bob@chemstor.UUCP (Robert Weigel) (06/10/87)
>From uoregon!hp-pcd!hplabs!sri-unix!husc6!ut-sally!turpin Tue Jun 9 08:58:57 PDT 1987 >From: turpin@ut-sally.UUCP (Russell Turpin) >Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas > >+In article <225@chemstor.UUCP> bob@chemstor.UUCP (Bob Weigel) writes: > >+>... but he made man in his image. ( With a free will too!) Somehow, that > >+>seems to fit reality a little better in view of who I am. But keep on > >+>matching those Chromosomes! Here it is again, ripped away from its foundation and laid out for all to scoff at. Funny how nobody responded to the interesting little bit of logic that was before this statement... Was it that unclear? In any case, it is my testimony that the above statement is true using the senses I have. I have noticed many statements (I do mean lots), that have no sensory basis at all, yet no one even notices. I guess maybe there is something noteworthy about this one?? >their fingers of course. Some of the funny-mentalists claim to >have an inner sight. Maybe this is from misplaced fingers. If I >can ever get one to hold in one (philosophical) stance long >enough, I'll perform a dissection, looking in particular for any >digits protuding from the thalamus and tickling the mammilary >bodies. This would explain a lot, especially why they don't want >to restrict empirical discussion to the normal senses. I do give Russel credit for being first to respond with anything but silliness. I have not changed my (phlilosophical) stance yet, so pick as you please. I recommend you use e-mail or some more appropriate ground. My original article was written from my own base of research using the senses I have. I did not really try to destroy the subject matter, but to try to say that those writing were simply missing a dimension that will produce 100% error in conclusions. I do note again the word "normal". Your implied definition of normal senses has no foundation. If 99% of the world were born blind because of gamma induced mutations, would we begin calling those who had sight "abnormal"?? In the same way, it is possible that you are blind spiritually, ( don't even comment, since you admittedly are.) and yet calling those who can see abnormal. If you give this analogy the consideration it deserves, you will understand. Actually, the unfounded use of words like normal sounds a lot like the stereo- typical "funny-mentalist", doesn't it? This is just a caution that you may not fall into the same trap they have, not that you already haven't. I don't intend to flood the network with letters concerning my letters, but I do feel obligated to respond to those who leave statements with broken legs lying around about me. For the sake of those wishing to discuss other things, as many have made known, please feel free to e-mail serious responses, questions or the like. (I'm actually pretty crazy in real life, but not about things that matter) The wookie man ---------------------
pell@boulder.UUCP (06/11/87)
Summary:i guess I am writing in code In article <285@chemstor.UUCP> bob@chemstor.UUCP (Bob Weigel) writes: > > > > >> >+In article <225@chemstor.UUCP> bob@chemstor.UUCP (Bob Weigel) writes: >> >+>... but he made man in his image. ( With a free will too!) Somehow, that >> >+>seems to fit reality a little better in view of who I am. But keep on >> >+>matching those Chromosomes! > >Here it is again, ripped away from its foundation and laid out for all to scoff >at. Funny how nobody responded to the interesting little bit of logic that was >before this statement... Was it that unclear? In any case, it is my testimony >that the above statement is true using the senses I have. > Bob, I responded to the statment before it--twice. Was my response unclear? Funny how my response has gotten me into ongoing mail exchanges on the topic with a few people, but not you. I have tried mailing you. Never seems to work. Why is it you won't respond to me? Do you think my interpretation af Aquinas' cosmological argument is "silly?" You say all the responses yo got were silly. Alot of people who have written me don't think so. In fact, none of those who have written think so. Try Aquinas' "suma theologica" for yourself; see if my interpretation is as silly as you think. Read Eclesiastes cafrefully, see how silly I am. While you are at it, try the Bahgavad Gihta. The address is: pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU seems to work for others. tony Pelletier MCDB Boluder, Co. 80309-0347