lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu wrote:

Joseph H wrote:

David V. wrote:

Michael Gray wrote:

On 3 Apr 2006 13:52:10 -0700, "Joseph H"
<joseph@humanisation.org> wrote: - Refer:
<1144097529.978644.211960@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

Truth has no legs. It doesn't run. It has no
narrative. It doesn't stir the heart. It doesn't
insist or demand. It doesn't dream. It has no form or
beauty. It doesn't offer hope or redemption. It has
no flags or anthems. It has no symbols.It doesn't
market itself well. It just is.

I bet you are the life and soul at parties!

(Ah, I see, you are a "philosopher". That explains your
absolute statements of quite unsupportable and erroneous
personal opinion, as though they were somehow universal
immutable facts.) --

That's why he's in my killfile.

Please, David, I make this appeal to you.

Cyberspace hasn't been the same since you so cruelly cut me
off. Please let me enter your world again. I promise I will
be zealous and dutiful. I will definitely NEVER tell the
truth again. I will enter all your impassioned denunciations
of Creationism with added zeal. I will be a narrow and
unthinking humanist. AND I WILL BEAT DOWN ALL PALTRY
ATTEMPTS AT THOUGHT-

Ah a creationist, no wonder you use so many word to say
nothing at all.

As you can see the guy cannot have an intelligent conversation.
That's why I'm happy with him in my kill file along with all the
other net kooks.

--
Dave

"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.

On 4 Apr 2006 20:26:11 -0700, "lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu"
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote:
- Refer: <1144207571.010471.173320@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>

Joseph H wrote:

David V. wrote:

Michael Gray wrote:

On 3 Apr 2006 13:52:10 -0700, "Joseph H"
<joseph@humanisation.org> wrote: - Refer:
<1144097529.978644.211960@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

Truth has no legs. It doesn't run. It has no narrative. It
doesn't stir the heart. It doesn't insist or demand. It
doesn't dream. It has no form or beauty. It doesn't offer
hope or redemption. It has no flags or anthems. It has no
symbols.It doesn't market itself well. It just is.

I bet you are the life and soul at parties!

(Ah, I see, you are a "philosopher". That explains your
absolute statements of quite unsupportable and erroneous
personal opinion, as though they were somehow universal
immutable facts.) --

That's why he's in my killfile.

Please, David, I make this appeal to you.

Cyberspace hasn't been the same since you so cruelly cut me off. Please
let me enter your world again. I promise I will be zealous and dutiful.
I will definitely NEVER tell the truth again. I will enter all your
impassioned denunciations of Creationism with added zeal. I will be a
narrow and unthinking humanist. AND I WILL BEAT DOWN ALL PALTRY
ATTEMPTS AT THOUGHT-

Ah a creationist, no wonder you use so many word to say nothing
at all.

Larry

I do believe that Joseph was joking.

You want a zillion examples? All the holy books of the world which
depict in hyper-realistic mode myriads of miracles and hosts of hopes
for our future well-being; all the novels and myths and epics and sagas
and wandering tales since the beginning of time which give credence to
heroic deeds and happy endings; all the...

I consider my skills at grammar and parsing to be well above average,
but I cannot make "head-no-tail" of your word soup.
I can only assumed that this is a defence tactic of Philosophers.

I cannot comment, other than to say that my request for clarification
resulted in nonsense jibberish.

I get the very strong feeling that you are "having me on".

But, really, I would've thought the contention was self-evident. The
human mind, guided by principles of form and beauty and happiness and
hope, possesses charm to soothe those of us - i.e. all of us - who find
reality dispiriting and grim.

More non-English.

Nothing revolutionary there - except that
the saying or the seeing of it might be revolutionary.

Examples please, so that I can nail down what it is that you are
attempting to say, with some greater clarity.

I see this as a problem for humanity. Our
creations determine and colour so much of our existence - our beliefs,
our attitudes, our outlook, our responses to others. If a creature has
the constant capacity to create a sustainable - though ersatz - reality
that is far removed from the actual state of affairs then that creature
runs the risk of never really facing reality. My counters to that risk
would be (a) to strive to create a depiction of reality that would
satisfy the various human needs for form and satisfaction and (b) to
insist that reality offers the hope of such a resolution.

I am sure that you are quite certain in your own self-effacing way that
this is all wrong.

I cannot extract any coherent meaning from it, taken as a whole, so am
unable to judge it's correctness.

(You also need to define "reality", and "truth", amongst other things.
I am a scientist, and so those words have very strict meanings to me,
in Relativistic Quantum Mechanics even more so, and your definition of
what you mean by these terms may wish to take this into account.)

