The Reason Why LOGOS Went Away is Obvious: Here it is
drdach
"design".
Cheezits: Actually, no, it isn't.
drdach: Would you be so kind as to elaborate your thinking here, as to
while
you feel the above statement is to be negated?
Cheezits: There are two distinct meanings of design at play.
Meaning 1)
In one, it is merely saying pattern. You look at the design in a
snowflake or a fractal. This meaning of design simply says
there are a set of rules or heuristics that can do a workman
like job of describing something. It can be deceptive in that
the description covers a bulk of observations that are considered
significant in a given context.
Meaning 2)
The other meaning of design is that of the product of a designer.
This meaning absolutely implies a designer. The typical game
played in ID is to conflate the two meanings so that the first
usage implies a designer through the shifted meaning of the
word.
So while I could grant your claim about Natural order reflecting
on meaning of design, it doesn't follow that this implies an
intelligence creating that result. Again, consult fractals or
myriad other examples of the results of applied maths.
drdach wrote:
Here I assume you are referring to fractals as creating a design
without the interaction of an intelligent designer, Meaning (1) above.
Looking at it from an abstract viewpoint, I would say you are correct.
However, looking at it from an anthropologic viewpoint, I would say
no, you are not correct. Fractal math equations require human
authorship, a human created computer to display the pattern and a human
viewer to appreciate the fractal pattern. Meaning (2) with added need
for human observer.
How about naturally occuring fractal patterns? Meaning (1) You might
make the argument here that these naturally designed patterns were
designed in the first sense of your definition, and no need to invoke
an intelligent designer as in the case of the fractal pattern with
human authorship displayed as art at the museum. Lets examine this
further.
"Fractal Expressionism Can Science Be Used To Further Our
Understanding Of Art? "
Abstract paintings produced by Jackson Pollock in the late 1940s
Here we analyse Pollock's patterns and show that they are fractal - the
fingerprint of Nature.
http://plus.maths.org/issue11/features/physics_world/
Is it possible for us to merge Meaning (1) and Meaning (2) in an
intellectually satisfying way?
One can start by contemplating the many examples of fractal patterns in
nature from the submicroscopic scale to the astronomic scale and marvel
at how it can appear so consistent at all levels of scale. This is the
science equivalent of going outside, opening your eyes and blinking a
few times.
"Designed by Nature, New ways of looking at the world help explain
the development of complex and beautiful patterns in nature" The
World and I", Volume 8(3): 202-207, 1993
http://www.scottcamazine.com/personal/DesignNature/
Naturally Occurring Fractals (plants, rivers, galaxies, clouds,
weather, population patterns, stocks, video feedback, crystal growth,
etc.)
http://www.miqel.com/fractals_math_patterns/visual-math-natural-fractals.html
So here we have fractal patterns occurring without human intervention
(naturally) in nature, as well as fractal patterns occurring in art
museums created by humans. So where does the intelligent designer come
into the picture? If at all?
Perhaps this fractal discussion is a rephrasing in modern terms of the
ID essay of William Paley: (i.e: the watch discovered in the sand must
have been intelligently designed, therefore complex biologic organisms
must have been intelligently designed as well.)
The modernized Fractal version of the Paley argument goes like this:
Fractal Patterns in museums representong human art product are
intelligently designed (obviously), so therefore it seems obvious (to
me) that fractal patterns that occur in nature are also intelligently
designed by (some entity-the intelligent designer).
Here of course you would respond by saying, no, it is not obvious,
because we are confusing Meaning (1) with Meaning (2). And in a certain
sense, you are correct. Meaning (1) is a definition in functional,
pragmatic terms for a workman to make a product. Meaning (2)
involves/invokes an intelligent designer (creator) and is not concerned
with making products or dominating the environement via science.
Interesting how these two, Meaning (1) and Meaning (2), correspond to
Adam(1) and Adam(2) in the original text of the creation of man
described in the Torah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah. The
authors must have had our discussion in mind when it was written
millenia ago, because this discussion is elementary and timeless.
Here is a discussion of this idea of two differing human archtypes
corresponding to
Meaning (1) and Meaning (2)
http://www.answers.com/topic/joseph-soloveitchik
Soloveitchik dicusses a contrast in the nature of the human being and
identifies two human types, Adam I and Adam II - representing
"majestic-science man" Meaning (1) and the "man of faith" Meaning(2):
Adam Number 1:
Adam I is to subdue nature, master the cosmos, and transform the world
"into a domain for their power and sovereignty. Adam I is majestic man
who approaches the world and relationships--even with the divine--in
functional, pragmatic terms. Adam I fulfills this mandate by conquering
the universe, imposing his knowledge, technology, and cultural
institutions upon the world. The human community depicted in Genesis 1
is a utilitarian one, where man and woman join together, like the male
and female of other animals, to further the ends of their species.
