Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing obtuse here Amen
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:04:37 -0800 "Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: G, I think you got your message across to them...[one] would think this is a chat room. chat's cool, too,Mr. Moderator; as well as the other traditional TT mode/s (inc 'Digest'),partic if it's time worthy to read/interact at all I'm waiting for some Polanyi at UCBerkely, c. 1962,to read and think about So, Why would Layman adhere to a philosophy/er he's never studied?? ..perhaps it's wise toremind Bill that not everyone here 'thinks'like Layman; FTR, I'll be happy to speak for (even 'chat' for)those who'd gladly interact with a 'Polanyi' only if they knew more about it; e.g., if Layman or Billsends us the requestd UCBerkely/Polanyi, etc, and write/sonoriginal thought or twoabout it, perhaps we all could learn from it,however, I sincerely doubt that (e.g.) Judy or yourself or DavidMwanna be chastised for rejectingsomenovice's rhetorical philosophical spoon feeding.. G ~ P 235
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing obtuse here Amen
FTR, Mr. Moderator;one may correctlysuspect that DavidM just went to the opposite extreme--from the comments, below--i.e., didn't he actually embrace (with Bill)Polanyi as a Gospel-guru of some sort; I'm in favor of lets at least let'em try toprove it..(eh, Iz?I'm wonderin'..when are you gonna shinny up the Polanyi with 'em and the Pope??:) l, G On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 13:28:32 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:04:37 -0800 "Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: G, I think you got your message across to them...[one] would think this is a chat room. chat's cool, too,Mr. Moderator; as well as the other traditional TT mode/s (inc 'Digest'),partic if it's time worthy to read/interact at all I'm waiting for some Polanyi at UCBerkely, c. 1962,to read and think about So, Why would Layman adhere to a philosophy/er he's never studied?? ..perhaps it's wise toremind Bill that not everyone here 'thinks'like Layman; FTR, I'll be happy to speak for (even 'chat' for)those who'd gladly interact with a 'Polanyi' only if they knew more about it; e.g., if Layman or Billsends us the requestd UCBerkely/Polanyi, etc, and write/sonoriginal thought or twoabout it, perhaps we all could learn from it,however, I sincerely doubt that (e.g.) Judy or yourself or DavidMwanna be chastised for rejectingsomenovice's rhetorical philosophical spoon feeding.. G ~ P 235 G ~ P 235
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing obtuse here Amen
G says I sincerely doubt that (e.g.) Judy or yourself or DavidMwanna be chastised for rejectingsomenovice's rhetorical philosophical spoon feeding. That's very considerate of you, G. Perhaps you are right. Would you please teach me about Polanyi, about philosophy in general, that I might know and no longer be a novice? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 1:28 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing "obtuse here" Amen On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:04:37 -0800 "Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: G, I think you got your message across to them...[one] would think this is a chat room. chat's cool, too,Mr. Moderator; as well as the other traditional TT mode/s (inc 'Digest'),partic if it's time worthy to read/interact at all I'm waiting for some Polanyi at UCBerkely, c. 1962,to read and think about So, Why would Layman adhere to a philosophy/er he's never studied?? ..perhaps it's wise toremind Bill that not everyone here 'thinks'like Layman; FTR, I'll be happy to speak for (even 'chat' for)those who'd gladly interact with a 'Polanyi' only if they knew more about it; e.g., if Layman or Billsends us the requestd UCBerkely/Polanyi, etc, and write/sonoriginal thought or twoabout it, perhaps we all could learn from it,however, I sincerely doubt that (e.g.) Judy or yourself or DavidMwanna be chastised for rejectingsomenovice's rhetorical philosophical spoon feeding.. G ~ P 235
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing obtuse here Amen
post/critiquethe
novice'salleged UCBerkely, c. 1962, Polanyi, document/s; otherwise, my
comments to 'elextech' (vince) are your's to trash, if you wanna risk
it
G ~ P
235
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 17:51:30 -0700 "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
G says I
sincerely doubt that (e.g.) Judy or yourself or DavidMwanna be chastised
for rejectingsomenovice's rhetorical philosophical spoon
feeding.
That's very considerate of you, G. Perhaps you
are right. Would you please teach me about Polanyi, about philosophy in
general, that I might know and no longer be a novice?
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 1:28
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing
"obtuse here" Amen
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:04:37 -0800
"Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: G, I think you got your
message across to them...[one] would
think this is a chat
room.
chat's cool, too,Mr.
Moderator; as well as the other traditional TT mode/s (inc
'Digest'),partic if it's time worthy to read/interact at
all
I'm waiting for some Polanyi at
UCBerkely, c. 1962,to read and think about
So, Why would Layman adhere to a
philosophy/er he's never studied??
