The Titanic and the fishing boat

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

I want to thank Tarzan for supplying an apt metaphor. On an earlier thread, he mocked the similarity between political philosophy and religion saying, "By that logic, the Titanic is the same as my uncle's fishing boat, since both are made to carry people through the water."

In the 20th century, political philosophy is the Titanic (or in Tarzan's case, the Libertania). It is a large value-based construct that carries modern society through the oceans of uncertainty. Religion is a small fishing boat traveling the same waters.

The Titanic is an amazing product of human ingenuity, a philosophical achievement. The Titanic sails better over time as the crew makes minor adjustments. Of course, the quality of the voyage does depend on your ticket. Those in first class fare better than those in steerage. The rules of the ship are noble in intent, but not in practice. In reality, those in first class have the influence to avoid most consequences while those in steerage do not. The Captain is elected by a majority (most times), but is always one of two candidates, always a member of first class and to date--always white, middle-aged and male, but I'm quibbling.

Flint and Tarzan gaze out over the first class deck at the small boats bobbing the water with a mix of observations. For Tarzan, the occupants inspire intellectual curiousity and a generally patronizing attitude. "Poor devils," I can hear him say, "Deluding themselves with thoughts of God."

Flint is nervous and suspects the religious fishermen really want to take over the Titanic, change the rules and toss him overboard. Sure, the people in some fishing boats don't particularly approve of some of the decadent life on the Titanic. Most, however, live their lives without bothering the passengers on the great liner. You are far more likely to get a call from a telemarketer in the ship's store than you are from a religious person attempting to convert you.

Now I have come along side the mighty Titanic. I have pointed out that Flint and Tarzan are in a boat just like me. Horrors! Why the fine ship Titanic is nothing like your dinghy of your delusions, they respond. Why it's different in so many ways it laughable.

I respond that our boats are really made of the same stuff: values, ideas, unprovable notions. Both travel the same waters, and both can sink. To Tarzan, this metaphor is ridiculous. To Flint, it is a ruse of some sort to advance the idea of imposing theocracy on the Titanic. And after all, we have different names for different boats and ships. This makes them all different, right?

The real point is not the differences between religion and political philosophy, but the commonalities. Flint and Tarzan would have me believe the Titanic is fundamentally different than the fishing boat. What I find interesting in the contrast in color, size, shape, speed, trim, etc., but the essential "boatness" of both.

-- The shadow (knows@gain.com), April 03, 2001

Answers

Hello Shadow,

You posted an interesting thread and analogy. You said, "I respond that our boats are really made of the same stuff: values, ideas, unprovable notions."

I would like to respond that "values, ideas," and "unprovable notions." are the same thing, and that is what makes up our soul. My quest, is to find out what this ethereal part of me is doing here, what I'm supposed to do while I'm here and try to figure out where I'm going when I die.

So far, no religion or anything else has given me the answer.

Since you claim you have the answers, will you please tell me?

-- (Devil m@y .care), April 03, 2001.


Wow! You're really obsessed with me, aren't you? This is the biggest ego boost of them all!

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 03, 2001.

Wait about six or seven posts, Tarzan, and then claim victory. Don't forget to include the usual dismissive statements. Enjoy! You basking in self generated delight is a constant in my ever changing universe. My only hope is for your continued amusement.

Actually, Devil, my post does not claim any particular "answer." My general observation is that we all choose our boat, even the house atheists. It seems pretty natural to develop an attachment to our craft of choice. What works for me may not work for you.

The real question you have is about man's search for meaning. You may have read the book by Victor Frankel of the same title. Here's a few snippets:

"No man can tell another what his purpose for being is. Each must find out for himself, and accept the responsibility that his answer prescribes."

"Don't aim at success- the more you aim at it and make it a target, the more you are going to miss it. For success, like happiness, cannot be pursued; it must ensue, and it only does so as the unintended side-effect of one's personal dedication to a cause greater than oneself."

"The salvation of man is through love and in love."

"The way in which a man accepts his fate and all the suffering it entails, the way in which he takes up his cross, gives him ample opportunity - even under the most difficult circumstances- to add a deeper meaning to his life."

"It really doesn't matter what we expect from life but rather what life expects from us. Stop asking about the meaning of life and instead think of yourself as the one being questioned by life, daily and hourly. The answer must consist not in talk or meditation, but in right action and in right conduct. Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual."

