>As I see it, this is what the entire discussion is about. David holds
>rationality close to his heart and is unwilling to part with it. Both
Not true. I have said that I am willing to part with it if something
better comes along. Unlike some other people here, you can criticize
my worldview all you want and I won't take it personally. In fact I
welcome criticism because that is the mechanism for memetic evolution.
There is still a lot of room for progress within rationality (like the
recent debate trying to nail down whether rational action implies
conscious deliberation).
>level 3 and Post-Structuralism, as you've explained it, are about
>removing our identity from the ideas and beleifs that we hold. Making
>our selves aware that they are /just/ ideas (memes), world views, and
>that really we can -- if not rise above them then -- become aware of
>the limitations of our own views. And then proceed to use other world
>views when necessary.
I fully realize that rationality is "just" a world view. It is "only"
good for understanding the world and making decisions. I also consider
rationality to be the unspoken rules of the game of mailing list discussions
(which is why I get rather frustrated when the other side feels free
to break the rules whenever they find it useful; imagine how long you
would play chess with someone like that).
If you want to use some other worldview for anything at all, be my guest.
If you find faith useful, that's fine with me too. If you're insulted because
I find faith fundamentally flawed and express those opinions (without attacking
anyone, BTW), then maybe you should ask yourself why you are so defensive.
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/