From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lcrocker@calweb.com)
Date: Thu Jan 16 1997 - 17:59:09 MST
QM> If a balance of thoughtfulness and detachment is sought, then you have
QM> to allow for [emotions], even if you know you cannot be ruled by them
LC> I don't seek "balance" or whatever other new-age mystical nonsense you
LC> would have me seek. I seek reality. And I am not ruled by anything
LC> but the laws of physics.
QM> That is really insulting, I am not suggesting you see new age ,
QM> nonsense, or anything of the sort....
I merely expressed my evaluation of the sentence above; you are free
to feel insulted by my beliefs if you like, none was intended. I don't
know anything about you personally. I believe that words have meaning.
To what specific referent do the words "balance of thoughfulness and
detachment" refer? Upon what scale, by what unit of measure, am I to
seek this "balance"? What do you mean by "allow for" emotions? Do you
mean to recognize that they exist? If so, what have I said contrary
to that? If I have said something to imply that I don't "allow for"
emotions, please point it out so I can understand what you mean.
I cannot find enough meaning in that sentence to apply reason to it,
so I evaluate it as mystical rambling. I cannot apply any other
evaluation to it by my standards, and I cannot know what reaction
others may have to my evaluations. If you think I have been dishonest,
or unclear, or made a mistake of reason, or employ improper standards
of reason, then you are welcome to point them out to me, and I will
listen. I won't promise to agree, or even to understand, if I cannot.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:01 MST