Yes. It’s a quote from someone who first referenced India as the older brother, and then corrected it to uncle.
The case is clear; India is older and wiser.
India has several different religions represented.
Hinduism itself is nothing but a dustbin od disparate tradictions; then there is a range of Buddhisms; Christianities, Janeist. Islams and Seikism (possibly the only whole one).
SO there is no such thing as Indian religious culture.
Ghandi might have agreed with you for the sake of no-argument, but Modi won’t.
Only communists and Bideners can be of the hasty opinion that the West has been interrupted. They want to disrupt the West, but so far they have not succeeded. Not yet.
Besides, by now the whole world is a Western culture when it comes to the application of Western technology. Everywhere on this planet machines are used, electricity is used, trains are used, telephones are used, cars are used, airplanes are used, rockets are used, nuclear energy is used, atomic bombs, chemical and biological weapons are used, computers are used, genetic engineering is used, the internet is used. Who wants to destroy the western culture, must first of all abolish the Western technology, the whole modern age.
If Biden and Co. are in the process of destroying Western culture, one should always keep in mind that this destruction itself is still a part of Western culture. Western culture is not finished. Not yet. You left-wing nutcases can think and say that as much as you want. You will perish with and in your own desires.
It’s all about success, about the intelligence that is to be eliminated. But this story is not over yet. Not yet.
To be able to achieve all this, they have to lie and cheat even more than they do now (and that’s bad enough).
You can see from the reactions in the West, including here at ILP, that the majority of the Westerners themselves (!) wants to destroy the Western culture. The only problem for them is that they have not yet been able to do it successfully. Not yet. And they try to do it by using Western technology.This is as contradictory as it is ironic and cynical, because it is nihilistic.
If the world is going to become more and more like, for example, Biden wants it to be, then it will find itself relatively soon in a huge chaos. A huge chaos!
Remember my words.
Katrina says,
“When cultures are interrupted, they have fallen into nihilism, decadence, that is, they cease to be cultures and begin to be civilizations, that is, something like “world cultures,” and thus they become open, soft and conquered.”
Just vainglory led me to this currently, but discontinuity can generally be held from either intrinsic and extrinsic sources. True they are not clear cut, but one side generally dominates.
Here I regret the dual aspect seeking the third missing Russia/USSR/&Russia again, because prior to the Russian Revolution, Peter the Great sought to simulate Erurope, while China had the great War with England over opium.
The fact is, just like in the US narcotization levels the Capitalistic field, China back around the Boxer Rebellion. So the comparison is devoid of ideology, to the disadvantage of material dialectics.
However such lean is understandable by the lack of equilibrium between transcendent and derivitive opinion.
How does the cell or its environment “know” what “harmonoious” is and what not? I guess: by affectance. Right?
The striving to harmony would then be striving to an-entropy, the balance between entropy and anti-entropy. Right?
For Western culture, for reasons of Western technology alone, which is unrivaled (something that has never existed before, not even remotely), is uninterrupted and will remain so for a long time, no matter how many left-wing nutcases try to deny even this fact. There are simply too many who want to see the West down.But just think what values would be lost if the West is down: no freedom of speech, no typical Western individuality, no Western identity.
Yes, conscience requires ideological mutations ( synthesis) if mankind as a whole is to survive.
Your theory rests more on Hobbsian toes , excuse me, more im uncertainty about the greater plenum , hence fears about corporate defensive and reduced gestures.
Your thesis rests on a romantic sentiment , unsustainable
What really matters ‘is’ a state or state of mind which has to produce a synthesis. No excuses or choices OT is what it is
Although, the sacrafices and pain may yet not now appear endurable…
So you think that the Western technology will vansih in the next decades. Be honest, that’s your romantic nihilistic sentiment then. How can a technology just vanish in such a short time? Explain please - in English!
I said that the Western technology and the values of the Western culture - because both belong together - will not disappear quickly. This is not a “romantic sentiment”, as you said!
