In a message dated 3/5/99 3:22:27 AM Central Standard Time,
proftim@speakeasy.org writes:
<< Jake wrote:
I would agree with that. This is why thinking you understand a topic
effectively stops your ablity to gain any insights about it.
[Question #1: Do you think you understand what faith is, Jake?]>>
:::Looking at your baited hook.:::
Looks like you have weighted the answer here. But regardless, I will
>>>Is there something wrong with me talking off the cuff about my general
Not at all. But you recognize the fact that "talking off the cuff"
[Question #2: Does "practice what you preach" only apply to the clergy,
Jake?]<<
Wwwwweeeeeellllllllll nnnnnooooooowwwwww. I think I will let #2 slide
The more I think rationally on a conscious level, the more I feel
I certainly don't expect people to accept my intuitions as some mystical
gospel, but that doesn't prevent me from sharing them anyway.
>>>If a there is a compelling argument, or conflict that I haven't already
I suspect you will be able to identify and effectively pidgeon-hole any
argument I could possibly make to you. You're very intelligent. A bright
person can easily distinguish-and-discard every idea that could potentally
threaten their statis quo without ever acknowledging to it themselves.
(This is one of the disadvantages of being smart, as you well know, we can
decieve ourselves in the most creative ways possible.) And it all looks
completely rational from inside. Why wouldn't
>Perhaps you aren't looking at it in the same way. My experience
>is that when things don't make sense, people generally want to
>know why.
>impressions?
>considered, sure I would want to consider it.
Look, at some point in the mental process, we all distinguish and discard.
That's the selection component of any evolutionary system. If this isn't done
at some point, the system begins to spin out of control, lacking stability.
We don't necessarily do this at the drop of the hat, however. If there wasn't
some suspension of judgement, there would be no opportunity, for input, for
variation, which is an equally important component in any evolutionary system.
Without some variation, the system stagnates and settles into rigid orthodoxy.
I don't really view somebody as truly intelligent if there aren't both
components in their thinking processes. If you think I am rigidly orthodox, I
wouldn't call me "intelligent" if I was you.
>>>But anyhow, as I said above, if I were to rationally criticize this
I'm sorry, Jake, I didn't catch the last part of that. Did you really say:
"the returns on such an effort are not worth the energy, since the
conclusions are forgone."?!? (You couldn't have, could you?)
In other words: "It's not worth my time to question my assumptions, because
I have concluded beforehand that they must be correct."
Is this some sort of irony on your part, Jake? Can't you see how similar
that statement is to "I am exempting in principle some this representation
from rational criticism becuase the costs of criticising it are too great
for me." Or are you actually and truly unaware of this similarity?
You do attribute an awful lot of thoughtlessness to me. You say I said >>"the
returns on such an effort are not worth the energy, since the conclusions are
forgone."?!? (You couldn't have, could you?)<< But if you look up to what I
>assumption on my own, it would be just going through motions
>that I already have before. On my own, the returns on such an
>effort are not worth the energy, since the conclusions are forgone.
There is a favorite slogan that I often attribute to people who are either
very orthodox or very paranoid (often after making a few X-Files allusions),
"Don't just think FOR yourself, think BY yourself too!" I think that
intelligent people think FOR themselves, but not BY themselves. Lots of not-
igent people cannot make that distinction. There reaches a point in
an individual's thinking processes where results on any subject become
diminishing without more input.
>>>So if you want to make this genuine, I would need
I'm here for ya', pal. But I learned a long time ago (although it seems I
need constant reminding), that it is impossible to teach someone who has no
interst in learning.<<
I would hope that the process has more value to you than just some
Even if neither of us changes our minds on this subject, I would think that
the process is still beneficial, and of value to each of us.
>>So far I haven't seen any willingness on your part to question your own
I haven't seen any serious engagement. I have seen Reed saying basically
"Come on, man, get out and live a little and quit being such a meanie
>>It's time for you to lead by example, Jake. Walk us through it step by
If not, get off my doorstep and stop wasting my time.<<
Oh, well you beat me to it. Now I can only say, "Back at you, man!" But
really don't feel obligated or anything. If you think this
-Jake
>input from somebody else.
assumptions about faith. Right now I'm stuck. Based on the conflict
between what you say and what you're willing to do, I'm forced to classify
you in the same group as, say, money-grubbing $5000 a plate politicians who
half-heartedly call for campaign finance reform while excepting PAC money
after the speech, or those ministers that preach the evils of morality from
the pulpit while diddling the alter-boys between services. Up to this
point, your walk just hasn't matched your talk. But, prove me wrong.
Please.<<
step, asking the class for questions between each and every point in the
process. Show us how it's done. I'm not going to buy the product if you
can't even get it to work for you in this, a controlled setting, let alone
in the chaos of everyday life. If you want to close the deal, it's time to
stop pitching and plug the sucker in and see if it works on my carpet with
real dirt.