Re: Purported mystical "knowledge"

From: Robin Faichney (robin@reborntechnology.co.uk)
Date: Sun Sep 17 2000 - 14:09:40 BST

  • Next message: Robin Faichney: "Re: Purported mystical "knowledge"" 

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA29134 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 17 Sep 2000 15:04:08 +0100
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:09:40 +0100
From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Purported mystical "knowledge"
Message-ID: <20000917140940.C2429@reborntechnology.co.uk>
References: <39C3DBD9.A6DECE06@fcol.com> <200009162134.RAA21379@mail5.lig.bellsouth.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i
In-Reply-To: <200009162134.RAA21379@mail5.lig.bellsouth.net>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 04:39:18PM -0500
Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

    On Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 04:39:18PM -0500, Joe E. Dees wrote:
    > In fact, mystics
    > generally have a distaste for us philosopher types, who insist on
    > asking them annoying questions like "what do you mean when you
    > say..." and "how can that be true when this, which directly
    > contradicts that, is irretrieveably the case..."

    I consider myself a mystic and a philosopher, and I thrive on such
    questions.

    If you still consider "mystic" and "philosopher" to be necessarily
    contradictory, then you haven't been following the exchange between
    Vincent and myself. Or not closely enough, anyway. 

    -- 
Robin Faichney

    ===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 17 2000 - 15:05:21 BST