Re: virus: Free thought and control

chardin (
Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:21:08 CST+6CDT

> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 10:22:13 -0700
> From: Marie Foster <>
> To:
> Subject: Re: virus: Free thought and control
> Reply-to:

> chardin wrote:
> >
> > If you would like to read something from the other point of view,
> > read this: Chardin
> > >
> Cathy,
> Things change. There is creation. On some level there is no
> conflict between these seeming opposites. The fact that I do not
> have all the evidence I need to resolve this is not a problem for
> me.
> The particulars are interesting to me because they add to the memes
> that seem to be steering our culture. As a woman born in 1946 I
> have seen much change in the way men and women interact during this
> time period. How that has come about interests me.
> David says on the Virus page that the goal of this enterprise is to
> figure out how we can influence the voyage in a positive way. I
> like that idea.
> I really enjoy seeing the differences in our *snapshots* of life.
> But I know they *all* are right in their own way. I believe that
> Christ understood this as well. Nothing in my reading has
> influenced me otherwise. But *I* make up my own mind and I believe
> that you do too.*
> Take care,
> Marie
> * I base this conclusion on the fact that you take the risk of
> participating here. These list members are sharp as knives.

Marie, when I signed on I guess I should have gone to the Virus page--I
never did--of I don't recall doing so. I read about this site on a directory of lists. I
suppose I ought to have read more about the main purpose of this
site. I would have done much better to have found a philosophy of
science page. I had also read the Dawkins paper with which, I say
again, I disagree heartily and his use of "virus" and I made a
connection that perhaps you all were discussing the same idea. I
think your usage is somewhat different from that of Dawkins.

When I signed on, I was really interested in pursing this strange
dichotomy between Science and Religion which is even stranger than
C.P. Snow's analysis of it. From my observations, the humanities
have suffered at this artificial perception of science being so
'rational" and other disciplines being somehow inferior. I think I
have made this point elsewhere. I did not mean to get sidetracked
into my religious beliefs, that was not my intent--no there is enough
to discuss about science itself.

It was never my intention to deviate from this site's stated
course--I guess I really had no idea what the stated course was.
When you read my posting on under the "ape" heading, realize that I
see the worship of science probably far more proposterous than
others here see my worship of Christ. I feel like it does Science a grave
disservice not to see it for what it is--a discipline conducted by
fallible humans being trying to grasp truths--which would also cover
much of the arts and humanities. Like the Nateman, I'm getting
ready to "self-destruct" as I do not see that I can make any
contributions to this list--I am not interested in coverting the
whole world not even to Christianity--not by using memes or viruses or
manipulating these devices. As a "Church" in the traditional
sense, I cannot wish you godspeed--for if it is a religion, then it
is an antithesis is to Christianity. If it is a "church" in which
like people of like philosophy congregate and try to understand and
improve their world, then I wish you well. Cathy