THE BLIND MEN AND THE ELEPHANT, revisited

[usfan]

Ok, I've suggested these 2 as 'edits' to Mr Saxe's original, but the literary critics howl in protest, of bias!, and hatred!

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!'

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!"'

So, it is only fair that i should accomodate these aggrieved victims of literary innuendo with a more friendly, pro-atheist stanza..

"Your hatred of reality,
Deludes you to envision,
Imaginary fantasies,
Without any provision."
The last entreated earnestly,
Bereft of cold derision.

The other six, cut to the quick,
Exclaimed, "You are so kind!
To remedy the practice
Of a sad and faulty mind,
It's obvious to everyone,
You see, but we are blind!"

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Yes, i am becoming very aware of how you see "Christians!" ....

Hated enemies.. should be banned, or eliminated, somehow, and overt hostility and bigotry.

So in this bizarre world of fighting 'evil Christians!', it is natural for you to project your hatred and hostility onto them, to keep your own hatred aflame.

Sorry. Don't project your hangups on me. Its a poem, not a subversive attack on atheists, and NOTHING like you do all the time, in this forum..

You, and several of your MADA comrades, were the inspiration for my stanza. You really illustrate how accurate it is, with the hostile protests.

..Compared to your phony narratives of how 'Christians!' .... want to oppress, enslave, exploit, kill, and control everyone..

My beef with Christians is mostly with their modes of thinking that see them asserting things with confidence when they have no hook upon which to hang that confidence. These types of things:

• Certainty or assertions about how the universe or "life" began
• Certainty or assertions about the existence of an afterlife
• Certainty or assertions that their way is the way everyone should behave/live/believe
• Certainty or assertions that their moral prescriptive base is "the best there is"
• Certainty or assertions that non-believers are "closed-minded"
• Certainty or assertions that "God loves us" or "God has a plan" or "God is always there"
• Certainty or assertions that God "inspired The Bible"
• Certainty or assertions that people are fundamentally evil
• Certainty or assertions that marriage should be restricted to man/woman pairings
• Certainty or assertions that "sin" is a label worth using for detrimental behaviors
• Certainty or assertions that "the devil" is at play in things they just don't happen to like

And when the Christian can't even give reasoning or being evidence as to why any of the above should be accepted by others except to point to and quote The Bible, well... that's when the nonbeliever is going to dig-in, and very possibly not let up until the other person admits they have nothing, or they leave in a huff. More often than not, the latter is what is witnessed to be the fruits of such debate within informal areas of communication.

 

[usfan]

My beef with Christians is mostly with their modes of thinking that see them asserting things with confidence when they have no hook upon which to hang that confidence. These types of things:

• Certainty or assertions about how the universe or "life" began
• Certainty or assertions about the existence of an afterlife
• Certainty or assertions that their way is the way everyone should behave/live/believe
• Certainty or assertions that their moral prescriptive base is "the best there is"
• Certainty or assertions that non-believers are "closed-minded"
• Certainty or assertions that "God loves us" or "God has a plan" or "God is always there"
• Certainty or assertions that God "inspired The Bible"
• Certainty or assertions that people are fundamentally evil
• Certainty or assertions that marriage should be restricted to man/woman pairings
• Certainty or assertions that "sin" is a label worth using for detrimental behaviors
• Certainty or assertions that "the devil" is at play in things they just don't happen to like

And when the Christian can't even give reasoning or being evidence as to why any of the above should be accepted by others except to point to and quote The Bible, well... that's when the nonbeliever is going to dig-in, and very possibly not let up until the other person admits they have nothing, or they leave in a huff. More often than not, the latter is what is witnessed to be the fruits of such debate.

Wonderful straw men! A whole division of them!

So, you are refuting which of MY arguments, with this battalion of straw men?

Or do these phony narratives about 'All Christians!' .... ..merely justify religious bigotry and stereotypes? You are, presumably, lumping me in with this caricature of 'Christians!' ...., you have constructed?

Perhaps your bias has blinded you to see hostile caricatures, instead of rational people?

