RE: virus: Prisoners my Derrida!

Sodom (
Mon, 22 Mar 1999 16:54:42 -0500

Boy, my fellow CoVers have done some excellnet work on this subject. As a part of the "con" side, I am wholly amenable to these new words and their local definations. To avoid further need to hear my vote on the subject - I support these ideas. Heck, Ill even be sure to work them into my writings and other endevours in an effort to spread them more effectivly.

Bill Roh

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> []On Behalf
> Of KMO
> Sent: Monday, March 22, 1999 2:51 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: virus: Prisoners my Derrida!
> 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.
> -KMO