THE BLIND MEN AND THE ELEPHANT, revisited

[A Vestigial Mote]

You missed it as analogy.

In a true analogy, all things within it are analogous. Meaning the substitution of one thing for another is not done such that there is a vital loss or addition of characteristics that fundamentally changes the actors in play. In the analogy, an elephant is a real, tangible, present thing. And then you substitute God, and the analogy is now not even close to being representational.

A more accurate analogy is that 6 blind men are asked to walk into a room and describe the color of the object in the center of the room to one another. That's a more valid analogy within which God could be substituted with no problems.

 

[shunyadragon]

In a true analogy, all things within it are analogous. Meaning the substitution of one thing for another is not done such that there is a vital loss or addition of characteristics that fundamentally changes the actors in play. In the analogy, an elephant is a real, tangible, present thing. And then you substitute God, and the analogy is now not even close to being representational.

A more accurate analogy is that 6 blind men are asked to walk into a room and describe the color of the object in the center of the room to one another. That's a more valid analogy within which God could be substituted with no problems.

I do not agree. You are defining analogy in too narrow a context.

 

[pearl]

Yet this is what religion and scripture, including yours, attempts to do.

The difference is in acknowledging that 'God' is an 'incomprehensible Mystery'. The elephant story was written by a Catholic priest.

 

[usfan]

The point was that the poem's analogy of elephant to God is completely botched. You can't "touch" God - can't run your fingers over Him - can't evaluate ANY part, let

It's just a poem, about the folly of man, and his dogmatic insistence that, 'I am right! YOU are wrong!'

If that doesn't describe forum 'discussions', i don't know what does.

Its not a 'Proof of God!' poem, that some seem to see behind every tree.. ..and, hiding elephants behind trees is not so easy..

Needs more than a slight update considering the story ignores the reality of diversity - namely, that there is more than one proverbial elephant.

For the poem's premise, the elephant can be seen as a picture of Truth, not just about God. I think we can expand the meaning to that, with some literary liberty. So those who believe in polytheism, monotheism, and even atheism are all covered, by this simple poem.. which, btw, was based on an old Hindu story, parable, or whatever.

The limited perception of man, and his dogmatic reliance on that limited perception, is the central message, it seems to me. But, like all art, the beholder can see many things..

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I do not agree. You are defining analogy in too narrow a context.

My problem with the elephant is that some people will, most certainly, posit that "feeling" or "experiencing" God is just as easily done as touching an elephant within a room. While this seems to me an extremely dishonest representation - I know there are many people who would simply love to get away with representing "God" as such, and just excuse it away as "just an analogy." But the closer we get to God being just another "fact" of the universe based on crap like this, the less people will actually care if they have even truly found something real, and the closer we get to it being acceptable that everyone just make-up justifications for things, with the excuse that the "elephant" told them to. And therein lies the problem - the "elephant" can be stand-in for any God... or even any idea for which we don't have empirical evidence or sufficient demonstrative power to take to our fellow-man - who honestly DESERVES at least that demonstration if they are expected to be at all convinced. Anyone can pretend all day long that they can "feel the elephant," and people have been known to act on the "knowledge" they gain from supposedly touching this elephant's various parts. It is in that action that the dishonesty (whether that be outwardly toward fellow humans, or inwardly deceiving themselves) becomes dangerous.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It's just a poem, about the folly of man, and his dogmatic insistence that, 'I am right! YOU are wrong!'

If that doesn't describe forum 'discussions', i don't know what does.

Its not a 'Proof of God!' poem, that some seem to see behind every tree.. ..and, hiding elephants behind trees is not so easy..

For the poem's premise, the elephant can be seen as a picture of Truth, not just about God. I think we can expand the meaning to that, with some literary liberty. So those who believe in polytheism, monotheism, and even atheism are all covered, by this simple poem.. which, btw, was based on an old Hindu story, parable, or whatever.

The limited perception of man, and his dogmatic reliance on that limited perception, is the central message, it seems to me. But, like all art, the beholder can see many things..

