To redefine "faith" as "reason", or "reason" as "faith" as you seem to be attempting, means that you have taken a major step of faith which goes well beyond reason as it leaves you completely unable to hold a discussion with reasonable people. If that is where you want to be, and looking at the descent into chaos and psychomystical babbling evinced on this mail list of late, it may be where at least some of the posters (poseurs?) do want to be, then you have succeeded. Just please don't try to attempt to make this sound reasonable, rational or justifiable, because it is not; unless, perhaps, you have some agenda for redefining words to make them all mean the same thing; or are attempting to piss off the few rational posters left on the list by mutilating the English language and ravishing the warped remnants.
How ridiculous. How silly.
TheHermit (Very unimpressed)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-virus@lucifer.com
> [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
> Of Eric Boyd
> Sent: Monday, March 08, 1999 5:22 PM
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: virus: equivocation
>
>
> Hi,
>
> From: Reed Konsler <konsler@ascat.harvard.edu>
> >>Faith is a disciplined way of thinking, its purpose is to maintain
> and
> >>strengthen belief in ones current model of the world. (ERiC)
>
>
> How do you get from:
>
> >Sure, but if you'll look back a Jake's posts, he points out that
> >pan-critical rationalism is a great way of creating a resilient
> >self-consistent worldview...interrogate each link, replace those
> >which are flawed, test the whole...in other words:
>
> to here???
>
> >"Reason is a disciplined way of thinking, its purpose is to maintain
> >and strengthen belief in ones current model of the world."
>
> Is it just me, or do they flatly contradict each other? I would
> characterize the former as "developing", "creating", "testing" a
> world-view. In a sense, that is "maintaining", in the sense that one
> "maintains" (and even improves) an airplane, or a car. But that is
> not how I was using the word in my faith definition -- there, I was
> thinking more of a "static equilibrium", as in holding-shape despite
> external influences.
>
> i.e. I'm accusing you of equivocating on the word "maintain" in order
> to balance these definitions.
>
> I hate equivocation.
>
> ERiC
>
>