From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Wed Oct 02 2002 - 21:16:22 BST
Erin,
Erin Noonan wrote:
> I think we are going by different definitions of
> faith. If I choose to accept it I still have this nagging
> worry that people will interpret it I first did.
> This brings a dilemma of do i go by your definition which I like better or
> avoid miscommunication by using a different word?
>
I see three reasons not to use a different word. The first is, as Steve
says, the old words have an old value that has been wiped out by the
combined efforts of fundamentalists and secularists. To recover this old
value is to both recover and make them new.
The second is that there are no different words, or at least I can't
think of any. One method is to use foreign words (typically from
Sanskrit) but that raises different problems in miscommunication (like
treating "maya" as "illusion").
The third is political. Philosophy is all about redefining really basic
words, like "reality". That's what the MOQ is trying to do, for example.
This has social effects.
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:52 GMT