S&S vs. SF in BotNS

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes · 22 Dec 2011, 19:13 · from 2011-December.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: danldo at gmail.com (Dan'l Danehy-Oakes)
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 11:13:44 -0800
Subject: (urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS
In-Reply-To: <DE8667965ABA4A5399F896EFD2954387@Rover>
References: <SNT123-W188091270D9F984D184E75CFAA0 at phx.gbl>
	<CAJ8=rtiiF1rc9--SXN88=i1JL-W4sK+XGexECUExDgifFr50xg at mail.gmail.com>
	<3850EDE39C6542408D247D83E4BD7317@Rover>
	<CAJ8=rtiATymZxj-HuAJbOOD6vMdHLJrTSWKhRX-NV78FK58a8g at mail.gmail.com>
	<DE8667965ABA4A5399F896EFD2954387@Rover>
Message-ID: <CAJ8=rthk9+nx4Qy2DbGSJE1BrFzHg+bcht7GJeaUYKeWjWzrvQ at mail.gmail.com>

Gerry Quinn wrote:

> I don?t think *everything* has to be scientifically explicable.? Silk?s
> enlightenment seems to be, in essence, a kind of miracle.

Then you are not like Crane, who insists that everything have a clear
scientific explanation.

> What I?m not convinced by is your particular dualistic understanding of the
> soul; I?m not sure what it adds to the story.? I?m content to leave the
> concept of the soul as a little mysterious.

To me, the soul is extremely mysterious. My "dualism" merely seeks to
define the area in which mystery operates, not to explain away that
mystery.

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net