 

[usfan]

• Certainty or assertions about how the universe or "life" began

• Certainty or assertions about the existence of an afterlife

• Certainty or assertions that their way is the way everyone should behave/live/believe

• Certainty or assertions that their moral prescriptive base is "the best there is"

• Certainty or assertions that non-believers are "closed-minded"

I like these, especially.. they apply easily to any dogmatic expressors of belief, including atheists. It is, in fact, the whole point of the Saxe poem. Ironic that it sails over so many heads..

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Wonderful straw men! A whole division of them!

So, you are refuting which of MY arguments, with this battalion of straw men?

Or do these phony narratives about 'All Christians!' .... ..merely justify religious bigotry and stereotypes? You are, presumably, lumping me in with this caricature of 'Christians!' ...., you have constructed?

Perhaps your bias has blinded you to see hostile caricatures, instead of rational people?

Not straw-men in the slightest - I never intended this to be a list of things YOU, personally, hold to. Nor even that I think a given person holds all of these positions. Can't a man just make a list of things? No? I will admit to the stereotyping/generalizing certainly. However, can you, yourself, knock out each point on my list and tell me that you make none of those assertions and hold no unwarranted certainty in each of these areas?

I tried to stick to the main talking points that end up being sources of contention for me personally, and the things that trigger me to go after someone and hit them with a barrage of questions and attempts to get them to see the errors in their thinking.

I'll be entirely surprised if you can state that you do not hold to ANY of the talking points I raised. Particularly the "nonbelievers are closed-minded" piece - based on my interactions with you I am almost certain that this is on your list.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I like these, especially.. they.apply as easily to any dogmatic expressors of belief, including atheists. It is, in fact, the whole point of the Saxe poem. Ironic that it sails over so many heads..

And here you are... making a huge error in judgment. I make absolutely no assertions about how life began, or how the universe ultimately began. Any atheist who does (with certainty) is behaving just a poorly as a theist who does the same.

And when someone questions the proposition of an afterlife, they are likely going to present evidence that suggests that the proposition is probably less likely than that there is none, given the way we can actually observe the universe to function. They probably don't often say that there is, definitively no existence after death, but they are picking apart specific ideas that are put forth because it is ridiculous to assume anything about any such existence - since none of us has verifiably experienced it.

And (something I am sure you have been told plenty of times, but are very adamantly sticking to your misconceptions) atheists have no prescribed "way to be" or "way to behave." Some of us may advocate for skepticism, some of us for maintaining more liberal or more conservative viewpoints. Atheism is only one attribute of a person (that they do not believe in gods) and everything else is a grab bag. Each individual one of us may advocate strongly for particular ways of behaving, sure, but atheism has no doctrine. Christianity of the other hand (especially if subscribing to The Bible) is repleat with expected behaviors and "Ways to be." For example, "sharing the gospel" - that's prescribed behavior for a Christian, isn't it? Aren't you compelled to do this very thing, and participate in this very behavior? Therefore The Bible itself - the core doctrine of Christianity - "asserts the way everyone should behave/live/believe".

The Bible also asserts a version of morality. It does. And if you are a Christian, do you not support the moral prescriptions in The Bible? If not, then great! I'm so glad to hear you are thinking for yourself instead. But if so then oops... looks like you are the one stuck with moral prescriptions. Atheists have no such prescriptions. We (mostly) understand morality to be a fairly fluid concept, and highly subject to a valid starting point or criteria by which to judge actions as moral/immoral. Sure, many of us are going to concur on what we find moral or immoral... which is the way it has always been. But not many of us are going to demand that another accept our moral prescriptions as their own opinion - only that they adhere to them in public if the public at large has deemed the prescription valid for the entire populace in the form of laws.

And with the idea of "closed-mindedness", unfortunately all the points I just made are on my side on this one. Believers who subscribe to a pre-scripted way of thinking, behaving, judging are BY DEFINITION going to be more closed-minded than someone who does not hold to such prescriptions. Christianity has criteria by which a Christian is to be recognized as a Christian... those criteria are LIMITING FACTORS. As soon as you have imposed a limiting factor on your thinking/behavior/etc. you are automatically more closed to certain things than someone who does not have such rigid limiting factors. From a secular standpoint, changing your mind on just about anything is completely permissible, and there are usually no detrimental effects one must worry about with such a change of mind. A Christian who wants to change their mind about certain viewpoints however, may face a huge wall of opposition... or, if the point is fundamental enough, may not even be considered "Christian" anymore!

