On 01-12-98 Frank Masingill wrote to John Boone... 
 
        Hello Frank and thanks for writing, 
  
 FM> JB> Just in case you missed -some- of what Frank advocates falls into 
 FM> Jb> dogma. 
 FM> JB> In particular, his dogma, assumption, that man doesn't have the 
 FM> JB> ABILITIY to preceive REALITY. 
  
 FM>    John, I very much dislike being starkly and deliberately 
 FM> misrepresented.  I 
 
  Perhaps, better diction, would have been in order.  I do believe 
it is -your intent- NOT to be dogmatic.  However, I remain 
convinced, you are unaware of the apparent dogma.  
  
 FM> can GUARANTEE YOU that I have NEVER, EVER said any such thing - 
 FM> NEVER!!! 
   
 FM>    I HAVE said (and it makes all the difference in the world, so 
 FM> listen VERY 
 FM> carefully:  Man, as a PART of the reality in which he exists cannot 
 FM> KNOW THE 
 FM> FULL STRUCTURE OF REALITY.  Why is that so difficult to understand.  
 
  Ah, you don't understand.  I am not questioning, yet, the validity 
of that statement.  However, do you not see the words: 
 
        Man, as a PART of the reality in which he exists cannot 
        KNOW THE FULL STRUCTURE OF REALITY 
 
as words about REALITY, man's nature, as he is part of REALITY. 
In addition, do you not see, the words "cannot KNOW THE FULL 
STRUCTURE OF REALITY" indicate FINALITY thus indicating that 
man at least is able to know a PART (yes not FULL) of the  
full structure of Reality. 
   At best in keeping with man's inabilitity to KNOW THE FULL 
STRUCTURE OF REALITY", the best you could say would be: 
 
        Man, as a PART of the reality in which he exists 
        [*******will most likely not*****] KNOW THE FULL 
        STRUCTURE OF REALITY. 
 
 FM> Our 
 FM> ineluctable position within reality is as a part of it.  Our 
 FM> perceptions can 
 FM> only BE within that limited range.  This doesn't mean we can know 
 FM> NOTHING of 
 FM> reality because we experience it of necessity.  We cannot, however, 
 FM> give an 
 FM> account of reality as though we were an observer standing or sitting 
 FM> somewhere 
 FM> ABOVE OR BEYOND OR OUTSIDE of reality with that reality as an OBJECT.  
  
  Why do you -assume- the above?  What proof do you have? 
Isn't this an assumption on your part? 
  It does appear to be an extension or another way to state 
man is unable to know the Full nature of REALITY, presumably, 
if man was able to stand outside of man's reality, he would be 
able to grasp the FULL NATURE of REALITY.  But, this leaves us 
with "begging the question" (assuming that which you wish to 
prove) which is not accepted debate technique. 
  You state above, man is unable to know the FULL NATURE of
REALITY, but wouldn't this presume, by this statement, 
man was able to "sit" somewhere ABOVE OR BEYOND OR OUTSIDE 
our reality. 
  But perhaps, I misunderstood -what- you said. 
  
        [snip] 
  
 FM> them into MY PERCEPTION of what I THINK you said.  Debate loses all 
 FM> sense when 
 FM> one cannot be assured that his thoughts will not be changed into 
 FM> something 
 FM> entirely the opposite from what he expressed, do you not agree? 
   
   Debate can happen for many reasons; one being disagreement 
with complete understanding of the respective points, and another, 
misunderstanding of what is said; so, it is wrong to assume 
"thoughts are changed into something entirely ...opposite."  
   In general, I agree debate loses -some- sense when one isn't 
understood correctly.  However, as you probably know, it is 
accepted DEBATE technique to use "reductio ab absurdum" which
some would call "thoughts being changed into something entirely 
the opposite." 
   To wit, leaving with me the impression are such charges: one, 
"thoughts being changed into something entirely the opposite", two, 
"accepted DEBATE technique", three, other. 
  
 FM> Voegelin 
 FM> phrases it, man is NOT a "self-contained spectator"  he is an actor 
 FM> "playing a 
 FM> role in the drama of being and, through the brute fact of his 
 FM> existence, 
 FM> committed to playing it without knowing knowing what it is.... The 
 FM> role of 
 FM> existence must be played in uncertainty of its meaning as an adventure 
 FM> of 
 FM> decision on the edge of necessity and freedom." (_Order and History_, 
 
  This is an re-iteration of the point above, it is impossible for 
man to give an account of his reality as he is part of that 
reality.  
 
Take care, 
John 
 
___ 
 * OFFLINE 1.54 
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------