>Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 19:22:16 EST
>From: MemeLab@aol.com
>Subject: Re: virus: Windmills
>
>In a message dated 2/20/99 3:35:25 PM Central Standard Time,
>konsler@ascat.harvard.edu writes:
>
> 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.
I have many talents. I'm a genius, so they tell me. People smile when I am happy and frown when I am sad. Frankly, that is more important to me. But, it isn't so uncommon, you know? Funny thing about being human, we tend to live in each others' emotional worlds.
>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.
That's very good! You should read Don Beck and Chris Cowen's book _Spiral Dynamics_. I really liked it, and it uses exactly that image as on of it's core metaphors. See, our worlds do intersect.
>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.
Too true. Are you feeling cheated?
>>>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.
I understand. If faith didn't compromise reason, would it be OK then?
>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.
I don't have one meaning to sell you. I'm offering a package deal.
>>>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.
You sound like a Puritan.
>>>>You confound faith with hope and trust
>
>I never confound. I recognize the resonance between these entities
>which allows one act in the role of the other...just a one member of
>a team can take over when another member falters.<<
>
>Some "resonances" are destructive ones.
Oh, that's great! Yes, very true. I make sure all of mine are in harmony.
>>>>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.
No I'm a trained debater, my arguments are in one color and yours are in the other. Ok, I admit, I get confused sometimes...but since I know my purpose, it doesn't last. But you dodged the question...what is the negative consequence of faith? I understand that you believe faith compromises reason. What is the negative consequence of that?
Who are you without reason? I think you are still Jake. So, it doesn't really matter if it's compromised or not, does it? You are still you, even so. Have you ever seen Les Misarables, or read the book?
>>>Except for more mundane vagaries, and simple pleasantries, your
>>terms are not acceptable to me.
>
>I understand. I'm sorry I couldn't help you more. I hope you find
>what you're looking for. Just try not to shit on people on the way,
>hmm?
>
>Reed<<
>
>What is that supposed to mean?? Do you think I am "shitting" on you?
I would choose not to notice if it were so. Given this, I can't say. Do you think you have been shitting on me?
Reed
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------