hypotheses that contradict well-confirmed
> theories and/or well-established experimental results. We may advance
> science by proceeding counter-inductively.
Again, wrong. Einstein's theories were and are wrong. They were
wrong because they were based upon a blunder, in analysing the results
of the MM interferometry experiment. They were "proved" by the atom
bomb apparently, but my new formula relating mass and energy shows how
wrong they all were. Now, my formula will be proved right only when I
make a model of an Internal Force Engine. That will be some
experiment! Till then, my work is theoretical, and of no practical
value - yet.
> The consistency condition which demands that new hypotheses agree with
> accepted theories is unreasonable because it preserves the older
> theory, and not the better theory. Hypotheses contradicting well-
> confirmed theories give us evidence that cannot be obtained in any
> other way. Proliferation of theories is beneficial for science, while
> uniformity impairs its critical power. Uniformity also endangers the
> free development of the individual.
So far so good. Yes there can be many theories, but only proper
experiment can decide which one is the most correct at any given
time. Till then, we live in the world of speculation.
> There is no idea, however ancient and absurd, that is not capable of
> improving our knowledge.
Increasing knowledge is not the same as improving knowledge.
> http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/feyerab...
>
>
>
> > This is what I was taught in my engineering institute (First Year) by
> > the profs. in the Humanities Dept. IIT Kharagur was the only IIT
> > where there was a firmly established and motivated Humanities
> > department.
>
> > > including the paradoxical fact that the progress
> > > of mathematics was aided by the mysticism
> > > of Russian mathematicians who accepted
> > > Cantor's set theory because it fit their
> > > mystical beliefs.
>
> > Now what has maths to do with science? The Queen of Arts is
> > Mathematics, and Science pays the most humble homage to Her.
>
> Many people would include mathematics as part of science.
They used to give B.A. in maths, in the great days of maths. Science
serves maths, not the other way around, in any honest establishment.
Especially when by maths they mean statistics.
> There is an element of mathematics that is similar to the
> arts but I would not call mathematics an art.
I would. Mathematics is the Queen of Arts, and Philosophy is the
King.
Aesthetic
> considerations play a role in mathematics, but they also
> play a role in theoretical physics.
Arts is not just about aesthetics. Arts is about art - about subtle
trickery - the means with which we differentiate ourselves from the
denizens of the wild.
> There are no experiments
> in mathematics but the use of logical deduction sets it
> apart from the arts. The fundamental concepts of mathematics
> have a basis in experience, but the concepts have been
> abstracted.
I think we are on different wavelengths. I depend upon maths for my
living. And the set theory you are talking about, is a daily
phenomenon for me these days, when I write SQL code. Maths is
abstract for dilettantes and those in academia maybe, but for an
engineer/computer scientist/mathematical modeller/etc. like myself, it
is very very concrete indeed.
It is late, so I have not replied in greater detail. May do that
later. Thanks a lot for your wonderful post, as illuminating as ever.
Cheers, and with regards,
Arindam Banerjee
Bappa
This one sounds like an Einsteinian! A fit candidate for the Usenet
Rogues' Gallery of Arindam haters - we can squeeze him in, there is
still room! :) :)
>
> --
> You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.- Hide quoted text -
Bappa
I don't see any facts going against the theories of gravitation,
electromagnetics, atomic structure, etc. which form the core of hard
science. I see lots of facts going against the theories of relativity
and quantum and entropy.
yet it is not
> > always the theory that is to blame. Facts are constituted by older
> > ideologies, and a clash between facts and theories may be proof of
> > progress.
No, it is a proof of regress. It is proof that bad theories are
winning out over good theories. It is proof that the establishment is
corrupt and forcing people to live in a world of lies.
It is also a first step in our attempts to find the
> > principles implicit in familiar observational notions.
> > As an example of such an attempt I examine the tower argument which
> > the Aristotelians used to refute the motion of the earth.
Scratch any Einsteinian deep enough, and you will find an
Aristotelian. Special relativity can be correct if and only if the
Earth is standing still, so much I myself have proved beyond doubt. I
suspect that the success of Einstein has some deep (and disgustingly
wrong) theological basis.
The argument
> > involves natural interpretations - ideas so closely connected with
> > observations that it needs a special effort to realise their existence
> > and to determine their content. Galileo identifies the natural
> > interpretations which are inconsistent with Copernicus and replaces
> > them by others.
Huh? Galileo found out with his telescope that Jupiter had moons. So
if Jupiter's moons could go around Jupiter, the Earth could go around
the Sun. It would then move, that is. Which was what Copernicus was
saying, as opposed to the standard Aristotelian theory that the Sun
and everything else was going around the Earth.
The Church did not want to hear about the Earth's mobility, so they
made Galileo shut up.
Again, this was what I learnt in my First Year in Engineering from the
Humanities Dept. We read the play "Galileo" by Brecht.
