When people attempt to not philosophize they only end up philosophizing implicitly and poorly, whether they call their position an it an ist, an ish, an ing or an ian.
At Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:09:33 -0800, you wrote:
>
>You guys do realize that the vast, vast majority of folks aren't really any
>sort of ist at all..right?
>
>Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/
>Author, "Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme"
>http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/votm.htm
>Free newsletter! Visit Meme Central at
>http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/meme.htm
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
>Of Sodom
>Sent: Thursday, February 18, 1999 1:32 PM
>To: virus@lucifer.com
>Subject: RE: virus: materialism and other worldviews
>
>
>I'd say, you cannot simultaneously be a
>materialist, and a realist about consciousness, because
>consciousness is not a material thing.
>--
>Robin
>
>
>
>My .02 says: The problem is not that consciousness as a material thing is
>beyond understanding in principle. As a realist, understanding that the
>complexity of consciousness in the material sense is beyond our skills is
>better. They can co-exist if you take this cheap way out. Consciousness is a
>material thing that our perception cannot distinguish as such, like music.
>Abstract in the extreme of which all parts are basic physics as is our
>response. I see why we wrestle with this problem. There needs to be a term
>that describes the Materialist who realizes that not all is within grasp.
>
>Bill Roh
>
>
>
>
>
Joe E. Dees
Poet, Pagan, Philosopher