"Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:NQg_8.112483$UT.7246917 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Jimbo wrote in message ...
> >
> >"Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >news:5l1_8.111386$UT.7143617 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...> >> Jimbo wrote in message ...
> >> >
> >> >"Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:kzJZ8.37707$Iu6.2150051 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...> >> >>
> >> >> Jimbo wrote in message ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:4XGZ8.109814$UT.7020136 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...> >> >> >
> >> >> ><snipped>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> in this actuality, there's the necessity to explore the larger
> >stuff.
> >> >> >which,
> >> >> >> with respect to the Word of Christ, is what i do.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "fundamentalist' interpretations get-into-trouble because they
> 'stop
> >> at
> >> >> >the
> >> >> >> interface'.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> often, with Tragic results with respect to which most folks are
> >> >familiar.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >What specific "Tragic results" as a result of "fundamentalist'
> >> >> >interpretations" are you referring to?
> >> >>
> >> >> 'segregation', 'apartheid', lynching, 'religious' warfare [such as
> that
> >> >> which is being waged against the U. S.], the Troubles in Northern
> >> Ireland,
> >> >> the threat of 'nuclear' war in South Asia, in general, all 'us vs.
> >them'
> >> >> stuff.
> >> >>
> >> >> if all of History is searched, the list is very-long.
> >> >>
> >> >> by 'fundamentalism', i mean exactly that which i discussed in the
> >> portions
> >> >> of my prior post that you 'erased'.
> >> >>
> >> >> seeing the 'interface' and 'thinking' that it's 'everything.
> >> >>
> >> >> it's not.
> >> >>
> >> >> it never is.
> >> >>
> >> >> what is, at least with respect to this or that instance of 'language
> >[say
> >> >a
> >> >> 'sentence'], is the larger stuff that is what underpins 'language'.
> >> >>
> >> >> Tragedy happens when folks establish 'rules' ['laws', 'treaties',
> >> >> 'agreements', etc.], and, then, 'forget' about the larger stuff in
> >order
> >> >to
> >> >> adhere to the 'letter of the law'.
> >> >>
> >> >> in such, reality is forsaken, while mere words,
> infinitely-replaceable,
> >> >are
> >> >> 'elevated' to the status of 'everything'.
> >> >>
> >> >> Tragedy happens because of the forsaking of reality that's inherent.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >I think fundamentalist **MISinterpretations** are responsible for
> >"Tragic
> >> >results".
> >> >
> >> What specific "fundamentalist **MISinterpretations**" are you
referring
> >> to?
> >>
> > 'segregation', 'apartheid', lynching, 'religious' warfare [such as that
> >which is being waged against the U. S.], the Troubles in Northern
Ireland,
> > the threat of 'nuclear' war in South Asia, in general, all 'us vs. them'
> >stuff. if all of History is searched, the list is very-long.
>>> these are not "fundamentalist **MISinterpretations**".
>> these are Consequences of "fundamentalist **MISinterpretations**", which,
> "fundamentalist **MISinterpretations**", constitute the '"nterpretations"
> to which strictly-literal-lfolks ["fundamentalists"] adhere.
>> the whole 'point' of my earlier post was that folks act on their
> interpretations because they experience their interpretations as
coinciding
> with 'reality', when they are, in fact, only the stuff of the 'language'
> interface. coincidence with reality exists, if at all, at a deeper
'level',
> so it's good to operate at that deeper 'level' before acting in ways that
> by-produce Consequences such as those to which i referred.
>> in your latest post, two posts in the thread beyond this one, you [again]
> 'eliminate' context, and then 'make-up' whatever direction it is in which
> you want to 'steer' the discussion, in the way of some wasteful 'dance',
not
> 'bothering' to actually deal with anything that's actually in anything
i've
> posted.
>> i'd answer you in a trying-to-be-informative way, if you'd just query' in
a
> way that explicitly states a question, explicitly with respect to stuff
that
> i've actually posted.
>> it's because you did not, and because you remove contextual information
that
> i'd provided, that i Chose to 'stand on what i've posted'.
>> one can See-Clearly, through the 'lens' of the 'moving away from',
inherent
> in your posts, that your interests lie somewhere other than in the stuff
of
> discrete-information-exchange.
>> as Lincoln said, "A man has not time to spend half his life in quarrels."
>> k. p. collins
>
Lincoln must have been referring to someone other than you.
