Subj : The Game
To   : FRANK MASINGILL
From : TODD HENSON
Date : Wed Nov 01 2000 12:37 am

> SGID: 1:396/45.12 fcdd53f5
>  TH> > egophantic fool (in the sense of the "fool who has said in
>  TH> > his heart, there is no God" - not the ordinary "silly
>  TH> > fool").  Only the libibdo dominandi could imagine this
>  TH> > non-thingly, Divine Ground of Existence that draws the
>  TH> > philosopher in his search for it to be less than the
>  TH> > universal experience of the human or pertaining to anything
>  TH> > less than universality.
> 
>  TH> If God isn't real, then there would be nothing that draws the
>  TH> philosopher in the first place.
> 
>  TH> > ??????
> 
>  TH> Frank, are you unable to understand simple sentences now? If
>  TH> you think my statement is wrong, then why not explain why?
> 
>         That may well be.  You appear to be alone here in believing


Frank, the problems that are specific between you and I are a product of
the attitude that you 
have decided to take toward me.


> so.  Perhaps when you explain to me in more than a simple sentence
> whether or not you assume that in order to be REAL an entity must be
> THINGLY we can have some basis for dialogue.  Because you apparently


I have already offered one or two senses of the word "exist", and asked for
your feedback on 
more than one occasion TO those definitions. Yet my requests were met with
a cold attitude. 
You weren't listening. Perhaps if you read my answer to John, where we
dealt with that exact 
topic, it will become clearer.


> do not understand the soul to be, in Voegelinian-Platonic language a
> "place of the tension" and therefore have a radically different
> understanding from mine of what FAITH is you feel more comfortable
> with the assumption that your understanding should prevail.  What I


You keep taking such a badly defensive attitude, based on exaggerated
assumptions, and all 
merely because I have made NUMEROUS attempts to ask you questions about
some of the 
things you have said in order to get an understanding of your point of
view. Yet, those attempts 
were met with a crotchetty attitude, and downright ridiculous statements
like "that wasn't a 
point of view" (to paraphrase).

As I said to John, the friction is caused by YOU, because rather than
answer questions you'd 
rather blow steam at me. 

Now, are you ready to dispense with the immaturity and actually get back to
the relevant issue 
of "existence"?


> think you do NOT comprehend is that I have no intent or desire to
> wrestle you out of that assumption.  You have passed into a
> knowledge of Divinity that neither ordinary men NOR mystics could
> possess.  I must simply acknowledge that and live with it.  O.K.?
> I sense that you really do not WANT a "dialogue among equals" and
> that is O.K., too.


There you go again.


>      I sincerely hope not to see your normal procedure of breaking
> the above into little parts so that you can attack them piecemeal.
> I don't believe such tactics really fool anybody here.  Complete,


Huh? Addressing individual points is now considered a "fooling" tactic?


> open, intellectual honesty and sincerity is IMPERATIVE in any
> worthwhile dialogue.   Trying to WIN is destructive to dialogue. All


Then why are you struggling so hard to win?


> that is really called for in a dialogue is understanding the
> position of the other - not pronouncing it true or false.


It's hard to understand the position of another when that person meets all
questions with 
attempts to pick a fight. 


> 
>      I hope that's clear enough.


That's certainly attitudinal enough. but it doesn't do anything to answer
the question. At least 
John was willing to make an attempt to address what the word "exist" means
as it relates to 
God, and ya know what, no insults were even exchanged! What a concept
Frank! It IS possible!
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Get all your fido mail here: www.docsplace.org (1:18/140)

.