> zaimoni@ksu.edu wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, KMO wrote:
>
> > > Uh-oh. I guess I'm a sinner as I sometimes read "Family Circus" secure
> > > in the knowledge that it will disgust me with its syrupy
> > > sentimentality. I will even peek a Cathy from time to time even though
> > > I know its particular brand of yuppy self-absorption and general
> > > banaility with disgust me. Guess I'm a sinner too.
> >
> > But it's unfair to classify yourself based on someone else's terms.
> > Especially someone else whose culture you don't agree with.
>
>
> So I'm not really a sinner? I don't know how I feel about that.
> There's something liberating about the knowledge that one is irredemable
> scum.
Yes. The faithful [sic] require exhortation to avoid such liberation. They
also don't benefit from divine inspiration on request--being
double-minded explicitly excludes one from such education.
1) While there may be formal recognition criteria for that state, they
are much easier to apply once the body is reduced to scum. The
possibility of such a state is the subject of vehement writing in some
circles.
2) I suspect that a decent emotional grasp of that knowledge would imply
"de facto" conversion to the religion one was using for that
classification. As in, "I'm willing to get my mind overhauled NOW! Where's
that altar?!" [Or was that "lose my mind NOW!"?]
[CLIP]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////