Yes, I get it. THE ORIGINAL poem is only meant to say that any given theological discussion is ultimately being conducted by a bunch of people who are "flying blind" in their assessments.

But that's THE ORIGINAL.

Then (let's not forget) you added your little stanza:

The last, extending empty hands,
Disdainfully, he hissed,
'You fools!', said he, 'it's obvious,
Your brains are in a twist!
This fiction of an elephant, does not even exist!'

Are you going to try and tell me that this particular addition does not, at all, skew the poem in an entirely different light? You paint this 7th person as "hissing" and being "disdainful" to the others. He calls them "fools," even though he is also blind. It is pretty obvious we're supposed to view this 7th character in a negative way. Condescending and critical of the others claims, when none before him in the poem displayed such behavior. And, given your past posts here and the tone you take toward nonbelievers, it is also obvious that this 7th person is your characterization and representation of a nonbeliever/atheist/agnostic. And so we can easily see that you are representing the non-belief position with haughtiness, condescension and using the hissing, drawing on the age-old, serpentine stereotype of "evil" or "worldliness."

And your addition makes an interesting commentary on the original poem, which you wish to put forth as an unbiased representation of the elephant as "Truth" - the problem being, the poem DOES LEAVE OUT the person who simply can't feel the elephant, and specifically calls on "theological" concepts and discussion.

9th stanza:

So, oft in theologic wars

So even the original poem assumes that everyone "feels something" when there are claims of an elephant in the room, and so is itself biased right off the bat. You realized the missing piece... and you added it with a very unlikable character purposefully. So even YOU realize the omission and bias! "Truth" - yeah sure. Just ridiculousness yet again.

 

[usfan]

My problem with the elephant is that some people will, most certainly, posit that "feeling" or "experiencing" God is just as easily done as touching an elephant within a room. While this seems to me an extremely dishonest representation

Too touchy.. i even included an atheist in this 'update', so you would not feel left out.

If you think people will read this poem, and see it as 'Proof of God!!', you have a dim view of humanity.

Atheists, polytheists, and monotheists can all relate to this poem, and find wisdom. Holding our beliefs with more circumspection, instead of dogmatism, is the message here.

I find it ironic that you see this as a sneaky way to slip God in as the only possible belief, when my update clearly includes atheism.. that was why i did it.. so you would not feel left out by 19th century assumptions.

Anyone can pretend all day long that they can "feel the elephant," and people have been known to act on the "knowledge" they gain from supposedly touching this elephant's various parts. It is in that action that the dishonesty (whether that be outwardly toward fellow humans, or inwardly deceiving themselves) becomes dangerous.

Yes, this is a dangerous poem..

Quick! Ban it, and rewrite it to meet.some official PC standard!

How about this?

Seven men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The first said, 'Gentle seekers,
E'en tho' we cannot see,
Agreement, is our target,
And i am your advisee,
To end our sad divisions:
"Understanding by decree!"'

 

[SalixIncendium]

Needs more than a slight update considering the story ignores the reality of diversity - namely, that there is more than one proverbial elephant.

Check local listings.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Too touchy.. i even included an atheist in this 'update', so you would not feel left out.

If you think people will read this poem, and see it as 'Proof of God!!', you have a dim view of humanity.

Atheists, polytheists, and monotheists can all relate to this poem, and find wisdom. Holding our beliefs with more circumspection, instead od dogmstism, is the message here.

I find it ironic that you see this as a sneaky way to slip God in as the only possible belief, when my update clearly includes atheism.. that was why i did it.. so you would not feel left out by 19th century assumptions.

Yes, this is a dangerous poem..

Quick! Ban it, and rewrite it to meet.some official PC standard!

How about this?

Seven men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The first said, 'Gentle seekers,
E'en tho' we cannot see,
Agreement, is our target,
And i am your advisee,
To end our sad divisions:
"Understanding by decree!"'

Yeah, you included non-believers, with, as I stated, a heavy dose of bias. Way to go. You're so clever.