Years ago I had that same thought concerning many ontological assertions (before I even knew what an ontology was). And just earlier I was posting with Jacob about his Value-Ontology wherein he asserts that even photons self-value. - How could a photon do any kind of valuing at all, right?
But what I realized is that in all of these ontologies even from ancient times, when they claim that something seeks or chooses they don’t mean to say that the entity actually weighs its options and consciously chooses one over another - but rather the entity inherently behaves as if it was consciously and knowingly choosing.
They have been doing that with electricity and water in saying that it “seeks the path of least resistance” - as if it was consciously choosing a path. Apparently they were doing that with the gods, the devil, angels, a variety of science principles, computers (“prompting you” - “seeking the solution”) and now with Affectance Ontology (particles “seeking anentropy”) and Value Ontology (“seeking self-values”).
I have come to the conclusion that actually we more common people have always had it upside down - it is consciousness and desire that are given misplaced hierarchy in causation - inborn, inherent behaviors are labeled as “desires” and “conscious choices” that guide further behavior. In reality, desire, seeking, and choosing are each an effect of inherent action as well as an subsequent cause of action (at least when they exist). They are midway between their own cause and their own effect.
So when James refers to seeking harmony or seeking anentropy (a cell seeking harmonious surroundings) - he is referring to the entity just naturally doing something that has the effect of compensating for an imbalance. It isn’t that it knows in the way a person might consciously know something but rather that it just naturally behaves as to compensate - like a soap bubble “seeking” perfect spheroidal shape - subatomic particles actively seek a perfect balance of size and shape to match their ambient environment - atoms “seek” a perfect balance of their electric charge. And in no case do any of these things ever perfectly attain what they “seek” - they are always shifting and adjusting to compensate for some disturbance. Businesses do the same with the market - by seeking highest profit, they constantly adjust for changing market trends and government regulations (then government uses that to control them while they use that to control government - it gets really conflated).
Apparently it is a universal concept that normal people just never recognize and often think of in backwards terms - much like the Darwin realization that being successful is not the result of being a particular species but that being a particular species is the result of being successful.
Right - with an emphasis on the subtle causes and effects (“Affectance”) that literally causes all behaviors of all things throughout the universe - and is actually the entire makeup of the universe.
Or with “natural selection”: “nature is selecting”!
Right. It is like a presumption of purpose or intent - a suspicion of consciousness - a superstition when no other understanding is apparent when actually it is all natural “forces” balancing out something that has become imbalanced.
I have to put the word “forces” in quotes because James pointed out that forces actually don’t exist in nature at all - they are the same issue - they are actually inherent migrations of affects that give the appearance of some kind of force thing involved when there is nothing there but a migratory balancing of affectance that requires a counter migration to prevent - movement isn’t caused by pushing - rather pushing is caused by movement.
We (in the common world - and science) have always had it backward. And he seems to have validly proven his case - answering the questions that science couldn’t answer…
@ Meno.
Here is someone who wants to explain the world with the help of astrology and the like. Why did you not make it clear to him that he is irrational or romantic, because his “thesis rests on a romantic sentiment”. In his case, it is romance and irrationality. But not in my case. Why did you insinuate that my “thesis rests on a romantic sentiment”, although I have only used historical facts?
- It is a historical fact that Western technology is spread all over the world.
- It is a historical fact that Western technology belongs exclusively to western Culture.
- It is a historical fact that Western culture has not been interrupted and has not yet come to its end.You will soon experience this yourself, when the surveillance of all people by the machines (in this case: AI), which are all of Western origin (why do I actually have to explain this today?) , has become established.
It is something like humanizing nature, as we know it from us when we humanize pets. In general, the breeding of animals alone is proof that man himself selects. He has also bred himself - - towards a pet.
And “forces” should be called “interactions”!
I have been trying to work that out (James didn’t leave much concerning what word to use in its place other than “migrate” - explicative but not entirely appropriate in common use). And the question has led to some complex and disturbing thoughts (besides realizing the limits of my vocabulary).
