Alex: (WARNING! This post is likely to be a waste of any reader's time.)
In my sincere opinion, this day's (Thursday, August 13, 1998 - not ever over yet) posts on Feelongs have been extraordinary. We have created broad comedy scenarios for our Meeting with our Maker, deftly dealt with female infanticide, intelligently vivisected our own ignorance, and fined Sam for disingenuousness. I, nevertheless, am left dank, defensive, and doubting by it, the day and its rich posts.
Why? JFQ did a quicky on David Hume (a familiar name that existed solely in a couple of almost 50-year-ago college courses of mine). I did a minor look-up on Hume to find that we've been here before. Instead of responding to your "ignorance" comment, I should sinply cite text and page from David Hume to have it addressed with much greater effectiveness than I am capable of. Less than full experience produces less than full knowledge, and this leaves us ignorant of various things, such as the spiritual.
Penni, who really is god, (see, I believe this - as I believed Barrett on his telling his grandchild the he, Barrett, was God - only to find that Barrett, of course, was engaging, as usual, in a crude form of what he would probably call humor or sarcasm - not so penni) took up the mantle of the Miss Manners of Metaphysical Discourse Pertaining to Ignorance. She did it admirably, tactfully, feelingly. She laid down the Underlying Premises, detailed the Equipment and Terms of Engagement, then said "Let the games begin!" - cautioning, at the end, "Fair Play or No Play!" This was a thrill to read. It was concise, intlligible, challenging, and considerate.
So, I have JFQ's Hume behind me, and penni's perfection before me. I am being squeezed to meaninglessness.
Steve pops in with the Seal Skin Boots approach to doing away with (ugly, you are right) arctic newborn females. He is, appropriately lauded by penni. Because he did give the right answer. He did. He did. He did. We are turning confrontation into communication and understanding!
And only Emile and Sam are left in the cold for not having played by the prescribed Terms of Engagement. (Sam played a real low one. Said "amen," having several layers of meaning, and then went off to do just the opposite of what he had just amen'd. And poor Emile goes bazookas on Steve for what, in fact, was a sensitive and open expression of personal opinion.)
Despite this mass of interaction (that took place during one of the once or twice a month visits of mine to a place where I treat me to some Rob Roys and a Monte Cristo or Quesedilla or Cheeseburger Delux - no points off for misspellings) and despite my initial misreading of the Lady Maker and Emile's Judgement Call (a la Steve), and despite the fact we've been here before (thank you JFQ), I want to add a version of "ignorance" to the mix.
Del's Double Absurdity/Anti-Nothingness post admitted we do not have a full deck, or (we do not have) all our marbles when it comes to truly specking out observable things, like our Universe - visible, measurable, quantifiable to a degree, even if Quintessence needs to be called upon. And, my "ignorance" idea was aimed at even less tangible elements, like God, god, Something, Awe, that sort of stuff. So, how can we come to (excuse the emotion) CONCRETE CONCLUSIONS about literally imaginary stuff?
That's all my statement, if you're still here, Alex, meant to say.
There is obviously an identicality in our uniquenesses. George |
