XPost: alt.philosophy, alt.atheism
From: fleetg@newsguy.spam.com
On 5 Apr 2006 06:21:35 -0700, "Chameleon"
wrote:
- Refer: <1144243295.868088.17030@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>
>Michael Gray wrote:
>> 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.
>
>You want a zillion examples? All the holy books of the world which
>depict in hyper-realistic mode myriads of miracles and hosts of hopes
>for our future well-being; all the novels and myths and epics and sagas
>and wandering tales since the beginning of time which give credence to
>heroic deeds and happy endings; all the...
Are you Chameleon, or Joseph?
It makes no difference, as your above reply is not English.
I consider my skills at grammar and parsing to be well above average,
but I cannot make "head-no-tail" of your word soup.
I can only assumed that this is a defence tactic of Philosophers.
I cannot comment, other than to say that my request for clarification
resulted in nonsense jibberish.
I get the very strong feeling that you are "having me on".
>But, really, I would've thought the contention was self-evident. The
>human mind, guided by principles of form and beauty and happiness and
>hope, possesses charm to soothe those of us - i.e. all of us - who find
>reality dispiriting and grim.
More non-English.
>Nothing revolutionary there - except that
>the saying or the seeing of it might be revolutionary.
>>
>> 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.)
>
>To seek to define reality is to seek to impose a very limited form of
>words - themselves mere constructs - upon the vast complexity of
>existence. Indeed, the insistence on such definitions is part of the
>falsification I speak of. Reality is independent of our definitions.
>Matter exists; the universe exists; energy exists; earth exists; life
>exists; human beings exist. Our knowledge of all of these entities and
>locations is increasing daily. The question of the existence of the
>reality of which we are a part should not delay us. The quest for
>further knowledge of this reality is another matter. My contention is
>that (a) in our ignorance and in our eagerness for meaning we imposed
>categories on the unknown flux of existence and (b) that even if in
>some near future time we might claim to know most of what there is to
>know about the conditions of existence we would still find the
>creations of the mind inherently more attractive than lumpen reality.
>But - and this, I suppose, is what I'm coming to - as we go on to
>create a global enfranchised society, one in which the individual will
>have more and more freedom and opportunity, it is surely important that
>we can agree on certain fundamental precepts about existence; it is
>important that we can agree on a narrative that will enable us to share
>meaning with each other (instead of, as we do now, lapsing back into
>ancient nationalisms and religions). To do this we will need to learn
>how to present reality - i.e. what we are, how we evolved; what we can
>do etc - in a manner that will appeal to all the people of the globe.
>
>Ciao
>
>Joseph H
Are you able to respond coherently and clearly?
If not, you may consider our interaction closed.
--
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
