Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (11933)	4/19/2001 11:59:14 AM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

The idea that there has to be more than matter in incidental configurations, that there is purpose and beauty in things, is the base line, elementary insight. Still flogging "intelligent design" to death, Neocon? I know it's trendy on the right these days and everything, but you construction sure looks like a false dichotomy. Admittedly somewhat more sophisticated than "either there is a God or Mother Theresa is crazy", though.

To: Neocon who wrote (11933)	4/19/2001 12:22:46 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

After a time, though, I decided that I would seek a balance closer to speech and ordinary usage, because I was a bit too stilted I understand that. I first recognized the need to dumb down my language usage while on the playground. That turned out to be fortuitous because, in my dotage, I'm increasingly unable to retrieve the rules of grammar from my memory. In any event, it would just be too frustrating to be a strict grammarian while inhabiting SI. My intent was merely to provide a mild rebuke to compensate for your suggestion that I was unable to distinguish between disagreement with your premise and the effectiveness with which you communicated it. I shall get to Mr. Bertrand Russell anon. Karen

To: Neocon who wrote (11933)	4/19/2001 4:16:16 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I thought you would particularly recognize the reference to "making sense", since you so splendidly invoked "resonance" in a prior post. Yeah, I appreciate resonance. I'll tell you what resonates with me. Your first three parts resonate--enough that I could have written them. And ol' Bernard's words resonate, too. Bernie says: "Man is yet free, during his brief years, to examine, to criticize, to know, and in imagination to create. To him alone, in the world with which he is acquainted, this freedom belongs; and in this lies his superiority to the resistless forces that control his outward life." I can easily take what you describe in your first three parts and subsume them under Bernie's bolded words. I don't see a contradiction. You're talking about how we interact with our world. I don't see why that interaction would be any different under the divinity model vs. the motion model. That's why I don't think the "matter in motion" thing works as a foil or that part 4 inevitably follows from parts 1-3. If you leave out the matter-in-motion sentence and go strait to divinity-makes-sense I think you're better off but there's still a missing link where the "ergo" should be. I might noodle around with that paragraph a bit to see if I can find, if not an ergo, at least a more resonant transition. Karen P.S. Bernie has a that/which shortfall, as well.