See bottom of message for my comment.
In a message dated 3/9/99 6:59:33 PM Central Standard Time, joedees@bellsouth.net writes:
<< Dr. Bernard Slepian was no deer, but a courageous human being, yet he was shot to death through a window, by an assassin wielding a high-powered rifle, in his own home and in front of his horrified family. He lived and died standing up for women's rights. For you to suggest that we should bow our heads in the name of memes and kowtow to such terrorism sickens me in the extreme.
At Tue, 9 Mar 1999 10:15:13 -0800, you wrote:
>
>This is an apt analogy, "Jake", maybe more than you realize. You are
>choosing to be that deer, and in the real world people really do have
>high-powered rifles.
>
>Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/
>-----Original Message-----
>In a message dated 3/9/99 8:15:46 AM Central Standard Time, MemeLab@aol.com
>writes:
>
><< I assume that you are indicating me. That is always a possibility that I
> consider. I would suggest, my gentle dismayed friend, that it is more
>likely
> that there are two of us that lack internal consistency in the practice of
>our
> ideals. However one of us does so deliberately and intentionally by
>holding
> "articles of faith" that are in principle not subjectable to rational
> criticism. The other may do so unintentionally by failing to completely
>put
> into practice what he holds in principle.>>
>
>Which is worse? Setting standards that you know you will probably never
>completely achieve, or lowering your principles until they are easily
>achievable?
>
>A fideist indignantly calling a pancritical rationalist a hypocrite is such
>an
>easy sport. It's like putting regular feed out for a deer, and then one day
>deciding to "hunt" it with a high powered rifle from afar, and claiming it
>as
>a "trophy". But try outrunning a strange one on foot as a human with only a
>knife - in IT'S world on IT'S terms. It's like trying to fight evolution
>itself.
>
>As long as you are on YOUR terms of faith, where you don't feel any reason
>to
>engage your assumptions at all, it is such a pointless endeavor to attack a
>pancritical rationalist. To make it remotely meaningful, you have to become
>one yourself, at least for a short time.
>
>Bye for now.
>
>-Jake
>
>
>
>
Joe E. Dees
Poet, Pagan, Philosopher
>>
It WOULD be a poet that would think of such a new twist on Richards game of "twist the analogy".
A poet AND a philosopher. Hey, Isn't that a heresy!? ;-) Oh I guess that was some dude in ancient Greece. He probably never even heard of "pancritical rationalism".
bye now
-Jake