In a message dated 2/20/99 3:35:25 PM Central Standard Time, konsler@ascat.harvard.edu writes:
<< >Jake: ??? Okay. End of discussion on that topic, unless you wish to
revive
>it. Until or unless it is resolved, I predict that we will be talking in
>circles.
We've been talking in circles all our lives. You just think the lines are straight. People thought the world was flat, but they lacked a comprehensive perspective.>>
Reed, it will be nice one day, when you decide to give up on the trappings of "mystical wisdom" and seek out the real stuff that has currency. You sound like you have talent just waiting to be useful.
Some circles are tiny and two dimensional that really go nowhere, others really wide spirals. If you go in an idea circle, and return to the same point with more knowlege than you started with, then it isn't really a circle. In at least one dimension you have move up, toward greater knowlege. If we aren't gaining knowlege, and we aren't gaining wealth, in the very broad sense of those terms, then it's probably a con game.
>>I never confound. I admit that I'm not sure exactly what you mean
by "justificational reasons". I'm clear on "rational criticism", though.<<
Tell me what you think "justificational reason" is? There are no wrong answers to that one, just an honest one. Then tell me what you think I mean, when I say "justificational reason". Perhaps reading some of my past posts would help you make a more honest guess. The combination of the two, rational criticism, and justificational reason, in my mind make the complete picture of "reason", when I say that my worldview is based on reason alone, and not faith. It's not based on "rational criticism" alone. But limiting rational criticism on principle - specifically on articles of "faith" - , compromises "reason", and I don't do that.
My world view is based reason alone, and I take great pride in that. It is one of my highest values, and I do not compromise on it. I don't have "faith" in reason. I agree I can be wrong on any number of things, and that reasonable minds can differ, even other people that share that highest value. Most of the confusion over these things occur when people fail to distinguish between justificational reasons and rational criticism.
The rest of your post looked like an incoherent rant though I am sure that it meant something for you - I am only getting the finished product, and it looked incohereant. I will try to read it anyway, but I may not have much to say. Here are some quick responses.
>>Have faith. Have faith that it means the same thing. Have faith that we
agree even if we use different words. Have a little faith. What is so
hard about that? What is so wrong with it?<<
It compromises reason, and therfore compromises my value. I don't do that.
>>Actually, I've asked a number of people about it recently. There are
so many perspectives...you would be amazed! Faith is like a kaliedscope
containing everything. It whispers to you in the voices of people you
pass on the street...not a magical thing...it's just a way of thinking, like
algebra...a way of focusing on what is significant to each of us. It's
a way of finding the places where people intersect, and building from
their...a way of reducing boundaries. Faith is like a big smile, the
milky way, writ large across the sky.
That's my perspective. I find that the vast majority of people
share that faith. But maybe I'm just selling it to them: an answer
in the form of a question.<<
I already have a meaning for the word "faith". I am not buying your meaning.
>>Well, whatever works for you guys. We find it vastly improves our
sex lives to take "soul" seriously.<<
I am not interested in your sex life. Mine is fine, thank you.
>>Ah, but Jake, what does Love really mean? Isn't that just a word
which "seems genuine" but which is, in truth, nothing at all? It
all sounds like mystical mumbo jumbo to me. Love isn't real,
Jake, it's all biochemical whatchmacallits and genetic predestiny,
right? Love is irrelevant, intangible, infinte, unbounded. You
can't have any kind of reasonable debate about love.<<
It's related to value, and two people sharing value, and not compromising value.
>>>Jake: By placing unecessary, and potentially detrimental limits on
rational
>criticism.
What is the negative consequence? Think like a debater. What's wrong with unnecessary and *potentially* deterimental limits? Marriage is such a thing. Are all such things bad? My flow chart of your argument has yet to show any connection with a negative consequence. Were this a formal debate, you would loose on technicality.
Of course, formal debates have time limits. Also, people tend not to coach the opposition in the middle of the fray, in a formal debate.<<
No, this wouldn't be anything like a formal debate. You sound like you need to start a different flow chart. You are charting your own mental antics, and confusing them for mine.
>>Except for more mundane vagaries, and simple pleasantries, your
>terms are not acceptable to me.
-Jake