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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (33597)	4/2/1999 12:20:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Respond to of 108807

>word play -- something posters to this thread would never do.< Oh goodness no - heaven forfend. (lol.)

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (33597)	4/4/1999 1:02:00 AM
From: PiMac	Respond to of 108807

T. H. Huxley, grandfather to Aldus, "agnostic...came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the gnostic of church history who professed to know so much." The 'suggestively' does imply playfulness. Yet, I wonder...his life was for the most part taken up by spreading, almost the gospel, of Darwin, and by extension, Empiricism and Materialism. These new philosophies runs counter to mystic knowledge--the philosophy of the Gnostic Cults, ruled by the 'gnostic of church history who professed to know so much [mystic] knowledge.' The Gnostics were considered an extremely heretical group. The Church's atrocities against them were seldom matched in history. So to be against the Gnostics was to be on the right side of history and to slur and slam 'that kind' of philosophy. But also, his new-found, vulnerable-in-infancy 'faith', was in danger of a powerful group who believed in faith, not reason--as he. The Church. Just as it was good to be against the ancient Gnostics, so is it good to be against the modern faith philosophy. So, he was slamming his current day detractors of his proselytizeing just as they had done theirs. He was co-opting the orthodox line to his movement. ...I wonder if this qualifies as wordplay, emphasis play. Is play the joy of using your self and interacting with the environment? Would mastery of your self, or your environment, in general, also qualify? Does having a purpose, especially a serious and deadly serious, change play into something else? Can play be constructive in purpose? outcome? Can it be destructive?