> > The new natural interpretations constitute a new and highly abstract
> > observation language. They are introduced and concealed so that one
> > falls to notice the change that has taken place (method of anamnesis).
> > They contain the idea of the relativity of all motion and the law of
> > circular inertia.
Here we go again, with wrong theories like relativity and circular
inertia trying to out the right ones like gravity. Wrong observations
and wrong deductions are crucial for the success of wrong theories.
The MM interferometry experiment, with its wrong analysis, done many
times by many people, is the biggest proof of this.
> > Initial difficulties caused by the change are defused by ad hoc
> > hypotheses, which thus turn out occasionally to have a positive
> > function; they give new theories a breathing space, and they indicate
> > the direction of future research.
So long as folks still have wits and guts. What with idiot-box TV,
novels and permissiveness, ease of every kind, junk food and
establishmentarianism meaning safe and comfortable pensions after
retirement for all the slimy sucking-up PhuDs, the very concept of
anarchic research has long ceased to exist anywhere on the planet.
Except, maybe, in Kazakhstan, where men are ruled by men and not by
little girls. Because they have the best potassium, as we know, from
Borat.
> > In addition to natural interpretations, Galileo also changes
> > sensations that seem to endanger Copernicus. He admits that there are
> > such sensations, he praises Copernicus for having disregarded them, he
> > claims to have removed them with the help of the telescope. However,
> > he offers no theoretical reasons why the telescope should be expected
> > to give a true picture of the sky.
> > Nor does the initial experience with the telescope provide such
> > reasons. The first telescopic observations of the sky are indistinct,
> > indeterminate, contradictory and in conflict with what everyone can
> > see with his unaided eyes. And, the only theory that could have helped
> > to separate telescopic illusions from veridical phenomena was refuted
> > by simple tests.
> > On the other hand, there are some telescopic phenomena which are
> > plainly Copernican. Galileo introduces these phenomena as independent
> > evidence for Copernicus while the situation is rather that one refuted
> > view - Copernicanism - has a certain similarity with phenomena
> > emerging from another refuted view - the idea that telescopic
> > phenomena are faithful images of the sky. Galileo prevails because of
> > his style and his clever techniques of persuasion, because he writes
> > in Italian rather than in Latin, and because he appeals to people who
> > are temperamentally opposed to the old ideas and the standards of
> > learning connected with them.
Galileo prevailed far more over Aristotle (his orbiting moons
shattered Aristotle's crystal spheres, remember) than Copernicus till
Einstein came up with his relativistic bs; given the modern success of
the Einsteinians (aka Aristotleians) it looks like his success has had
a hopefully temporary break. I don't see how Galileo and Copernicus
were at odds. Galileo's telescope showed the moons, and later on it
was found that the movement of heavenly bodies made much more sense if
the Copernican model was followed.
> > Such 'irrational' methods of support are needed because of the 'uneven
> > development' (Marx, Lenin) of different parts of science.
> > Copernicanism and other essential ingredients of modern science
> > survived only because reason was frequently overruled in their past.
Reason was over-ruled only by by bigots, like those who burnt Bruno
for daring to say that the universe was infinite. Science has never
gained from bigotry.
There is real science, upon which engineering is based. Then there is
wrong science, upon which academics thrive, under the patronage of the
politicians. Wrong science is far more dishonest than voodoo.
> > Thus science is much closer to myth than a scientific philosophy is
> > prepared to admit.
Myth is wonderful, for it deals with the deepest ideas of existence.
The scientist can derive inspiration from myth, especially in a
cynical atheistic world. However, science has nothing to do with
myth.
It is one of the many forms of thought that have
> > been developed by man, and not necessarily the best. It is
> > conspicuous, noisy, and impudent, but it is inherently superior only
> > for those who have already decided in favour of a certain ideology, or
> > who have accepted it without having ever examined its advantages and
> > its limits. And as the accepting and rejecting of ideologies should be
> > left to the individual it follows that the separation of state and
> > church must be supplemented by the separation of state and science,
> > that most recent, most aggressive, and most dogmatic religious
> > institution. Such a separation may be our only chance to achieve a
> > humanity we are capable of, but have never fully realised.
It is too bad, that the atheists have made out science to be their
religion. When it is just a straightforward, honest, meticulous set
of methods (experiment) and fair and balanced observation, analysis,
discussion leading to the formation of correct theories for correct
predictions. It is a branch on the great tree of Art...
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Guts faith and goodness, but none of it matters without goodness. --
Martin Musatov
Patok
Hater?! I don't hate you, I'm /horrified/!
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. So is a lot."
Arindam Banerjee
"Patok" <crazy.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:h9cpr5$9ho$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Oh dear, you *are* a little girl! A nice thing to be, in this age of
LittleGirlism. Not that you have sugar and spice, and everything nice -
just some shrieks.
> "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. So is a lot."
Hmm, now you are talking. Lots of bad knowledge built upon "wise" bungles is
disastrous indeed, so the universities and labs must be deloused of
Einsteinians.
Arindam Banerjee
"Michael" <marty....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:86e8ac9d-af66-42c2...@m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Truth above goodness: The beauty that is not based upon goodness is not
beautiful; the good that is not based upon truth is not good.
Satyam Shivam Sundaram - Truth Goodness Beauty - strictly in that order.
And by Truth, we mean the whole truth, the whole balanced truth, and nothing
but the truth.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee.
harmony
"Arindam Banerjee" <adda...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:Flnum.42540$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
which reminds me of rajghat, the memorial to mahatma gandhi: satyam (he
practised truth) shivam (he was always kind and good) sundaram (now modern
designers think khadi is beautiful). what's the word for those who hate
mahatma gandhi?
kunzmilan
> Alexandrov also figures prominently as one of
> Luzin's accusers in the tense hearing before a tribunal of the Academy
> of Sciences in 1936. At that trial he said, "I do not claim that
> Suslin named A-sets in my honor, because I never heard anything of the
> sort from him." Some 40 years later, that same Alexandrov wrote that
> "[Suslin] emphasized that he was naming the A-sets in my honor, in
> analogy with the B-sets [named for Borel]." Thus does memory play
> tricks on us all!
honor from an accused.
kunzmilan
Michael
> "Michael" <marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Arindamn, all that is good is in truth. None that is not true is good.
The implicit paradox is actually sound.
Let me map for you:
True => Observer=> Good = Complete
/ Bad =>
True => Observer=> = Incomplete
\ Good=>
All we see that is 'bad' to us we must assume ultimately good to
discover most truth. Truth tends toward 'good' as all that is 'true'
is good as all truth is better than less truth. The less truth the
less good it is for the one who has it.
All progressing systems tend to 'good' truth in time as truth is
inherently 'better' than 'false'.
m.michaelmusatov
Arindam Banerjee
"harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4aba9de1$0$23771$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
No he did not. He claimed to be a Hindu, but he was much more an agent of
Christian imperialism and Muslim appeasement. What was true about him, was
his commitment to his native state of Gujarat - at the expense of Bengal and
Punjab, of course.
shivam (he was always kind and good)
Oh ho ho. He slept naked with his naked neices. He abused their trust, and
their innocence. He exploited them. Today anyone with any sense will know
him as an extraordinary pervert. He was such an egotist that he did not
even think that he was doing wrong. But then, I may be wronging him, as
sleeping naked with your naked neices may well be part of the Gujarati
tradition! On a different scale, his backstabbing of Bose led India to lose
the one great leader that would have lifted them out of poverty and want,
and turned India into a superpower today.
sundaram (now modern
> designers think khadi is beautiful).
Well at least you do have the sense not to praise Gandi's looks. One minor
plus point for you.
what's the word for those who hate
> mahatma gandhi?
Who hated that fellow more than his OWN SON, who was in the best position to
know his father as he really was? Lord Wavell was being too kind when he
said he was 10% saint, 10% charlatan and 80% very astute politician.
Oi gandi kay aulaad yay toe butaa
tu musaalman buna kyoN?
Poor gandi-ka-santaan, turning into a drunkard and converting to Islam was
evidently his way of getting back at his egotistical, manipulative,
moralising and hypocritical wife-abusing father. What a man to be labelled
the Father of the Nation! Who wants to be like gandi's own son... Is gandi
a model father?
Is not gandi (a closet Christian, and a traitor to Hindus; a hideous
creature to the core; a self-righteous egomanical creature who totally
screwed up the message of the Gita, a dictatorial leader who in the
political sense turned the whole population into opportunistic bastards and
cowardly bundurrrs, ignorant of their true traditions; the epitome of static
poverty, weakness, petulance, ignorance, stupidity, egotism, selfishness)
best described as the Mahabandar of Porbandar?
So harmony, are you really a Muslim, or at least a Christian, for your great
support to the humbug gandi?
Why should any self-respecting Hindu have the slightest regard for that
hideous traitor, who showed absolutely no concern for Hindus? So many Hindu
lives were lost, so many Hindu lives and hopes were and are spoilt, because
of gandi's most ineffective, backstabbing, ego-maniacal leadership.
Nothing good happened to non-Gujarati Indians because of gandi. To say that
he led India to independence, is the biggest lie we had to learn (and
unlearn, if you are not a guj-jew).
Unless the "Hindu" in question is a fundie-Christian-money-loving liar and
hypocrite - a worthy descendant of the Mahabandar of Porbandar, thus.
What is still slightly amusing is that you praise gandi while also intensely
hating Christians and Muslims who were so loved by gandi.