 

[usfan]

So even the original poem assumes that everyone "feels something" when there are claims of an elephant in the room, and so is itself biased right off the bat. You realized the missing piece... and you added it with a very unlikable character purposefully.

The original poem, based on an old Hindu parable (polytheism there, right?), assumes that everyone 'senses' the elephant in the room. My update included the atheist perspective, for those who believe there is no such sense. I was being inclusive!

And, protests aside, i presented my perspective of another human dogmatist, from the atheist perspective. A caricature? Sure. That's a literary device. But you cannot deny that the inclusion does not capture the essence of many atheists, who post on religious topics, in every modern venue. Since self deprecation was one element of this poem (which i have known for decades, and have pondered the poetry behind it), i thought this caricature of an atheist would be fitting. If it hits close to home, and stings the conscience a bit, then my literary entry has been a success.

Apathy is the least desirable response, to any artistic endeavor.

 

[Valjean]

It is a slightly self deprecating bit of humor, for philosophers who take themselves too seriously.

I should have mentioned the era it was written in.. John Godfrey Saxe lived from 1816-1887.

I thought including the atheist perspective would make it more contemporary, as they were still in hiding, in the 1800s..

and yes, we only have our own limited perspective, and fool ourselves into thinking we have 'arrived!' at understanding of the vast mysteries of the universe.

The atheist inclusion, however, presumes a willful ignorance of solid evidence. In actual fact, atheism today is generally based on an real lack of empirical evidence.

 

[usfan]

The atheist inclusion, however, presumes a willful ignorance of solid evidence. In actual fact, atheism today is generally based on an real lack of empirical evidence.

Not exactly.. 'Empty hands'. Atheism, for most, is still a dogmatic expression of belief, based on personal perception. 'Willful ignorance!' is not implied or needed, for the allegory to describe the common human condition. Update the elephant to be 'Objective Truth about God,' and it fits better.

 

[Valjean]

Not exactly.. 'Empty hands'. Atheism, for most, is still a dogmatic expression of belief, based on personal perception. 'Willful ignorance!' is not implied or needed, for the allegory to describe the common human condition. Update the elephant to be 'Objective Truth about God,' and it fits better.

The seventh man made no attempt to gather evidence before he made his pronouncement. His opinion was baseless.

Would you please clarify "empty hands" atheism? I get the impression it's a sort of strong atheism -- a positive declaration that no God exists.

 

[usfan]

The seventh man made no attempt to gather evidence before he made his pronouncement. His opinion was baseless.

Would you please clarify "empty hands" atheism? I get the impression it's a sort of strong atheism -- a positive declaration that no God exists.

Sure he did.. as much as the others. This is a collection of equal blind men, to illustrate the dogmatic nature of man, declaring HIS perception as The Ultimate Truth.

Empty hands:
He perceived nothing, so concluded this about the nature of the universe. His "no God!" conclusion was as dogmatic as the others.

 

[Valjean]

Sure he did.. as much as the others. This is a collection of equal blind men, to illustrate the dogmatic nature of man, declaring HIS perception as The Ultimate Truth.

The first six used touch, before offering their opinions. What sense did the seventh man use?

 

[usfan]

The first six used touch, before offering their opinions. What sense did the seventh man use?

Touch, same as the others..

 

[Valjean]

Touch, same as the others..

There is nothing in the last verse about the 7th man touching th elephant. How does: "...extending empty hands" imply touch?

 

[usfan]

There is nothing in the last verse about the 7th man touching th elephant. How does: "...extending empty hands" imply touch?

Nevermind. If hands aren't used to touch, and if touching nothing makes him conclude, 'no elephant!', it fruitless to discuss. Its poetry. Whatever it means to you is fine by me.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Nevermind. If hands aren't used to touch, and if touching nothing makes him conclude, 'no elephant!', it fruitless to discuss. Its poetry. Whatever it means to you is fine by me.

Maybe the 7th man can have CIPA instead of being blind?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe the 7th man can have CIPA instead of being blind?

Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA)

About CIPA

CIPA :: Home

So many to choose from