On 01-14-98 Frank Masingill wrote to John Boone... 
 
        Hello Frank and thanks for writing, 
  
 FM> FM> I don't understand your curious assumption that Voegelin's 
 FM> FM> "central 
 FM> FM> theme" was "man's INABILITY!!!"  Getting into his _Order and 
 FM> FM> History_ might 
   
 FM> JB> You shouldn't.  Do you not see, this -one- major assumption, 
 FM> JB> probablity 
 FM> JB> true, is the basis for Voegelin's philosophy?  IOW, if this one 
 FM> JB> assumption of Voegelin is -false-, most if not all of his 
 FM> JB> philosophy 
 FM> JB> falls. I ask, is this -one- assumption open to debate? 
   
 FM>    If Voegelin were still living and you implied in talking with him 
 FM> that he 
 FM> "HAD A PHILOSOPHY" he would be genuinely puzzled at your use of 
 FM> philosophy in 
 FM> such a manner.  Nobody HAS a philosophy.  Philosophy is a pursuit and, 
 
  Perhaps, I can't say.  Sad to say, there are severl -who- 
believe they -have- a philosophy. 
  I offer one such philosohy with only one tenet: 
 
                Nobody HAS A philosophy.  
 
  I am not trying to be flippant, but rather trying to express 
to you -what- it is, I am trying to say.  Your are not getting 
it.  This is the latest attempt, besides, my reflexsive statements, 
to divulge the intent.  
 
 FM> yes, 
 FM> Voegelin's position would certainly be that somebody like Hegel or 
 FM> Marx or 
 FM> Comte who HAD developed SYSTEMS, while they might have demonstrated 
 FM> much 
 FM> knowledge in some area would be WRONG AT THE CORE because the erection 
 FM> of a 
 FM> SYSTEM (assumption that everything essential that can be known about 
 FM> the end 
 FM> of history is now revealed) is a VAST THEORETICAL MISTAKE.  Among 
 
  As from the beginning, I do agree with Voegelin's central 
point, I, however, disagree with the terminology, he uses. 
 
Take care, 
John 
 
___ 
 * OFFLINE 1.54 
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------