Re: virus: re: Seven

David McFadzean (
Tue, 14 May 1996 12:31:11 -0600

At 09:01 PM 13/05/96 -0400, wrote:

>Every logical argument starts with premisses -- statements assumed to be true
>based on observation / inductive reasoning (1) or religious dogma / issues of
>faith. The virian ethic of "purpose" is based on the former, while all other
>ethical systems -- including tanshumanism and humanism -- are based on the
>latter, since the issue of "purpose" is synonymous with a higher cause or an
>effect or state that does not yet exist (i.e., a platonic ideal).

This is irrelevant to the rest of your argument but I just wanted to point
out that "purpose" is not a Virian ethic (yet). Maybe it should be.

>I think that John Aten was in error when he stated in his e-mail of 5/7 that
>John Doe was acting out of a search for identity that culminated in biblical
>influence. Rather, I think that the methodical nature of the murders
>evidences an underlying rationale that is no less methodical. The key to
>uncovering this rationale lies, I think, in the fact that the murders were
>calculated to bring about [spoiler deleted].

I would like to encourage everyone on the list to include the word "SPOILER"
in the title of the message if you are going to give away key plot elements
of the movie (or, book or whatever) you are discussing. I would have been
mighty pissed off if I had read this discussion before seeing the movie
(which I highly recommend).

>(1). This may be the reason for the incompatibility of science and religion:
>while the former's premisses are and must be fluid, the latter's must be
>rigid (in order to preserve an orthodox faith).

Science is incompatible with dogma. I'm hoping a religion doesn't have to be.

David McFadzean       
Memetic Engineer      
Church of Virus