"Man's main concern is not to gain pleasure or avoid pain but rather to see a meaning in his life."

I cannot tell you how to find the meaning in your life. I feel that the desire to find meaning comes from man's spiritual self. For all I know, there are many paths to God. Best of luck in finding yours.

-- The shadow (know@gain.com), April 03, 2001.


I find it particularly amusing that you have had to lie and misrepresent my point to come up with this post. For the record, here's what was actually said. Your comments, as always, are in bold.

Faith and an opinion are no so far removed. Both are convictions held on a basis other than empirical evidence. By that logic, the Titanic is the same as my uncle's fishing boat, since both are made to carry people through the water.

My point is that you can no more prove your devout political opinions correct than Al-D can prove God exists.

And the Titanic and my uncle's fishing boat both use rudder to steer.

You act, however, like your political opinions have some sort of superior foundation.

That's just your perception. I perceive my uncle's fishing boat IS the Titanic. Doesn't make it reality though.

The Titanic, which was a steam-powered vessel, carried almost 3000 people, their luggage, some pets, and enough food to feed them for ten days. It had several gourmet kitchens, a number of ball rooms, a state-of-the-art (for its time) gymnasium, and a triple screw configuration, which was also state-of-the-art (for its time). It was the largest ship made by man, at over 800 feet in length. At the time it struck the iceberg, it was making over 20 knots. It was capable of 25 knots with 46,000 horsepower. The Titanic was built for $7,500,000 at the time, $400,000,000 in today's money. Here's a tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 03, 2001.


I find it particularly amusing that you have had to lie and misrepresent my point to come up with this post. For the record, here's what was actually said. Your comments, as always, are in bold.

Faith and an opinion are no so far removed. Both are convictions held on a basis other than empirical evidence.

By that logic, the Titanic is the same as my uncle's fishing boat, since both are made to carry people through the water.

My point is that you can no more prove your devout political opinions correct than Al-D can prove God exists.

And the Titanic and my uncle's fishing boat both use rudder to steer.

You act, however, like your political opinions have some sort of superior foundation.

That's just your perception. I perceive my uncle's fishing boat IS the Titanic. Doesn't make it reality though.

The Titanic, which was a steam-powered vessel, carried almost 3000 people, their luggage, some pets, and enough food to feed them for ten days. It had several gourmet kitchens, a number of ball rooms, a state-of-the-art (for its time) gymnasium, and a triple screw configuration, which was also state-of-the-art (for its time). It was the largest ship made by man, at over 800 feet in length. At the time it struck the iceberg, it was making over 20 knots. It was capable of 25 knots with 46,000 horsepower. The Titanic was built for $7,500,000 at the time, $400,000,000 in today's money. Here's a tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 03, 2001.



Hmmm.My uncle's fishing boat is roughly 20 feet in length. It doesn't sleep anyone but it will seat eight if they're small. It has a small gas engine that has never been the state of any art and that is roughly as powerful as a car engine, if that car were a Saturn. It's got a fiberglass construction so it floats, but it's certainly not sea worthy much more than a few miles off the coast. He added a trolling motor, AM/FM cassette player, and a small refrigerator for beer and such (he doesn't catch much fish) but that's pretty much the extent of it. Of course, none of those things There is no kitchen and no lifeboat, but there's a radio if you get into trouble and only an idiot would sail such a vessel beyond the reach of the coastguard. I have no idea what it cost to build, but my uncle bought it four years ago for under $10,000.

To say that a fishing boat (which, BTW, is different from a dinghy)is the same as the Titanic in that they are both boats is, on a childish level, accurate, but it doesn't even begin to tell the story.

Here's an analogy for you, since I know you're fond of them. Both faith and opinions are based on conviction rather than empirical evidence, true, and both my uncle's fishing boat and the Titanic are boats. However, like my uncle's fishing boat, an opinion is a small, limited vessel meant to be tinkered with and cast-off or sold when no longer useful. His fishing boat, like a political opinion, is fine for short trips but isn't much good in deep water. By the same token, faith, like the Titanic, is great in the middle of the ocean, but isn't meant to handle the shoals and sandbars of everyday minituae. Faith in a god is all fine and well, but what does god have to do with whether or not we put in a stop light at Maple and Oak? Like the Titanic, a person can live for a long time on faith, but opinion was never intended to sustain for very long. Moreover, opinion is a common item, cheap to acquire and easily replaced, where as faith comes with a hefty price tag.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 03, 2001.