Adan Number 2:
Adam II, on the other hand, represents the lonely man of
faith,searching for and bringing meaning to existence. Adam II does not
subdue nature, but rather preserves it. Adam II experiences
existential loneliness, and so forms a community in which there is a
shared recognition of the creator (intelligent designer of nature).
This first community is two people. Enter Eve.
The Lonely Man of Faith , Written by Joseph B. Soloveitchik
http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780385514088&view=printexcerpt
Soloveitchik: It is true that the two accounts of the creation of man
differ because there is a real contradiction in the nature of man. The
two accounts deal with two Adams, two types, two representatives of
humanity, and they are not identical.
Soloveitchik:
Adam (1) the first has great drive for creative activity,
intelligence, the human mind, capable of confronting the outside world
and inquiring into its complex workings. Adam (1)'s attention is
directed to the functional and practical aspects of his intellect
through which man is able to gain control of nature. Other
intellectual inquiries, such as the metaphysical , no matter how
incisive and penetrating, have never granted man dominion over his
environment. Modern science has emerged victorious over nature because
it has sacrificed qualitative-metaphysical speculation for the sake of
a functional duplication of reality and substituted the quantus for the
qualis question.
Soloveitchik:
Therefore, Adam(1) the first is interested in just a single aspect of
reality and asks one question only--"How does the cosmos function?" He
is not fascinated by the question, "Why does the cosmos function at
all?" nor is he interested in the question, "What is its essence?"
These questions are posed by Adam (2).
Soloveitchik:
Adam(1) is only curious to know how things work and its practical
implications.
He raises not a metaphysical but a practical, technical "how" question.
To be precise, his question is related to the possibility of
reproducing the dynamics of the cosmos by employing
quantified-mathematized media which man evolves through postulation and
creative thinking. Adam (1) the first is overwhelmed by one quest,
namely, to harness and dominate the elemental natural forces and to put
them at his disposal. This practical interest arouses his will to learn
the secrets of nature. He is completely utilitarian as far as
motivation, teleology, design, and methodology are concerned.
drdach:
Adam (2) number two on the other hand is the type who agrees with the
William Paley watch argument and would even go so far as to merge
Meaning (1) and Meaning (2) above as self-evidently obvious.
So this brings us to the realization that in the inability of Group A
to convince Group B or any of their statements (or vice versa), we are
not dealing here with a mere inconsistency of semantic definitions or
lack of evidence, we are dealing with a more profound cognitive
dissonance between two fundamentally different human Archtypes (Adam
one and Adam two), two differing viewpoints and personalities which has
been known for millennia before the age of science.
And, when he realized this, Logos gave up and left.
Regards from www.drdach.com
>
> > >> Natural Order or "design" contains many of the same
> > >> elements found in human design (i.e. densely packed information which
> > >> is later expressed as complex function non-living and living things
> > >> (DNA compared to computer source code, for example)".
>
> > >Proof by redefinition - just call DNA "computer code", and that proves
> > >that God is a software engineer. :-D
>
> > Good point. This works quite well. God can be imagined as the author
> > of the computer source code of the universe. (To be taken
> > metaphorically, not literally)
>
> Metaphors are great ways to switch meaning.
>
> > >> Although Natural Order may be many orders of magnitude more complex and
> > >> elegant then any examples of human design (again comparing DNA with
> > >> computer source code) , it brings us (some of us) to the realization
> > >> that since computer code requires a human creator, DNA (and the entire
> > >> Natural Order) must also require a creator who has abilities beyond
> > >> those found in humans (at least the humans that I know of).
>
> > >By "realization" you mean "unsubstantiated belief"
>
> > Here you obviously mean "substantiation" to be objectively
> > verifiable experimentation as can be found in the scientific method.
>
> I doubt it. It fails to meet the logical requirements of using "must".
> Unless you can defend that math requires a designer, you don't
> have a leg to stand on.
>
> > I am clearly talking about a subjective perceptual ability here which
> > of course is outside of the realm of objective verifiability .
> > However, this does not (in my opinion) in any way detract from the
> > subjective validity of our subjective perceptual abilities.
>
> Word salad.