 

[usfan]

can you, yourself, knock out each point on my list and tell me that you make none of those assertions and hold no unwarranted certainty in each of these areas?

No, I'll leave the stereotyping to you.. you seem to enjoy it a lot!

"nonbelievers are closed-minded" piece - based on my interactions with you I am almost certain that this is on your list.

Much better.. i thought this was your preferred method of communication .

I make absolutely no assertions about how life began

Good rebuttal.. but unlike you, i did not accuse you of anything, merely noted the commonality of your list with, "any dogmatic expressors of belief, including atheists."
..still whooshed over your head, it seems.

You think being more dogmatic and more hostile toward 'Christians!' .... ..will make you position more defensible?

..better to deflect with anti-christian caricatures and talking points, to justify the bigotry, eh?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

No, I'll leave the stereotyping to you.. you seem to enjoy it a lot!

Generalizing can be an effective tool. In fact, I generalize about the effects I am to expect from gravity every day of my life. I am sure it stems from survival skills that developed throughout our early ancestry. The ability to judge what is going to happen or what to expect from something before it does actually happen. That sort of thing is incredibly useful at times. Sometimes we use it for what are deemed more "sordid" purposes. I admit to it. I just don't knock the practice entirely as some others do.

Much better.. i thought this was your preferred method of communication .

You think I haven't noted that you weren't even willing to comment on your adherence or non-adherence to any of the points of my list? Of course I have. You're obviously just trying to dodge it entirely, which I understand - especially given your desire to write the list off entirely as "stereotyping" and "bigotry." None of it could actually be realistic or applicable, right?

Good rebuttal.. but unlike you, i did not accuse you of anything, merely noted the commonality of your list with, "any dogmatic expressors of belief, including atheists."
..still whooshed over your head, it seems.

Nope. No whooshing - I know you didn't ascribe those things to me, personally, which is why I didn't answer all of those things regarding just myself, personally. The bit about the universe's beginnings and life's origins, I kind of had to, because there are, admittedly, quite a few atheists who like to subscribe to various scientifically founded explanations, or try to assert that some form of "abiogenesis" is how life began. But the reality is that the jury is still out. So not making any concrete assertions is the only honest position to hold at this point.

You think being more dogmatic and more hostile toward 'Christians!' .... ..will make you position more defensible?

Did I say something like this? Can you quote me a reference to my words that sound like I think this? I'm curious as to what it is, so by all means, please do so.

..better to deflect with anti-christian caricatures and talking points, to justify the bigotry, eh?

Unfortunately these caricatures are of people who actually hold such opinions or make such assertions... and there are PLENTY of them. But your attempts to do the same of atheism are just nothing but complete misinformation. And this is because Christianity means A LOT of things, definitively. It means you necessarily accept portions of The Bible. It means you necessarily believe in Christ and his death bringing atonement of sin. It means you necessarily accept things like the 10 commandments as being good moral foundation. And if you don't, then your fellow Christians probably don't think you're very Christian, and neither would I! There is just a whole slew of things you necessarily ARE when you identify as "Christian" - unless you are using the term in a new way or incorrectly - but then, why use the term at all in those instances? But an atheist doesn't have this problem... people only think atheists do if they are ignorant of the facts, and unwilling to listen to any of the umpteen thousand times they have been told otherwise.

 

[usfan]

your fellow Christians probably don't think you're very Christian, and neither would I! There is just a whole slew of things you necessarily ARE when you identify as "Christian" - unless you are using the term in a new way or incorrectly - but then, why use the term at all in those instances? But an atheist doesn't have this problem...

1. I don't worry what 'my fellow 'Christians!' ...... think of me. Surprisingly, i don't worry about what you think of me, either.
2. I wrote you an edit, for a 19th century poem, about dogmatism, and updated it to include atheism, as a common human worldview.
3. I changed the stanzas, after howls of protest, to have a more positive and affirming view of the atheist, yet still you protest.
4. I don't consider 'atheism' to be on a higher, more revered plane of human philosophical beliefs. It is just one, among many.
5. The double standards, from progressive indoctrinees, still amaze me.

