XPost: alt.philosophy, alt.atheism   
   From: spam@hotmail.com   
      
   Michael Gray wrote:   
   > "David V."  wrote:   
   >   
   >> Michael Gray wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 5 Apr 2006 06:21:35 -0700, "Chameleon"  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> Michael Gray wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> "Joseph H" wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> Michael Gray wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> "Joseph H"  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> Are you able to respond coherently and clearly? If not,   
   >>> you may consider our interaction closed. --   
   >>   
   >> I could have told you. The guy substitutes verbiage for   
   >> intelligence.   
   >   
   > You might have done so earlier, and saved me some unnecessary   
   > typing!   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)