>By the way, I do believe that all beliefs are based on faith, or assumptions,
>or axioms. Take your pick. You want to make some axioms out to
>be incredibly unreasonable while others (like the assumptions of Euclid)
>to be reasonable approximations based upon evidence. But, David, the
>minute you engage an argument with the phrase "assuming that..." you
>are in a realm where the "reasonableness" of on set of assumptions over
>another is ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE.
This reminds me of a story which I'll make up as I go along...
An industrial tycoon was surveying his empire of stinking factories
from his office on the top floor of a tower when he said to no-one
in particular, "My God, I am the greatest environmentalist this
world has ever seen!"
Nearby a V.P. was groveling and overheard his boss. He let out
a nervous chuckle and said, "Ha, good one boss."
"What do you mean? I'm serious," the CEO retorted.
"Surely you jest, boss," the V.P. stammered, averting his eyes.
"From here I can see our pipes pouring thousands of gallons of toxins
into those lakes every minute."
"Ah, well you see, your confusion arises from making an artificial
separation between man and nature. When you see that man is part
of nature, and cannot be otherwise, then you will also realize that
all the works of man are natural too."
And the V.P. was enlightened.
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/