..perhaps it's wise toremind
Bill that not everyone here 'thinks'like Layman; FTR, I'll be happy to
speak for (even 'chat' for)those who'd gladly interact with a
'Polanyi' only if they knew more about it; e.g., if Layman or
Billsends us the requestd UCBerkely/Polanyi, etc, and
write/sonoriginal thought or twoabout it, perhaps we all
could learn from it,however, I sincerely doubt that (e.g.) Judy or
yourself or DavidMwanna be chastised for
rejectingsomenovice's rhetorical philosophical spoon
feeding..
G ~ P
235
[TruthTalk] Re:Nothing obtuse here Amen
From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your question was prompted by a comment I had made to Judy, pointing out the Aristotelian nature of her holiness doctrine. She didn't recognize Aristotle's influence on her thought. My guess is that neither did you. But I did, and I pointed it out to her. jt: Bill sanctification/holiness isscriptural and the NT was not around in the days of Aristotle. I did this not to attack her or to belittle her but to help her to maybe begin to realize that one does not need to study philosophy to be captivated by its lure. It is just as often the unsuspecting one who is hurt by philosophy as it is the one who makes it his prerogativeto know. The point is, however, that I was not promoting philosophy over the Bible when this all began; instead I was awakening a sister to the silent whispers of Greek thought, when you wrote me to inquire about the philosophical underpinnings of my own theology. jt: Could be that western thought is influenced by the Romans and Greeks; however, we are to die to all that and put on the mind of Christ. I said, "if I were to say I adhere to a philosophy, I would look to the breakthroughs of Michael Polanyi." Why did I say that? I said it because I understand Polanyi and I know what he has done to freeall thought, and especially Christian thought, from Enlightenment rationalism. jt: The mind of Christ will do just as much to free us from Enlightenment rationalism so why do we need to come by way of Polanyi? I wrote to the best of my ability, and I wrote for you and your fellowTTers to read. Please, get your dictionary out, put it beside you, and begin to work your way through it. It won't hurt you. And if you learn a new word or two, then, so what, that won't hurt you either. jt: Thanks for being well meaning Bill; but can we justify the use of our time this way? Beyond that, I do not worshipPolanyi. I worship Jesus Christ. But I do admire Polanyi's contribution, just like I admire others for their contributions. I know I must "work out" myown salvation (to quote Judy, and partially quote Scripture), jt: Hey! don't give me credit for that, I got it from the apostle Paul who wrote "So then mty beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." (Phil 2:12,13) but Iam not so enamored as to think I have to do it all myself. Nor am easily I intimidated -- I like looking for our Lord in all the "wrong" places. It doesn't surprise me to find him working in strongholds normally given to the other side. Jesus madeit hiscareer doing this. Why should it stir you to discover the same? jt: How did Jesus make his career looking for God in all the "wrong" places? Was he a student of any kind of philosophy that you know of? Grace and Peace, judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing obtuse here Amen
In a message dated 3/20/2004 6:00:45 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm not a quick study, so I couldn't digest others' chat and reply in real time. I need time to compose a response. Hello and I am back from the wonderful and very liberal state of Washington. I did take time while there to clear the mail box -- 439 posts. Amazing and interesting. I have copied over the email quote from Vince because his words are mine. I was in a chat room discussion once. Within 15 minutes, I had left behind the notion of responding and had turned to a rather cryptic study of the hangman's' noose. God bless you all and I hope you all still like each other. in grace John Smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing obtuse here Amen
I said I know I must "work out" myown salvation (to quote Judy, and partially quote Scripture), jt said Hey! don't give me credit for that, I got it from the apostle Paul who wrote "So then mty beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." (Phil 2:12,13) Judy, I had in mind the rest of Paul's statement; you know, the rest of the story, the portion emphasized above. I'll respond to some of your other comments later on, maybe this evening. Thanks, Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 11:15 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing "obtuse here" Amen From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your question was prompted by a comment I had made to Judy, pointing out the Aristotelian nature of her holiness doctrine. She didn't recognize Aristotle's influence on her thought. My guess is that neither did you. But I did, and I pointed it out to her. jt: Bill sanctification/holiness isscriptural and the NT was not around in the days of Aristotle. I did this not to attack her or to belittle her but to help her to maybe begin to realize that one does not need to study philosophy to be captivated by its lure. It is just as often the unsuspecting one who is hurt by philosophy as it is the one who makes it his prerogativeto know. The point is, however, that I was not promoting philosophy over the Bible when this all began; instead I was awakening a sister to the silent whispers of Greek thought, when you wrote me to inquire about the philosophical underpinnings of my own theology. jt: Could be that western thought is influenced by the Romans and Greeks; however, we are to die to all that and put on the mind of Christ. I said, "if I were to say I adhere to a philosophy, I would look to the breakthroughs of Michael Polanyi." Why did I say that? I said it because I understand Polanyi and I know what he has done to freeall thought, and especially Christian thought, from Enlightenment rationalism. jt: The mind of Christ will do just as much to free us from Enlightenment rationalism so why do we need to come by way of Polanyi? I wrote to the best of my ability, and I wrote for you and your fellowTTers to read. Please, get your dictionary out, put it beside you, and begin to work your way through it. It won't hurt you. And if you learn a new word or two, then, so what, that won't hurt you either. jt: Thanks for being well meaning Bill; but can we justify the use of our time this way? Beyond that, I do not worshipPolanyi. I worship Jesus Christ. But I do admire Polanyi's contribution, just like I admire others for their contributions. I know I must "work out" myown salvation (to quote Judy, and partially quote Scripture), jt: Hey! don't give me credit for that, I got it from the apostle Paul who wrote "So then mty beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." (Phil 2:12,13) but Iam not so enamored as to think I have to do it all myself. Nor am easily I intimidated -- I like looking for our Lord in all the "wrong" places. It doesn't surprise me to find him working in strongholds normally given to the other side. Jesus madeit hiscareer doing this. Why should it stir you to discover the same? jt: How did Jesus make his career looking for God in all the "wrong" places? Was he a student of any kind of philosophy that you know of? Grace and Peace, judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing obtuse here Amen
I said I like
looking for our Lord in all the "wrong" places. It doesn't surprise me to find
him working in strongholds normally given to the other side. Jesus madeit
hiscareer doing this.
jt said How did
Jesus make his career looking for God in all the "wrong" places?
First of all, I did not say that
Jesus was "looking for God." He is God, always was, always will be. I said I
like looking for him (the Lord) in all the "wrong" places. By that I mean places
not commonly frequented by highly stuffy religious types, places like university
lecture halls and science forums. I am always amazed, when I go to those places,
to find that Jesus is already there, laying the groundwork for the sharing of
the Gospel. I think he thinks he would grow old waiting for most high brows to
meet him at "church."
Judy, I guess what I'm really saying
is that I have thoroughly bought into the truth that Jesus is Lord. He is Lord
of everything. It doesn't matter what or where, if it is in the world, he is
there. That'swhatdisturbs me about your attitude. Why in the world
should Christians be content to concede any strongholds to the devil? There's
just no getting around it, as long as we are in this world philosophy and
science are going to be major players in shaping the waypeople think
(Christian peopleincluded). I say, why be afraid? Go there and be amazed
to discover that our Lord can hold his ownin any climate. Start changing
the tide.Why shun Polanyi? Why not thank our Lord that he raised him up at
the time he did and equippedhim to speak to the problems present
inEnlightenment mentality? I think if you will bear with me a while,
you'll begin to realize that your thoughts are not as genuinely biblical as you
imagine. They too have been influenced by philosophy. If I'm wrong, you lose
nothing but a little time. If I'm right, well, you'll know what you've
gained.
jt said
Was[Jesus] a student of any kind of philosophy that you know
of?
I do not think I would characterize
Jesus as a "student" of philosophy, just like I do not characterize myself in
that way. I do know this, however, that Jesus did not shy away from
opportunities to challenge the conventions of his day. Allow me one example.
Long before Christ walked the earth, Confucius instructed his followers with
these words: "Do not do to other people what you would not have them do to you."
I think it's just too great a coincidenceto imagine that Jesus was unaware
of Confucius when he told his followers, "Do unto others what you would have
them do to you." My point is this: Jesus took the philosophy of his day, no
doubt a popularconvention, and spun it just enough to radically alter its
intent. One could be completely passive in life, spending every day doing
nothing,and still satisfy Confucius' demand; -- not so with
Jesus.It takes action to please him: "Do untoothers ..."Here's
the short of it: Jesus was not
intimidated by philosophy. Why should we be? Instead, he stood it on its head.
He did not say, Oh my gosh, Confucius said so and so, and so I'd better stay
away from there. No! He took him on and set him straight. With
Christ as our Lord, we can be doing the same thing today. Thanks to people like
Polanyi, some of us are.
I'll be back with more comments
later.
Thank you,
Bill
Taylor
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 11:15
AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing "obtuse
here" Amen
From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your question was
prompted by a comment I had made to Judy, pointing out the Aristotelian
nature of her holiness doctrine. She didn't recognize Aristotle's influence
on her thought. My guess is that neither did you. But I did, and I pointed
it out to her.
jt: Bill sanctification/holiness
isscriptural and the NT was not around in the days of
Aristotle.
