Subj : EUROPE                                                   [1]
To   : FRANK MASINGILL
From : TODD HENSON
Date : Tue Oct 24 2000 08:19 pm

>  TH> > I suppose that my hesitation to surf ride this wave without
>  TH> > reserve will mean that you must mark me down as retaining a
>  TH> > bit of sceptism.  Consequently, I want to hasten to assure
>  TH> > not only you but ALL of the inhabitants of this echo that I
>  TH> > am NOT opposed to "progress" with a little "p."  The one
>  TH> > with the big "P" I must plead a lack of the ability to
>  TH> > embrace for to do that would require a knowledge of reality
>  TH> > as a whole (the beginning to end of EVERYTHING) which I do
>  TH> > not possess - perhaps because I still lack that transcendent
>  TH> > ego inflation that in the old Christian terminology "has
>  TH> > overcome the world so be of good cheer."
> 
>  TH> If you believe that phrase is a matter of ego-inflation, then
>  TH> I dare say you don't really understand what was being said.
> 
>         And "I" dare say YOU don't comprehend IRONY!!


Considering the nature of your posts, it can be hard to know exactly what
you're saying and 
what you're not. I've been reading a book called "The History of God". The
author makes a 
reference to a comment Aristotle once made. He mentioned that people who
had become 
initiates in the various mystery religions didn't need to really learn
facts, but to "experience 
certain emotions and to be put in a certain disposition". 

Which is of course a very different mindset than looking at things in a
rational, analytical view. 
You seem to be one of those mystic initiates who can't comprehend things on
a definite, real 
level, but your mind can only operate in a very vague "impression" mode of
thinking. When you 
encounter those who think on a more concrete level, you act as if such a
mindset is somehow 
in error and begin a long series of vague imagery and question-dodges,
demanding that 
everyone else's mind must work the same way as yours. 

And when they fail, you call them "dogmatist", or "literalist", as if
anyone who makes any 
definite claims is in error. But yet, you seem to think it's OK when YOU
make such statements, 
like your assertions that mad DOES have a soul, and that the soul DOES
experience a tension. 
These are concrete, definite statements that be called just as dogmatic as
anything I've ever 
said. But you don't seem to understand that.

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr4
 * Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-5016 (1:10/345)

.