Oh, and one more thing. The Titanic offered church services where hymns are sung. The closest thing to a hymn that was sung on my uncle's fishing boat was the first verse to Rambling Wreck, over and over again because we were too drunk to remember the rest.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 03, 2001.

Great posts, both of you. Thank you very much.

Just when I'm about to accept my fate and all the suffering it entails, to take up my "cross" so that I can add a deeper meaning to my life, I get this from Tarzan:

"faith, like the Titanic, is great in the middle of the ocean, but isn't meant to handle the shoals and sandbars of everyday minituae"

I agree with everything you said, Shadow. However, just when I thought I should spill the beans about my life (out of love because that is the only reason I would do it) so that others may learn, Tarzan reminds me that I still have to live my life and I am not an ocean liner. I don't have "faith" that everything will work out allright for me and those I love. I'm going to save this thread because there is a lot of wisdom pouring out of both of you.

-- (Devil m@y .care), April 03, 2001.


Yeah, the old "wisdom" is getting a little deep in here!

Actually, I think there's a place for faith if you have a need for it. You shouldn't be ashamed of having that need if you really do have it. Of course, you shouldn't be browbeaten into pretending you have that need if you don't.

A friend of mine who's also an atheist says that living life without a belief in a supreme being is like a trapeze artist who performs without a net. Some people might say the guy without the net is crazy, others might say that he's brave. But anyone who makes fun of the other guy who needs the net has never looked at life from the top of a 30 foot pole.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 03, 2001.


The deal with boats is that we are all in the same one.

Frankl's insights grew out of his Concentration Camp experiences. I think he had a name for his philosophy, can't remember what it was. I don't know if he was a practicing Jew, don't think so.

I like his first paragraph here but then he seems to partially contradict himself--

"It really doesn't matter what we expect from life but rather what life expects from us. Stop asking about the meaning of life and instead think of yourself as the one being questioned by life, daily and hourly. The answer must consist not in talk or meditation, but in right action and in right conduct. Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual."

"Man's main concern is not to gain pleasure or avoid pain but rather to see a meaning in his life."

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), April 03, 2001.



Ah, now we are getting to the heart of the matter. Faith, to you Tarzan, is like a crutch. The brave atheist does not need a safety net, but the craven Christian/Jew/Hindu/Taoist/Rastafarian needs his or her faith, perhaps because they lack the clarity of thought or internal strength to face the thought of life that begins and ends all to abruptly. This is not what you said, but to me, the tone of your comments.

Personally, I think life as an atheist might be much easier. What's there really to worry about? There's no immortal soul hanging in the balance, no obligation to love one's fellow man, no divine rules or regulations, no responsibility to reflect on one's decisions, no "crises" of faith.

Despite the appeal, I can reject my faith out of convenience. Nor do I accept I possess my faith out of some character flaw, internal weakness or crying need. It is the boat I have chosen, as real as your Titanic, though not so lushly appointed and lacking the rich divertisements. I cannot explain my feeling of "rightness" about my faith any more than a die hard conservative can explain the "rightness" of his political views (pun intended).

I'm not going door to door selling my faith. I don't particularly appreciate Flint's suspicion that I'm plotting a theocratic regime (or the distinctly unscientific view that my faith is the produce of a few flawed neural pathways). I also don't appreciate the suggestion that faith is somehow for the weak. It takes as much courage to believe in God as to not believe in God. If I die and flutter into nonexistence, I'll know you were right, Tarzan. Too bad I won't exist to tell you I was wrong.

-- The shadow (knows@gain.com), April 03, 2001.


Ah, now we are getting to the heart of the matter. Faith, to you Tarzan, is like a crutch. The brave atheist does not need a safety net, but the craven Christian/Jew/Hindu/Taoist/Rastafarian needs his or her faith, perhaps because they lack the clarity of thought or internal strength to face the thought of life that begins and ends all to abruptly. This is not what you said, but to me, the tone of your comments.

Nope, that's just what you read out of them. Some people have a need that's filled by faith, others don't. Neither the need for faith or the lack of that need make for a bad person, just a different person.

Personally, I think life as an atheist might be much easier.

Well, I've always liked it. But there's probably something to be said for the hope of an afterlife, too. I'm sure it's nice to believe you'll see your loved ones again.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 03, 2001.