I did this not to attack
her or to belittle her but to help her to maybe begin to realize that one
does not need to study philosophy to be captivated by its lure. It is just
as often the unsuspecting one who is hurt by philosophy as it is the one who
makes it his prerogativeto know. The point is, however, that I was not
promoting philosophy over the Bible when this all began; instead I was
awakening a sister to the silent whispers of Greek thought, when you wrote
me to inquire about the philosophical underpinnings of my own
theology.
jt: Could be that western thought
is influenced by the Romans and Greeks; however, we are to die to all that
and put on the mind of Christ.
I said, "if I were to
say I adhere to a philosophy, I would look to the breakthroughs of Michael
Polanyi." Why di
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing obtuse here Amen
G ~P 235, I am perplexed and a bit disheartened over this post. I've been sitting on ita couple days now (a long time in the fast-paced world of e-communalism). What is it that has you so stirred? And I mean that with no disrespect intended. When this discussion began, it opened with a question from you asking me if I preferred Plato over Aristotle: "but if not Aristotle's,what are the philosophical premises of your theology? Do you prefer Plato?" Your question was prompted by a comment I had made to Judy, pointing out the Aristotelian nature of her holiness doctrine. She didn't recognize Aristotle's influence on her thought. My guess is that neither did you. But I did, and I pointed it out to her. I did this not to attack her or to belittle her but to help her to maybe begin to realize that one does not need to study philosophy to be captivated by its lure. It is just as often the unsuspecting one who is hurt by philosophy as it is the one who makes it his prerogativeto know. The point is, however, that I was not promoting philosophy over the Bible when this all began; instead I was awakening a sister to the silent whispers of Greek thought, when you wrote me to inquire about the philosophical underpinnings of my own theology. Did I prefer Plato over Aristotle? I preferred neither, although I admire both for the good they did in preparing the Greek world to begin to think about "God" in a monotheistic frame of reference. No, I said, "if I were to say I adhere to a philosophy, I would look to the breakthroughs of Michael Polanyi." Why did I say that? I said it because I understand Polanyi and I know what he has done to freeall thought, and especially Christian thought, from Enlightenment rationalism. You can read my Polanyi post to get the particulars on the whats of rationalism andthe whys and hows hereacted (if you want documentation, I would be glad to send my references). If it is difficult reading, I humbly apologize -- I wrote to the best of my ability, and I wrote for you and your fellowTTers to read. Please, get your dictionary out, put it beside you, and begin to work your way through it. It won't hurt you. And if you learn a new word or two, then, so what, that won't hurt you either. Beyond that, I do not worshipPolanyi. I worship Jesus Christ. But I do admire Polanyi's contribution, just like I admire others for their contributions. I know I must "work out" myown salvation (to quote Judy, and partially quote Scripture), but Iam not so enamored as to think I have to do it all myself. Nor am easily I intimidated -- I like looking for our Lord in all the "wrong" places. It doesn't surprise me to find him working in strongholds normally given to the other side. Jesus madeit hiscareer doing this. Why should it stir you to discover the same? Thank you, Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 3:08 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing "obtuse here" Amen Mr. Moderator: This irrelevant stuff (not the best word i'm thinkin' of)thatLL and Bill wanna foist off on innocent readers is disgusting--pls have them either document and explain what it has to do with our lives or tell 'em toshut up about it IOW, Lance, prove thatPolanyi's philosophy is relevant to you--no one here would wannalisten to a tape of whom you'vedemonstrated to be irrelevant! Youand Billhave effectivelyreducedyour favoritephilospher to the level of Brittney Spears with your mutteringchaotic meddling in his ideological affairs--and she, ftr,communicates her drivel withmorecommon sense than alleither of you clowns Try this, Lance:post the (valid) text of an PolanyiBerkley speech with your view of it,and I'll post a readable layman's responseyou can read--I think you might be able to succeedat communicating while Bill travels aerospace... heck, Lance, I'll even write like a BS song thatyou and Bill can really dig G ~P 235 On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:43:14 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..Seriously, it'd appear that you have a thorough grasp of the Pman so, I won't venture into "expert territory". However, if you want to hear him I've got lectures delivered at UCBerkley in 1962. Lance - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 19, 2004 11:38 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:SYNTAX SEMANTICS THE CIA ??..all i wanna know is what's the astoundinG RELEVANCE OF MICHAEL POLANYI'S THOUGHT FOR you(!)? Why not listen to Brittney Spears, Layman? On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:25:41 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing obtuse here Amen
It's unlikely that you'll find a time which is convenient for all participants to be in a chat room concurrently. I'm not a quick study, so I couldn't digest others' chat and reply in real time. I need time to compose a response. Those tedious little one or two liners can contain significant wisdom. I often write short posts, like this one, put them in the outbound tray, then come back and revise them later before sending them. I feel more comfortable with concise posts. I prefer that things remain as they are. vincent j fulton On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:04:37 -0800 Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: G, I think you got your message across to them. I agree it is tedious reading all of these one or two liners. You would think this is a chat room. You probably remember this, G, that in the past each TT member was requested to post no more than 8 (I think it was 8) messages a day. This was to save everyone the trouble of having to open and read hundreds of little tiny posts, and make the forum a bit easier to use. It was totally voluntary, and most users complied. I may have to make a similar request again if the chat-style conversations continue. An additional advantage was that conscientious users would try to make more meaningful answers in a single post, not wanting to clog up the forum with many trivial responses. I am investigating the possibility of using a chat room for conversatiojn-style discussions. I can see two uses for this: 1) if two are emailing the group every 2 minutes to converse about a topic they can take it outside to the chat room, and 2) if a topic becomes really hot, a time and date can be set for members to meet and discuss it in a chat forum. Does anyone have any comments or suggestions about using a chat room for these purposes? Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing obtuse here Amen Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 15:08:07 -0700 Mr. Moderator: This irrelevant stuff (not the best word i'm thinkin' of) that LL and Bill wanna foist off on innocent readers is disgusting--pls have them either document and explain what it has to do with our lives or tell 'em to shut up about it IOW, Lance, prove that Polanyi's philosophy is relevant to you--no one here would wanna listen to a tape of whom you've demonstrated to be irrelevant! You and Bill have effectively reduced your favorite philospher to the level of Brittney Spears with your muttering chaotic meddling in his ideological affairs--and she, ftr, communicates her drivel with more common sense than all either of you clowns Try this, Lance: post the (valid) text of an Polanyi Berkley speech with your view of it, and I'll post a readable layman's response you can read--I think you might be able to succeed at communicating while Bill travels aerospace... heck, Lance, I'll even write like a BS song that you and Bill can really dig G ~P 235 On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:43:14 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..Seriously, it'd appear that you have a thorough grasp of the Pman so, I won't venture into expert territory. However, if you want to hear him I've got lectures delivered at UCBerkley in 1962. Lance - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 19, 2004 11:38 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:SYNTAX SEMANTICS THE CIA ??..all i wanna know is what's the astoundinG RELEVANCE OF MICHAEL POLANYI'S THOUGHT FOR you(!)? Why not listen to Brittney Spears, Layman? On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:25:41 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We won't blow your cover. Lance To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 19, 2004 11:21 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Layman's view then i guess you've been enjoying a lot of irrelevant noise lately? On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:22:53 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: He's perhaps the only Christian philosopher, excepting Kierkegaard to have batted over 400. PS Check out the P Society for a more learned response. Lance - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 19, 2004 10:11 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:RELEVANCE OF MICHAEL POLANYI'S THOUGHT FOR since, for Polanyi, there appears to be no simultaneous coordination of conceptual and physical activity, we can boldly suggest at least a couple of possibilities: 1. he's not much of a baseball player, and, 2. in keeping with 1., unlike a trip to Jericho with Moses, MP ideology of 'Christian Faith and Life' sounds thoroughly academic (like from the right wing of a 66 story ivory tower adjacent to the Pontiff's window a stone's throw from the left wing of the secular and the sacred society and the myriad hot dog vendors) or, layman Lance, would you rather tell us
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing obtuse here Amen
Mr. Moderator: This irrelevant stuff (not the best word i'm thinkin' of)thatLL and Bill wanna foist off on innocent readers is disgusting--pls have them either document and explain what it has to do with our lives or tell 'em toshut up about it IOW, Lance, prove thatPolanyi's philosophy is relevant to you--no one here would wannalisten to a tape of whom you'vedemonstrated to be irrelevant! Youand Billhave effectivelyreducedyour favoritephilospher to the level of Brittney Spears with your mutteringchaotic meddling in his ideological affairs--and she, ftr,communicates her drivel withmorecommon sense than alleither of you clowns Try this, Lance:post the (valid) text of an PolanyiBerkley speech with your view of it,and I'll post a readable layman's responseyou can read--I think you might be able to succeedat communicating while Bill travels aerospace... heck, Lance, I'll even write like a BS song thatyou and Bill can really dig G ~P 235 On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:43:14 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..Seriously, it'd appear that you have a thorough grasp of the Pman so, I won't venture into "expert territory". However, if you want to hear him I've got lectures delivered at UCBerkley in 1962. Lance - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 19, 2004 11:38 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:SYNTAX SEMANTICS THE CIA ??..all i wanna know is what's the astoundinG RELEVANCE OF MICHAEL POLANYI'S THOUGHT FOR you(!)? Why not listen to Brittney Spears, Layman? On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:25:41 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We won't blow your cover.Lance To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 19, 2004 11:21 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Layman's view then i guess you've been enjoying a lot of irrelevantnoise lately? On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:22:53 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: He's perhaps the only Christian philosopher, excepting Kierkegaard to have batted over 400. PS Check out the P Society for a more learned response. Lance - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 19, 2004 10:11 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:RELEVANCE OF MICHAEL POLANYI'S THOUGHT FOR since, for Polanyi, thereappears to be nosimultaneous coordination of conceptual and physical activity, we can boldly suggest at least acouple of possibilities: 1. he's not much of abaseball player, and, 2. in keeping with 1., unlikea trip to Jericho with Moses,MPideology of 'Christian Faith and Life' sounds thoroughly academic (like from the right wing ofa 66 storyivory toweradjacent tothe Pontiff'swindowa stone's throw fromthe left wing of thesecular and the sacred society and the myriad hot dog vendors) or,layman Lance,would yourather tell us in your wordstherealrelevance of MichaelPolanyi's thought? On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 06:09:13 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [re: the book] CHRISTIAN FAITH LIFE From: Wm. Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 18, 2004 18:49 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI ..A bodily activity might be something like swimming or riding a bicycle, whereas a conceptual activity something like reading a book or solving a mathematical equation...
