From: PhaedrusWolf@aol.com
Date: Sun Nov 14 2004 - 15:14:07 GMT
In a message dated 11/14/04 1:18:38 AM Eastern Standard Time,
markheyman@infoproconsulting.com writes:
That's when I realized that some folks here are looking to promote
one or another religious or political or anti- intellectual, or anti-
scientific agenda, and that their interest in "truth" is but a
convenient pose.
Hi msh,
The anti-intellectual may feel that some here support only the scientific
agenda, and their "truth" is but a convenient pose. This posing coming from the
mind of man, man, or maybe better stated, individual men who feel they have
discovered the "truth" through their independent study of the scientific
facts; mostly derived from the independent study of other men who went before
them.
The anti-intellectual may feel they have discovered the "truth" through
their independent study of the theology; mostly derived from the independent
study of other men who went before them.
I feel it is unwise to alienate either from the discussion. By pointing out
the limits you see from the anti-intellectual, then you eliminate them from
the discussion. If this means that you can only accept your truths on
scientific data, then you have limited the disagreement you state you are seeking. You
must accept all views, despite their limitations as you see it, to add to
this search for the truth.
The religious may claim devine intervention in their thinking, which might
place you in the mindset that they are closed minded, and can't recognize a
dynamic truth. For this you would alienate them(?)
Socrates claimed devine intervention, and maybe we can blame him for this
theological thinking of the one true God. Before him, there was no acceptance of
this one true God, and he went to his death for making this claim. Through
the dialogues, he found truth, not by searching for those who believed in the
one true God, but those who believed in gods.
If you wish to think about this in scientific terms, then you may not so
readily dismiss this devine intervention. As with what 'We' are doing here, two
or more minds can merge together in thought to create the 'Master mind.' "Two
heads are better than one." Huh?
In this scientific master mind, you might explain why Socrates, before the
Bible was written, found devine intervention. The devine intervention of his
one true God could have come from the 'Master mind theory' of the blending of
minds actually creating one master mind of thought outside, and independent
from each of their individual minds, or thought.
If there were not a God, then we would have to create one to explain this
phenomena. You must believe in it to some degree, or you would not be here
looking for disagreement.
"You despise that in others that which you fear the most in yourself." By
rejecting the religious view, you are doing what you most despise in the others
you are trying to alienate. You have condemned thier viable philosophy, just
as you claim they have condemned yours.
You think?
Chin
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 14 2004 - 15:26:06 GMT