I am not sure that an actual change of the word is really needed, but just for fun if we wanted to get pedantically accurate - it gets challenging, complex, and tideous. I went through a number of potential substitute words and almost settled on “affect” but even though surreptitiously applicable in some uses - inappropriate in others.
Our languages in the West are starting to disturb me. It seems that in many cases we have a language that implies the exact opposite of what is really going on - backwards and upside-down - like the Darwin issue (I have to wonder if that was intentional - maybe we really should learn to write from right to left and bottom to top - and maybe Americans really are driving on the right side of the road — nah).
The first problem I faced was that the word “force” is used in both a dynamic and a static situation - where it implies that something is getting moved (affected) and also when nothing moved (feckless). When pushing your car you say that you are “applying force” but you also say that when pushing against a locked door - in one case there is affect but in the other - no visible affect (although on that ultra-minuscule scale particles are getting crowded closer together). And that led me to think of the word “push” in place of “force” would be appropriate - but not quite.
Pushing is the act of increasing the affectance (or energy) between particles in a material. The particles keep “trying” to balance out that extra affectance by migrating away from each other (again “trying” meaning to inherently behave such as to bring that effect). But what about decreasing the affectance between them?
If there is a word for push there has to be a word for pull - but guess what - according to the ontology absolutely nothing ever actually pulls anything anywhere ever - pulling is even more substantially nonexistent than force. When we pull, we do one of two things - we “grab” and effectively push from the other side or we (in the case of being chemically stuck or bonded to a surface) we inspire a migration of the particles toward us by decreasing the affectance between the particles - making them “try” to migrate back together. But what is an appropriate word for that?
I haven’t worked that out yet. 
I think what it amounts to is either increasing the affectance between objects (what we would normally think of as the attempt to decrease the proximity of objects - pushing away) - or decrease the affectance between them (increase that proximity - pulling closer). The behavior of the Earth an Moon reflect that as a balance - the momentum of the Moon “tries” to decrease the affectance (flying away) while simultaneously the gravity from both is “trying” to increase the affectance (pulling closer) - yielding the anentropic state of a stable orbit - “pushing” and “pulling” - but - not really. 
“I am going to cause a decrease imbalance of affectance between me and my wife” 
- just doesn’t sound right - because it means that I am going to increase the attraction (or migration) between us.
I have found a text passage on the subject of “forces” in the e-book offered by Mithus:
These are, of course, daring theses.
That never stopped James - if he thought he knew the logic behind his assertions (and usually proved that he did) he would have debated God himself. That is one of the things that caught my attention - seriously confident and willing to back it up (much like Mr Trump in that way). James mostly talked about what is necessarily true - not merely probably true.
Having read through his reasoning - especially concerning his ontology - I have to accept nearly everything he asserted (other than things he admitted to be only his guessing from a distance). He had valid logic behind everything and stated that the very first thing you must do is to “Define your words” 
In various places he explains the exact details concerning why what he asserts must be true and that what he claims is never in conflict with what science has observed - only in the way they interpret it. You end up being able to strongly sense the difference between when you just think you are right and when you know that you absolutely have to be right.
And I can tell you that after a while of working through it - that confidence rubs off on you - it changes you inside.
Let’s talk about science as you understand it though. What is your take on the dynamics of the gluonic shifts, do you favour a mosaic or a system of suspension?
In mathematics this would be comparable with operations like the different mirroring (at point, straight line) and rotations combined with displacements. And because one can never isolate gluons, so one can never put them under a microscope, then the suspicion comes that these gluons do not exist as objects, just as little as there are reflections as objects.
However, I think I know what you are getting at. You want to point out that science has come to its end with physics and therefore we have to depend on other aids if we still want to recognize something in addition. I can agree with that for the most part. But how will one be capable of making an ojective statement if nobody accepts it objectively? This is only possible by falling back on old recipes: God/gods, religion, theology, also philosophy (which would then experience a great rebirth). But how do you want to explain it to the mass of people, if they don’t want to know anything about astrology and the like? That works only about coercion. And coercion is what I reject.