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing obtuse here Amen
G, I think you got your message across to them. I agree it is tedious reading all of these one or two liners. You would think this is a chat room. You probably remember this, G, that in the past each TT member was requested to post no more than 8 (I think it was 8) messages a day. This was to save everyone the trouble of having to open and read hundreds of little tiny posts, and make the forum a bit easier to use. It was totally voluntary, and most users complied. I may have to make a similar request again if the chat-style conversations continue. An additional advantage was that conscientious users would try to make more meaningful answers in a single post, not wanting to clog up the forum with many trivial responses. I am investigating the possibility of using a chat room for conversatiojn-style discussions. I can see two uses for this: 1) if two are emailing the group every 2 minutes to converse about a topic they can take it outside to the chat room, and 2) if a topic becomes really hot, a time and date can be set for members to meet and discuss it in a chat forum. Does anyone have any comments or suggestions about using a chat room for these purposes? Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing obtuse here Amen Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 15:08:07 -0700 Mr. Moderator: This irrelevant stuff (not the best word i'm thinkin' of) that LL and Bill wanna foist off on innocent readers is disgusting--pls have them either document and explain what it has to do with our lives or tell 'em to shut up about it IOW, Lance, prove that Polanyi's philosophy is relevant to you--no one here would wanna listen to a tape of whom you've demonstrated to be irrelevant! You and Bill have effectively reduced your favorite philospher to the level of Brittney Spears with your muttering chaotic meddling in his ideological affairs--and she, ftr, communicates her drivel with more common sense than all either of you clowns Try this, Lance: post the (valid) text of an Polanyi Berkley speech with your view of it, and I'll post a readable layman's response you can read--I think you might be able to succeed at communicating while Bill travels aerospace... heck, Lance, I'll even write like a BS song that you and Bill can really dig G ~P 235 On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:43:14 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..Seriously, it'd appear that you have a thorough grasp of the Pman so, I won't venture into expert territory. However, if you want to hear him I've got lectures delivered at UCBerkley in 1962. Lance - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 19, 2004 11:38 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:SYNTAX SEMANTICS THE CIA ??..all i wanna know is what's the astoundinG RELEVANCE OF MICHAEL POLANYI'S THOUGHT FOR you(!)? Why not listen to Brittney Spears, Layman? On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:25:41 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We won't blow your cover. Lance To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 19, 2004 11:21 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Layman's view then i guess you've been enjoying a lot of irrelevant noise lately? On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:22:53 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: He's perhaps the only Christian philosopher, excepting Kierkegaard to have batted over 400. PS Check out the P Society for a more learned response. Lance - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 19, 2004 10:11 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:RELEVANCE OF MICHAEL POLANYI'S THOUGHT FOR since, for Polanyi, there appears to be no simultaneous coordination of conceptual and physical activity, we can boldly suggest at least a couple of possibilities: 1. he's not much of a baseball player, and, 2. in keeping with 1., unlike a trip to Jericho with Moses, MP ideology of 'Christian Faith and Life' sounds thoroughly academic (like from the right wing of a 66 story ivory tower adjacent to the Pontiff's window a stone's throw from the left wing of the secular and the sacred society and the myriad hot dog vendors) or, layman Lance, would you rather tell us in your words the real relevance of Michael Polanyi's thought? On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 06:09:13 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [re: the book] CHRISTIAN FAITH LIFE From: Wm. Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 18, 2004 18:49 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI ..A bodily activity might be something like swimming or riding a bicycle, whereas a conceptual activity something like reading a book or solving a mathematical equation... _ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing obtuse here Amen
*he sounds human:) did he leave any
comments on death, dying?
