Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA04371 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Mon, 24 Sep 2001 11:39:00 +0100 Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 11:09:56 +0100 To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Dawkins was right all along Message-ID: <20010924110956.E1098@ii01.org> References: <F308mHy3pt6YK5F1awT00018355@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <F308mHy3pt6YK5F1awT00018355@hotmail.com>; from email@example.com on Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 06:21:46PM -0400 From: Robin Faichney <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
On Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 06:21:46PM -0400, Scott Chase wrote:
> > > I thought objectivity
> > > entailed not taking a normative stance on what you study or at least
> > > approaching what you study in a more balanced manner.
> >Of course! But you don't need to study what you already know is all
> I assume that various mythlogies have no truth to them, yet I think given
> oodles of reading time that studying these mythologies would be well worth
> the time, especially while applying the comparative method (and trying to
> steer clear of the Jungians ;-))
A useful distinction is that between literal truth and metaphorical
significance -- and there is much of the latter even among Jungians,
though whether their style is to your taste is another matter.
-- "The distinction between mind and matter is in the mind, not in matter." Robin Faichney -- inside information -- http://www.ii01.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 24 2001 - 12:03:45 BST