++> Inspired by a Frank Masingill/David Martorana
 ++> dialog on Value Measures"
 
 FM> .....it is  better not to speak of "negative philosophies."
 FM> I believe we should have enough respect for history to acknowledge
 FM> that there are not "philosophies" (negative OR positive).  What I
 FM> take you to mean, rather, would be better termed "opinions."
 
     I was using the time honored "common" practice of using the
     term "philosophy" to convey long standing "opinions". I am
     sometimes caught between "street language" conventions and
     a more correct usage.
 
 FM> I have no argument at all against the assertion that we do not
 FM> "know it all."  That is what Voegelin meant when he observed
 FM> that history has no eidos (knowable meaning) and "history is
 FM> not a stream of human beings and their actions in time" (snails,
 FM> horses and apes have THAT) but the process of man's participation
 FM> in "a flux of divine presence that has eschatological direction."
 
     Again we have more the nice sound to meaning than THE nice
   meaning itself.   There is NOTHING to indicate that even the
   process of man's participation in a/the "flux of divine presence
   in eschatological directions" has any significance at all, an
   even chance of being a bit nothing-ish.
 
 FM> I seem to be less attracted to relativism, however, than you are.
 FM> I see the pursuit of philosophy as a movement toward counteracting
 FM> the nihil that you appear to celebrate - or if not celebrate at
 FM> least to welcome some degree of reality for it.
 
     I hold the "nihil" as a valid point on a compass ....a serious
     direction. I also acknowledge the other compass points but am
     forced to overplay that particular point because it is so often
     pushed aside by positive ""opinions"" as to make it seem the
     compass only has three points .....kind of like your compass !
 
 DM> Most move beyond the primitive "nihil" stages as perhaps one day I
 DM>> will also.
 
 FM> I can fully understand.  The gnostic mass movements of the
 FM> centuries since "enlightenment" have filled the horizon
 FM> massively and they are both political and intellectual.
 FM> Renunciation of them was made intentionally difficult
 FM> because reality DOES clearly involve the desire to know
 FM> and so it furnishes in these confusions of symbolisms competing,
 FM> attractive "totalities" or "systems."  It is difficult to
 FM> approach the conclusion that they may be, like Nietzsche's
 FM> "changing of masks" something of an invitation to turn from
 FM> the "disputing with shadows" toward the more uncertain realm
 FM> in which gratefulness is entertained for the blessing of
 FM> science and faith (not as assurance) permits an escape from
 FM> the "institutions, secular or religious" and a search for
 FM> existential order beyond "mere opinion."  There is certainly
 FM> no escape from history for history is the reality which must
 FM> be lived and died.
 
   Yes! well understood and well said...... Now you catch a glimpse of
   my cantankerous need for room and balance to move around in ...away
   from popular positive mind-candy  however sacred, or draped in
   historical robes, or even mystified by "faith".
 
 FM> God has never spoken to me audibly either but I try to take the
 FM> advice of Martin Buber and keep my ears free of the wax that might
 FM> be blocking SOME kind of communication and I do not narrow "God"
 FM> as a symbolism to the small confines of the literalists and
 FM> fundamentalists.
 
     Not as trusting as you and Martin, I probably would not believe
     the voice if it did whisper into a "clear" ear. And again, even if
     I were to believe, I still might favor major disagreements.
 
 DM> Philosophy and its many cousins of evaluation, have a good mind-feel;
 DM> and has been brightened by evolution into a hungry button in our nerve
 DM> system. Also?  the "nothing-ish" conclusions might be in error or partly
 DM> so. There are ever even third-ish possibilities that meanings may be
 DM> other than  "nothing" or the "somethings we have invented them to be,
 
 FM> Attunement to the order of being has, as far as I can ascertain,
 FM> nothing whatever to do with "mind-feel."  One thing I surely do
 FM> NOT mean by "faith" is the "dancing of any sugar-plums" in my
 FM> head or the vision of a change of "things" from the mystery of
 FM> good and evil "here" to some kind of "streets paved with gold"
 FM> or a boring process of "bowing before a throne."  I hope that I can
 FM> experience a bit of "immortlizing" without expecting to enter some
 FM> visualized "immortality." I have no problem trusting in a reality that
 FM> provides through revelation, noetic or otherwise, paradigms of order
 FM> which are virtually self-validating.
 
   "Attunement to an order of being" is relative to all the slippery
   edges of consciousness. To say it has nothing to do with "mind-feel",
   is at best optimistic and at worst naive . Also! I may be
   incapable of seeing your "faith" reach more than "sugar-plumish",
   but time might well expand my vision. As I have said, or will, I
   don't have it all together .....yet!    The only one that "scratched"
   my thinking some along such lines was Teilhard de Chardin, who still
   after many years, whispers into my thoughts (much as I TRY to keep him
   out!).
                            __
                           qQQ ... Dave
 
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------