In a message dated 2/17/99 3:58:29 PM Central Standard Time, carlw@lisco.com
writes:
<< As to the rest, I am firmly of the opinion that we create reality for
ourselves. >>
Really? What do you mean by this? Sounds a whiff like solipsism.
>>As to the rest, I am firmly of the opinion that we create reality for
Now its sounding like shared solipsism, or a "socially constructed" reality.
Hmmm, interesting. Not that there is necessarily anything wrong
ourselves. Reason and rationality are necessary tools to sharing our
realities. As sharing reality seems to be not only a requirement of our
make-up, but pleasure creating as well (I am not addressing cause here),
I'll go for the path that yields me maximized pleasure, while noting that
your pleasure may be different.<<
>>I don't find a need to explain everything completely, perhaps this is why I
have not yet found a subject where I need to close my eyes in order to to
maintain a sense of order. In most every field or subject we work with
unknowns. My experience is that unknowns can best be handled through logic
and reason and not closing my eyes to anything. When the "explanation"
becomes more complex than the phenomenon it purports to explain, it is time
to look for the hidden strings. Explanations should always be as simple as
possible. Although, as Einstein said, it doesn't help to make them simpler
than they need to be.
Kind regards,
TheHermit<<
I like your attitude on these things. It sounds very similar to my own. It sounds very liberating to me. It sort of puzzles me why Reed acts like these very same ideas are so oppressive. It makes me wonder if he and I are even talking about the same thing. And yet he insists that I am just "playing semantic games." I still don't think that we are talking about the same things at all.
-Jake aka "MemeLab"