Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!
From: Bob's Boyfriend (together_at_wyoming.com)
Date: 09/13/04
- Next message: zerge: "Re: air and land?"
- Previous message: Wm. B. Yeats: "Re: Clinton and global economy"
- In reply to: Ron Allen: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Next in thread: Ron Allen: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Reply: Ron Allen: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:14:24 GMT
In article <6ph1d.55095$Np2.52804@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
Ron Allen <rallen2@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Ron Allen wrote:
> > Let me repeat it again. What I write is
> > opinion, nothing more, nothing less.
>
> Courageous wrote:
> > In certain cases, _highly uninformed_ opinion.
>
> Ron Allen wrote:
> > It may be that I am "highly uninformed". But, I
> > will write what I think is true.
>
> Michael Price wrote:
> > But that belief is based on nothing but the will to
> > believe.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> I believe that I have, at the very least, as much
> knowledge, evidence, and information as you have.
This would seem to be speculation or hope. I cannot know the body of
knowledge, evidence and information that you have.
> There is a will to believe, a wish to believe,
> just as there is an urge to know, and a desire to
> learn.
I see this in an inverted fashion. With the desire to know there is the
fear of not knowing. We live at a time where information and knowledge
are deemed to be power. The quest for knowledge, as a result, is also
the attempt to feel powerful rather than the fear of being perceived as
powerless.
> I see the world, reality, through clashing
> perspectives. I have my very own consciousness of
> reality, and I also encounter various versions of
> reality when I read and listen to the opinions of
> writers and speakers. From multiple perspectives
> I make a decision about what I believe best and
> most expresses what is real and true.
This is somewhat contradictory to what you wrote above. Here I agree
with you that we believe is a choice.
The notion that what we believe is based on what is real and true does
seem to be false in many cases. I believe that you have thoughts. I
cannot prove this. I cannot see them. Nor are they apparent through any
means in which I expeience my own thoughts.
> My volition
> does play an important part, I'm sure. I like to
> believe that I'm on the side of goodness and
> liberty, on the side of truth and beauty.
This seems to be a pattern that I'm noting in many people of late. The
desire to be on the side of goodness is also the desire to avoid being
on the side of badness. Like the theist, an aversion to a perceived
negative consequence.
> There
> are exterior facts, and there is interior desire.
> These come together in every knowing self.
>
> Knowing is largely solitary. Knowledge is
> autonomy, individuality. Knowledge is a private
> gnosis, a personal gnosis, even a poetic gnosis,
> true only for the individual knower. I'm sure
> that I have my own private myths;
This would seem to be a contradiction to the position that I believe
what I believe because it is real and true.
> these are like
> a cure. Knowing, as I see it, is neither truth
> nor fiction; knowing is beyond truth and fiction.
>
> Knowing is loss. This is perhaps why we all too
> often smother freedom with dogma. Knowing is also
> loving. Those who are consumed by fear and by
> hate are so pompous, so defensive, and so self-
> righteous that they can search a text, not for its
> truth, but only for its errors and mistakes. They
> will not come to a balanced estimate of what they
> read or hear. Dogmatics cannot rightly read, or
> truly hear, because they are consumed by a fear of
> error and of evil. Dogmatics have no curiosity to
> explore. They have no memory, and no hope. All
> they have is a kind of learned ignorance. And it
> is this received dogmatism that makes them so
> aggressive, and so defensive.
What is the atheist consumed by when faced with a system of ethics?
> But, I have digressed. Yes, there is an element
> of volition in what I believe, just as there are
> the elements of emotion and of intellect. Your
> disciplinary floggings -- i.e., "You're a liar!"
> and "You're a moron!" -- will never extricate what
> I believe from what I think and know.
>
>
>
> Courageous wrote:
> > There's no excuse for that.
>
>
> Ron Allen wrote:
> > Do we need an excuse for expressing what we want
> > to say, even if we are ignorant and uninformed?
>
>
> Michael Price wrote:
> > Not if you have been informed of the truth on
> > many occasions and chosen to ignore it.
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> I encounter truth from other sources than you.
> Your truth just as much a volitional creation as
> is my truth. But, if it be true that character is
> fate, then it is also true that personality is our
> destiny, and individuality is our future. You are
> all too willing to display your character in these
> internet discussions, to show off your temperament
> in these newsgroup debates. I get e-mails from
> readers, who refuse to engage in debate, because
> of all the rudeness, who tell me that they enjoy
> what I write. One e-mail spoke of my compositions
> as having re-kindled their hope. Do you get such
> e-mails from well-wishers? There are a number of
> e-mails that express strong disagreement with my
> opinions, but they also take the time to express
> a courteous disagreement. They do not call me a
> liar, or a moron. What I am often praised for is
> my "heroic persistence". How can I care what you
> write against me as a person, and not just against
> my opinions as a philosophy, when there are such
> kind and generous people out there, reading what
> we write, and telling me they really enjoy reading
> what I write. I've even been given some inverted
> compliments. One e-mail called me a "sublime
> hypocrite". I've been told that what I write is
> "both brilliant and specific". But, I've also
> been told that my compositions are "curiously
> elliptical", which from the content of the e-mail
> I took to mean that so much that is important is
> left out of what I write. I can only reply to
> this by saying that what I write cannot possibly
> be the whole truth, or even the only truth.
>
> But, again, I digress. Let me conclude this post
> with one last point: Michael, you're an inadequate
> critic.
>
>
> Ron Allen wrote:
> > What's your excuse for writing and posting your
> > opinions?
>
>
> <><><><><><><><><><>
>
> "Critics are venomous serpents that delight in
> hissing."
> -- W. B. Daniel
>
- Next message: zerge: "Re: air and land?"
- Previous message: Wm. B. Yeats: "Re: Clinton and global economy"
- In reply to: Ron Allen: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Next in thread: Ron Allen: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Reply: Ron Allen: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