 

[Valjean]

1. I don't worry what 'my fellow 'Christians!' ...... think of me. Surprisingly, i don't worry about what you think of me, either.
2. I wrote you an edit, for a 19th century poem, about dogmatism, and updated it to include atheism, as a common human worldview.
3. I changed the stanzas, after howls of protest, to have a more positive and affirming view of the atheist, yet still you protest.
4. I don't consider 'atheism' to be on a higher, more revered plane of human philosophical beliefs. It is just one, among many.
5. The double standards, from progressive indoctrinees, still amaze me.

I have no problem with your verse. I like the poem. I just see the 7th man as a curmudgeon who pronounces judgement without even bothering to investigate.

 

[usfan]

I have no problem with your verse. I like the poem. I just see the 7th man as a curmudgeon who pronounces judgement without even bothering to investigate.

Exactly.. they all were. Dogmatic assertors of opinion, based on limited perception.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

1. I don't worry what 'my fellow 'Christians!' ...... think of me. Surprisingly, i don't worry about what you think of me, either.
2. I wrote you an edit, for a 19th century poem, about dogmatism, and updated it to include atheism, as a common human worldview.
3. I changed the stanzas, after howls of protest, to have a more positive and affirming view of the atheist, yet still you protest.
4. I don't consider 'atheism' to be on a higher, more revered plane of human philosophical beliefs. It is just one, among many.
5. The double standards, from progressive indoctrinees, still amaze me.

You can stop thinking of me as a "progressive indoctrinee" (whatever this is) any time now. I don't throw such labels at you... except maybe "Christian," which my use of should be pretty self-explanatory by now (see your own proclamation of "Religion: Biblical Christianity"). I also remain unsure that "indoctrinee" is even a real word. I mean, you could try to coin it, but with the way you're using it as a derogatory or dysphemistic term, I doubt very much that it will catch on. In the end I am a skeptical atheist. Skeptical of even many things that "science" puts on offer. There are certain pieces of information brought forward with such a thrust of evidence - such as the theory of evolution - that to deny them would be an exercise entirely couched in faith.

And, as you have stated (honorably, I must admit, no matter how much we fundamentally disagree) I don't worry about what you think of me, I only care that you are wrong, and putting incorrect information and ideas out into the world. That's all. When the subject is something I feel I know enough about to be able to call someone on misinformation, I do. I saw your addition to the poem as an attempt to project something derisive onto nonbelievers and get others to buy in, or reaffirm your opinions. I saw what I felt was the misinformation and poorly-framed ideas in it and I called you out on it. I don't care if you don't care what I think of you... this isn't very much about what I think of you, as that only applies to me - this is about what you think of your own ideas. And currently I feel strongly that you are giving them entirely too much credit.

 

[Valjean]

Exactly.. they all were. Dogmatic assertors of opinion, based on limited perception.

Reply
The first six's opinions were based on limited perception. The seventh on no apparent attempt at perception at all.

 

[usfan]

Reply
The first six's opinions were based on limited perception. The seventh on no apparent attempt at perception at all.

Isn't that the atheistic claim? 'show me the evidence, or i won't believe'. 'a lack of evidence, is evidence of lack..'

He attempted examination.. there is nothing to suggest he did or didn't more or less than the others.

I see nothing demeaning toward atheism in general, or anyone in particular.. this guy was a caricature.. like the others.. of a dogmatic assertor of HIS belief as The Right Way.

I'm still a bit taken aback by the angry hostility a few lines in a self deprecating poem brought out..

 

[usfan]

I have no problem with your verse. I like the poem. I just see the 7th man as a curmudgeon who pronounces judgement without even bothering to investigate.

See, i relate to 'curmudgeon'. I don't consider it demeaning. It reflects some impatience and/or irritability with pettiness, stupidity, or rudeness, but is not a 'Bad Thing!', or a deadly evil in humanity. My stanza reflected my own personality, if i were in that mental frame and worldview. I am the inspiration for my own poetic character.

I think curmudgeons get a bad rap. So they get tired of lame, stupid things said all the time by shallow, empty headed people..

