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

David McFadzean (
Thu, 12 Jun 1997 20:58:44 -0600

> From: Eric Boyd <>
> Date: Wednesday, June 12, 1996 11:44 PM
> Actually, I don't think such a game would last very long. The non rule
> bound person would win as soon as s/he chose to. "Check mate" This of

Claiming a win by just saying "Checkmate" is sort of pointless, don't
you think?

> course gets back to the fundamental critisim of Post-Structuralism and
> level 3. Why play by /any/ rules?

Because that's the only way to have fun.

> > 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.
> nasty nasty! Looks like an attack to me! But seriously, I think at
> about this point we should invoke the "Reed Principle" and step back...

I think you should ask yourself why that looks like an attack to you.

> What is the point of this argument? If you already accept that reason
> is "just" a world view, as you say, then the point has already been
The point of an argument is to learn. That is how both sides can win.
If you think I am just now realizing that logic is "just" a worldview,
then I suggest you go back and read what I wrote.

> won. The only struggle now lies in "faith", which you still reject.
> Tell me, if you do think that reason is not the be all and end all, what
> other world view /would/ you accept as valid?

Any worldview that is as good or better than reason. (I don't know
of any but that doesn't mean they don't or can't exist.)

David McFadzean       
Memetic Engineer      
Church of Virus