Re: Damn!


"kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuff00@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1137246960.878548.318620@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> The Chozen Few wrote:
>> "kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuff00@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1137172096.250246.28540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> > The Chozen Few wrote:
>> >> "kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuff00@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> news:1137156593.459969.130040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> >
>> >> > The Chozen Few wrote:
>> >> >> "Mitch" <mitch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:fd6ds1dc3bm54ajtog101p8maele77s4kr@xxxxxxxxxx
>> >> >> > On 11 Jan 2006 19:15:04 -0800, "kuff (Isaac Adams)"
>> >> >> > <kuff00@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>Mitch wrote:
>> >> >> >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1684472,00.html
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> ...And since the people of
>> >> >> >>> Palestine elected Hamas, they're culpable as well and get all
>> >> >> >>> the
>> >> >> >>> perks that come along with democratic statehood! ...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>You know, when I suggested not that long ago that in a democracy
>> >> >> >>the
>> >> >> >>people become legitimate 'leadership targets' I didn't have many
>> >> >> >>takers.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>Welcome aboard. :-)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > EEK! The Kuff Express. Let me guess, you're both the engineer and
>> >> >> > conductor? Next stop, Willoughby!
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I doubt he's inclined to accept that much responsibility for the
>> >> >> course
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> *any* train he's riding on, somewhat reminiscent of the "fellow
>> >> >> travelers"
>> >> >> of the 50s.
>> >> >
>> >> > Oh bullshit Few. NB: It's an express - Willoughby's on the local.
>> >> > Mitch's got on the wrong train - again. :-)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Yes, I suppose the Evolved Transient Sentient Express may extend far
>> >> beyond
>> >> this mere planet, and/or plane (oops, train) of existence.
>> >
>> > It's "plain" of existence. As in routine, ordinary, unremarkable -
>> > 'plain as dirt'.
>>
>>
>> Do you think a "dirt pixie" is as plain as non-pixieish dirt?
>
> Yes - provided you consider "sky pixie" to be as plain. Perhaps even
> plainer as the dirt pixie is (often) explicitly 'assembled' whereas the
> sky pixie is prone to more accreted supposition.


I'm undecided about the "plainness" of pixies per se, largely because the
very notion of plainness couldn't exist in an epistemological sense without
the concept of non-plainness (aka "the supernatural"), and for me the
question remains why we even have that latter concept. The
naturalistic/materialistic explanation that we simply have it because it's
useful when *other* naturalistic/materialistic explanations don't suffice
*also* doesn't suffice, I think... especially it doesn't suffice to support
the kind of dogmatism sometimes associated with naturalistic/materialistic
world views in totalitarian regimes during the last century. Anti-dogmatic
dogmatism isn't merely a contradiction in terms -- the historical evidence
available thus far indicates that it can be one of the most dangerous kinds
of dogmatism, possibly because it requires denying not only anything beyond
nature, but also the dogmatic character of *its own* nature. A theocrat is
at least able to acknowledge his own dogmatism without revealing too much
(from his point of view) about the way his particular brand of pixie has
been "assembled."




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Damn!
    ... >> sky pixie is prone to more accreted supposition. ... > the kind of dogmatism sometimes associated with naturalistic/materialistic ... > world views in totalitarian regimes during the last century. ... "The proof is in the pudding." ...
    (alt.religion.islam)
  • Re: Damn!
    ... >>> sky pixie is prone to more accreted supposition. ... >> of dogmatism, possibly because it requires denying not only anything ... Obviously it affects the considerer. ... > TCF: Obviously, but given the assumptions of materialism, the ...
    (alt.religion.islam)