Re: virus: Religion, Zen, post-structuralism, and the failure of logic

Eric Boyd (
Tue, 11 Jun 1996 01:33:42 -0500

John ''!Boolean'' Williams wrote:

> Humn... I don't see how you got *that* out of the preceding paragraph. But
> no, that's not what I'm claiming. I'm claiming that reality may:
> a) not have any intrinisic patterns, and any organization we percieve is
> imposed by the mind
> *or*
> b) reality has an intrinsic pattern that we percieve imperfectly because of
> our interior position in reality; ie, we cannot observe it without being
> involved in it.

I question your use of *or* here. Could it not be *and* and *or* as
well? Why the important stars?

> It's not that they can't *because* they are models; it's that they can't be
> tested because there is nothing to test them *except* models. There's the
> model that we manufacture through language and dialectic (like this one).
> Then there's the model in our head that is how we see the world, and we can
> compare our manufactured model to our learned/perceptual model, but we
> *cannot* compare either to the "reality model" because there is no way to
> access it except through the biases and interpretations and expectations
> imposed/created by the learned/perceptual model.

Yes! You can only critique a world view from within a worldview.
Science can critique itself, or religion can, but there is _no_ position
outside all worldviews from which you can stand to "clearly" critique

> >It does work better. Unless you insist that planes only appear to fly.

Darn right. Planes only appear to fly. Science says that what we see
is valid, /is/ the world. So planes fly within the world view of
science. If you do not accept the scientific premise that what we sense
corresponds to reality, planes don't fly. But I think everyone (even
non scientists) accept that one.

> PS: I'm not trying to convince people not to use logic. If you want to use
> logic primarily, then fine by me. If it is fulfilling, okeydiddlydokey. No
> problems here, if you can live with the contradictions. I live with mine.
> What I object to is your dogmatic (as in, the Dogma of the CoV) position
> that logic is the only useful tool in all instances, and your insistence
> that anyone who does not share your trust in logic is a fool. Myself, I
> think you wear no clothes.

This is great. Logic is good. Faith is good. God is good. All just
tools to use when their use is (ummm) useful.


Now if I could just get this position down deep enough into my meme
sphere that I didn't have to consciously think "my world view is that
there is no single valid world view... level 3 awareness is critical"
then I'd be set.