Ah well, if Indians are so foolish to still think well of gandi, that is
their business. I have only tried to set things straight, based upon the
important understanding that the lovely sequence Satyam Shivam Sundaram must
have a decreasing order of importance. Looking deeply into gandi, we do not
find anything shivam or satyam under his extremely ugly appearance. A lack
of satyam and shivam, thus inevitably leads to the lack of sundaram.
However, the lack of sundaram (which is a highly subjective matter, though
in the case of gandi no one thinks him sundar appearance wise, so he well
may be a standard of ugliness) does not necessarily mean lack of shivam and
satyam. What shivam and satyam can be found in any traitor? No amount of
gandian moralising, institutional push, media boost, brainwashing etc. can
alter the fact that gandi was a traitor. The writings of his killer, now at
last released, makes gandi's treachery self-evident to anyone with any sense
of fairness. Not that I condone gandi's killing, for that was too extreme.
He should have behaved like the brave Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes
at Bush.
Arindam Banerjee
Arindam Banerjee
AB: This is saying that truth is a superset of good. This is wrong. Truth,
Good and Beauty and different concepts. Truth relates to fundamentals, Good
relates to practicality and Beauty relates to appearance.
The implicit paradox is actually sound.
AB: Please think a bit more carefully about what I write.
Let me map for you:
True => Observer=> Good = Complete
/ Bad =>
True => Observer=> = Incomplete
\ Good=>
All we see that is 'bad' to us we must assume ultimately good to
discover most truth. Truth tends toward 'good' as all that is 'true'
is good as all truth is better than less truth. The less truth the
less good it is for the one who has it.
All progressing systems tend to 'good' truth in time as truth is
inherently 'better' than 'false'.
m.michaelmusatov
AB: I hope you may get your confusions cleared, some day.
harmony
you are filled with hatred, a sign of a failed weakling trying to blame
somebody else. hearing you speak of satyam or shivam or sundaram makes for
lol.
"Arindam Banerjee" <adda...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:bSKvm.43530$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Mirza Ghalib
> lol.
> you are filled with hatred, a sign of a failed weakling trying to blame
> somebody else. hearing you speak of satyam or shivam or sundaram makes for
> lol.
>
>
> news:bSKvm.43530$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:4aba9de1$0$23771$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
>
> >>news:Flnum.42540$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> >>> "Michael" <marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> read more »
Harmony ji:
The very fact that you are "lol" betrays your
own lack of confidence. Forget for a moment whether Gandhi
was from Gujarat or someplace else. In fairness to Gandhi,
he was very open minded in this area, and he was respected by
most Indians of that era, albeit undeservedly.
The encounters with his nieces is vividly described in
Nirmal Kumar Bose's "My Days with Gandhi". When some members
of his team questioned him about the impropriety Gandhi stonewalled
them.
Gandhi's eldest son, Hari did convert into Islam. Those who induced
him
to do so extended the invitation also to Gandhi. But these are trivial
matters.
The important thing is who benefited from his Satya-Ahinsa crap?
Gandhi was conveniently absent when the Muslim mobs, instigated
by Suhravardy, then Gov of Bengal. After 5000 Hindu Sikhs lay
dead in streets, the Hindus organised, the table turned. When the
counter-mobs were looking for Suhravardy, Gandhi suddenly popped up,
and lo, he took this criminal under his wings. He later rewarded
Gandhi
with unusual vituperation when a few months later Gandhi was camped
out at Noakhali on a "peace mission", but that is another story,
also recorded by Bose in his book.
What benefit, may I ask, did Gandhi bring to Hindus and Sikhs
of undivided India? The partition did occur, despite Gandhi's
pronouncements to the contrary ('over my dead body, etc').
The bulk of Muslims who voted for Pakistan stayed in India,
and Hindus remained unprepared till the last moment for the
inevitable because they foolishly believed that Gandhi would pull
a miracle.
If any credit is due, at least in Punjab, it should go to the RSS,
who at tremendous risk rescued thousands of Punjabi Hindus and
Sikhs from the perils, and brought them safely into India. It is
ironical they are branded by the rulers of India as "communal" !
P. Rajah
> lol.
> you are filled with hatred, a sign of a failed weakling trying to blame
> somebody else.
Whoa, whoa, whoa!!! Talk about the pot trying to call the kettle black.
You are the poster child for hatred. All the dictionaries have your
picture as the definition of hatred. You dream of hating other people.
You wake up with hatred in your heart. You live and breathe hatred.
Every post of yours drools, froths and dribbles with hatred. If the
ability to hate was taken from you, you would cease to have reason to exist.
> hearing you speak of satyam or shivam or sundaram makes for
> lol.
>
>
> "Arindam Banerjee" <adda...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:bSKvm.43530$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>[.....]
Arindam Banerjee
"P. Rajah" <us...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:h9re1...@news3.newsguy.com...
> harmony wrote:
>
>> lol.
>> you are filled with hatred, a sign of a failed weakling trying to blame
>> somebody else.