Why is calm patience the only PC response, for idiots, fools, and bobbleheaded indoctrinees?

And please.. no righteous indignation.
This was a tongue in cheek jab at my own curmudgeonliness. I know, i know, I'm the most evil, insensitive, lying, hateful, denying, ignorant poster on here.. or so many say.. it's just hard for me to take the deluges of hostility seriously. How upsetting is it, if a bobblehead says insulting things? Its really kind of funny, if you think about it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It is not about God per se. Furthermore, a parable is a parable.

The thing about this kind of parable is it takes something that's already well-known and familiar to the reader and makes like it isn't , and places a handicap within the parable with something that technically they themselves couldn't see the whole picture by which to even identify the object in question.

A person would have had to see the whole elephant in order to know that it's an elephant in order to present it to people who have never seen an elephant and can only see part of it. That's to say others have seen the entire animal? It's pretty self-defeating as a parable.

 

[Valjean]

Isn't that the atheistic claim? 'show me the evidence, or i won't believe'. 'a lack of evidence, is evidence of lack..'

He attempted examination.. there is nothing to suggest he did or didn't more or less than the others.

The first six touched some part of the pachyderm, There is nothing suggesting the seventh man touched anything at all. Only six examinations are described.

 

[Valjean]

See, i relate to 'curmudgeon'. I don't consider it demeaning. It reflects some impatience and/or irritability with pettiness, stupidity, or rudeness, but is not a 'Bad Thing!', or a deadly evil in humanity. My stanza reflected my own personality, if i were in that mental frame and worldview. I am the inspiration for my own poetic character.

I think curmudgeons get a bad rap. So they get tired of lame, stupid things said all the time by shallow, empty headed people..

Why is calm patience the only PC response, for idiots, fools, and bobbleheaded indoctrinees?

And please.. no righteous indignation.
This was a tongue in cheek jab at my own curmudgeonliness. I know, i know, I'm the most evil, insensitive, lying, hateful, denying, ignorant poster on here.. or so many say.. it's just hard for me to take the deluges of hostility seriously. How upsetting is it, if a bobblehead says insulting things? Its really kind of funny, if you think about it.

LOL -- I used curmudgeon somewhat humorously. I have no problem with curmudgeons.

 

[atanu]

.
It's pretty self-defeating as a parable.

The parable has lasted many years. It has been used by Hindus, Jains and Buddhists. This story is present in a sutta. It has traveled to west and thrived there too.

Tittha Sutta: Buddhist Parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant

In this thread, @usfan has interpreted the parable in his own way in the last para, and that has seen some opposition.

I think parable is very effective in reminding us of our limited perspectives. If taken posititively, it reminds one that one may be seeing only one perspective of the whole. If that were not so, why would it be used in a sutta?

YMMV.

 

[usfan]

In this thread, @usfan has interpreted the parable in his own way in the last para, and that has seen some opposition.

I don't think that is fair. I interpret it as it is commonly seen, in every culture, as a light jab at the dogmatism of man. I've only included atheism, as one of the 'perceptions' of the Elephant. It fits exactly. The atheist does declare, 'there is no elephant!', while the dogmatic theists each proclaim THEIR perception as The Ultimate Truth. The parable is about perception and dogmatism. It is very simple.

It is only the eagerness to bash me, personally, that keeps the posters here from appreciating the inclusion of atheism in this parable/poem. I've been good natured about it, and continued the theme of self deprecation toward the tendency toward dogmatism, in the human animal, REGARDLESS of the actual belief. And, atheism is a belief. It is not 'proven fact!', or on a higher plane of philosophical opinion. Atheists can be (and many are) JUST AS DOGMATIC as any theist, and i thought this simple poem was inclusive, in embracing atheists into the brotherhood of man.

How have i 'interpreted' this parable/poem in any way different than its classical interpretation, from any culture? Do you really see my 'interpretation!' as some bizarre departure from its classical intent?

Cheap shots and phony narratives, are thrown at me constantly, but they have no validity or truth.

Edit: from your link:
Some recluses and brahmans, so called,
Are deeply attached to their own views;
People who only see one side of things
Engage in quarrels and disputes.