Isn't this the 21st Century?

-- The Whistler (Who walks by night and@who knows many things.com), April 03, 2001.

Looks like I forgot some of Maria's post.

Despite the appeal, I can reject my faith out of convenience.

That must not be a very strong faith. No wonder you confuse politics and religion!

Nor do I accept I possess my faith out of some character flaw, internal weakness or crying need.

So let's see, you can brush your faith off out of convenience any time and you have no need for your faith. Are you sure it's faith and not an opinion? Most people of faith that I know describe their faith as an integral part of their soul. You speak of it as though it's a preference. Have you really thought this through?

I cannot explain my feeling of "rightness" about my faith any more than a die hard conservative can explain the "rightness" of his political views (pun intended).

If you don't need it, and can brush it aside at any time, how do you know it's right? I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but this is really an odd sort of faith you have!

I'm not going door to door selling my faith. I don't particularly appreciate Flint's suspicion that I'm plotting a theocratic regime (or the distinctly unscientific view that my faith is the produce of a few flawed neural pathways).

I don't even know what to say here. It looks like you're just venting your spleen.

I also don't appreciate the suggestion that faith is somehow for the weak. It takes as much courage to believe in God as to not believe in God.

That's what I was getting at all along. I guess you were too busy judging me to actually read my post. Some people need faith, some people don't.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejuglewithouta.net), April 03, 2001.


It was a typo, Tarzan. I meant to type "can't," but I'm delighted you had a field day with the mistake. Why let an honest error keep you from your appointed rounds?

By your logic if enjoy eating ice cream, I "need" sweets. If I have chosen to marry, I "need" a spouse. If I choose to work, I "need" a job. If I live my life my moral standards, I "need" virtues.

Let's take the choice to marry. I can live happily enough single, but let's say I've met a person I love and want to marry. For me, this is not based on some unfulfilled need, but on a choice. This choice is not based on cold logic, the genetics of producing superior offspring or the practical convenience of ready sexual partner. This is a decision based on love, on hope, on trust and yes, on faith.

You remind me of the tired, cranky old bachelor who talks about how some people "need" relationships and others don't. Of course, there's always the overtone that those who have such needs are illogical and foolish. Love! Bah, Humbug!

The atheist works "without a net." Yeah, that's a value free statement.

Hey, I just checked my watch. It's time for you to declare victory. Tomorrow, you and Flint can talk about how love is just a chemical imbalance, probably the result of childhood training, and a response based on a "need" some people have and others do not. In mean, don't forget to pick up your Medal of Valor for your tremendous bravery in the face of the faithful. Bravisimo!

-- The shadow (knows@gain.com), April 03, 2001.



shadow:

Maybe love *really is* a chemical imbalance of some kind. But there's a big difference between what something IS and what something FEELS LIKE to whoever experiences it. Consider the near-death experiences people have, which SEEM like a tunnel with light at the end or some such, but which actually IS an oxygen shortage to the brain.

Are you really saying that your religious faith is something you can choose to drop and forget, some day if you decide it ain't what it used to be? Could be -- we get converts and unconverts every which direction. So it's a convenience when it helps.

As for the fishing boat and the Titanic, you can look at them a lot of ways. If you focus on the "boatness" you see two boats. If you focus on the "mass-transitness", you only see one method of doing that. If you're considering getting across an ocean, there's only one. If you're looking at affordable vehicles for an individual, still only one. So your claim that the two are NOT fundamentally different *requires* that you pick the *only* respect in which they are AT ALL comparable (and even then it's a stretch).

The *fundamental purpose* of these two is entirely different, no overlap in any way. And THAT is what's important. Why are you so determined to miss the point?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 03, 2001.


The ark was built by an amateur...the Titanic was built by professionals.

-- (somebody'srockinmydreamboat@aol.com), April 03, 2001.

It was a typo, Tarzan. I meant to type "can't," but I'm delighted you had a field day with the mistake. Why let an honest error keep you from your appointed rounds?

Once again, Maria, I can't be held responsible for what you meant to say, only what you actually said. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a mind reader.

By your logic if enjoy eating ice cream, I "need" sweets. If I have chosen to marry, I "need" a spouse. If I choose to work, I "need" a job. If I live my life my moral standards, I "need" virtues.