>
> Whoa, whoa, whoa!!! Talk about the pot trying to call the kettle black.
And that too a shining stainless kettle, of unmatched lustre and utility.
Arindam Banerjee
> lol.
> you are filled with hatred, a sign of a failed weakling trying to blame
> somebody else. hearing you speak of satyam or shivam or sundaram makes for
> lol.
Quite true bundree, all talk of satyam and shivam let alone sundaram will
make you laugh, why else are you a bundree?
Note: bundree = she-monkey
harmony
"Mirza Ghalib" <mgha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3b7d958f-61d8-49d7...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 28, 11:02 am, "harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> lol.
> you are filled with hatred, a sign of a failed weakling trying to blame
> somebody else. hearing you speak of satyam or shivam or sundaram makes for
> lol.
>
Harmony ji:
<The very fact that you are "lol" betrays your
own lack of confidence. Forget for a moment whether Gandhi
was from Gujarat or someplace else. In fairness to Gandhi,
he was very open minded in this area, and he was respected by
most Indians of that era, albeit undeservedly.>
lol on that too. if you look carefully, mirza ji, you will see it is that
not-so-bright arindam who regionalizes the mahatma, not me. i would never do
that. you knew that, right? you need to argue that part with gimme-gimme
arvindam. good luck there.
i don't get the "undeservedly" part on respect though. mahatma earned it
fair and square in the broad day light in full view of the world. he led by
example, not by empty preaching, showed courage at a time when total fear
gripped the colonized people. he could organize people like never done
before. as reagan famously said, "don't argue with success". (wisdom to
learn from the white folks: celebrate others' good points and success with
an open mind.)
--------
<<The encounters with his nieces is vividly described in
Nirmal Kumar Bose's "My Days with Gandhi". When some members
of his team questioned him about the impropriety Gandhi stonewalled
them.>>
that was crazy, obviously, but everybody knew why he did that, no? he was
testing his control on his indriya for which he had put in great sadhana,
like fasting, mauna, simple food, austere living and on and on.
let's face it: he was no ordinary guy. he was going to experiment with life
and its truth to the limit. crazy? absolutely - at least for regular
mortals - but that's the way it was.
at any rate, whatever one's view, be it because of one's tradition, culture,
indoctrination or fig leaf phobia, as far as i know this did not affect
anybody's lives nor the nation's business of which he was the leader.
<<Gandhi's eldest son, Hari did convert into Islam. Those who induced
him
to do so extended the invitation also to Gandhi. But these are trivial
matters.>>
exactly. yes, these are trivial matters. but apparently big matters to
not-so bright arindam; so now you know my lol.
btw, didn't hari reconvert back to hinduism, thanks to swami shraddhanandji,
one of my heroes - at mahatma's prodding.
<The important thing is who benefited from his Satya-Ahinsa crap?>
although i understand the feeling, it wasn't crap. the trick is to get right
the perspective in the frame of that period. you will then see it was just
the opposite. it is well recognized that it was mahatma who strongly
influenced the people of power and influence and goodwill around the world
to humanize the badly troubled world, and help them see that nations
oppresssing other nations is not the way to live. look at the state of world
wide violence in his time. blood sucking colonialism, ever present wars all
over from far east to far west, north and south. the world was truly a
traumatized place. he showed the direction in a way that happens once in
millenium. indeed time magazine ranked him 2nd as the person of the
millenium behind einstein. so, isn't it something that einstein in his late
years had only mahatma's portrait hanging on his walls after he took
everything else off the walls? wasn't he the one to pay mahatma the most
hearfelt glowing tribute? surely, einstein had no time for crap, did he?
but arindam unloads a lot of crap on einstein, right?
so, to answer your question: the whole humanity benefitted.
now, you will say, so what good did it do for india?
i don't think you need to go beyond the words of the tallest intellectual in
india rajagopalchari ji on why gandhi ji had mass following : "organized
violence (against the british) was an impossibility". modern day armchair
warrior critics of the mahatma forget this reality, and build castles in
air.
if you proceed from this reality, it is not hard to see that gandhi did more
for indian political unity than any other single factor or i would say any
group of people.
if you fault him for everything else, this part alone excuses everything
else. he was one of very few who shraddhanand ji could really count on for
his fight against caste discriminations. he got ambedkar to come around for
a united india.
it wasn't the british centralized rule that alone made for a united india.
do you honestly think those 500 princely states would have joined india
without the credibility of the congress party? if yes, who wold you give
most credit to create that aura if not for the repuation of mahatma gandhi
for honesty and integrity?
who would they trust? nehru? maulana, the congress president? do you think
they would have joined india if they knew their royalited would be swallowed
up by congressis in 20 years? do you honestly think the sikhs would have
remained in india? the high moral content of congress, and its credibility -
the essential ingredients for a credible state - was made possible largely
beause of the millieu created by gandhi, the principled pujari of satya and
ahimsa.
if a person goes on fast for giving the enemy his due share, why would the
kings not trust him? i do not think this point is well understood. but if
you look at other countries where competing forces go at one another's
throats often, threatening their political unity, you will realize how
imortant this thing is. look at pakistan, afghanistan, sri lanka,
bangladesh, even parts of modern india. we all love the idea and the truth
that india is one unified country, but it takes a lot to make that work. my
hindi teacher used to say, "angaare khaney padtey hai".
political unity is the paramount thing, not the army. empires come and go,
what reamins is the bonds and emotional unity of people. and that takes a
lot of doing - even between two neighbors. in modern india that task is ably
done by the organizations like rss - so, no wonder the anti-india 3m must
revile them, as they reviled the mahatma in his time.
