Re: The story-telling ape (was virus: Logic)

brett robertson (
Tue, 21 Oct 1997 16:38:21 -0500

> I would define faith, however, as
> belief WITHOUT RECOURSE TO evidence
> In other words, "faith" represents (in my mind) axioms
> that are held true or false prior to rational or logical
> analysis of the type your T-grid represents. Now, it
> is possible for you to mark take a person of faith
> and place a mark for their "t-value" of some premise
> and assign your own estimate of an "e-value" to
> the person of faith is off their rocker.
> But the person of faith has judged the premise to be
> Thus you shouldn't expect your arguments to have much
> of an effect on them.
> I have given some though to your construction and
> I do not agree with it. I don't think it is an effective
> way to communicate the ideas of memetics, Darwinsim,
> and rational thinking and I don't, from a philosophical
> perspective, believe that it is true or particularly useful.
> Reed


While I couldn't figure out how to view the T-grid stuff at the time, I
definitely believe in "translation" from one paradigm to another.
What's not to believe? Still, I have my own representations of 5
paradigms which translate from one to another perspective

If reason or logic is represented by illus. 1 (called the "rationalistic
perspective and assuming that "I" exist "here" and "space" and "time"
exist "there" and "there") then "faith" would be represented in illus. 2
(a "rationalistic" from a spaceless and timeless "mental" says the moment exists "here" and "I" am all space and
time). Faith seen in this way is just a transcendence of space and time
and suggests that "there" is a continual revelation of consciousness.

But, anything that can be represented on the first grid can EQUALLY be
represented on the second--it is the same "I", the same "here", the same
"there", the same "space", the same "time. You could say that
mathematically, the formula would change because (like the speed of
light variable in E=MC^2) the variables for "space" and "time" are held
constant. That is the only difference.

OK, so I can't say how this graphic representation would translate into
a living philosophy; that is, how would each and every thought be
effected by viewing the world from this perspective: But, I can say
that theoretically there would be no objective difference in the
information that one could process.


PS why the plug for "Darwinism" in the same sentence as memetics and
rational...I would say that it doesn't belong there and further that you
are being dogmatic and most likely fearing for your "standing" amongst
your academic peers ("Oh my god, what would my peers say if I dissed
their god Darwin...whine, whine?"). If you are going to make rash
comparisons (between "rational" and "Darwinism"...especially if you are
going to put your "seal of 'memetic' approval" on it...I suggest you be
willing to give some intelligent reasoning to back your statement.