This may often be true, especially when we are influenced by
unexamined (or, for that matter, openly accepted) prejudices.
However, most of us have also had the experience of nuetral and open
mind whereupon we go about searching for an answer that is
satisfactory, and, at least at the outset, the outcome is uncertain.
After searching, questioning, and probing, we may all find different
answers to what seemed like the same question originally. It will
most likely illustrate that we are simply all a little off target --
that the universal truth of the Universe and the Meaning of Life
is a tricky thing to get ahold of. But having all done the work
to get where we got, we could then sit down and have a really
interesting discussion. I submit to you that the discussion is far
less meaningful and interesting if had among people who decided the
answer without ever even going looking for it.
So, you might say, who am I to decide that Bargyla has not examined
her beliefs? No one in particular, I suppose, I just haven't seen
evidence of it. Just like she always says that 50% of the population
will get cancer without showing us how she got there (and in fact
when she was given contrary information, it didn't seem to make much
of a difference).
I know that many of you reacted strongly and negatively to my recent
long post on religious dogma and spiritual beliefs (Misha was
probably just the spokesperson for many). I heard that you thought I
was the real judgemental and narrow minded protagonist of the story.
I gotcha. I appologize for being less diplomatic than I might have
been. I was feeling brave, and frank at that moment and not afraid
to "stir it up." Just for the record, my intention was not to
invalidate Bargyla as a person (or to "shut her up" -- I'm not a
bully). Questioning the validity of a person's science (if you will
permit me to use the idea of "spiritual science") is not the same as
saying the person him/herself doesn't have worth. (Btw, the original
meaning of "I'm ok, you're ok" is the recognition of the basic worth
of one's self and others.) My intention was to point out that there
are beliefs which are taken in unexamined and those which are
thoroughly questioned and examined before they are allowed to
permeate the believer. Put me on the side of Socrates who preferred
hemlock to living the unexamined life. I don't think you should
accept organic agriculture either based on blind faith -- or anything
else for that matter. Here's my basic belief: the end does not
justify the means. (If the means are blind and unexamined, then the
end is of not much value.)
Anita (having probably perched myself at the end of a limb again and
considering the possibility that I will be misunderstood and will
offend again, but taking that chance.)
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail