A Sufficiently Large Value of Zero

Constructing false equivalences comes naturally to the science- and logic-illiterate seculars in India coming out of the assortment of humanities departments in the west and India. For example, see this tweet:

JDU leader Anwar Ali says, there's no difference between Al Qaeda and RSS. The last few members of dinosaur era :( pic.twitter.com/LZvMtjU9xR
— Kiran Kumar S (@KiranKS) September 7, 2014

False equivalences like these eventually rest on the following theorem:
"For sufficiently large values, zero can be rounded up to one".
Proof: Take any zero. Press on both sides long enough.

Corollary: "For sufficiently small values, 1 can be rounded to 0".
Proof: Take a unity shaped balloon and blow sufficient hot air into it.

When you begin to treat Boolean true vs false as merely unit rounding error, a whole lot of things are possible. By repeatedly applying this "rounding rule", you can make anything equal to anything else. All it takes is vivid imagination, and this department, one must concede that non-dharmics do rule the world.

Examples

'For sufficiently large values, the 300-yr rule by Mughal invaders was the pinnacle of Indian historical achievement' (All their genocides and native dharmic achievements rounded down to zero by repeated application of corollary, etc.)

'For sufficiently small values, Hindu dharma is negligible and can hence be rounded down to zero' (non-negligible residuals are either some Neo-Hinduism 0-to-1 fabrication or generic 'South-Asian' Gaussian noise)

'First there was nothing, then there was something'. Genesis - a restatement of  the main theorem.  'First there will be something, then nothing' is an application of the corollary. Judgement-day and Jahannam. This before/after miracle has sustained thousands of marketing campaigns. This belief is the bedrock of marxism, history-centrism and its monotheisms. Non-dharmic thought will always prefer Magic over Yoga, Prophesy over Forecast, and Dogma over Karma. (Karma and Punar Janm represent the clearest refutation of this "something to nothing" adharmic fallacy).

Sometimes, applying this theorem can fail badly.

1. 'For sufficiently large values, Rahul Gandhi > Narendra Modi'. Sadly, some zeros are irreversibly, irretrievably, absolutely zero.

2. 'For sufficiently large values, Nalanda university can be brought back to life'.

Nalanda university was destroyed by Jihadis centuries ago. Round that fact down to zero, round up some funds from gullibles, and you end up with the brand-hijacking led by Mr. Sen, the numericidal genius whose body of work has convinced millions that there is a place for fantasy in economics and public policy.

To honor the secular magician and his university, this rounding rule is named "ø0", The Null-Anda Theorem.

Being the Same and Being Different: The Paradox of Sameness

In the second installment of the series that explores the concept of 'Synthetic Unity' of the West versus the 'Integral Unity' of Dharmic India that was introduced by Rajiv Malhtora in his book 'Being Different', we focus on the alluring idea of 'sameness' that everybody loves to talk about (e.g. Aman Ki Asha :). We noted in the introductory article that a homogeneous "same" Pakistan has collapsed whereas a "all different" India has thrived. Similarly, Europe's relatively short-lived multiculturalism experiment is on the brink of failure while cultural diversity thrived in ancient India and has survived so far across centuries.

This leads to the following paradox:

Why should 'being different' bring more cohesiveness than 'being the same' ?

On the surface, it is not unreasonable to expect that 'being different' that is so visible in India should naturally divide whereas the 'sameness' that is so visible in the west should unite. In fact, this was precisely the thought process that permeated and drove the U.S foreign policy toward the post-colonial subcontinent in the 1950s. In the book 'Being Different', Rajiv Malhotra notes that the then secretary of state John Dulles (as in Dulles airport, Washington D.C) backed a monotheistic Pakistan 'that was true to one master' over 'polytheistic' India that 'served many masters' and was thus deemed more likely to be unreliable and untrustworthy. However, when we dig deeper and get the root of the how humans react to multiculturalism, we notice that:

1. Every individual is different by birth and by circumstance. Given a pair of individuals who want to be "multicultural" in the western sense, when push comes to shove, the expectation is that the person deemed 'weaker' has to explicitly or implicitly admit inferiority and adopt the culture of the 'stronger' person and get digested. Both persons in the quest for sameness suffer from difference anxiety, the resolution of which ends in some form of violent conflict. This is a fundamental problem with expecting 'sameness'.

2. Difference anxiety caused by the need to enforce sameness in the west is a real issue. For example Brewer (1991) in a highly cited research article argues:

that the composition of an individual's social identity necessitates a trade-off between the need for assimilation and the need for differentiation. This is in contrast to previous models of social identity who assumed that individuals aim at maintaining some balanced level of similarity with other people on a uni dimensional similarity/dissimilarity scale.

The key implications of the theory lay in its dynamic aspects, as it is argued that individuals continuously take corrective actions to maintain an optimal compromise between the two needs. For instance, a person feeling too unique might achieve more assimilation by joining a group and making comparisons with in-group members (and finding similarities). Alternatively, a member of a large overly inclusive group might try achieve distinctiveness by making inter-group comparisons. Such actions are undertaken until the individual reaches an equilibrium, that is when his/her needs for assimilation and differentiation are equally activated. 

As pointed out by Brewer (1999) in later work, this has implications for the study of prejudice and inter-group processes as one can ask if "in-group preference and loyalty can exist without spawning out-group fear or hostility"
3. Here is another example of difference anxiety in the American context: Morrison et al (2009) define multiculturalism as "the belief that racial and ethnic differences should be acknowledged and appreciated" and notes that such an objective "has been met with both positive reactions (e.g., decreased prejudice) and negative reactions (e.g., perceptions of threat) from dominant group members".


4. Such a unity achieved by birth-based discrimination,  forcible or pressure-based digestion, submission, and fueled by difference anxiety rather than a mutually respectful debate is at best synthetic and tenuous and one that is constantly prone to fissure, while the goal of sameness remains elusive. In the Hindu epic Mahabharata, this inherent weakness of synthetic unity is demonstrated by the example of King Jarasandha, who was born in two halves at birth and spliced together, and grew to be among the strongest and the most ruthless kings in the world, yet was killed in single combat by Bhima (with the help of Krishna) by exploiting Jarasandha's synthetic unity.

5. To further explain the difference between Western synthetic unity and Dharmic Integral Unity, here is an interesting online article (thanks to @brazenpixy), where the author says:

"Separation causes uselessness, but much of Western civilization is based on separating the parts. One date is separate from another, history separate from math which is separate from biology. It's a world view we inherited from Newton and Descartes, so useful in many ways and disastrous in others. However, there has always been an alternative view of the universe as a single, totally interconnected system. You'll find that in Eastern traditions, American Transcendentalism, and at least some aspects of quantum physics."
6. In direct contrast, Dharmic thought systems are characterized by an integral unity that recognizes that infinite variations in the cosmos (specie, race, ethnicity, language, ..) are merely the manifestation of the same (and there is no "other"), and is thus able to accept and work with the multiplicity (Maya) in the universe without any stress or difference anxiety. India's multiculturalism has for milliennia been based on such Dharmic thought systems that share this fundamental concept, and it has worked pretty well. In other words, 'being different' is a more natural manifestation than 'being the same', and multiculturalism is achieved here by focusing on being equal while being different, which is best achieved via self-realization and mutual respect, rather than mere tolerance, external conversion, and digestion. Furthermore, as Rajiv Malhtora notes, being different is a powerful way of not being digested. Mahatma Gandhi's 'Hind Swaraj' also echoes this same idea, and he practiced 'being different' more than most in recent times.


7. The beautiful Sanskrit verse that best resolves this paradox of sameness and captures the essence of the Integral Unity of Dharmic India that spans the infinite multiplicity of the cosmos is given in the 'Being Different' book of Rajiv Malhotra (source used for Shloka and translation below is here):

Purnam-adah purnam-idam
purnaat purnam-udacyate.
purnasya purnam-aadaaya,
purnam-eva-avashishyate

That is infinite, this is infinite;
From that infinite this infinite comes.
From that infinite, this infinite removed or added;
Infinite remains infinite

Analysis of History-Centrism - Part 1

A fundamental difference between Dharmic Thought Systems that originated in India and the Judeo-Christian type that dominates the west is that the former is primarily characterized by philosophical schools of thought focused on self-realization and the 'inner sciences', whereas a defining feature of the latter is History-centrism (HC). This is just one of the many important findings of Dr. Rajiv Malhotra that are mentioned in his revolutionary new book: "Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism". Dharmic thought systems (DTS) of India (including the faiths of Hinduism, Jainism, Sikkism, and Buddhism) are characterized by the absence of such history-centricity. On the other hand,  an examination of their Itihaas, writings, and the recorded debates indicate that the core beliefs were and are guided by one or more philosophical schools of thought.