>
> Here's the problem. Wind blowing across the sand creates
> designs in the dunes. ID advocates don't equate wind with
> intelligence but it's capable producing design. The same is
> true of rivers or ocean waves or chemistry. The existence of
> patterns that follow rules doesn't imply a thoughtfullness making
> choices in any of the sense of choice that you seem to want.
Ron O
drdach wrote:
> drdach: The term "Natural Order" is merely another definition for
> "design".
>
> Cheezits: Actually, no, it isn't.
>
> drdach: Would you be so kind as to elaborate your thinking here, as to
> while
> you feel the above statement is to be negated?
>
> drdach:
> Adam (2) number two on the other hand is the type who agrees with the
> William Paley watch argument and would even go so far as to merge
> Meaning (1) and Meaning (2) above as self-evidently obvious.
>
> So this brings us to the realization that in the inability of Group A
> to convince Group B or any of their statements (or vice versa), we are
> not dealing here with a mere inconsistency of semantic definitions or
> lack of evidence, we are dealing with a more profound cognitive
> dissonance between two fundamentally different human Archtypes (Adam
> one and Adam two), two differing viewpoints and personalities which has
> been known for millennia before the age of science.
>
> And, when he realized this, Logos gave up and left.
>
> Regards from www.drdach.com
>
Is this some sort of confession?
Ron Okimoto
drdach
Dear Ron Okimoto,
In order to understand the post, you have to know:
Who was Logos?
Logos was your typical brilliant, sensitive individual who just happens
to reside in a mental institution in order to be protected from the
harshness of society. He appeared briefly on alt.talk, where he was
tortured and executed using old Roman era methodology, but in spite of
this continues to be resurrected here in various forms.
Logos Last Post Jan 2006.
Find Messages by LOGOS:
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?enc_author=76Z0WA0AAADNR-KrnIybp3lGfLf5YEOJ&scoring=d
Doctor: (walking down hall of hospital of mental hospital) Oh, hello
Mr. Smith, why are you standing here holding your IV pole looking up at
the corner of the ceiling?
Mr. D: (patent who is staring up at corner of ceiling): I am sending
and receiving information from the creator.
Doctor: (two hours later walking in return direction). Oh hello, I
noticed you are still here. What are you doing now?
Mr. D: (patient who is staring up at corner of ceiling): I am sending
and receiving information from the creator.
Doctor: (pointing to the opposite corner of the ceiling) Of course,
you must be crazy to be doing this, you are facing in the wrong
direction, the space satellite is located all the way over there.
(Doctor then turns patient to face opposite direction and continues
on).
Regards from www.drdach.com
Cheezits
> drdach: The term "Natural Order" is merely another definition for
> "design".
>
> Cheezits: Actually, no, it isn't.
>
> drdach: Would you be so kind as to elaborate your thinking here, as to
> while
> you feel the above statement is to be negated?
>
> Cheezits: There are two distinct meanings of design at play.
Actually, I didn't write that part.
[the rest deleted since it's not about Logos]
> And, when he realized this, Logos gave up and left.
He was just having fun with us. My guess is he got bored or ran out of
material.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
drdach
Sorry about the error attributing the text to your authorship.
Regarding why LOGOS left: I don;t believe it was lack of material.
The amount of material is literally infinite. There was something else
at play.
How about a comment on the other part of the post (you deleted the best
part)?
regards from wwww.drdach.com
dkomo
> drdach: The term "Natural Order" is merely another definition for
> "design".
>
> Cheezits: Actually, no, it isn't.
>
> drdach: Would you be so kind as to elaborate your thinking here, as to
> while
> you feel the above statement is to be negated?
>
> Cheezits: There are two distinct meanings of design at play.
>
> Meaning 1)
> In one, it is merely saying pattern. You look at the design in a
> snowflake or a fractal. This meaning of design simply says
> there are a set of rules or heuristics that can do a workman
> like job of describing something. It can be deceptive in that
> the description covers a bulk of observations that are considered
> significant in a given context.
>
> Meaning 2)
> The other meaning of design is that of the product of a designer.
> This meaning absolutely implies a designer. The typical game
> played in ID is to conflate the two meanings so that the first
> usage implies a designer through the shifted meaning of the
> word.
>
Nice. The poster who originally wrote these words about Meaning 1 and
Meaning 2 was "ehine...@gmail.com" back in the thread "Proof of
Intelligent Design Should Be Simple to Produce". You negligently
misattributed the quote.
