@@> From Day Brown presentation to ALL
 @@> on "Fundamental Philosophy"
 
 DB> OTOH: Fundamentalist Philosophy is an oxymoron.  As Bob noted,
 DB> the fact is that they don't think carefully about what they
 DB> believe; I too have noted a highly polished sophistry in that
 DB> when a response is not available, new issues are woven into
 DB> the thread.
 
 DB> I daresay the flamethrowers are yet another example of the same in
 DB> the echos.  I challenge any of them to read Plato before trying to
 DB> argue philosohpy.  I would further offer, that it's fundamentalism
 DB> that is complex and incomprehensible, whereas I was happy to find,
 DB> among other things, that Socrates speaks in plain language about a
 DB> lotta plain things, revealing a lotta plain truth.
 
 Both the fundamentalists and philosophers are equally incomprehensible
 in that both toy with an authority of truth neither deserves-
 
              We make a little noise and die!
 
 Thats the  "only-all-of-it" we know! All the rest left over is
 hope n hype n gravity stuff!
 
 DB> By and large, I agree with Rev, to ignore the flamethrowers;
 DB> yet I do skim thru their posts from time to time, and even here,
 DB> I see a novel or worthwhile idea on occasion.  Here, I think I
 DB> can perform a service by responding to *that point*, respond to
 DB> their rational side, and ignore the irrational.  Shrinks would
 DB> tell you that they act that way for the sake of attention, and
 DB> by ignoring flames, we can encourage what real rational power
 DB> they may have, while at the same damp their fires of passion.
 DB> It may do some small good.
 
  To quiet your kindly understanding rage I would suggest that we are
  moving to understand pre wired human leanings. Some minds are predisposed
  to follow rigid sequence (cobra and flute). Though oversimplified, such
  obsessive mental loyalties are most probably genetic and likely to
  join with whatever passes having the right "receptor connects" (promotes
  some extra evolutionary escape plans). Such would render your arguments
  more like contentions with a wart (of course they would look back at
  you and perhaps see a "loose-mind-cannon" wart as they come to an opposite
  but equivalent conclusion!
                                               @@>--- Dave
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------