Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    
    The first thing I would try to establish was whether or not my
    presence could cause any permanent change. If not, I'd pull out a good
    book, a Walkman or some homework and get on with life.
    
    IF, however, I found out that by questioning, challenging and
    cross-examining the beliefs and thoughts of this circle, I could create
    change, which would in turn, create a more positive world with room for
    all people equally, including not only the basics of food, clothing and
    shelter, but also human dignity and the intangible right to "pursuit of
    happiness", then I would work at it unrelentingly until I died.

    I would attempt to drive home the following points:
    
    1.  YOUR reality - YOUR system - is NOT the only one that exists.
    
    2.  YOUR reality - YOUR system - is NOT innately superior.
    
    3.  YOU do not KNOW, nor can you UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING.
    
    4.  Although you may PRIDE yourselves on your LOGIC and 
    	RATIONALITY and OBJECTIVITY, you actually cannot completely
    	attain any of these three things in this universe.
    
    Once these beliefs have been dismantled, I think we could probably
    start communicating on a more equal basis, and learn about each other
    with open minds....
    
    -Jody
    
    

    Right on Jody!  Very interesting.  A few comments if I may:
    
    1. YOUR reality - YOUR system - is NOT the only one that exists.
    
               Hmmmm . . . how can YOU get out of YOUR reality/system to tell
               anything about mine or substantiate any claim that I
               live in a different one than you???   How do you know
               that your perception that I exist and have a 'different'
               reality/system is NOT a part of yours? 
    
               Isn't your statement that there ARE multiple 'realities' a
               part of yours?  See the problem?  Can't get there from here
               to make a meaningful statement about 'there'.
    
               You are trying to give metaphysical meaning to the notion
               different people have different OPINIONS about cabbages
               kings.  You can't, by definition, have any direct (or
               indirect for that matter) knowledge of "my reality" or
               even knowledge that it exists because, I should think,
               you can't get outside yours.
    
    2. "YOUR reality - YOUR system - is NOT innately superior."
    
               NOW you posit being outside BOTH your and my 'realities'
               to the extent that you can make such a judgement!!  You
               certainly can't judge whether OR NOT another 'reality'
               (given it exists) is superior or inferior or the same
               simply from inside your 'reality/system'.  And remember,
               by definition YOUR reality is the sum of all you experience,
               I should think.
    
    3. "YOU do not KNOW, nor can you UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING."
     
               Right you are! But remember, that does not mean that
               we cannot know anything!!  Within the limitations of
               our given assumptions and the methodology we choose to
               work them we can hold some things to be 'true'.  And
               logically say we have faith they are True!
    
               But you are quite correct to disclaim complete knowledge.
    
               Perhaps only techno weenies with Science 101 behind them 
               (and High Priests of the Religion of Scientism) make claims
               to complete or certain knowledge.  Remember, the pious base 
               their givens on faith they try to make logically consistant - 
               just like the non-pious must.
         
               The trap here is like the ole saw, "There is no such thing
               as a fact (and that's a fact)!"  The logically correct
               formulation is, "It appears that 'facts' are a construct
               of the human mind, useful for thinking but supported
               by assumptions at bottom."   Or 'facts' given various
               degrees of probability are working propositions.
    
               We're one step away from an attempt at a logical proof
               of the existence of God here.  Knowledge appears to exist
               in part, therefore implying there is a 'whole' knowledge
               that must be absolute - and since we are personal (minds,
               etc.) apprehending knowledge in part it/he/she must be
               infinite and personal also.  Vola!  The God of the Bible!
    
               This is another way of saying that you must get outside
               of a 'reality'/system to see/evaluate it all.  Remember
               Godel?  Can't get there from here (it seems).
    
               The epistomological method goes like this:  given ourselves
               and the 'world' outside us (the assumptions), what can
               we posit about 'reality' that is consistant with logic
               (another assumptional tool) and our perceptions about these 
               givens?  
    
    But I agree with your pointing out the limitations we labor under.
    
    Regards,
    
    Ken

    
    re:.3
    huh?
    

>                          -< welcome to plato's cave >-
    
     Is that like Plato's retreat?
    
     The Doctah

    Play dough's cave or no, the problem of knowing and knowledge
    remains central to all thought, aspirations, values, life.
    
    So much pop clap trap rap is served up as 'thinking' these days
    one can always make a living off it.  All you need is a room
    large enough to hold all the paying yahoos to scream or take off
    their cloths, etc. (blush) in and you become an 'authority' and
    rich.
    
    Ole P.T. was right.
    
    What I love is when the poor little muffins who's libidos were
    stilted under some form of Judeo-Christian ethics leap after any
    old faker to come down the pike and look back on their unspent
    youth and blame all their troubles on the 'unreasonableness' of
    the most reasonable of all metaphysical systems and those who
    misapplied or misunderstood it.
    
    Priding themselves on logic, they are breathtakingly illogical!
    
    I have a cousin named Gordon who is a prime example of this.  A
    family black sheep who rejects Christianity while looking for the
    'goddesss'/female principle "in all of us".  He was never the same
    after he came back from 'Nam.
    
    We need to be aware of the logical landscape around us is all I'm
    trying to say.  There are places for uncertainty and differing
    opinions.  But there are also places of high and low probability.  

    Regards,
    
    Ken
    

    re: .3
    
    interesting points.  My note was a start, though - not the entire
    thing.  I think if I could somehow CONVINCE them of those points, they
    might be willing to listen to other things I had to say, and
    communication could occur.  Otherwise, their perceptions will stand
    fast, and although they could be "talked about" they couldn't really be
    discussed or explored.
    
    -Jody
    

    I'd ask them why their circle contains only old white men.  Then I'd
    address each of what would be, I'm sure, many answers, singularly.

    I'd ask each of them to spend a few days living among members of
    each of the other groups, with no more than one other person of their
    own acquaintance present (ie, you can't take your power group with
    you.)  I'd want them to experience having to rely on people from these
    other groups for sustenance and comfort and basic human companionship.
    No weapons, no bodyguards, no special privileges -- just people. 
    
    Maybe then it would be harder for them to deny the full humanity
    of people who happen to be different from themselves in some way.
    Some of them will never see that we're all fully human, but maybe
    enough of them would understand that it would make a difference.