There's an easy way to blend Meaning 1 and Meaning 2. It's a way you
missed entirely in what you wrote later in your post. In Meaning 1
natural processes produce designs such as snowflakes or fractals. To
quote "ehinesster" again:
"Wind blowing across the sand creates designs in the dunes. ID advocates
don't equate wind with intelligence but it's capable producing design.
The same is true of rivers or ocean waves or chemistry. The existence of
patterns that follow rules doesn't imply a thoughtfullness making
choices in any of the sense of choice that you seem to want."
Now let's look at the "intelligent" designers of Meaning 2. What are
some examples of these? Birds building nests, ants and termites
building colonies, beavers building dams, prairie dogs building towns
and so on. And human beings designing and building a whole variety of
artifacts from pottery to huge skyscrapers to symphonies. I'm using
extended definitions of "intelligence" and "design" which range in a
continuum across the entire animal world.
But these designers are emergent from nature. In a sense they *also*
are *natural processes*, albeit very complex ones, like rivers, wind and
ocean waves. So they are, again, natural processes producing patterns
which look like designs.
Now Meanings 1 and 2 have been combined. But unfortunately, your Magic
Daddy in the Sky is missing from the picture. Too bad.
[snip the rest]
Ron O
SNIP:
You missed the point, are you confessing? Logos was a bent, but you
aren't too straight either.
Ron Okimoto
drdach
> Nice. The poster who originally wrote these words about Meaning 1 and
> Meaning 2 was "ehine...@gmail.com" back in the thread "Proof of
> Intelligent Design Should Be Simple to Produce".
Sorry, I apologize for my negligence.
> There's an easy way to blend Meaning 1 and Meaning 2. It's a way you
> missed entirely in what you wrote later in your post. In Meaning 1
> natural processes produce designs such as snowflakes or fractals. To
> quote "ehinesster" again:
>
> "Wind blowing across the sand creates designs in the dunes. ID advocates
> don't equate wind with intelligence but it's capable producing design.
> The same is true of rivers or ocean waves or chemistry. The existence of
> patterns that follow rules doesn't imply a thoughtfullness making
> choices in any of the sense of choice that you seem to want."
>
> Now let's look at the "intelligent" designers of Meaning 2. What are
> some examples of these? Birds building nests, ants and termites
> building colonies, beavers building dams, prairie dogs building towns
> and so on. And human beings designing and building a whole variety of
> artifacts from pottery to huge skyscrapers to symphonies. I'm using
> extended definitions of "intelligence" and "design" which range in a
> continuum across the entire animal world.
>
> But these designers are emergent from nature. In a sense they *also*
> are *natural processes*, albeit very complex ones, like rivers, wind and
> ocean waves. So they are, again, natural processes producing patterns
> which look like designs.
>
> Now Meanings 1 and 2 have been combined. But unfortunately, your Magic
> Daddy in the Sky is missing from the picture. Too bad.
reply from drdach:
The only big daddy in the sky we have around south florida
is the neon owner's portrait adorning the top of the local liquor
store
appropriately named,"Big Daddy's".
We do have an intelligent designer for fractal patterns found in
nature,
however.
The semantic blending of Meaning 1 and Meaning 2
is not the problem. This is a much deeper
problem between two fundamental human archtypes.
It's intuitively obvious to me that its not intuitively obvious to
you.
The complete explanation can be found below:
drdach The term Natural Order is merely another definition for
design.
them: Actually, no, it isn't.
drdach: Would you be so kind as to elaborate your thinking here,
as to why you feel the above statement is to be negated?
them: There are two distinct meanings of design at play.
The word, "design" has two meanings:
Meaning 1) In one, it is merely saying pattern.
You look at the design in a snowflake or a fractal.
This meaning of design simply says
there are a set of rules or heuristics that can do a
workman-like job of describing something.
It can be deceptive in that the description covers
a bulk of observations that are considered
significant in a given context.
Meaning 2)
The other meaning of design is that of the product of a designer.
This meaning absolutely implies a designer. The typical game
played in ID is to conflate the two meanings so that the first
usage implies a designer through the shifted meaning of the
word.
So while I could grant your claim about Natural order reflecting
on meaning of design, it doesn't follow that this implies an
intelligence creating that result. Again, consult fractals or
myriad other examples of the results of applied math.
drdach wrote:
Here I assume you are referring to fractal patterns in nature,
as creation of a design without the interaction of an intelligent
designer. ie: meaning (1) above. The pattern alone.
This is a design or pattern in nature that does not contain
within its definition a compulsion to name designer of the design.
Looking at it from an abstract viewpoint, I would say you are correct.