<<<Gandhi was conveniently absent when the Muslim mobs, instigated
by Suhravardy, then Gov of Bengal. After 5000 Hindu Sikhs lay
dead in streets, the Hindus organised, the table turned. When the
counter-mobs were looking for Suhravardy, Gandhi suddenly popped up,
and lo, he took this criminal under his wings. He later rewarded
Gandhi
with unusual vituperation when a few months later Gandhi was camped
out at Noakhali on a "peace mission", but that is another story,
also recorded by Bose in his book.
What benefit, may I ask, did Gandhi bring to Hindus and Sikhs
of undivided India? The partition did occur, despite Gandhi's
pronouncements to the contrary ('over my dead body, etc').
The bulk of Muslims who voted for Pakistan stayed in India,
and Hindus remained unprepared till the last moment for the
inevitable because they foolishly believed that Gandhi would pull
a miracle.>>>
------------------
i notice that when people start faulting mahtma it is always about partition
of 1947 - and khilafat. quite apparently, they have no problem with all that
he did before 1947.
so, why not give him the credit for the reasons he had nationwide - and
international - following?
what could he, 80 year old man, have done under this madness? yes, what
options did he really have then?
he commanded no army, no police no nothing except his own moral authority
which no doubt was considerable; of course, mostly with the hindus.
he had no rapid action tool or power which could be deployed in a fast
deteriorating conflict, did he?
i will tell you one thing, and you can run your own checks and find out.
i have talked about this with so many punjabi folks who were affected by
partition. so far, not one has faulted mahatma for partition massacres.
actually, i did find many who were very grateful that congress party had
made accomodations for tens of thousands of them in dillie.
when a leader produces results for masses consistently, the people will
trust that leader for miracle. but things can go wrong along the way. it has
happened in the story of freedom struggles of many countries, including usa.
those nations don't come down on their leaders the way indians are doing.
when india neared freedom, the expectations and the forward dynamics changed
dramatically. it did not help that mahatma was a very very old man then. he
used to say people in his own congress did not listen to him. people
salivated at the prospects of power. there was no alternative to his
leadership at the time although he wasn't the man for the moment.
he did his best to stop partition. it did not work. so, there is a lesson to
be learned there: muslims are a separate nation no matter what anybody says.
now, if the people out there have learned that lesson, i would say partition
wasn't a bad thing.
it is not clear why murkah arindam would have problem with hari converting
to islam in the first place because he grows twice in size when his shayaris
are applauded by mommedans: his reason enough for a negative attitutde
toward objective hindus is they won't buy his snake oil, and whom he must
therefore call back stabbers.
----------------------------------------------------
<<<If any credit is due, at least in Punjab, it should go to the RSS,
who at tremendous risk rescued thousands of Punjabi Hindus and
Sikhs from the perils, and brought them safely into India. It is
ironical they are branded by the rulers of India as "communal" !>>>
i agree. and i don't believe mahatma ever criticised self defence during
partition. rss literature shows it considers mahatma as a great hero; why do
you suppose rss, which is not shy about being polically incorrect, thinks
mahatma is a great hero?
Mirza Ghalib
>
> read more »
Obviously you did not interview many Punjabis.
The most glaring example contradicting your view is that of
Madan Lal Pahwa. He had met Gandhi some time in December '47
or January '48, and lamented about his family in Punjab being
butchered before his eyes. Gandhi gave him some cockamamie
answers, something like universal love and Ahinsa, which I
tend to believe greatly upset him. I say that because he planted
a bomb designed for Gandhi about 10 days before Gandhi was
actually assassinated. The bomb did explode, but Gandhi escaped
unhurt.
Gandhi did discourage the refugees that were pouring into India
during 1946-47 from coming to India. Instead, his advice for
them was to "fight by Ahinsak means, armed only with moral
power, even if it could (certainly) mean death", or worse, especially
for the women. It is noteworthy that he offered the similar advice
to the British and the Jews of Europe.
Gandhi never studied history. He foolishly mistook common
courtesy as "goodwill." Add to that his utter stubbornness and
refusal to accept his own mistakes (there were many, some
very crucial). Scan Gandhi's sayings. Not in one place has
he criticized Muslims, even though they displayed their
predatory behavior, such as by Moplahs in Kerala, 1921-22.
