Re: virus: Faith, Logic and Purpose

Tim Rhodes (
Fri, 7 Nov 1997 13:26:41 -0800 (PST)

On Thu, 6 Nov 1997, David McFadzean wrote:

> Prof. Tim wrote:
> >Sin to make that more clear. The "conviction" you speak of is as much of
> >a sin in science (becoming locked in a paradigm) as in religion.
> That's true (it isn't meant to be limited to religion).

But you have used a highly charged religious term here. Save the <I'm
just so misunderstood> meme for someone else, David. You're not that
naive. What were we saying about taking personal responsiblity a while

It's a good meme-constuct, a beautiful viral shell, now that I see it. So
why try to rationalize the art out of it? You were purposefully
confrontational in the Sins in order to push peoples buttons, no? Why the
act now?

> >Projecting definitions is what readers do. Understanding that and
> >adjusting the words so that the projection matches the intention is what
> >good writers do.
> Fair enough. What is a good word for believing something without
> or despite evidence? In the past Richard has suggested "stupid"
> and Reed has suggested "insane". Do either of those work for you?
> (Remember, I'm trying not to insult people.)

Why not? I think you are, and you're doing it with purpose. If that is
so, how do we refine the other Sins and Virtues so they can cause as much
of an uproar?

> Isn't it amazing how ignorant you can make someone look when you quote
> them out of context?

To quote Frank Zappa, "Now, ladies and gentlemen, we have moved beyond
`mumbo-jumbo' into the world of `mumbo-pokus'!"

-Prof. Tim