[HPforGrownups] Re: On the nature of theories/MAGIC DISHWASHER

[eloiseherisson at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 47662

In a message dated 03/12/2002 18:53:48 GMT Standard Time, 
greywolf1 at jazzfree.com writes:


> Hope that helps,
> 
> Grey Wolf, who won't bother with the rest of the post - the viewpoints 
> are simply too different and he know no easy way of explaining his 
> point of view to Eloise
> 

I agree that our viewpoints are very different, but I confess that I am 
disappointed that you simply 'won't bother' with the rest of a post that took 
considerable time, effort, and thought, even to explain points which I 
specifically asked you to amplify because I simply couldn't understand what 
they meant. 

The bottom line seems to be that not only are our viewpoints different, but 
more importantly, we're not speaking the same language. Or at least, we 
define fundamental concepts in different ways and use fundamental words to 
mean different things. That was one of the things I was hoping to clarify in 
my original post, so to that end I have succeeded, at least.

Oh, and the onion ring thing......
Well, apart from the fact that onions make me cry...;-)

I naturally agree that there are a group of texts carrying some authority and 
that these may be placed into some sort of a hierarchy. These texts are of 
course very useful in shedding light on our interpretations and theorising 
and we metathinking miscreants of course *do* use them. But I would still not 
define them as *canon*. I would personally say that they have the same weight 
as the Apocrypha does to Anglicans and Lutherans in relation to the canon of 
Scripture (useful for instruction but not for the establishment of doctrine). 


Eloise
Thinking that the words 'hurt' or 'insulted' should really figure in this 
post somewhere, but only being able to summon up a vague annoyance since she 
supposes that Grey Wolf didn't realise quite how his words would come across.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]