Re: Purported mystical "knowledge"

From: Robin Faichney (
Date: Sun Sep 17 2000 - 14:06:11 BST

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

    Received: by id PAA29146 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 15:04:18 +0100
    Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:06:11 +0100
    From: Robin Faichney <>
    Subject: Re: Purported mystical "knowledge"
    Message-ID: <>
    References: <> <> <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i
    In-Reply-To: <>; from on Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 04:45:14PM -0400
    Precedence: bulk

    On Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 04:45:14PM -0400, Robert (Bob) Grimes wrote:
    > I cannot figure why one would have to create a whole new
    > vocabulary where it could be expressed in "normal" language...

    What about cases where it could not be expressed in "normal" language?

    Personally, I think that new ideas very often deserve new words.
    Reuse of old ones can be very confusion-prone.

    Of course, the more conservative among us will naturally be averse to
    neologisms. Not that I'd necessarily accuse you of that, Bob. But we're
    all a bit conservative at some times, in some ways, aren't we?

    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:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 17 2000 - 15:06:58 BST