Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Definitions Message-ID: <645@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Mon, 11-Mar-85 09:49:49 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.645 Posted: Mon Mar 11 09:49:49 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 12-Mar-85 09:08:05 EST References: <127@cvl.UUCP> Organization: Huxley College Lines: 103 > Your definitional quibles remind me of the people trying to prove that > blacks are inferior. When a clearly superior black is pointed out they > say "Oh he's not a real black, He clearly has a lot of 'white blood'". > If you realy want to attack religion why don't you define religion to > mean "Belief that the Bible is completely and literaly correct"? It > would make your argment easier. [HARTLEY] First off, what a manipulative and base crock of shit!!! Comparing an attempt to use clear definitions with racism. The relationship is less than tenuous, it's non-existent: I'm defining what the notion of religion is, and I'm labelling non-religions (i.e., life philosophies or belief systems or whatever OTHER appropriate terms might be chosen) as such. *I* don't define religion: English language usage does. And I'm not using the term to particularly mean one particular religion or set of religions. So, please, if you want to answer the points in the original article (which we've all been very successful at AVOIDING---why?), fine, but if you want to compare correct use of language with racism, please find another home. >>But, as I mentioned before, that doesn't qualify as a "religion" by >>the definition put forth. So I'm not sure what point you were trying >>to make. If you're saying "See? A religion said this.", well, it's >>not quite a "religion" by definitional standards---which is not to >>belittle it, it simply doesn't qualify for THAT label, which is >>probably something (from my perspective) to be proud of. I'm not all >>that familiar with Buddhism, but it's intriguing that it posits what >>I've described above, in contrast to religions. > See what I mean? No. (But I'm sure you do, so you'd be the best candidate to explain it.) >>>Bingo. Now we hit the point where I think that both you and the >>>Christians are wrong. You are thinking in your concepts. they are >>>thinking in their concepts. Both of you mistake your concepts for >>>reality *which* *is* *something* *else* *altogether*. > >>No, Laura, we've missed the point entirely. I am making statements >>about the nature of reality, and about the nature of one's subjective >>experience of reality, and how one's perceptions based on that >>subjectivity are subject to error. > Laura is exactly correct. You are making statements about YOUR CONCEPT > OF the nature of reality. How can you make satements about the nature > of reality? (If you are actualy omnicient ignore this posting:-) Laura (and you) are exactly wrong. I am making statements about the nature of reality. Note that I am describing METHODOLOGIES for finding the BEST picture available to us of what is reality as opposed to utilizing the clouded misperceptions without examining their veracity/falsity. My "concepts", as Laura refers to them, involve how one chooses to make statements about reality, and I have shown that those methods are in fact BETTER for making such statements than the less rigorous methods of subjective evidence. As I said earlier: >>The only "concept" I am putting >>forth here is the erroneousness of assuming subjective experience as >>equivalent to reality. It is by its very nature MORE tainted than >>efforts towards objective experience. > You have "shown" by rational argument that subjective experience is > unreliable. It is also possible to prove by subjective experience that > rational argument is unreliable. How can you KNOW that one is more > "tainted" than the other without some (nessicarily subjective) > information about the "very nature" of things. Because of the track record of unreliability and erroneousness attributed to subjectivism. Why am I getting the feeling that people are actually putting forth arguments that they themselves do not believe to support their point? Is Hartley saying that he lives by his subjective evidence rather than his objective evidence? I tend to doubt it. >>My "concepts" don't adequately "describe" reality, because 1) any set >>of concepts described in words in inadequate to describe reality >>completely, and 2) the observational tools don't exist to make such a >>complete description. My warnings about the unreliability of the basis >>of certain "concepts" are not a description of reality, but rather a >>set of precepts for determining (at least in part) what is a viable >>means of determining "reality". > Ok, fine. But why should anyone be interested in your "precepts" if > they don't describe reality? Are you implying that YOURS do? I don't think so. In fact, I think I have discussed why subjective precepts are LESS capable of such description. > This is a case of the common misconception > that a "Meta axiom" (a rule of inference) is in some since "better" > than an "ordinary" axiom and requires less justification. Don't try to > prove your beliefs you are wasting your time. (as I am wasting mine :-) This is actually a case of trying to show that the system with the fewest axioms/assumptions is more grounded in reality: if the system with more axioms were correct, it would be discoverable and verifiable through the one with fewer ones, because the basis of the additional axioms would evidence themselves in analysis. But they don't, and thus we can skip over those additional axioms when analyzing when performing analysis. You're only wasting your time if you're just talking and not listening. Your paragraph on definitions above might be interpreted as not listening, or imposing erroneous traits on the opposing argument in an attempt to silence it so you won't have to listen. -- "It's a lot like life..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr