[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[cdt-l] Re: the concept of the CDT



Rafi Youatt" <rafi_youatt@hotmail.com> writes:

well, not to get into too deep a philosophical point here, but it seems like
you are on a slippery slope here of sorts. if you want to call ephemeral
things like rainbows or the wind just as real as trails, rocks, or trees,
then surely something like the Divide is also real, according to the same
criterion.

things we can touch are real, but you are also saying that things we cannot
touch are also real. we cannot touch a rainbow, nor can we put it down on
paper - but you think it is real nonetheless because you experience it -
visually, emotionally, whatever. a "rainbow" is also an abstract,
intellectual concept we use to give a concreteness to a set of phenomena
that we think we "know" exist - the Divide seems to be the same - why is it
less real?


Edward Abbey responds:

"Most of what we call science is this, and no more: verified but inferential
knowledge, grounded on unverifiable assumptions. 'If this, then that . . . '
A likely story. Probably true. But by no means certain, not in the sense
that this earth beneath my feet, these hills before my sight, that sky,
those clouds, those birds above are certain. I can see the sun rise each
morning; I have never seen the earth rotate. Therefore I do not acept the
doctrine of science as gospel truth and would be a fool to do so. Why betray
common sense for the sake of any theory, cult or doctrine? Why deny the
truth of living experience out of deference to some body of esoteric
knowledge, no matter how complex, coherent and conclusive it might seem to
be?"