Jake, I love your tenacity and genuinely agree for the most part with your materialistic and rational worldviews, but, I think you are painting yourself into a corner here. Just the basic assumption that a person has the right to happiness argues against this worldview stance. We are not computers (as we have now) that can only deal in 0 or 1, right or wrong, on or off. We can keep many views which conflict with each other if for no other reason than to trigger brain candy. It does not automatically lead to psychosis, and may lead to delusion - which is not necessarily bad - after all, we all like to think of Santa as real when we are little, and I don't see kids going crazy over it (except for the next morning).
I think you might say that it is still meaningless - I don't think so - I suspect it is our "base" or "natural" state. The starting point from which to work
As we all obviously dabble in Philosophy, and hold ourselves to concepts of rationality, we are a somewhat unique grouping of people. We seriously wish to have an open and accurate single worldview. An admirable goal with little possibility of success. No one of us has anywhere near the knowledge we need to create a single - functioning worldview that explains all.
I do agree that so far, the materialist viewpoint is the most accurate and successful, but I need to understand how to fit the abstract into the worldview - and as you see, we cant get anyone to agree on how. There are holes in the material worldview, or we would have definitive, verifiable proof. Doesn't our method require this?
That is where our problem with Robin comes from. She has always maintained that the intangibles are beyond the materialists viewpoint, and I believe she is wrong, but right now the evidence stands against us, I think. I NEED MORE KNOWLEDGE dammit. Ill have to dedicate myself to non stop thinking and collectiong from now on! Hehe
Bill Roh
Sodom
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
MemeLab@aol.com
Sent: Friday, February 19, 1999 9:50 AM To: virus@lucifer.com Subject: Re: virus: Re: inconsistent worldviews
<< Prof. Tim asks :
Worldview A works best for achieving result A'.
Worldview B works best for achieving result B'.
Worldviews A and B are completely inconsistent with one another.
You desire both result A' _and_ result B'.
Can you get both results? If so, how?
The desiring for a particular result does not happen in a worldview vaccuum.
This scenario leaves out important information without which, any answer
would
stephen fleming:
That is a VERY profound point to be ignoring. Without addressing it as
well,
>>For example, the two worldview components (beliefs)<<
conclusion.
>>The supposed level 3 thinker may hold worldviews that appear
I think the word "supposed" is crucial to this conclusion. Some wish to
maintain here that that they genuinely, and in fact intentionally, hold
"inconsistent worldviews." If this is genuine, then I have no respect for
it.
>>
be meaningless.
>>Ignoring the point as to whether it is possible for two worldviews to be
completely inconsistent, . . .<<
the "answer" would be likewise meaningless. Despite your disclaimer, your
answer didn't "ignore it", as you chose to concentrate on individual
beliefs,
as opposed to "completely inconsistent worldviews". I wise decision IMO.
inconsistent on the surface that are resolved on a deeper level.
Or something :)<<
If this is an extension of theater, perhaps a magician's performance, then I
applaud it. Just don't expect me to attribute honesty to it.
-Jake