Re: virus: Prisoners my Derrida!

Mon, 22 Mar 1999 11:51:03 -0800

carlw wrote:

> If I understand the proposal correctly, what has been suggested is that we
> will accomodate people with any level of "belieph" from irrational
> (phaith[i])to rational phaith (phaith[r]). I hope (my extention) that we
> will ultimately provide a route from phaith[i] to phaith[r] for those who
> choose to take that path.

I'd like to accomodate folks with beliefs and beliephs ranging from wholly irrational faith to phaith[r] (more on this phaith[r] concept in a bit) and provide the faithful with the tools, support and role models they need to move into phaith[r] and beyond. What's beyond? I don't know. I'm not there yet.

> In order to accomplish this goal, I would suggest
> leaving the belieph/rationality ratio of phaith undefined (phaith[?] maybe),

Could you say a bit more about what you mean by "belieph/rationality ratio?"

> and that 'phaith' on its own be used to handle the ambiguous case. I and
> other con-sides would then be able to accomodate 'phaith', simply as that
> level of trust in ones modus which is necessary to function in an uncertain
> world.

I like that. The definition of phaith is shaping up nicely.

Phaith; n

  1. the internalizing and embodying of a principle, frequenlty resulting from an experience of boundary dissolution and/or seeming participation in a wider, more pervasive consciousness than is the accepted norm and integrating the principle and/or the effects of the experience into one's actions, perceptions, and decission making.
  2. that level of trust in one's modus which is necessary to function in an uncertain world.

> As an aside, I agree (what is the world coming too?) with Prof Tim that a
> word which can be used in discussion and which identifies itself as having a
> "special meaning" would be useful, and also that the deliberate creation of
> a jargon is not a step to be lightly undertaken. While 'phaith' is cutesy
> and highly saleable to people who have already taken a step in the direction
> of CoV (and in phact, it appeals a great deal to me), it may be that it is
> too cutesy for people who are still uncomfortable unless wrapped in the arms
> of "phaith" and who might fear that we are laughing at them.

With a tip of the virtual hat to Deron, I would suggest that the cutsie factor be viewed more as a feature than as a bug. Consider that half the world's population is 14-years old or younger. They revere Michael as a messianic figure. Most will not receive any secondary education, much less attend university, and have not studied Latin. They would risk life and limb to obtain such things as Beenie Babys, Tamagochis, and Furbies.

Gen Xers in the US, a notoriously cynical, media-savvy demographic, revel in kitch and cutsie iconic imagery. It seems to me that the segment of the potential CoV market that will be turned off by the cutsie factor of phaith is a miniscule fraction of the whole, and far smaller than the segment for whom the cutsie factor would be a lure. Consider also the effect that consciously adopting some cutsie elements will have on the male/female ratio of new converts. I for one would like to see more chicks in the CoV.

As for phaith[i] and phaith[r], would you judge some variety of phaith rational/irrational based on its developmental influences or on the results that it has in the life of one who "holds" it? If the latter, I would suggest that adaptive/maladaptive would be a more useful and appropriate designation that rational/irrational.

And I fear to articulate this next thought as it threatens to disrupt the incipient coalition, but it seems question begging to me to claim or to take it as read that phaith[r] would automatically be more adaptive than phaith[i].

And now, it's time for me to get down to work on drawing strip #79 of 1,000.

Take care, all.