Reading Dr. Malhotra's book, I was struck by the clearly delineated 'business rule' driven nature of the institutions of HC that centrally manage the religion that arises from the history-centric thought. This meant that it is quite possible to precisely define and represent their membership rules using logical and mathematical models (!)  In this post (first of a series), we begin to explore this idea in depth, and hope to take it to its logical conclusion over time. The use of such a technique allows us to bring into play all the well-defined and universally understood rules of logic and mathematical modeling and infer the rich set of daisy-chain like implications that arise from HC. This in turn will help us better understand the impact it will have in the future on its adherents as well as non-adherents. For example, the hope is that, among other things, it will enable us to go beyond circumstantial evidence and rhetoric and more precisely answer questions like "does the theology of HC religions automatically imply a quest for eventual world domination?", or "does an enforcing of HC automatically imply a violation of the human rights of its own adherents at some level?", etc.

At this point in time, we do not formally finalize rigorous definitions, leaving them tentative and open to discussion, criticism, and corrections. We first state the logical model and then provide a concrete example to illustrate the same. Note: We use the word deterministic here to mean "with 100% probability", i.e. absolute certainty.

[Tentative] Definition
A history-centric thought system (HCTS) is defined by a single unique prior event,  (or fully enumerated and completed prior events, every one of which is unique) 'P' that is assumed to have deterministically occurred in history, even if data corresponding to such an observation is not available for validation or implied in the historical data available at any point in time after the occurrence of P.

Membership rule: A deterministic belief in this prior 'P' is both a necessary and sufficient condition for formal acceptance into the corresponding HCTS. The term 'prior' used here is analogous to that used in the domain of mathematical probability (Bayesian) models and turns out to be a useful aid for understanding and predicting the response of members associated with any given HTCS :
 
Implication 1
The prior P is non-reproducible

Proof: It follows from the definition that in a HCTS, the events defined by P are expected to never occur again even in a probabilistic sense (because if it did, it implies that either the events of P are likely to be non-unique or have not yet been enumerated with certainty).

Implication 2

Given a set of members of a HCTS, we can plausibly predict that their response to a future event to be consistent with the prior. 

Proof: Follows from the 'necessary condition' part of the membership rule.

Implication 3 
Beliefs in another thought system does not result in disqualification only if it does not conflict with prior P.

Proof: This follows from the sufficiency condition. These implications leads to the following key implication:

Separation Implication (Duality)

A belief in an alternative thought system results in disqualification if and only if it conflicts with prior P. 

Proof: The 'if' part of the statement follows from the necessary-condition, and the 'only if' part follows from the sufficiency condition.

We can call this result the 'separation implication' because it in effect bisects the time and space axis into two distinct regions. For example:


Application of the Separation Implication along the time-scale

Given the uniqueness of P at a point in time T(P), it is clear that the prior bisects the time-axis into two regions: (-∞, T(P)), i.e. before 'P' and (T(P),∞),i.e., 'after P'. Consequently, for any time before 'P', every entity is disqualified by definition and the member set is empty.


We now use the Christian thought system (CTS) as an illustrative example.



Prior
The beliefs of the Nicene creed form the prior P for the CTS. It includes [verification needed here. tentative]
a. The immaculate conception and Virgin Mary
b. Original sin
c. Jesus is the son of God / resurrection

Membership: A belief in each of these three elements this prior is a non-negotiable prerequisite for entry into most of the mainstream churches in Christian HTS (ref: Being Different)

Implication 1
Another equivalent immaculate conception, a return to Adam/Eve, and a daughter or another son of God, an equally divine son of another God, can never occur again. This guarantees the monotheism of Christianity.

Implication 2

Regardless of the context, rational members will never subscribe to thoughts that violate the CTS prior. For example, the movie 'Da Vinci Code' attempted to break the determinism of Prior components (a) and perhaps (c), and thus comes into direct conflict with the defining characteristics of CTS, and thus opposed.

Implication 3 
A member of the CTS can dress like an Indian, learn Carnatic music, light incense sticks in front of Ganesha, do 'Yoga', and use moral ideas from the Vedas, and quote the Thirukkural. None of this comes into conflict with the above prior and thus does not imply disqualification. This result in turn implies that such cultural data can be digested into the CTS without conflict.  A member can marry a non-CTS and permit his/her spouse to retain their original faith (or non-faith). What is more interesting is the membership of the progeny that is an output of such a union. A statistical study may reveal interesting results here.

The Separation Implication applied to CTS
A person can memorize the ten commandments and follow all the positive teachings of love and forgiveness attributed to Jesus, but he/she remains disqualified unless he/she swears belief in prior P. An important and direct consequence of the Separation implication is human duality since it separates the population on the planet into two distinct binary categories. Those who are human and exclusive members and those those who are not (including plants, animals, and all other non-humans on this planet and ETs).