However, he routinely blackmailed Hindus on absurd and
dangerous points, through his "purification" fasts.
I think Gandhi was trying to project himself to the Indian
people as another Jesus Christ, one who takes the sins of
others on his own shoulders. Perhaps he did succeed there,
because, like Christ, he too was assassinated.
Arindam Banerjee
AB: Christ was not assassinated. He was executed by the due legal process
of his time and place, at the urging of his fellow-Jews. Of course, there
are differnent accounts. The one I like best is that the Romans let him go
before he died, and he came to India with Mary Magdalene, running away thus
from his fellow-Jews. According to tradition his grave exists in Srinagar,
where is looked upon very highly. He lived up to a 100 years, and had lots
of children and grandchildren... Gandi was a traitor to Hindus, and if any
self-respecting Hindu (so get lost, harmony and other suchlike guj-jews) who
reads Godse's and thinks otherwise, may kindly explain why Gandi should not
be considered a traitor to Hindus. His other faults - too many to mention -
are well documented but of course Gandians will chose to ignore them. The
tragedy/curse for India is that this creature should be given the highest
honours... I mean, it is too much of a bad joke, what? How long will it
continue? That is the question.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
http://meami.org
began @ and I was puzzled as I wrote it: 'g' understand the 'clip"
Well All[ah]:
You see it all [ha!] {spy sunscreen not needed inside all those
clothes worn by women} I had a dream and in the dream I understood a
thing. I saw the strict observance and militant formalize of Muslim
culture and doctrine and I understood the gentleness of Christ. So I
[amidst] struggle said Christ was surrendered to God in God's awesome
power to change and create all things. I understood th@ Christ stood
by me and God by His side and I the speed pierced his side of my
inheritance both of and not by my will [alone[with God]]. I said if
Christ is gentlemen-like and by all accounts he was a gentle man then
he in his wisdom surrenders to the struggle and notes the good nature
of God is never wrong and always true. If you see enmity eyes
http://meami.org
After the dream in the morning or early morning or maybe even night I
woke up and in a breath of confession the words 'I am Muslim' entered
my heart and were spoken and written in the book of life. The truth is
Christ and God never left my side. I was there for them to show me
this and this they showed me [it]Did it trouble me not but eased my
mind an deepened my would with loving admiration in awe of truth
greatness.
[Q[w<decades
http://meami.org
Ariel Banned wrote:
> Obviously you did not interview many Punished.
http://meami.org
Mira Glib: Mira Glib, I write to you through Jesus Christ and the Holy
Spirit upon you and with you as you read
:Mira Glib:
What you write of me is I am full of hatred. I say to you this. Write
in your books. "If you say to me I am full of hatred then whether I am
full of hatred or whether I am not full of hatred your word is full of
judgment." The claim precedes factual ramification rain corning
spinster lied
Arindam Banerjee
maybe it is worthwhile to do some pathology.
"Mirza Ghalib" <mgha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:33c22ee2-b14c-4091...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> i will tell you one thing, and you can run your own checks and find out.
> i have talked about this with so many punjabi folks who were affected by
> partition. so far, not one has faulted mahatma for partition massacres.
> actually, i did find many who were very grateful that congress party had
> made accomodations for tens of thousands of them in dillie.
This is probably the biggest lie ever said in Usenet, and confirms harmony's
status as a monkey, if ever that was in doubt. Even Khushwant Singh the
great Congressi bootlicker in his moments of candour said how much he hated
India's freedom from the British. He also wrote a novel "Train to
Pakistan" - full of rapes and murders and so a great hit - about the evils
current at the time. I worked with a Sardar chap who was a refugee from
Pakistan, when I was in Delhi. He hated Gandi with all his heart, and
indeed he was the first one to inform me how gandi slept naked with his
naked neices, cursing gandi all the time in the most choice Punjabi.
> when a leader produces results for masses consistently, the people will
> trust that leader for miracle. but things can go wrong along the way. it
> has
> happened in the story of freedom struggles of many countries, including
> usa.
> those nations don't come down on their leaders the way indians are doing.
Point is, absolutely nothing right happened for India under gandi's
disastrous leadership. He was a great fraud with all the charm of ugliness.
