My inclination is to be skeptical of the innocence
of your intentions. (When you say things like "everybody has a threshold
for the amount of details they can abstractly hold in their mind" and "some
people can think in 3 or 4 dimensions while others are taxing their brains to
think in 2 dimensions", it is hard to take it other than as an
oblique putdown of your interlocutor's intellectual ability. You do tend to
resort to this tone.) However, I will live as if they were
innocent!
So, to continue from there: you have given the
engine analogy, and other similar ones, often now. I understood it the
first time; I have experience with such too, and can disassemble and
assemble things with ease. I conclude that for you, all realities that we talk
about can be likened to engines, dead animals, or computer programs. For
me, most important realities cannot. Even though you disagree, can you
imagine that as a possibility? In other words, I appreciate the analogy, but it
just doesn't cover enough territory.
I disagree that reductionism takes more work,
unless you mean that it takes more time, a greater number
of mental motions (as opposed to more acumen, greater submission to the
object of thought, more arduous thinking). It does that. But those are often
wasted, as they do not achieve the desired level of understanding,
IMO.
No resentment. Have a good night.
Debbie
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spirit
>> Please, David, stop patronizing me in this
>> ridiculous fashion. Your condescension only
>> serves as a temptation to contempt.
>
> Sorry, Debbie. I think you misunderstood my rambling. I have been enjoying
> our discussion and did not mean that you don't have the intellectual ability
> for reductionism (that seems to be how you took it). I think reductionism
> takes more work, and I thought that's what you were getting at, but I wasn't
> sure, so I asked, "what's wrong with that."
>
> Debbie wrote:
>> The problem has nothing to do with the amount of detail
>> I can hold in my mind; if anything, it is the reverse. But
>> the real issue for me has never been mere quantity of data
>> --it is the presence or absence of richness of connection.
>> Indeed, your mathematical example is backwards. Your
>> approach to most topics is extremely linear and unidimensional,
>> and that is precisely my objection.
>
> I think you misapprehend my approach to issues. Examining specific aspects
> of an issue is a temporary task, but... whatever. I see you don't get it.
>
> Debbie wrote:
>> As for building a car, it is not at all like evolving
>> an eye! I ought to have known better, as you simply
>> do not get either the point of specific analogies or the
>> purpose of analogies in general. Analogies are not
>> arguments; they are explanations, illustrations, invitations
>> to intellectual empathy (as it were).
>
> I did not take it as an argument, which is why I rambled on with my personal
> life of illustrations. This is exactly why I hate talking about myself. I
> did not understand why " trying to evolve the whole eye or wing one feature
> at a time" would cause you to shrink back. I still don't. If you can
> explain it, I am VERY interested. If you think I'm too dense, I understand.
> I do get kind of dense sometimes. I'm one of those guys who sometimes does
> not get the joke as readily as others. Sometimes I think I look at it from
> too many angles.
>
> Maybe I should shrink back to my cave. I do have a lot of other things to
> do. Sorry for upsetting you. Prior to this post from you, I thought we were
> communicating and was feeling encouraged and comfortable in that. I guess I
> got too comfortable.
>
> Peace be with you.
> David Miller.
>
> ----------
> "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 from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
>
>
>