Similarly, a person who believes in the concepts of original divinity and the non-duality of the universe is disqualified from membership since it violates the notion of duality inherent in the prior (why?).

Application of the Separation Implication along the time-scale
Anybody in this universe before the Christian Prior were non-members.

In future posts, we will bring out additional implications and discuss more topics from Rajiv Malhotra's amazing book.

Update: March 25, 2012
Bayesian Prior versus History-Centric Prior
We start with a useful but non-rigorous Wikipedia descriptions of a Bayesian prior:
" [A prior] is meant to attribute uncertainty rather than randomness to the uncertain quantity ..."

"A prior is often the purely subjective assessment of an experienced expert."

At this point in the process, there is little difference between a HC prior defined in this post and a Bayesian prior. However in the latter case, as new empirical data becomes available, the belief, expressed in terms of a probability distribution, is updated to take this new information into account and does not remain static. After a sufficiently many observations, the probability distribution is almost completely data-driven, losing its original subjectivity. On the other hand, a belief based on a HC prior is indifferent to new data and remains frozen in time. It must be noted that a some of the HCTS members will not behave in this manner and eventually reject their membership once they recognize the seemingly irreversible conflicts between the newly observed data and the unique historic prior (more about this in Part-2). In other words, a HCTS can become a relatively more inclusive and rational system by re-modeling its prior in terms of a Bayesian prior. Unfortunately, this means 'loss of membership' and a rejection of prior P.

The Fire Ceremony

“Hi”, I greeted a co-traveler who appeared before me as I took in the tea-stained set of clothes he wore for this journey. “Hello lady” he replied immediately noticing the pretty Salwar that I was wearing, “Nice Indian color. I see you are getting ready for the fire ceremony”. “Yes”, I replied, smoothing my dress that seemed to be creased with nervousness. Sensing this he said “Don’t worry, it’s going to be just fine. Besides, I heard that you will get a brand new dress on your next trip”. That lightened me up a bit. His timely appearance of course meant that he would be one of the priests who would initiate the fire-ceremony later today. Although we all were people of Purna, I noticed that his Bhu-log costume and my Agni-jan dress did kind of clash and so I pressed him for more details.

He went on: “Yes, we are all people of the Purna, make no mistake, despite what the story-tellers say. I’m one of the Bhu-log on this trip and may be part of Agni-Jan the next time. At least that’s what the seers say. They see things quite differently from the story tellers.” I nodded and innocently asked him “Will there also be Agni-Jan priests who will be performing this ceremony?”  He replied “Not this time. I always go by the book in this journey.” I realized that this person meant business. He continued: “All this must be a bit confusing I know. The Agni-jan can get initiated into the ceremony by Bhu-log and on a few other occasions it’s the other way around. The story tellers who do not understand Purna confuse matters further by claiming that while such no such distinction can be drawn among priests, the same does not apply to those who undergo the ceremony. I'm afraid my dear, that after this journey, they will tell very little about you. Besides, you are too young to be initiated into a fire ceremony. There are a few more ceremonies coming up in the next few days …,", he trailed off. ".. But not to worry sweetie. I will be there with you. Did you know that but for the ceremony, you would have had a chance to visit the birthplace of a journey of Purna itself. In fact some Agni-jan say that during this particular journey, he took the form of a great and kind king who initiated his queen, the daughter of Bhu-lok into a fire ceremony. Let me tell you his story”. Like all kids, I loved stories and gradually became immersed in it and dozed off as he whispered “bye” and floated way to his position.

The Queen gently woke me up with her divinely soft voice “its time now, my little one. Don’t worry, I know how it is. It will be over soon and maybe you will have a longer trip the next time if you so wish”. As she drifted away, I looked out of the window and saw that he was now waiting at his tea-stall in the station that my train pulled into, looking as determined as he said he would be. Did he still have a choice? Our soulful eyes met briefly and perhaps that made him flinch a bit before those eyes emptied and a pair of hands tossed the can of gasoline into our coach to initiate proceedings. He must have seen me at the end, my tiny melting hands folded in prayer as the Maryadha Purushottam came and took me back into the loving arms of Purna to signal the end of the fire ceremony. As I looked down at my ridiculously small heap of mortal ashes in the debris, I was curious how the story tellers who would end up retelling the toddler's journey ten years ago. Their fire-ceremony is not too far away either. Who will tell the story of the story-tellers, I wondered.