On 12-16-97 Clarence Hogan wrote to John Boone... 
 
        Hello Clarence and thanks for writing, 
  
        [snip] 
  
 CH> CH>  However, it should be pointed out that we would never even know 
 CH> CH>  what evil was in that scenario, right?  
    
 CH> JB> However, if -all- you knew were dogs (Jesus Christ and goodness), 
 CH> JB> could you not tell what a non-dog (non-Jesus Christ and evil) 
 CH> JB> was?  
    
 CH>  Nope!  Could the eaglet tell that it was an eagle instead of a  
 CH>  prairie chicken? 
   
  The issue is between good (dogs) and bad (non-dogs).  Notice, 
it is not necessary for us to clarify a difference between bad 
(non-dogs, e.g. eaglet and prairie chicken) or to even to know 
"evil".   It is sufficient for us to know good. 
 
 CH> JB> Granted, this is only true if there are -only- two divisions, 
 CH> JB> evil and good.   
    
 CH>  If what you are saying is understood, it wouldn't be true if there 
 CH>  were a billion divisions, right? 
   
  Yep, all it would take would take would be three.  However, 
what we as Christians are involved in is determining "good" 
from "evil" (two things). 
 
        [snip] 
  
 CH>  JB> In this situation, it is not necessary 
 CH>  JB> for us to know evil except that which is not Jesus like.  
    
 CH>  Which is exactly the point, for in this scenario we know what evil is 
 CH>  because we have seen it and we know what good is, for Yahshua has  
 
  Yes, we have seen evil and yes we know what it is, but it is 
not necessary for us to know what evil is except to know what 
is "not-good" which can be told by knowing "good" through Jesus 
Christ. 
 
        [snip] 
  
 CH>  JB> The above sentence is changed to "Nope, but -our- (translated  
 CH>  JB> not Jesus or God) wants are not part of the picture."  
   
 CH>  Tiz much better and which makes it a joy and a blessing to do 
 CH> business 
 CH>  with you John, but it is still more of a blessing to not be your son! 
    
 CH>    But after giving a little more thought and consideration to 
 CH> the 
 CH>  subject, as far as He is concerned, OUR needs and wants ARE indeed a 
 CH>  part of the WHOLE picture also, for if they were NOT, then why HAS He 
 CH>  gone to all the trouble of preparing a place for us and other things 
 CH>  that eye has not seen nor ear has not heard for those of us who love  
 CH>  Him?  :) 
 
  I don't have an answer for you.  However, because we don't have 
answer doesn't translate into he does it for our wants. 
 
Take care, 
John 
 
___ 
 * OFFLINE 1.54 
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------
** A related thread FOLLOWS this message.

FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY    Ref: EGNN1818 Date: 12/19/97
From: DAY BROWN                                             Time: 07:30pm
\/To: JOHN BOONE (Rcvd)                                   (Read 1 times)
Subj: R: Reality and Consciousnes

 JB>   As I said above, if we only have good and evil, we don't have  
 JB> good, then it must be evil.  In this situation, it is not necessary  
 JB> for us to know evil except that which is not Jesus like.  
This was the fundamental position of Zoroaster (700 BCE), that 
God, who was good, was compared with something that was not God, 
and therefore, must be evil.  To be with God was heaven, and to 
be away from him must be hell. 
 
The prophet had a long career preaching righteousness, and those 
who followed him, the Magarian priesthood, brought the gospel to 
all parts of the Persian Empire, that to do good and love God as 
he had done saves one from hell.  The priesthood was well known 
for wisdom, and they were known as Magi. 
 
Had it not been for Alexander, we would probly still have this 
religion.  But his armies were so successful, that anything that 
was associated with Persian culture was discredited.  If this God 
was so good, then why didn't he protect them from the Greeks? 
--- 
 * OFFLINE 1.58 * Clinton Prez library contents: a dumpster & the shredder. 

---------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LAST Message In Thread <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY    Ref: EGN00008 Date: 12/18/97
From: JOHN BOONE                                            Time: 09:30pm
\/To: FRANK MASINGILL                                     (Read 1 times)
Subj: M R L insights

 On 12-16-97 Frank Masingill wrote to John Boone... 
 
        Hello Frank and thanks for writing, 
  
 FM> JB> evidence (this is the essence of the scientific method).  Please, 
 FM> JB> notice,  the words "-only- valid UNTIL another argument more 
 FM> JB> consistent" 
 FM> JB> don't imply "PRONOUNCED as valid for the TOTAL STRUCTURE OF 
 FM> JB> REALITY of the Cosmos." 
   
