Author
|
Topic: virus: Fw: Definitions (Read 432 times) |
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.52
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
  
|
 |
virus: Fw: Definitions
« on: 2004-06-14 11:35:40 » |
 |
Any thoughts on this criticism?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Thurman" <jthurman@neo.rr.com>
To: <david@lucifer.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2004 2:49 PM
Subject: Definitions
David, I have been at your site(Church Of Virus) for over 30 minutes looking
at many of the various components. It is an interesting concept: that of
creating a new religion. Obviously a great deal of thought goes into this
type of project as it is a reflection of your own life's experiences both
emotionally and intellectually.
Concerning your definition of Dogmatism, I believe that you need to restate
the second sentence. It is not a fact necessarily that the idea is held as
"true despite all evidence to the contrary". Rather it may simply be held as
true without any reference to evidence. In addition it could also be said
that to adhere to an idea as true "despite all evidence to the contrary" is
one example of taking dogmatism to an extreme; dependent upon the size of
the body of contrary evidence. This, of course involves a subjective
judgment, and begs the question then who will be the qualified ones to
determine such. They, of course get to be the "high priests".
To then say that "there is an abdication of reason" in a blanket statement
is too easily taken to task. The judgment is based upon subjectivity again,
and can easily differ from one individual to the next.
After all,is it not the subjective judgments of other "authorities" that
has you at this point in the first place?
Kind Regards,
- Ruminator
(Jim)
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.24
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re:virus: Fw: Definitions
« Reply #1 on: 2004-06-14 12:35:28 » |
|
In journalism, if you modify someone's quote to give it contextual clarity, what is that called and how do you handle it?
oh, well, nm, basically Lucifer's contact wrote that "Dogma is not necessarily that the idea is held as "true despite all evidence to the contrary". Rather it may simply be held as true without any reference to evidence."
I thought that was an excellent clarification of the meaning of the word dogma.
Also in that letter to David was a reference to "high priests". I've been a "high" priest all my life. Nowadays, I just like hanging out with other priests, low, medium or high. 
David, please wholeheartedly extend an invitation to the "Ruminator" to come participate in our little games here at CoV. I like him already.
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
Lise Carlstrom
Initiate
Posts: 68
Reputation: 5.86
Rate Lise Carlstrom
I love YaBB SE!
|
|
Re: virus: Fw: Definitions
« Reply #2 on: 2004-06-14 13:17:51 » |
|
--- David Lucifer <david@lucifer.com> wrote:
> Any thoughts on this criticism?
The topic is this piece of the Senseless Sins listed
on the Virus website:
"Dogmatism
Through some twist of fate, western society has come
to regard dogmatic faith as a virtue. To hold an idea
as true despite all evidence to the contrary is an
abdication of reason. Convictions are the end of
knowledge, not the beginning; they are the enemy of
truth more than lies."
Well, that bit of the creed was actually changed from
a previous version that listed Faith, rather than
Dogmatism, as the sin. David, you don't happen to
have a copy of the original text, do you? In any
case, there was a church gathering the Seattle several
years ago (the first, I think?), at which we had a lot
of fun, and at which we decided that Faith in itself
was not a sin, since there can be good reasons for
believing things that have little or no evidence in
their favor--reasons that have to do with utility, not
likelihood of truth. For instance, it's generally
better to assume people are well-intentioned than
malicious, as a starting point, even with no evidence
either way; it has a better effect on one's thinking
and actions, and gets better results. In the course
of the discussion, we decided that it was Dogmatic
Faith that was a problem--holding to a belief in the
face of contrary evidence, and pressing it on others
as well. The group declared this to David (or,
possibly, nailed it to the door of the website), and
David obligingly edited the Sins. I like it as it
stands.
--Eva
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Thurman" <jthurman@neo.rr.com>
> To: <david@lucifer.com>
> Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2004 2:49 PM
> Subject: Definitions
>
>
> David, I have been at your site(Church Of Virus) for
> over 30 minutes looking
> at many of the various components. It is an
> interesting concept: that of
> creating a new religion. Obviously a great deal of
> thought goes into this
> type of project as it is a reflection of your own
> life's experiences both
> emotionally and intellectually.
> Concerning your definition of Dogmatism, I believe
> that you need to restate
> the second sentence. It is not a fact necessarily
> that the idea is held as
> "true despite all evidence to the contrary". Rather
> it may simply be held as
> true without any reference to evidence. In addition
> it could also be said
> that to adhere to an idea as true "despite all
> evidence to the contrary" is
> one example of taking dogmatism to an extreme;
> dependent upon the size of
> the body of contrary evidence. This, of course
> involves a subjective
> judgment, and begs the question then who will be the
> qualified ones to
> determine such. They, of course get to be the "high
> priests".
> To then say that "there is an abdication of reason"
> in a blanket statement
> is too easily taken to task. The judgment is based
> upon subjectivity again,
> and can easily differ from one individual to the
> next.
> After all,is it not the subjective judgments of
> other "authorities" that
> has you at this point in the first place?
>
> Kind Regards,
> - Ruminator
> (Jim)
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
