On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, David McFadzean wrote:
> Maybe that suggests where the conflict lies: some of us suggest
I think the words "more than" throw it off, but I understand what you're trying
to say.
I think the dualities we keep coming back to over and over again here are simply
the (not so) new expressions of a duality that goes back at least to the Greeks,
and I expect much further than that. It is the seemingly eternal battle within
mankind which seeks expression through our stories and songs. It is the
struggle between Athena and the Furies, between Mr. Spock and Dr. McCoy,
> that we can and should be more than animals while others say
> that we *are* animals and it is great to be animals. My use of
> the word "animal" in this context is not meant to be derogatory
> in any sense, and I don't think it really conveys what I'm
> trying to say. Hopefully it provides enough clues for subscribers
> willing to give it a charitable reading.
But we can, if we so chose, merge the seemingly obvious duality into a oneness.
By moving our frame of reference to a level that encompasses all three aspects of
this duality -- both sides of it (1 & 2) and the interaction between the two (3)
-- we can see the process as a single whole, composed of different aspects, each
of them vital to our being.
And then we can move on from there. With the coin in our pocket, rather than
just an image of a side or two held tightly in our minds.
Are you game for trying that game?
-Prof. Tim