However, looking at it from an anthropologic viewpoint, I would say
no, you are not correct. Fractal math equations require human
authorship, a human created computer to display the pattern and a
human
viewer to appreciate the fractal pattern. Meaning (2) with added need
for human observer.
How about naturally occurring fractal patterns? Meaning (1) You might
make the argument here that these naturally designed patterns were
designed in the first sense of your definition, and there is no need to
invoke
an intelligent designer for fractal patterns made by Jackson Pollack
displayed as art at the Guggenheim Museum. Jackson Pollack did them.
Lets examine this further.
"Fractal Expressionism Can Science Be Used To Further Our
Understanding Of Art? "
Abstract paintings produced by Jackson Pollock in the late 1940s
Here we analyze Pollock's patterns and show that they are fractal - the
fingerprint of Nature.
http://plus.maths.org/issue11/features/physics_world/
Is it possible for us to merge Meaning (1) and Meaning (2) in an
intellectually satisfying way?
One can start by contemplating the many examples of fractal patterns in
nature from the submicroscopic scale to the astronomic scale and marvel
at how fractals of great similarity can at multiple levels of scale.
This is the
science equivalent of going outside, opening your eyes and blinking a
few times and taking in the beauty of nature.
"Designed by Nature, New ways of looking at the world help explain
the development of complex and beautiful patterns in nature" The
World and I", Volume 8(3): 202-207, 1993
http://www.scottcamazine.com/personal/DesignNature/
Naturally Occurring Fractals (plants, rivers, galaxies, clouds,
weather, population patterns, stocks, video feedback, crystal growth,
etc.)
http://www.miqel.com/fractals_math_patterns/visual-math-natural-fract...
So here in the above examples we see fractal patterns
occurring without human intervention
(naturally) in nature, as well as fractal patterns occurring in art
museums created by humans.
So where does the intelligent designer
come into the picture? If at all?
Perhaps this fractal discussion above is a rephrasing in modern terms
the
ID essay of William Paley: (i.e: the watch discovered in the sand must
have been intelligently designed, therefore complex biologic organisms
must have been intelligently designed as well.)
The modern day "Fractal" version of the Paley argument goes like this:
Fractal Patterns in museums representing human art product are
intelligently designed (obviously), so therefore it seems intuitively
obvious
(to me) that fractal patterns that occur in nature are also
intelligently
designed by (some entity-the intelligent designer).
Here of course you would respond by saying, no, it is not obvious,
because we are confusing Meaning (1) with Meaning (2). And in a certain
sense, you are correct. Meaning (1) is a definition in functional,
pragmatic terms for a workman to make a product. Meaning (2)
involves/invokes an intelligent designer (creator) and is not concerned
with making products or dominating the environment via science.
Wait a minute because we have found a correlation with some ancient
information:
These two meanings: Meaning (1) and Meaning (2), correspond to
Adam(1) and Adam(2) in the original text of the creation of man
described in the Torah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah.
Soloveitchik identifies two human types, Adam I and Adam II -
representing
majestic-science-man-Meaning (1) and the
man-of-faith-ID-man-Meaning(2):
Here is a discussion:
http://www.answers.com/topic/joseph-soloveitchik
Adam Number 1: majestic-science-man-Meaning (1)
Adam I : his job is to subdue nature, master the cosmos,
and transform the world
into a domain for power and sovereignty. Adam I is majestic man
who approaches the world and relationships in functional,
pragmatic terms. Adam I fulfills this mandate by conquering
the universe, imposing his knowledge, technology, and cultural
institutions upon the world. The human community depicted
is a utilitarian one, where man and woman join together, like the male
and female of other animals, to further the ends of their species.
Adam Number 2: man-of-faith-ID-man-Meaning(2):
Adam II, on the other hand, represents the lonely man of sensitivity
searching for and bringing "meaning" to existence. Adam II does not
subdue nature, but rather preserves it. Adam II experiences
existential loneliness, and so forms a community in which there is a
shared recognition of the creator (intelligent designer of nature).
This first community is two people. Enter the person of Eve here.
The Lonely Man of Faith , Written by Joseph B. Soloveitchik
http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780385514088&v...
Soloveitchik:
The two accounts of the creation of man differ because there is a
real contradiction in the nature of man. The two accounts
deal with two Adams, two types, two representatives of
humanity, and they are not identical.
Adam (1) has great drive for creative activity, intelligence,
capable of confronting the outside world
and inquiring into its complex workings. Adam (1)'s attention is
directed to the functional and practical aspects
through which man is able to gain control of nature.
