Subj : Knowledge... To : Lee Lofaso From : Kevin Gibson Date : Sun Jul 22 2001 10:24 pm - Hello Lee, LL> From what point of reference do you understand? My supreme, omniscient point of reference. ;-) LL> First, one should have an understanding of what knowledge *is*. LL> How can knowledge be defined, in an understandable way? I generally look terms up in the dictionary when I need clarification. When that doesn't work, I resort to more drastic measures. LL> We would therefore become victims of a nanny state, not having LL> the need or desire to think for ourselves. KG> I'd like to disagree with this. LL> In what way? The "not having a need or desire to think for ourselves" part doesn't square. If you examine what has been said more closely you may agree with me. KG> If a state restricts your choices, you have the choice to KG> disregard the restrictions. LL> Sometimes, individuals do not have a choice. When do we not have a choice? LL> The state seeks to impose its will on the individual, LL> in which the individual is forced to comply. There's still the option of refusing. You may have to pay the consequences of your decision, but you have choices. There are other countries and you can always say "no." KG> That, in itself, can be a bad choice. LL> It can also be a *good* choice. Yes, I typed that and then deleted, more than once, but my reasoning was somewhat different from yours. ( The ghost that haunts my machine mumbled something about not making choices when one doesn't have to. Feel free to explore that idea. ) KG> One often needs only one example of a bad choice as a reference KG> in order to narrow the options. LL> Does it? We all make choices, not all of them "good". This doesn't make sense. My point is that we only need to witness one senseless mass murder, for example, in order to know that it's evil and to be avoided. Lee, I don't want to explore this further. LL> What is a "good" act, and what is an "evil" act? LL> How is one able to know the difference? KG> Can you make this a multiple choice test? LL> I only wish that life was so simple. :) Well, it is, in a way. Multiple choice, that is. KG> The forbidden fruit has something to do with knowledge. LL> It is the tree of good and evil, not the tree of knowledge. LL> Two different things. One and the same thing. Genesis 2:9 But I'm not interested in getting into a discussion of Bible verses. Guess I'm not much fun, eh? LL> The result of eating the fruit from the tree of good and evil LL> was that one would have *knowledge* of good and evil. Right. KG> It *is* a temptation. LL> Neither the fruit nor the tree was a temptation, at least LL> not until the serpent tempted them. And even then, was it LL> the fruit/tree that was the temptation, or was it the desire LL> for *knowledge*? The desire for knowledge is the temptation. ... When do we get to the part about the birds and the bees? - Continued in next post - - -+- QuikEdit 2.41R+ --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Sursum Corda! BBS-New Orleans 1-504-897-6006 USR33k6 (1:396/45) .