Pretty much, and there's nothing wrong with that. I have a need to have my fiance in my life and I can't imagein living without her. Not only did she take care of my physical needs while I was ill, but she fulfills a lot of emotional and psychological needs to, such as the need for companionship, the need for affection, the need for someone to care for. By the same token, my career fills a lot of needs for me, such as providing money and satisfaction. I derive a great deal of satisfaction from my work. If I lost my job, though I have a good nest egg, I would find another. I can't just sit around and loaf, I'd be bored to death.

Let's take the choice to marry. I can live happily enough single, but let's say I've met a person I love and want to marry. For me, this is not based on some unfulfilled need, but on a choice.

Wow. I'm sincerely sorry. It must be hard to live like that.

You remind me of the tired, cranky old bachelor who talks about how some people "need" relationships and others don't. Of course, there's always the overtone that those who have such needs are illogical and foolish. Love! Bah, Humbug!

Nope, I'm just honest. I feel so strongly for Jane that there's no way I could choose to live my life without her. I'm sorry you've apparently never felt that, and I hope someday you do. But if you don't, it won't make you a bad person.

The atheist works "without a net." Yeah, that's a value free statement.

Venting your spleen again. You seem to have a need to do this a lot. Maybe you should find another outlet for your agression, I'm sure this can't be very satisfying for you.

Hey, I just checked my watch. It's time for you to declare victory. Tomorrow, you and Flint can talk about how love is just a chemical imbalance, probably the result of childhood training, and a response based on a "need" some people have and others do not.

I think it's deeper than a chemical imbalance, though Flint might disagree. If you wish to continue with this discussion, you're welcome to, but your continued indulgence in this persecution fantasy is wearing a bit thin.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 04, 2001.


If love is merely a chemical imbalance, you may call me raving mad.

-- (only@m.e), April 04, 2001.

Consider the near-death experiences people have, which SEEM like a tunnel with light at the end or some such, but which actually IS an oxygen shortage to the brain.

I don't mean to intrude on this, uh, discussion. But I can't let the above statement breeze by without commenting. I've not experienced NDE (near-death experience). And Flint's assertion, based upon one or another research paper (as I've seen the same finding somewhere or another), could be all there is to it. No doubt in my mind oxygen deprivation has been measured during such episodes.

But to state with anything approaching certainty that oxygen shortage to the brain IS the causitive factor of the NDE gives me a little chuckle. OK, a big chuckle. Consciousness isn't something to be plopped into a Petri dish, to be poked and prodded until its secrets be revealed. ROTFL!

Now, back to the fisticuffs...

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), April 04, 2001.


Rich-

I damn near died when I was a kid. I jumped into a swimming hole without checking bottom and knocked myself unconscious. I came floating back to the surface and had to be revived by CPR. I had inhaled a substantial amount of water (though any water you inhale is substantial) and ended up with several hair-line fractures in my neck. The only thing I experienced, other than blackness, was the voice of my grandmother telling me to get out of bed. No, she wasn't dead, she was very much alive and a few miles away with my mom, unaware I was in any trouble.

Oxygen deprivation does lead to euphoria and hallucinations. I don't know that every NDE can be described this way, but I know mine can.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 04, 2001.


Tarz, I remember you related that story on forum once before. Don't know how Grandma fits into the whole event. Glad you pulled through.

I do enjoy hearing NDE stories. It is one of the many reasons I regularly tune into Art Bell's radio show. My interest was piqued after seeing a documentary based on Raymond Moody's work. It seems to me one's preconceptions of death and spiritual leanings during life play a major role in what transpires during NDE's.

Rent the movie Flatliners for an interesting peek into NDE's.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), April 04, 2001.


Flint, you old romantic. Cuddle up to the wife and whisper, "I love you, but then again, it may just be a chemical imbalance." We all know faith is not immutable. People find faith; they lose it. Like falling in love, the process is not easily explained. Let's wait and see if science can eventually support your opinion.

As for your boat analogy, you just have a different opinion about what's "important." A fishing boat has more in common with the Titanic than it does with an apple, a twelve-string guitar or a ball of string. You look at the differences; I look at the commonalities. The fundamental purpose of both is to provide an device where man can float upon water, moving from one position to the next. The Titanic is poorly suited for bass fishing on a small lake. The fishing boat is poorly suited for transoceanic travel. So what? Sorry, Flint, but I still see things we can learn about both religion and political philosophy by comparison. You apparently don't.