India's independence would never have happened with WW2 so if any
personality is responsible it was Hitler. Prior to WW2 Gandi and his mates
were looked upon as perfectly acceptable and manageable nuisances, who were
useful as they blunted the terrorist activity with their passivity. The
Indian elite had no use for them, and the masses were enjoying the benefits
of British rule at long last (after the horrors of the previous century,
under the capitalist East India Company and the subsequent period of
mismanagement under Crown Rule). Had there been a popular vote for Congress
rule or British rule, it is very doubtful whether the Congressis would have
won. For many elderly Indians still remember and praise British rule, the
last bit which is what they remember. Gandi and the Congress were given
independence because the British wanted to leave India, as India was no
longer profitable what with the internal tensions. In short, force of
circs. gave India freedom, and gandi is no more responsible for it than the
current PM is responsible for globalisation (or whatever).
harmony
-----------------------------
this problem is too sensitive to be trying to win an argument, and i am not
trying to do that. actually, i am as unhappy as the next guy with gandhiji
handling the problem of islam. so, i do not and can not disagree with your
comments. the only difference it seems to me is that you want to judge
gandhi only by his liberal atttiude toward islam; i am willing to judge him
with his overall role which was very necessary to an india which was
divested of hindu rule over a millenium. i am urging reality check, that's
all, which many are not willing to do because they don't like the reality.
so, i don't have any trouble agreeing with you on this, and i think i have
said as much. it is simply impractical to expect a man to change in his last
years, decades after his life mission of peace which most pepole in his
time -and now - regard as tremendous success.
clearly, he wasn't the man to lead on this tragedy of partition. to be sure,
the killings were done hugely on both sides nevertheless, gandhi or no
gandhi; more so in punjab which knew islam too well, and less so in bengal
because it was by then in firm grips of arindam's friends, the anti-hindu
commi propagandists (who had let it be kown, among many many other things,
that islam in bengal happened because of fair trading with arabs:):):)!!! ).
so, gandhi's so-called peace mission in bengal suited arindam's commie
friends just too well. they did not speak out against it, which they would
have if they had not agreed, being an accomplished propagandists that they
were and still are. so, i guess you can fault gandhi for not taking on
commies.
about the only point where i would probably defer is that i don't think he
was doing it with any motive to be christ or any political ambition. he did
not even celebrate the independence nor cared for power. clearly, he did not
understand islam - or understood too late; he did call muslims the ever
bullies. he did understand the missionaries quite well, and said he would
ban them if he had the power just for a day.
the viewpoint i have about the mahatma is pretty much the one konrad elst
has expressed in his wonderful book.
let's face it: the hindus did not know how to rule, and still do not know
how to rule. isn't that obvious?
nehru is on record having admitted that fact quite frankly to mt. batter,
isn't he, and retained the mount as the governor general even after
independence exactly because of that hindu incapacity to rule. but let's be
kind and say it was natural, for the hindus were out of power for way too
long. the incapacity still shows, look who is ruling india today. (you
gotta admit the weakness if you are to solve the problem, wouldn't you
agree?)
however, not-so-bright arindama has still not _unlearned_ nothing,
slobbering at islamic "brotherhood" for no reason than a clumsy cuwali
night. is it any wonder hindus in bagladesh still run away to india? and
they need visas for that!!!!!!
but let's recap in earnest: are you saying that mahatma's role in its
totality, not limiting to partition and islam, was irrelevant to india's
aspirations? if you do, let's hear it.
Mirza Ghalib
> "Mirza Ghalib" <mghali...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:33c22ee2-b14c-4091...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
I appreciate your point. To my firm conviction partition was
inevitable,
and for Gandhi to beg of and cajole Jinnah was absolutely fruitless.
The so-called Hindu-Muslim unity that congress leaders used to sing
while blaming the "temporary" alienation of Muslims on the British
was fictional. The Muslims and Hindus of India co-existed, but tell me
when was there an intermarriage, or even sharing of meals.
Gandhi had plenty of pointers telling him about the shape of things
to
come, back in the early forties. First, by 1940 the Pakistan
resolution
had already been passed in Lahore, with a firm demand for a sovereign
Pakistan. Second, the League boycotted the "Quit India Movement"
en masse (that is, about 80 percent of Muslims). Third, the
guiding philosophy of Muslims is in stark opposition to Hindus',
which Patel realized early on, and this wise man saw the impossibility
of bridging it. However, congress which was run by Gandhi did not
take any kind of action to protect the lives of the minorities who
would fall on the wrong side of the partition line, whenever it came.
Even more eccentric was Gandhi's behavior post-partition, but
the big wrong had been already done with a loss of two million
lives, and what is even more important, destruction of the Punjabi
Hindu culture, and serious damage the Bengalis'. I doubt Gandhi
even understood the harm he had done.
Gandhi started his lifelong work with the right motives. It does take
courage to mobilize a serious economic boycott against then
the strongest power in the world. But Gandhi also hijacked the
contributions of all those past and contemporary patriots who
had done the groundwork towards freedom. His treatment
of Bose and Bhulabhai Desai was shameful.
marty....@gmail.com
Roverii Tom
Some years ago, magician James Randi trained a few individuals to
deceive Duke University scientists who were looking for evidence of the
paranormal. The scientists determined that the subjects indeed
possessed ESP. The scientific method is the best we have, but every
investigation must welcome scrutiny again and again. Nothing is etched
in stone forever.
Roverii