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 18:32:06 -0700 "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yeah, he did, but deathprevented him from
continuing in it.
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 6:17
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing
"obtuse here" Amen
Lance, When did *Polanyi become
unemployed? (..Polanyi must've had some connections--eh(?); Bill said that
he "had" a job:)
G ~ P
235||
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing obtuse here Amen
No, like Moses, he left that for others to make. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 6:57 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing "obtuse here" Amen *he sounds human:) did he leave any comments on death, dying? On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 18:32:06 -0700 "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yeah, he did, but deathprevented him from continuing in it. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 6:17 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing "obtuse here" Amen Lance, When did *Polanyi become unemployed? (..Polanyi must've had some connections--eh(?); Bill said that he "had" a job:) G ~ P 235||
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing obtuse here Amen
why; what's he afraid
of?
G ~ P
235
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 08:07:58 -0700 "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, like Moses, he left that for others to
make.
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 6:57
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing
"obtuse here" Amen
*he sounds human:) did he leave any
comments on death, dying?
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 18:32:06 -0700 "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yeah, he did, but deathprevented him
from continuing in it.
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 6:17
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing
"obtuse here" Amen
Lance, When did *Polanyi become
unemployed? (..Polanyi must've had some connections--eh(?); Bill said
that he "had" a
job:)
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing obtuse here Amen
FTR, It sounds like neither you nor Polanyiare acquainted with, e.g.,Ps. 90--have a look: Psalm 90 :: A prayer of Moses the man of God. 1 Lord, you have been our dwelling place throughout all generations. 2 Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God. 3 You turn men back to dust, saying, "Return to dust, O sons of men." 4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. 5 You sweep men away in the sleep of death; they are like the new grass of the morning 6 though in the morning it springs up new, by evening it is dry and withered. 7 We are consumed by your anger and terrified by your indignation. 8 You have set our iniquities before you, our secret sins in the light of your presence. 9 All our days pass away under your wrath; we finish our years with a moan. 10 The length of our days is seventy years or eighty, if we have the strength; yet their span£ is but trouble and sorrow, for they quickly pass, and we fly away. 11 Who knows the power of your anger? For your wrath is as great as the fear that is due you. 12 Teach us to number our days aright, that we may gain a heart of wisdom. 13 Relent, O LORD! How long will it be? Have compassion on your servants. 14 Satisfy us in the morning with your unfailing love, that we may sing for joy and be glad all our days. 15 Make us glad for as many days as you have afflicted us, for as many years as we have seen trouble. 16 May your deeds be shown to your servants, your splendor to their children. 17 May the favor£ of the Lord our God rest upon us; establish the work of our hands for usyes, establish the work of our hands. On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 17:28:52 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: why; what's he afraid of? G ~ P 235 On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 08:07:58 -0700 "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, like Moses, he left that for others to make. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 6:57 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing "obtuse here" Amen *he sounds human:) did he leave any comments on death, dying? On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 18:32:06 -0700 "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yeah, he did, but deathprevented him from continuing in it. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 6:17 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing "obtuse here" Amen Lance, When did *Polanyi become unemployed? (..Polanyi must've had some connections--eh(?); Bill said that he "had" a job:)
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing obtuse here Amen
g,
It's a bit difficult, even for Moses, to tell the
story of his own death. What's Polanyi afraid of? I don't know why he would
need to have been afraid of anything. When he left Judaism he knew full well
what he was leaving. Why do you suppose he did not also know full well what he
was moving into, i.e., Christianity? Who are you to judge his motives? You
don't know enough about him to even begin to understand why he said
thethings he did. Do you want to be judged by someone who doesn't know
you, whose only information about you comes thru a blurb, whose whole disdain
for you is based upon his disdain for someone else, namely, me? Cut the
non-sense, Gary. Maybe read my post on Polanyi. If nothing else, drop it and
move on to something more suited to your level of expertise.
Bill Taylor
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 5:28
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing
"obtuse here" Amen
why; what's he afraid
of?
G ~ P
235
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 08:07:58 -0700 "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, like Moses, he left that for others to
make.
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 6:57
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing
"obtuse here" Amen
*he sounds human:) did he leave
any comments on death, dying?
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 18:32:06 -0700 "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Yeah, he did, but deathprevented
him from continuing in it.