To seek to define reality is to seek to impose a very limited form of
words - themselves mere constructs - upon the vast complexity of
existence. Indeed, the insistence on such definitions is part of the
falsification I speak of. Reality is independent of our definitions.
Matter exists; the universe exists; energy exists; earth exists; life
exists; human beings exist. Our knowledge of all of these entities and
locations is increasing daily. The question of the existence of the
reality of which we are a part should not delay us. The quest for
further knowledge of this reality is another matter. My contention is
that (a) in our ignorance and in our eagerness for meaning we imposed
categories on the unknown flux of existence and (b) that even if in
some near future time we might claim to know most of what there is to
know about the conditions of existence we would still find the
creations of the mind inherently more attractive than lumpen reality.
But - and this, I suppose, is what I'm coming to - as we go on to
create a global enfranchised society, one in which the individual will
have more and more freedom and opportunity, it is surely important that
we can agree on certain fundamental precepts about existence; it is
important that we can agree on a narrative that will enable us to share
meaning with each other (instead of, as we do now, lapsing back into
ancient nationalisms and religions). To do this we will need to learn
how to present reality - i.e. what we are, how we evolved; what we can
do etc - in a manner that will appeal to all the people of the globe.

Ciao

Joseph H

Are you able to respond coherently and clearly?
If not, you may consider our interaction closed.

--

On 5 Apr 2006 06:21:35 -0700, "Chameleon" wrote:

Michael Gray wrote:

"Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org>wrote:

Michael Gray wrote:

"Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org> wrote:

Truth has no legs. It doesn't run. It has no
narrative. It doesn't stir the heart. It doesn't
insist or demand. It doesn't dream. It has no form
or beauty. It doesn't offer hope or redemption. It
has no flags or anthems. It has no symbols.It
doesn't market itself well. It just is.

I bet you are the life and soul at parties!

To equate a man's beliefs, or lack of beliefs, with his
personality is somewhat trite, is it not?

(Ah, I see, you are a "philosopher". That explains
your absolute statements of quite unsupportable and
erroneous personal opinion, as though they were
somehow universal immutable facts.)

I thought I was making a quite reaonable point: that the
creations of the human mind, driven as they are by
considerations of form or hope or entertainment or
salvation, are innately more attractive than mere
iterations of the truth.

Hold everything ***** Tracy!

Examples please. You can clarify what you are driving at
with simple examples. You could be referring to a zillion
things, some combinations of which contradict your
assertions outright, some that fit in correctly, and the
bulk of them in-between, thus rendering your above
statements quite useless.

You want a zillion examples? All the holy books of the world
which depict in hyper-realistic mode myriads of miracles and
hosts of hopes for our future well-being; all the novels and
myths and epics and sagas and wandering tales since the
beginning of time which give credence to heroic deeds and
happy endings; all the...

Are you Chameleon, or Joseph? It makes no difference, as your
above reply is not English. I consider my skills at grammar
and parsing to be well above average, but I cannot make
"head-no-tail" of your word soup. I can only assumed that this
is a defence tactic of Philosophers.

I cannot comment, other than to say that my request for
clarification resulted in nonsense jibberish.

I get the very strong feeling that you are "having me on".

But, really, I would've thought the contention was
self-evident. The human mind, guided by principles of form
and beauty and happiness and hope, possesses charm to soothe
those of us - i.e. all of us - who find reality dispiriting
and grim.

More non-English.

Nothing revolutionary there - except that the saying or the
seeing of it might be revolutionary.

Examples please, so that I can nail down what it is that
you are attempting to say, with some greater clarity.

I see this as a problem for humanity. Our creations
determine and colour so much of our existence - our
beliefs, our attitudes, our outlook, our responses to
others. If a creature has the constant capacity to
create a sustainable - though ersatz - reality that is
far removed from the actual state of affairs then that
creature runs the risk of never really facing reality.
My counters to that risk would be (a) to strive to
create a depiction of reality that would satisfy the
various human needs for form and satisfaction and (b) to
insist that reality offers the hope of such a
resolution.

I am sure that you are quite certain in your own
self-effacing way that this is all wrong.

I cannot extract any coherent meaning from it, taken as a
whole, so am unable to judge it's correctness.

(You also need to define "reality", and "truth", amongst
other things. I am a scientist, and so those words have
very strict meanings to me, in Relativistic Quantum
Mechanics even more so, and your definition of what you
mean by these terms may wish to take this into account.)

To seek to define reality is to seek to impose a very
limited form of words - themselves mere constructs - upon
the vast complexity of existence. Indeed, the insistence on
such definitions is part of the falsification I speak of.
Reality is independent of our definitions. Matter exists;
the universe exists; energy exists; earth exists; life
exists; human beings exist. Our knowledge of all of these
entities and locations is increasing daily. The question of
the existence of the reality of which we are a part should
not delay us. The quest for further knowledge of this
reality is another matter. My contention is that (a) in our
ignorance and in our eagerness for meaning we imposed
categories on the unknown flux of existence and (b) that
even if in some near future time we might claim to know most
of what there is to know about the conditions of existence
we would still find the creations of the mind inherently
more attractive than lumpen reality. But - and this, I
suppose, is what I'm coming to - as we go on to create a
global enfranchised society, one in which the individual
will have more and more freedom and opportunity, it is
surely important that we can agree on certain fundamental
precepts about existence; it is important that we can agree
on a narrative that will enable us to share meaning with
each other (instead of, as we do now, lapsing back into
ancient nationalisms and religions). To do this we will need
to learn how to present reality - i.e. what we are, how we
evolved; what we can do etc - in a manner that will appeal
to all the people of the globe.

Are you able to respond coherently and clearly? If not, you
may consider our interaction closed. --