A conversation

A conversation between Ground Zero (GZ) and his colleague (TT) through chat network inside office. GZ's colleague is a seasoned follower of Christianity (I don't know which congregation he belongs to), and you know the religion of GZ, right? read on... The occassion mentioned in the conversation is a prayer ceremony at a Sikh Temple on the third day of the sad demise of our MD's mother. All the employees in Delhi office were invited for the prayer ceremony on this occassion.

TT to GZ: is your net working?
GZ to TT: no, not working for a long time
TT to GZ: yeah same here
GZ to TT: !!
TT to GZ: tommorow all r going to Sikh Temple Ist half
GZ to TT: yes, i'm thinking of going
TT to GZ: i won't be going
GZ to TT: whY?
TT to GZ: well does not agree with my faith
GZ to TT: man is mortal, be s/he a Christian or a Hindu.
TT to GZ: well i agree to this but going and praying in a temple does not ...... i don't agree all my sentiments are with the greiving family.
GZ to TT: there is no faith or religion cut off from man. What one practices itself is the religion. Praying or not praying is not the real thing that counts, but what matters is how much can one be complacent with the cultural psyche. for me, that's the crux of all rituals
TT to GZ: i respect ohters religious sentiments but for me my faith does not stand on pantheism. i respect the culture of the land but agreeing to thst whic is right is not waht i have learnt
TT to GZ: agreeing to taht which is not right i have not learnt
GZ to TT:yes, for me the single truth of God can be overlooked but many truths of man should be accepted as a reality. No attempts to unify, homogenize or reduce truth by defination means that which corresponds to reality.
TT to GZ: it is not all inclusive it is objective and not relative.
GZ to TT: I love to call 'they' rather than 'it'
TT to GZ: i am sorry i did not understand
pronoun for truth should be 'they'. Whereas you used the sentence 'IT is not all inclusive, IT is objective..." we're in a world of multiple truths.
TT to GZ: well if your truth believes that you shoud go to temple my truth says that ishoud not go. then you should be able to accept my truth as for yoyther are mant truths. as for you there are many truths
GZ to TT: good, asserting difference is a mature philosophical position. I appreciate it.
TT to GZ: relativism is a dageorous stand for any civilized society or an individual
TT to GZ: i hope the court of law does not practice the post modern school of thought then it would be difficult for any conviction as what the culprit did i was right according to him.
GZ to TT: in a discussion between absolute truth and relative truth i find the place of Court of Law at the rear end.
TT to GZ: why so?
GZ to TT: society is run by management techniques, not according to philosophical positions, be it Court of Law or sub-altern social movement. all workable truths..
TT to GZ: well even management techniques are based on some ideology. in a court the truth is quest and in such a setting the relativism cannotand should not have any space be it a court or any setting.... one cannot do away with absolutes if there is any absolute one cannot and one should not.
GZ to TT: but if there is none, then?
TT to GZ: the very statement thet you make that there is no absolute truth, is in itself a absolute statement. as you want me to believe that what u rsaying is the truths or even a relativist needs the absolutes to support his views
GZ to TT: indeed, a sound argument from your part. I need to study more.
TT to GZ: truth by nature is not all accommodative but exclusive
GZ to TT: but conflicts apart, i'm looking forward to some good philosophical discussions between us...not to reach at a conclusion but only to share our views.
TT to GZ: i m reminded of the story that says only a live fish swims acroo the current across
GZ to TT: not accomodative but exclusive, sounds like a foucauldian statement
TT to GZ: well Michel foucault was himself a relativist, post modern scholar, idon't support him
GZ to TT: good, down with all relativists!
TT to GZ: truth has to be there in any society and in every individual
GZ to TT: consider Derrida, for him everything is a text, and there is no reality outside the text.
GZ to TT: yes, foucault has never said that there is no truth... his genius is in saying that truth has always been constructed to exert power.
TT to GZ: the decostructionist are a part of the disillusioned groups. they were all disilussioned from Marxist approach that waited patiently of a truth
GZ to TT: following Nietzche he asked, \'why do humans need truth?\' it is jut to exert power, in social institutions, in sexual discourse, in morality etc.
TT to GZ: yes, Marxists waited patiently for a truth to unveil, i agree. How does a religious Christian differ from this?
TT to GZ: the disiciple of Nietzhe is the popular figure of History that remindseveryone of the dangers of postmodernism----Hitler
GZ to TT: all bookish interpretations, sorry for the direct statement.
TT to GZ: well that is the truth and not a mere interpretation well coming to ur question of why not a Xtian agree with marxists
GZ to TT: If Marxism after Marx and Christianity after Christ has become a unidirectional representation of the symbol, Nietzche\'s writings areinterpretable in several ways. end of interpretation is end of world.
GZ to TT: everything rests on interpretation not a single meaning of the symbol..
TT to GZ: well then interpettaion should correspond to that which is the truth. if not there would thousnad interpertations for a fact. in the 19 and the 20th cent.ies in the era of the knowledge boom the world has witnessed massacers and deaths more than all the massacres out of wars put toogeother in history and still we claim to be civilized
GZ to TT: i\'m not
TT to GZ: i hope that is just an interpretation and not the truth if then the (company name) would find it difficult to continue with you
GZ to TT: if I say \'yes\' interpret my \'yes\' in the way you want. I won\'t mind
TT to GZ: i hope u can understand the seroiusness of the issue....
are you trying to convice me of some truth, single truth? then please don\'t let us talk, talk and talk.. sometimes i\'ll lose my seriousness, i\'llblame myself, i\'ll curse the society...everything varies with mood. Mood is my philosophy,
TT to GZ: well i hope ur mood is always corrected according to what is right.
GZ to TT: not moods
TT to GZ: if u are a person governed by moods then tommrow ur mood may be to kill your apponent.
GZ to TT: a negative interpretation, just to keep me down!
GZ to TT: I\'ve never killed anyone!
TT to GZ: no brother that is just they way u r trying to tell me about urself and im not coming to any conclusion
GZ to TT: yes, there is always a possibility of the unexpected in everyone\'s life pure accidents are, in your words, \'absolute truths\' of life
TT to GZ: not clear
GZ to TT: there is always an element of unpredictableness in any social phenomenon, be it the behaviour of an individual or be it the outcome of a LokSabhaPoll.
TT to GZ: well even in the weather....the weatherman in india also makes mistakes
GZ to TT: which is supposed to be a scientific phenomenon!
TT to GZ: see the crux of the issue is that that unprdictablitiy is there even in my life at times i wrong but i go to the mirror of truth to always allign myself with the truth.
GZ to TT: I don\'t correct myself
TT to GZ: then there is no scope to learn in ones life its like trying to draw a straight line wothout a scale of course,
GZ to TT: i learn to avoid circumstances which i find harmful to me.
GZ to TT: Learning by intuition or by trial and error.
TT to GZ: wise is the man who learns from others mistake
GZ to TT: i agree
TT to GZ: well we need to conform at all times to what is right
GZ to TT: this is a good starting point: "well we need to conform at all times to what is right" note this sentence and we\'ll continue later.
TT to GZ: yes
GZ to TT: do you mind if i publish the whole conversation in my blog?
TT to GZ: please
TT to GZ: that would be great
GZ to TT: thanx