On a more personal note, Flint, you seem to have a deep-seated bias against religion. I think this intereferes with your objectivity. Then again, it might just be chemical.

Well, Tarzan, I thank you. You only have left to claim victory and complete the cycle.

Before you begin your ceremonial lap, let me give you a speech I usually reserve for children. To "need" is different that to "want." You need air to breathe, water to drink and food to sustain you. You do not need that candy bar. If you don't buy the candy bar, your life will go on. The same rule applies to sports cars, diamond rings and fiancees. If you don't marry Jane, you may find someone else who will provide emotional comfort, joy, etc. You may not. Either way, your life will continue.

If I rejected my faith today, I doubt God would strike me dead. Faith is a choice made possible by free will. So is love. A love based on need is usually called dependency (and not generally considered healthy in adult relationships).

I'm not going to make a bunch of assumptions about your life, your experiences or your "Jane." That would be engaging in the same childish, baiting tactics you've made a hallmark your time here. (It does help illuminate your character though.) I will not take each sentence and twist it a bit out of context to facilitate criticism. You find flaws in each brick, but miss the building. At best, Tarzan, this is lazy. At worst, it's intellectually dishonest, a cheap debating tactic. On an obscure internet forum where maybe three people are reading this thread, you're probably going to get away with it, but don't expect my congratulations.

-- The shadow (knows@gain.com), April 04, 2001.


Tar, this is funny. It was a typo; I saw it as a typo; I understood what was meant by the sentence prior to and after the typo. Yet you who disects every word to take things out of context can't seem to "see the forest for the trees". And btw, I'm loving you talking to shadow as if it were me. LOL

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 04, 2001.

Well, Tarzan, I thank you. You only have left to claim victory and complete the cycle.

Oh, cry me a river. Once again, I've mopped the floor with you and all you can do is sling barbs and cry about it. Either think your arguments through a little better before you make them or develop a thicker skin. Your emotions are not my responsibility.

Before you begin your ceremonial lap, let me give you a speech I usually reserve for children. To "need" is different that to "want." You need air to breathe, water to drink and food to sustain you. You do not need that candy bar. If you don't buy the candy bar, your life will go on. The same rule applies to sports cars, diamond rings and fiancees. If you don't marry Jane, you may find someone else who will provide emotional comfort, joy, etc. You may not. Either way, your life will continue.

A true romantic. I certainly hope someday you fall in love, but until that day, I advise you not to say to your sweetheart, You know, I could leave you at any time I chose because I don't actually need you,

If I rejected my faith today, I doubt God would strike me dead. Faith is a choice made possible by free will. So is love. A love based on need is usually called dependency (and not generally considered healthy in adult relationships).

And that's another big difference between the Titanic and my uncle's fishing boat, and between faith and opinion. If my uncle's fishing boat sunk, it would definiately be distressing. Because it wasn't meant to go far from shore, and because he sails in warm waters and wears a life jacket, he'd very likely survive to claim the insurance and buy another boat. When the Titanic went down, it was a huge tragedy from which the White Star Line (to say nothing of the families) never really recovered. When something has as much meaning as faith does to those who believe, the loss or alteration has repurcussions throughout the person's life. When an opinion is lost or altered, it's really no big thing.

If you don't feel it deeply, it's probably not faith but opinion. No wonder you confuse the two. Geesh, I don't even have a faith, yet I can see the difference between an opinion and faith!

I'm not going to make a bunch of assumptions about your life, your experiences or your "Jane." That would be engaging in the same childish, baiting tactics you've made a hallmark your time here. (It does help illuminate your character though.) I will not take each sentence and twist it a bit out of context to facilitate criticism.

Translation:I'll sure make a bunch of veiled ad hominems though. No one will see through that!

You find flaws in each brick, but miss the building.

And you point to a pile of broken bricks and claim they make a building.

At best, Tarzan, this is lazy. At worst, it's intellectually dishonest, a cheap debating tactic. On an obscure internet forum where maybe three people are reading this thread, you're probably going to get away with it, but don't expect my congratulations.

Oh, I get it. Having had your butt handed to you on a silver platter by Flint and myself, you're going to soothe your bruised ego by reminding yourself how few people are here. I guess you were expecting it all along- why else would you hide behind a fake handle?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 04, 2001.


Or the building for the bricks, right Maria?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 04, 2001.

This is just too funny! I posted at the same time as Shadow. Had I read his post I wouldn't have made my comments. Tar, you're really having a tough time with this aren't you?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 04, 2001.

