Kamalhassan's Ideology in his films

[equanimus]

whether agnostic is a separate class or is it a orthogonal characteristic that is applicable to both non-believers and believers, though usually the former

A theist agnostic (type b) would be really interesting. Reminds me of Boris Grushenko in Love and Death saying that the worst you can say about God is that he is an underachiever

Yeah, I've also found the agnostic theist (apparently, that's how you say it) rather amusing (not that others aren't!).

[equanimus]

>> Total Digression.

The point being discussed here is if the indifference towards a spiritual dimension means necessarily agnosticism. Do you think it does? I don't.

One is usually not indifferent about something that has a big impact on one's life (if I had a career counseler, he'd disagree!).

I'm not sure I get this. Do you mean to say god has a big impact on the lives of all atheists? I doubt that. (Though I've not particularly called myself an atheist any time, I know a lot of people who couldn't care less about god.)

Indifference in spirituality usually proceeds from a conviction that God is largely impotent when it comes to one's day to day existence. Which, for lack of another word, is what is termed as agnosticism by general population. Possible abuse of terminology.

I'm just trying to understand this (and correct me if I'm wrong). Doesn't this mean a lot more people would fall under the umbrella of agnostics? At this level, I think the whole discussion boils down to what a human being "initially is," i.e. by default. This is like saying 'agnostic' is the default setting and it gets updated to either 'theist' or 'atheist.' But considering that it's a fairly esoteric term, is it meant to be the default? I see it more as a conscious update after one figures out one is neither a theist nor an atheist in the proper sense. And of course, I think of 'atheist' as the default, which is where my notion of a purer form of atheism comes from. avLO dhAn matter.

>> End Total Digression.

[P_R]

OK I was till now 'picthing in' with some translation, that's all
IMO, all we can say is MR is indifferent, Kamal is not. Kamal is deeply concerned with the 'God' question. And as you rightly say, this question is unlikely to fall in MR's radar, for which I would thank God, if only I were not an agnostic probablist.

[kid-glove]

OK I was till now 'picthing in' with some translation, that's all
IMO, all we can say is MR is indifferent, Kamal is not. Kamal is deeply concerned with the 'God' question. And as you rightly say, this question is unlikely to fall in MR's radar, for which I would thank God, if only I were not a agnostic probablist.

[P_R]

>> Total Digression.

The point being discussed here is if the indifference towards a spiritual dimension means necessarily agnosticism. Do you think it does? I don't.

One is usually not indifferent about something that has a big impact on one's life (if I had a career counseler, he'd disagree!).

I'm not sure I get this. Do you mean to say god has a big impact on the lives of all atheists? I doubt that. (Though I've not particularly called myself an atheist any time, I know a lot of people who couldn't care less about god.)

I am not concerned about the laws of Republic of Botswana. They do not affect me. I am concerned about the laws of gravity because if I don't pay heed to it, I am likely to break my neck.

I can be indifferent only if I believe that, regardless of whether a God exists or not he is not going to have any impact on my life.

Indifference in spirituality usually proceeds from a conviction that God is largely impotent when it comes to one's day to day existence. Which, for lack of another word, is what is termed as agnosticism by general population. Possible abuse of terminology.

I'm just trying to understand this (and correct me if I'm wrong). Doesn't this mean a lot more people would fall under the umbrella of agnostics? At this level, I think the whole discussion boils down to what a human being "initially is," i.e. by default. This is like saying 'agnostic' is the default setting and it gets updated to either 'theist' or 'atheist.' But considering that it's a fairly esoteric term, is it meant to be the default? I see it more as a conscious update after one figures out one is neither a theist nor an atheist in the proper sense. And of course, I think of 'atheist' as the default, which is where my notion of a purer form of atheism comes from. avLO dhAn matter.

>> End Total Digression.

I think the default is always 'I have no idea' which is (by commonly agreed abuse of expression): agnostic.
Upon knowing vevaram, one takes a side, or says: 'I still have no idea' and retains default status.

btw these labels are what we give ourselves. So they cannot preceed consciousness. So by default setting you mean a label that preceeds consciousness itself, then you are probably right but that is not as interesting, is it?

PS: ippidiyellAm yEdhAchum pEsuvOmnu therinju dhaan MADDY kalyANathaiyE poondhamallee-la koNdu vachchuttAr.

[equanimus]

P_R,
I certainly find such questions to be least of MR's concerns and his idea of filmmaking. That's why I don't sense semblance of 'atheism'. If I'm understanding all this, Indifference alone doesn't allude to Atheism. There are theistic filmmakers who are indifferent too.

Completely agreed. Simple indifference towards god in one's films doesn't mean atheism at all. (There are filmmakers who are devout theists but their films have nothing to do with god. And on the other hand, we've Ram Gopal Varma.) Like I said, my perception may be because I view his films with the knowledge that he is an atheist. And little moments such as those in alai pAyuthE or kannaththil muthamittAl start appearing in a new light.

[kid-glove]

[Continued digression]
>>This is like saying 'agnostic' is the default setting and it gets updated to either 'theist' or 'atheist.' But considering that it's a fairly esoteric term, is it meant to be the default? <<
Huxley would disagree. It's meant to be antithetical of 'esoteric' or in particular, esoteric spirituality of the times, the 'gnostic' of the church to be more precise. Hence the term a'gnostic'.
[End digression]

[kid-glove]

P_R,
I certainly find such questions to be least of MR's concerns and his idea of filmmaking. That's why I don't sense semblance of 'atheism'. If I'm understanding all this, Indifference alone doesn't allude to Atheism. There are theistic filmmakers who are indifferent too.

Completely agreed. Simple indifference towards god in one's films doesn't mean atheism at all. (There are filmmakers who are devout theists but their films have nothing to do with god. And on the other hand, we've Ram Gopal Varma.)

Get the point, but it's funny...

Like I said, my perception may be because I view his films with the knowledge that he is an atheist. And little moments such as those in alai pAyuthE or kannaththil muthamittAl start appearing in a new light.

Do write on this in MR thread. Would be interesting..

[equanimus]

>> Total Digression continues.

btw these labels are what we give ourselves. So they cannot preceed consciousness. So by default setting you mean a label that preceeds consciousness itself, then you are probably right but that is not as interesting, is it?

Exactly my point. When one has not gone through the motions of experiencing the idea of god and such, one is technically an atheist. (The atheists who don't like to be called militant atheists would also like this idea, I suppose.)

I am not concerned about the laws of Republic of Botswana. They do not affect me. I am concerned about the laws of gravity because if I don't pay heed to it, I am likely to break my neck.

I can be indifferent only if I believe that, regardless of whether a God exists or not he is not going to have any impact on my life.

Oh but you can also be indifferent by believing that there's no such law i.e. there's no god! As far as you're quite sure you're not missing out on anything. But hey, enough defence for those atheists, I say. I think a happy atheist like Thilak should take over from here.

<< Total Digression may continue.

[equanimus]

>>This is like saying 'agnostic' is the default setting and it gets updated to either 'theist' or 'atheist.' But considering that it's a fairly esoteric term, is it meant to be the default? <<
Huxley would disagree. It's meant to be antithetical of 'esoteric' or in particular, esoteric spirituality of the times, the 'gnostic' of the church to be more precise. Hence the term a'gnostic'.

I was not talking about the meaning of the word, but about its usage in day-to-day life; i.e. how many people in this world even know what agnosticism means, let alone calling themselves that?