virus: Faith and Reason

Reed Konsler (
Thu, 11 Mar 1999 09:52:12 -0500

>Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 11:37:41 -0700
>From: David McFadzean <>
>Subject: Re: virus: Faith and Reason
>At 12:47 PM 3/10/99 -0500, Reed Konsler wrote:
>>>I don't know what you mean by "fundamental".
>>The same thing a rational person means when they say
>>"premise". In the beginning it was dark and God said
>>"let there be light". This is the first fundamental. Now,
>>I'll caveat the Dickens out of this by saying that
>>anthromophization is just a metaphor, and one has to
>>interpret it selectively. Then I'll flip back and say that
>>there isn't anything "more real" than the metaphors we
>>live by. Then I'll flip back again...
>You are claiming that you can check fundamentals for
>consistency even when you may not have a consistent
>interpretation of those same fundamentals?

I don't understand what you mean. I think one checks against premises or fundamentals. Verification of them is impossible. So Kuhn says, anyway. As for inconsistency, I stand as an example that what may seem inconsistent on one level is not on another. Given this, I don't see the problem. Could you give an example?

>>I'll tumble through the air like a coin. But, astoundingly,
>>I'll always land "heads up". That's teleology, or narrative,
>>or delusion. I don't care what you call it becuase I'm
>>interested in happiness, satisfaction, freedom, rapport,
>>Do you still want to play?
>I'll play, but I reserve the right to mimic your idiosyncratic
>behavior to make a point :-)

The critical difference between human teaching and the behavior of animals, like birds, is that birds teach their young how to fly primarily by pushing them out of the nest, affording them the opportunity to express a specific inherited talent; whereas proper human teaching involves an instructor demonstrating the required skills and affording the student the opportunity to express the general inherent human talent of imitation. It is the demonstration and imitation of complex behavior which is the great triumph, and tragedy, of human existence.

>>>>Who is "we"?
>Maybe I didn't understand your question.

We answer this below.

>>No, I'm declaring that we each have the freedom to affirm the
>>rules in our own way. We express our common vision though
>>different forms, and yet we have faith that it is a common vision.
>You have faith, I have a reasonable assumption :-)

Mine is the better <meme>: parataxis.

>>Emerson's Rule (proposed):
>> If you don't speak out, you are not a participant.
>>>If you want, we could rule out fallacies as invalid moves if and
>>>when they come up. I just wanted to let you know in advance that
>>>I'm unlikely to accept any of the standard logical fallacies.
>>That sounds reasonable as long as you remember that logic is a
>>tool to facilitate communication and not a weapon to silence
>>people who irritate your sensibilities. I'll agree to try to be
>>as clear as possible if you agree to try and understand me.

I'm not sure what to say next. What do you think?


  Reed Konsler