Other intellectual inquiries, such as the metaphysical , no matter how
incisive and penetrating, have never granted man dominion over his
environment. Modern science has emerged victorious over nature because
it has sacrificed qualitative-metaphysical speculation for the sake of
a functional duplication of reality.
Adam(1) is interested in just a single aspect of
reality and asks one question :
"How does the cosmos function?"
He is not fascinated by the question:
"Why does the cosmos function at all?"
nor is he interested in the question,
"What is its essence?"
These questions are posed by Adam (2).
Adam(1) is only curious to know how things work and its practical
implications. He raises not a metaphysical but a practical,
technical "how" question.
To be precise, his question is related to the possibility of
reproducing the dynamics of the cosmos by employing
quantified-mathematized media which man evolves
through postulation and creative thinking.
Adam (1) the first is overwhelmed by one quest,
namely, to harness and dominate the
elemental natural forces and to put
them at his disposal. This practical interest arouses his will to learn
the secrets of nature. He is completely utilitarian as far as
motivation, teleology, design, and methodology are concerned.
drdach continues:
Adam (2) on the other hand is the archetype man who agrees with the
William Paley watch argument, sees the creator in natural fractal
formations and would even go so far as to merge
Meaning (1) and Meaning (2) above as self-evidently obvious.
So this brings us to the realization that in the inability of Adam (1)
(atheist scientists) to convince Adam (2) (people who intuitively
recognize the creator in fractal formations of nature.
ID people etc.) of anything (or vice versa),
or even be able to communicate.
They can't and don't really communicate.
Sending emails back and forth which points
out this dichotomy isn't communication.
It's looking past the other person, not at them.
We are not dealing here with a larger problem.
This is not a semantic problem, or a problem in definitions, or
a problem of lack of evidence.
No, we are dealing here with a more profound cognitive
dissonance between two fundamentally different human archetypes,
Adam 1 and Adam two.
These are two fundamentally and profoundly different
humans which differ in their basic core.
They have been in opposition and conflict for millennia,
before the age of science and even before the age of the printed word.
This will not and cannot change,
unless of course, you have read the above,
understood it, and take it upon yourself to change
yourself from Adam 1 to Adam 2.
To do so would be virtually impossible.
regards from www.drdach.com
drdach
Confessing what? Please elaborate.
dkomo
What about that big fancy Baptist church at the other end of town with
that flashing neon Las Vegas type sign that says "Big Daddy's"?
> We do have an intelligent designer for fractal patterns found in
> nature,
> however.
>
Why do I get the feeling you're beating around the bush? Describe this
intelligent designer of fractal patterns a little more fully please. Do
you mean human beings?
> The semantic blending of Meaning 1 and Meaning 2
> is not the problem. This is a much deeper
> problem between two fundamental human archtypes.
> It's intuitively obvious to me that its not intuitively obvious to
> you.
It's intuitively obvious to me that you're intuitively wrong. If you
don't think I look for explanations of reality outside of science read
my post "Epistemological Pluralism" from yesterday. The schema Ken
Wilber has developed for integrating knowledge from science,
mathematics, philosophy and the contemplative religions runs circles in
terms of depth around your Adam I and Adam II archetypes.
>
> complete explanation can be found below:
>
If I thought that the rest of this had something to offer in the way of
an explanation I wouldn't have snipped it in my last reply.
[snip the rest]
By the way, Logos was a preachy, obtrusive religious nut job. Do you
really want him as your role model?
Ron O
Well let's see. According to Google you started posting around August
and someone claiming to be logos was posting up until then. You list a
post claiming that Logos decided to stop posting back in January, but
Logos posts kept appearing.
You are off the wall enough in your approach to be a troll like Logos,
at least, I hope he was a troll. It would be sad to have someone that
was really like that around giving his speels to church groups.
Ron Okimoto
Cheezits
>> > And, when he realized this, Logos gave up and left.
>>
>> He was just having fun with us. My guess is he got bored or ran out
>> of material.
>>
>
> Regarding why LOGOS left: I don;t believe it was lack of material.
> The amount of material is literally infinite.
That is not literally true.
> There was something else
> at play.
Unless you're him, how would you know?
> How about a comment on the other part of the post (you deleted the
> best part)?
Sorry, but I'm not really interested - it mostly boiled down to seeing
"design" just about everywhere, with nothing as a basis for comparison.
And your posting style is kind of annoying, and you've been posting way
too much, and you seem like you might be kind of nuts, so I think I'll
bow out.
Sue (I still miss Logos)