Tarzan, check your mail please.

-- (A fan@of.yours), April 04, 2001.

The shadow=Decker

-- (gut@feel.ing), April 04, 2001.

Good job "gut feeling". I think it is him or cpr. Whoever it is, he doesn't have the respect Tarzan has because Tarzan doesn't hide behind a fake handle.

-- (A fan@of.yours), April 04, 2001.

Fan-

I don't have anything. Want to try again? Let me know if you get a bounce notice. I've got the taran box set up as an alias under my ISP and they've been having some trouble.

Gut-

I don't think Shadow is Ken. Ken could make some pretty ridiculous arguments, but he usually backed himself up to some extent. Also, he wasn't much of a whiner. Besides, he usually posts under the name Jose now.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 04, 2001.


That is so like you Tarzan, to try to claim the high road on insults and victory on minute points of logic. You're trying to make me out to be a whiner when all I've done is point out how sick I am of you and your one man fan club and you claim you've kicked my butt when all you've done is show yours. Well I for one am through giving you something to rail against. But before I go, here's a clue for you, monkey boy. Most of us on this board see through your veil of ignorance and arrogance. So go on mocking those who disagree with you, but know that the majority of us think you're nothing but a hypocrite full of hot air.

-- The shadow (anon@ymous.com), April 04, 2001.

The shadow (anon@ymous.com)

HELLO!

-- ICU (I@C.U), April 04, 2001.


Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle.

Oh wait a minute, I already am.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 04, 2001.


shadow:

[On a more personal note, Flint, you seem to have a deep-seated bias against religion. I think this intereferes with your objectivity.]

I replied on another thread, at some length (as always) that I am not biased against religion per se, I am opposed to using political means to achieve religious ends. The state has no businesses attempting to legislate moral requirements as embodied in the dogma of any particular organized religion. I listed a whole bunch of "victimless crimes" the bible-bangers have imposed on *everyone else* because their religion demands it of *them* (yet they break these same laws when they choose).

[I still see things we can learn about both religion and political philosophy by comparison.]

So long as you recognize what compares and what does not, I have no problem with this. I have already written that there is some overlap between politics and religion, and there have been theocracies. But any good comparison will also highlight very real distinctions. Your original claim that religious faith and political preference are the same thing is simply false. Groups of utterly different faiths (including none at all) can nonetheless get together as a polity and work out mutually acceptable political rules and procedures. One necessary rule is always "I won't force mine on you and you don't force yours on me."

[If I rejected my faith today, I doubt God would strike me dead.]

Chuckle. Safe bet, since as soon as you reject your faith, God ceases to exist at all.

Rich:

[Consciousness isn't something to be plopped into a Petri dish, to be poked and prodded until its secrets be revealed. ROTFL!]

In the sense you mean this, I consider you incorrect! Currently, investigators feel that consciousness isn't a "thing", it is the side effect of an ongoing chemical process. It's an epiphenomenon, like a meaningful picture emerging in our minds when viewing different colored paints wiped on a canvas. Where in all that paint is the "picture"? It's not there at all, it's in us.

But this does NOT mean we can't study art, or learn to paint, or develop atristic techniques that allow us to make better pictures. We indeed study pigments, and bases (oil, water, acrylic), and types of canvas, and all the other mundane mechanics of painting pictures.

And in exactly the same way, we can study neurons, interconnections, chemical triggers, and all the underlying wetware, doing its thing in an immensely complex pattern, which gives rise to the wonderful illusion of consciousness. Why not?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 04, 2001.


Talk about a Freudian slip!

ROTFLMAO!

-- (gut@feel.ing), April 04, 2001.


OK, I sent you another one. I sent it to "tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net" so I hope it works.

-- (A fan@of .yours), April 04, 2001.

Try this:

tarzan_and_jane_greystoke@yahoo.com

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 04, 2001.


Is consciousness a byproduct of chemical processes, or are the chemical processes byproducts of consciousness?

My biases lead me to believe the latter, though I do suspect the not- to-distant future we'll have available to us gadgets to manipulate these chemical processes in order to directly effect changes in consciousness. Same premise as psychoactives such as peyote, psilocybin, LSD and the like, only more accurate in triggering desired brain centers (and other centers such as chakras?) without the downsides of ingesting drugs.