        [snip] 
  
 FM> re-theorizing.  I believe, however, that I am NOT wrong in attributing 
 FM> to him 
 FM> an approach in the realm of "values" which assume a finality they may 
 
  Ah,  such a "finality" is not consistent with the scientific method. 
You might be correct, however, I read his intent differently.  
 
 FM> only 
 FM> have within a configuration of history that is rather "systematic" and 
 FM> unlikely EVER to change because they attach to some "objective" human 
 FM> situation as defined, essentially by Rand.   
   
        [snip] 
    
 FM>    I don't know if that has clarified or further obscured the issue.  
 FM> I cannot 
 FM> see that there IS any eidos (structure) of history that one could 
 
  I see history as "final."  However, I see -what- the history 
means (which I assume you translate into eidos (structure)) 
as decidely -not- final.  
 
 FM> pronounce as 
 FM> final but that "being human" is DEFINED as living in a tension between 
 FM> immancence and transcendence in which the individual can only be a 
 FM> part of 
 FM> that reality in which AS A PART can only experience reality as 
 FM> becoming 
 FM> luminous within his mode of being which IS consciousness.  There is 
 FM> ONLY, for 
 FM> him, the FIRST reality which must remain mysterious at its core as 
 FM> long as he 
 FM> lives cosmic existence - no "SECOND" reality that is "fully revealed" 
 FM> and 
 FM> therefore an escape from the mystery of the only reality that we know 
 FM> about. 
   
  You seem to be suggesting because man's reality isn't or can't 
be aware of "the cosmic truth" it isn't or can't be final. 
BTW, I do agree, man can't be privy to the sum total of 
"the cosmic truth" or may not be able to be aware of 
"the cosmic truth." 
  However, why must we assume because we are -ONLY- PART of 
"the cosmic truth" (otherwise, what we know exists outside 
of "the cosmic truth") we can't get glimpses of, know -PART- 
of "the cosmic truth" or perhaps generate perhaps unknowingly 
parts of "the cosmic truth?" 
 
        [snip] 
 
Take care, 
John 
 
___ 
 * OFFLINE 1.54 
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------
** A related thread FOLLOWS this message.

FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY    Ref: EGNN1812 Date: 12/19/97
From: DAY BROWN                                             Time: 07:30pm
\/To: JOHN BOONE (Rcvd)                                   (Read 1 times)
Subj: R: M R L insights

Well, John. I have a pretty good idea of the two most likely ends 
mankind will see.  One is the expansion of communication such as 
we use right now and the increasing persuasiveness of technology 
and the information it makes available for us to base decisions 
on... to the point where everyone knows everything and comes to a 
compleat agreement, as in heaven. 
 
Alternatively, I see the unintended consequences effecting global 
environment and society being so stressful that order breaks down 
and chaotic anarchy reigns.  The global travel is so pervasive an 
unknown microbial pandemic could break out and cause extinction. 
 
SO: the value system I advocate is to try to buy some time. I live 
in a remote rural area, and have enough stored food to survive a 
year of chaos if I am not found by it.  I have also, as you see by 
the presence of this message, communication with the technocracy 
as it evolves, and try to learn, and profit by it.  I just do not 
have all my eggs in that basket. 
 
The occasional talk of financial panic suggests that society is 
dimly aware of the the danger, but no one has suggested that it 
might be a good idea to reconstruct simpler production methods of 
essentials independent of the global technocracy as a backup. 
 
The value system I advocate is not based on revelation, so it is 
not challenged by discovery of other ancient sources... such as 
the fact that 'shepards watched by night' when the cult god known 
as Mithras was born... several hundred years before christmas. 
---

 * OFFLINE 1.58 * No, I ain't lost it... I never had it. 

---------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LAST Message In Thread <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY    Ref: EGN00009 Date: 12/19/97
From: FRANK MASINGILL                                       Time: 03:24am
\/To: JOSEPH VOIGT                                        (Read 1 times)
Subj: Evolution

 JV> I pray someday he can truly understand what the NAZI label really means.
 JV> Peace be with you, Frank, and have a joyous new year.  You are in my
 JV> thoughts.
   On the outside chance that he really DOESN'T know, which I'm inclined at
the moment to doubt, I would join you in that hope.  
   I echo the same wishes for you and the other guys and gals here - a most
happy holiday season and a prosperous New Year.  
Sincerely, 
                                     Frank
                                                                              
                                                       
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------