XPost: alt.philosophy, alt.atheism   
   From: fleetg@newsguy.spam.com   
      
   On 4 Apr 2006 09:07:11 -0700, "Joseph H"    
   wrote:   
     - Refer: <1144166831.502519.89570@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   
   >   
   >Michael Gray wrote:   
   >> On 3 Apr 2006 13:52:10 -0700, "Joseph H"    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   - Refer: <1144097529.978644.211960@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   
   >> >Truth has no legs. It doesn't run. It has no narrative. It doesn't stir   
   >> >the heart. It doesn't insist or demand. It doesn't dream. It has no   
   >> >form or beauty.  It doesn't offer hope or redemption. It has no flags   
   >> >or anthems. It has no symbols.It doesn't market itself well.  It just   
   >> >is.   
   >> :   
   >>   
   >> I bet you are the life and soul at parties!   
   >   
   >To equate a man's beliefs, or lack of beliefs, with his personality is   
   >somewhat trite, is it not?   
   >>   
   >> (Ah, I see, you are a "philosopher".   
   >> That explains your absolute statements of quite unsupportable and   
   >> erroneous personal opinion, as though they were somehow universal   
   >> immutable facts.)   
   >   
   >I thought I was making a quite reaonable point: that the creations of   
   >the human mind, driven as they are by considerations of form or hope or   
   >entertainment or salvation, are innately more attractive than mere   
   >iterations of the truth.   
      
   Hold everything Dick Tracy!   
      
   Examples please.   
   You can clarify what you are driving at with simple examples.   
   You could be referring to a zillion things, some combinations of which   
   contradict your assertions outright, some that fit in correctly, and   
   the bulk of them in-between, thus rendering your above statements   
   quite useless.   
      
   Examples please, so that I can nail down what it is that you are   
   attempting to say, with some greater clarity.   
      
   >I see this as a problem for humanity. Our   
   >creations determine and colour so much of our existence - our beliefs,   
   >our attitudes, our outlook, our responses to others. If a creature has   
   >the constant capacity to create a sustainable - though ersatz - reality   
   >that is far removed from the actual state of affairs then that creature   
   >runs the risk of never really facing reality. My counters to that risk   
   >would be (a) to strive to create a depiction of reality that would   
   >satisfy the various human needs for form and satisfaction and (b) to   
   >insist that reality offers the hope of such a resolution.   
   >   
   >I am sure that you are quite certain in your own self-effacing way that   
   >this is all wrong.   
      
   I cannot extract any coherent meaning from it, taken as a whole, so am   
   unable to judge it's correctness.   
      
   (You also need to define "reality", and "truth", amongst other things.   
   I am a scientist, and so those words have very strict meanings to me,   
   in Relativistic Quantum Mechanics even more so, and your definition of   
   what you mean by these terms may wish to take this into account.)   
   --   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)