Of course, various yoga methods can facilitate journeys of consciousness without external machines or use of psychedelics. Clean, free & effective.

Why not, indeed. Go for it. Any research scientists out there looking for a test subject? :)

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), April 04, 2001.


I tried the new address, but give it a minute. If it doesn't work it is *my* software that doesn't work.

-- (A fan@of .yours), April 04, 2001.

I got it and sent a reply. Thanks. My ISP's hardly worth the bandwidth it runs on, IMO, so greater than half the time I can't even check my e-mail.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 04, 2001.

Fan-

I got a bounce from my e-mail.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 04, 2001.


Rich, "Is consciousness a byproduct of chemical processes, or are the chemical processes byproducts of consciousness?" Exactly my thoughts on this one. Similarly, did we create God in our imagination or is God the source of our imagination? When something pops up from our subconcious mind, we can point to whatever chemical processes that may have occured, but what really triggered those processes. We may know from psychology that our subconcious mind is always turning in the background and our conscious mind can recall things from it. But the depth of our subconcious mind goes beyond the physical explanations. Hmmm topic for another thread.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 04, 2001.

So will you start that thread as Maria or as The Shadow?

-- (gut@feel.ing), April 04, 2001.

Yes, I know. I can perform magic! Go back and read it again or read the new one.

-- (A fan@of .yours), April 04, 2001.

Yes I was kidding. I have a very dry sense of humor, sometimes so dry no one else knows it's humor. Which begs the question, if a man tells a joke in a forum and no one laughs, was it really a joke in the first place?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 04, 2001.

No :*)

Looks like shadow flew the coup, eh? Good riddence to nameless cowards!

-- (A fan@of .yours), April 04, 2001.


I am not sure about your dry sense of humor, Tarzan, but you are very amusing when you are agitated. "Fake handle!" That was a classic.

Thanks for taking the victory lap. I cheered for you.

Before I toddle off, let me share some thoughts about adult romantic love. Love is a choice, not a addiction, not a dependency. Your need-based affection makes "Jane" seem like the female version of a crack pipe. In a mature love, two capable, independent people choose to share their lives. I could function without my significant other. My "so" could function without me. We proved the ability to live rich, happy lives before our relationship.

Faith works much the same way. Some people use faith as an emotional life preserver, much like some people use romantic relationships or even drugs, alcohol, material possessions. A mature faith is not a quick fix but the result of a conscious, considered decision to pursue a spiritual path.

I was happy before discovering a deeper faith. There are times when faith makes my life more inconvenient and complicated, but it does give my life a different, deeper sense of meaning. Let's call it a more subtle sense of "happy." I'm not arguing my faith is based on a "rational" decision any more than I expect you could argue your "love" for Jane is based on reason. I have already argued (successfully) that no existing political philosophy is based on pure reason, yours included. But enough for today. I'm off to find my backside. Someone said they saw it on a silver platter!

-- The shadow (knows@gain.com), April 04, 2001.


Maria-

I'm glad your last good-bye wasn't your last good-bye. You are far too amusing to just give up.

Before I toddle off, let me share some thoughts about adult romantic love. Love is a choice, not a addiction, not a dependency. Your need-based affection makes "Jane" seem like the female version of a crack pipe.

Only to someone who's never really known love.

In a mature love, two capable, independent people choose to share their lives. I could function without my significant other. My "so" could function without me. We proved the ability to live rich, happy lives before our relationship.

That's a pretty cold, passionless way to describe it, but if it floats your boat (pun intended) then so be it.

Faith works much the same way. Some people use faith as an emotional life preserver, much like some people use romantic relationships or even drugs, alcohol, material possessions. A mature faith is not a quick fix but the result of a conscious, considered decision to pursue a spiritual path.

Sure. And this is very different from an opinion.

I have already argued (successfully) that no existing political philosophy is based on pure reason, yours included.

Yes, but the problem is, no one argued with you on this point, and it is different from you original point, which was that political philosophy is the equivalent of religious faith. You went so far as to describe the constitution as a religious document. Or have you forgotten that?

You know, this really is hilarious. You set out with one argument, and you prove another, and claim success. Well, yes, I suppose that would be success, in the same way that my uncle's fishing boat is similar to the Titanic.

But enough for today. I'm off to find my backside. Someone said they saw it on a silver platter!

It's right here in front of you, in both this post and "The Secret Faith of Tarzan".

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 04, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