Subj : Just Checking :-) To : FRANK MASINGILL From : LEE LOFASO Date : Fri Aug 03 2001 09:35 am Hello Frank, >LL>That may be due in part to the didactic way of debate that is used > >in forums such as this one. Doesn't bother me, since over a period > >of time most participants would get a good feel about what positions > >I take in regards to different topics. I'm not saying participants > >will necessarily agree with my point of view, only that participants > >will have a very good idea of what my point of view *is* in regards > >to the topic at hand. FM> You are correct, of course, nevertheless, such reason on the part of so FM>very few will, IMHO hardly be enough to restore PHIL to the opportunity it FM>once, in the very long ago, offered as a forum for the discussion of philoso FM>in its truest sense. Philosophical discussion is PUBLIC discourse, unsullie FM>by the constant efforts of private doxologists bent on imprisioning anybody FM>everybody who dares to post on the echo into their private little prisons or FM>ideological systems through shouting everybody down who doesn't agree throug FM>various tactics, including, "You have the temerity to say THIS??," OR "Nobod FM>actually listens to my wisdom," or "That's what YOU think" and the like all FM>which is calculated to smother any discussion that does not fit into that FM>prison of private opinion the owner takes to be universal wisdom. Why does banality exist? Because it is absurd. That is why man can never be other than what he is. FM> In fact, a very wise philosopher who I read a lot has assured HIS studen FM>that finding any ideas or symbolism that is entirely NEW in the world should FM>looked upon suspiciously because what occurs to ME that has never occured to FM>anybody else from the "beginning" to now is not likely to have much validity Draw a space alien. Be creative. Very creative. Come up with a space alien that is total original thought. Can you do it? Can anybody else do it? I don't think so. All thoughts we have are based on our own experiences, and if one has never had experience meeting or seeing space aliens, then how can any total original thought be considered "valid"? FM>If either you or I should be the recipient of a REVELATION the chances are w FM>would attempt to express it in some kind of symbolism but the liklihood of t FM>expression reflecting even the full truth of a revelation would be slim. We can only express ourselves based on our own experiences. To express ourselves to others, we must use means of which others can understand us, since others can only grasp things based on their own experiences. FM>Imperfection is the human condition since we exist this side of the beyond a FM>the ground of existence. FM>We can only LOVE wisdom, we aren't permitted to POSSESS it. We must take refuge in Doubt, since any firm belief is presumption. FM> And, of course, that is what philosophical discussion IS, no matter how FM>people attempt to mess it up. It is the discourse, in loving movement among FM>those who LOVE wisdom and have a sincere desire not to wound the others in t FM>discourse but to share common sense in the Heraclitian mood (or mode). Common sense denotes sanity. But only in regards to those whose common sense is considered sane. It is often thought that sanity contains within itself the seeds of the absurd. But in actuality, only the absurd can be sane. What is considered common sense to one is considered absurd by another. So, who is sane and who is not? Can anybody know for sure? FM> That is what the original intent was in the establishment of PHIL. In all of man's enterprises banality exists. It's an absurd reality, but reality nonetheless. It is through this study of the absurd that one finds wisdom. Not that anyone will ever be able to possess it. Egads, no! It exists because it is absurd. And nobody wants to be absurd. Hence the need to take refuge in Doubt. FM> If anybody STILL has hopes of locking ME within that litle private priso FM>you might consider that while people surely CAN hurt other people, in my cas FM>I'm over 80 and nearly at the end anyhow so such an effort isn't likely to FM>succeed. Showing such banality rarely shocks anyone. It's all too predictable when others try to lock an individual into a particular way of thinking. It works in some areas, such as in politics, when a leader tries to sway the general public to his way of thinking. And sometimes it works when large crowds try to sway an individual or group of individuals to go along with what the crowd wants. But for *thinking* individuals, such tactics rarely work. FM> If you don't agree with notions expressed here, there IS an alternative FM>SHOUTING the expresser down. One CAN just be silent or simply express one's FM>OWN reflections. Isn't that, after all, EASIER? Yeah, it would be easier all right. But such purity and innocence can become a consuming destructiveness. --Lee * SLMR 2.1a * A knot! Oh, do let me help to undo it! --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:18/140) .