++> Inspired by Frank Masingill/John Boone
 ++> exchanges on STYLES OF THINKING
 
 FM> I think that all we can hope for here is that we understand each
 FM> other's points of view MORE ADEQUATELY and in my view injecting
 FM> such labels of "liberal" and "conservative" into the mix muddies
 FM> rather than clarifies the issue. I don't find such language to be
 FM> all that helpful in identifying and discussing philosophical issues.
 
    
 
 FM> I don't really want to get into a political argument here because
 FM> it would be out of place.  My aim is only to show how shallow the
 FM> fixing of labels is in a philosophical debate.  Surely we are
 FM> reaching for something of more intellectual and practical substance.
 
 Complete systems, however bent in accuracy or value, require that all
 the players be labeled. Such thinking has to round off any "grays" so
 that identifications of the WHOs with, and WHOs against, can be painted
 clear.  It is a thinking (often seen on this echo) that is absolutely
 necessary to some minds; and somewhat necessary to most. It is mostly a
 matter of percentages with some minds running near free, some only
 comfortable within rigid "labeled" frameworks and most of the rest in
 between. In an arena of ideas, the free mind and the rigid mind do
 endless battle, neither side convincing but to self (an occasional rare
 convert from center). Negotiated positions are possible, but only for
 the sake of civility.
 
    But do pour out your heart of reasoning as I _MAY_  be wrong 
    and John might just be on the verge of admitting that pure logic
    is not the virgin he thinks it is!      Besides, others reading,
    probably enjoy your words as much as I do.
                                             __
  Virginity is in the mind, no  ??? ... ooo /QQ\ ooo ... Dave
 
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------