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004
6:17 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Re:Nothing "obtuse here" Amen
Lance, When did *Polanyi
become unemployed? (..Polanyi must've had some connections--eh(?);
Bill said that he "had" a
job:)
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing obtuse here Amen
Think what you will, Gary. I thought you were smarting off, comparing Polanyi to the Holy Spirit. You were doing that, weren't you? If that's not what you were doing with Lance and me, then I'll do something you should have done a long time ago: My mistake. I assumed something you were not intending. My fault. I should have read more carefully your comments. Please forgive me. Oh, and what about the rest of the story? Did you read my Polanyi post? Do you really care about any of this? Do you need a graceful exit? Just bough out. Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 7:30 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing "obtuse here" Amen ??..here's the original question, Bill: 'did he [Polanyi]leave any comments on death, dying?' your first responsecompared him, falsely,to Moses in this context however,the comment, below, appears to be an effort on your partto mislead ppl, i.e., switch contexts on us; is it? keep in mind thesubj of this thread, please:) On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 18:18:32 -0700 "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: G, It's a bit difficult, even for Moses, to tell the story of his own death...
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing obtuse here Amen
ok G On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 20:36:01 -0700 "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Think what you will, Gary.
[TruthTalk] Re:Nothing obtuse here Amen
I can supply infor concerning the Polanyi / Torrance connection if anyone wants it. Lance - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 15, 2004 19:17 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dictionary definition of obtuse-this email By far, the most extensive discussion of religion in Polanyi's writing comes in his final book Meaning, written, as his health declined, with the help of the American philosopher Harry Prosch. In this book, Polanyi tries to extend his epistemological model to describe the nature of human knowledge found in art, myth and religion. It is the kinship between metaphor, symbol, and ritual that interests Polanyi and he uses his theory of tacit knowing to describe this relationship and show the differences between ordinary perceptual and conceptual knowledge and that found in the class of special artefacts available in art and religion; he argues for the importance of human meaning in art, myth and religion in the contemporary world. http://www.deepsight.org/articles/polanyi.htm Hey Lance, What's yourview ofPolanyi(?); e.g.,interact withthe google-base link/excerpt, above, or interact with whatever Polanyi movesyou, with caution, though; there seems to be some expertise present, so keep your commentary as clear as possible(like I do:) Gentleman ~ P 235 On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 12:00:47 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Re:Dictionary definition of obtuse [email]
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing obtuse here Amen
Lance, When did Polanyi become unemployed? (..Polanyi must've had some connections--eh(?); Bill said that he "had" a job:) G ~ P 235 On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 05:49:39 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I can supply infor concerning the Polanyi / Torrance connection if anyone wants it. Lance - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 15, 2004 19:17 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dictionary definition of obtuse-this email By far, the most extensive discussion of religion in Polanyi's writing comes in his final book Meaning, written, as his health declined, with the help of the American philosopher Harry Prosch. In this book, Polanyi tries to extend his epistemological model to describe the nature of human knowledge found in art, myth and religion. It is the kinship between metaphor, symbol, and ritual that interests Polanyi and he uses his theory of tacit knowing to describe this relationship and show the differences between ordinary perceptual and conceptual knowledge and that found in the class of special artefacts available in art and religion; he argues for the importance of human meaning in art, myth and religion in the contemporary world. http://www.deepsight.org/articles/polanyi.htm Hey Lance, What's yourview ofPolanyi(?); e.g.,interact withthe google-base link/excerpt, above, or interact with whatever Polanyi movesyou, with caution, though; there seems to be some expertise present, so keep your commentary as clear as possible(like I do:) Gentleman ~ P 235 On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 12:00:47 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Re:Dictionary definition of obtuse [email] G ~ P 235
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing obtuse here Amen
Yeah, he did, but deathprevented him from continuing in it. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 6:17 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Nothing "obtuse here" Amen Lance, When did Polanyi become unemployed? (..Polanyi must've had some connections--eh(?); Bill said that he "had" a job:) G ~ P 235 On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 05:49:39 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I can supply infor concerning the Polanyi / Torrance connection if anyone wants it. Lance - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 15, 2004 19:17 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dictionary definition of obtuse-this email By far, the most extensive discussion of religion in Polanyi's writing comes in his final book Meaning, written, as his health declined, with the help of the American philosopher Harry Prosch. In this book, Polanyi tries to extend his epistemological model to describe the nature of human knowledge found in art, myth and religion. It is the kinship between metaphor, symbol, and ritual that interests Polanyi and he uses his theory of tacit knowing to describe this relationship and show the differences between ordinary perceptual and conceptual knowledge and that found in the class of special artefacts available in art and religion; he argues for the importance of human meaning in art, myth and religion in the contemporary world. http://www.deepsight.org/articles/polanyi.htm Hey Lance, What's yourview ofPolanyi(?); e.g.,interact withthe google-base link/excerpt, above, or interact with whatever Polanyi movesyou, with caution, though; there seems to be some expertise present, so keep your commentary as clear as possible(like I do:) Gentleman ~ P 235 On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 12:00:47 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Re:Dictionary definition of obtuse [email] G ~ P 235
