In a message dated 3/9/99 8:15:46 AM Central Standard Time, MemeLab@aol.com writes:
<< I assume that you are indicating me. That is always a possibility that I
consider. I would suggest, my gentle dismayed friend, that it is more likely
that there are two of us that lack internal consistency in the practice of
our
Which is worse? Setting standards that you know you will probably never
completely achieve, or lowering your principles until they are easily
achievable?
A fideist indignantly calling a pancritical rationalist a hypocrite is such an
easy sport. It's like putting regular feed out for a deer, and then
ideals. However one of us does so deliberately and intentionally by holding
"articles of faith" that are in principle not subjectable to rational
criticism. The other may do so unintentionally by failing to completely put
into practice what he holds in principle.>>
As long as you are on YOUR terms of faith, where you don't feel any reason to engage your assumptions at all, it is such a pointless endeavor to attack a pancritical rationalist. To make it remotely meaningful, you have to become one yourself, at least for a short time.
Bye for now.
-Jake