From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #442 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, December 1 2003 Volume 12 : Number 442 Today's Subjects: ----------------- RE: Let's hear it for the artist ["Bachman, Michael" ] re: let's hear it... [John Barrington Jones ] What is the sound of one brow beating? ["Rex.Broome" ] re: let's hear it... [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] re: let's hear it... [Capuchin ] Re: let's hear... [Eb ] re: let's hear it... [Eb ] off topic: i pod ["Mike Hooker" ] Re: let's hear... ["Brian" ] re: let's hear it... [Sebastian Hagedorn ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:27:36 -0500 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: Let's hear it for the artist >I'd be curious to learn which was your first RH album. Fegmania! Michael B. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:50:51 -0500 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: FW: Let's hear it for the artist A Can of Bees B Underwater Moonlight A+ Invisible Hits B Black Snake Diamond Role A- Groovy Dec[a/o]y C I Often Dream of Trains A Fegmania! B+ My first exposure to Robyn in 1985 Element of Light B+ Gotta Let This Hen Out! B Invisible Hitchcock B A Globe of Frogs B- Queen Elvis B Eye A- Perspex Island C+ Respect B- You & Oblivion B- Moss Elixir A Mossy Liquor B Storefront Hitchcock B Jewels for Sophia B+ A Star for Bram B Nextdoorland B Side Three B+ Luxor C+ _________________________________________________________________ Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:52:58 -0700 From: Sweet & Tender Hooligan Subject: Maddening Question (No Robyn/Music Content) If there is anyone out there who can help with this, I would be most, most grateful. Here's the facts: - - I'm working in a MS Excel spreadsheet. - - I am aware of Excel's 255-character-per-cell display limit. (As I understand it, each cell can hold up to 32,000 characters, but will only display/print 255 characters.) This is a major pain in the petunski, as most of my cells contain more than 255 characters. Therefore, most of my spreadsheet shows cells that look like this: ###############. I have to look in the formula bar to see the actual contents of each cell. - - In cell C35, I have 1,055 characters - all of which are displayed in the cell. This particular cell also prints the actual contents of the cell. This is the only cell that behaves in this manner. - - I have checked the properties of my cells under FORMAT > CELLS, and the properties are identical for all the cells. Does anyone have any idea why this particular cell is being so generous? It would be marvelous if I could get the rest of the cells to behave the same way, but I can find nothing in the online help to indicate that this is possible. I have Googled around for an answer, and I find nothing. I'm tearing my hair out over this. Can anyone help? = s&th hooligan@apostate.com "To me, fat guys are like the chirping canaries in the mine shaft of freedom." - Dennis Miller ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:05:51 -0600 From: Devin Lee Ens Subject: re: let's hear it... "Natalie Jacobs" wrote: > >Having an "academic" perspective necessitates adoring Jewels for Sophia? > > I have an "academic" perspective (BA with High Honors in English from the > University of Michigan, thankyouverymuch) and I think Jewels for Sophia > blows. But what are you listening for in RH? If I'm looking for emotional angst, then of course Eye will be my pick, pop fun, maybe Fegmania!, etc. I wasn't talking about having education, I was talking about what I look for in RH. I do not have an acedemic approach to the B-52's, I just enjoy them. Anyways, what are your specific complaints about "Jewels"? I'm still confused why you think it "sucks", not that aesthetic opinions necessarily need to be justified. James Dignan wrote: you should listen to some Chris Knox, > though. I have one album by Chris Knox and I love it. Blows my mind, dude. Eb wrote: > You're working way too hard at it, dude. You may enjoy RH on whatever level you wish. As I said at the outset, I was concerned no one would care about the things I consider most interesting about Hitchcock's music. Figured if I'd find anyone who was interested in doing some analysis, it'd be here, since most people in the world just haven't heard of the guy. What I don't get is why some people get their hackles up about someone attempting to get as much as possible out of their favourite songwriter's work? Capuchin wrote: > Give me "On the black felini sails, tattered rags that hangs on nails" or > "you the mistress of your chair, I the seargant of your hair" anytime. Could I hear you're interpretation of the above? It is a fine lyric, but perhaps not simplistc and obvious enough for me to tackle. > > THEN there's "Dark Princess" which seems like a (relatively) > > straight-forward song about mastrubation, > > Um, would this view of yours change at all if you knew he refered to a > particular human being as "The Dark Princess" regularly in speech? I'd take anything into account I heard, of course. The lines which point towards the song being about mastrubation are "simplistic and obvious" naturally, "Silohuetted, you're hard to beat" "Seven minutes and you're released" "I seen your footsteps, I seen the snow" (on this theory, 'snow' could be semen-crust) "I'm clutching your sleeve" (again, on this theory, the sleeve could be a foreskin). Whatever the song is actually about, there seems to be a conscious effort to lace it with mastrubatory language (which is hardly unique to this track). > I think that ANY Robyn album can be picked apart to that degree, > especially with the simplistic, pop-psych, pseudo-freudian bullshit that > you appear to use here. Respect is one that I need to look at more deeply, that's for sure. I think the pseudo-Freudian stock of metaphors is precisely the one that RH likes to draw from. I think one of the things that makes Jewels different is fewer of the songs are personal. Eye tells me about a failed relationship. Moss Elixir mostly tells me about RH's own psychology, but Jewels has more, er, objective material. At least in "Mexican God", "The Cheese Alarm", "Viva! Sea-Tac", and "NASA Clapping". Of course, when it comes right down to it, I'm a sucker for a good love song, and "I Feel Beautiful" is my favourite. >(re: each track perfect production) > Huh?!? I disagree totally here. Groovy Decoy, Respect, and Queen Elvis > all have this trait. Respect, yes. GD, not so much, I feel. The album as a whole has a sound rather than each song being given a treatment unlike any of the others, which I feel is more true of Jewels. And Jewels isn't just Big production, it's appropriate production, nothing is overdone. > I don't see how you could possibly hold this view and still come up with > some of the interpretations you wrote in this post which you've injected > with your own certainty about transgendered references where they don't > exist. (They're all over his work, sure, but you're really grasping on > some of that.) I never mean to sound certain in lyric interpretation. I'm throwing out conjectures and hoping I can make it work. It's fun. I have yet to hear anything resembling counter-interpretations, tho. All I hear are people saying on one hand that I'm pointing out the obvious (and I don't mind if it's obvious, I just thought someone should bring it up, otherwise this would be like a Shakespeare fanclub that does nothing but talk about how much Mel Gibson's Hamlet sucked), and then saying the opposite, that I'm reaching. And then throwing in a bunch of abuse in response to an offense I am entirely unaware of. But I've never quite figured out internet ettiquette. > > (Santa Claus crossed with Superman and multiplied to infinity is > > supposed to be MORE BELIEVABLE than the existence of Santa Claus or > > Superman?! Give me a break!) > > If that's how sum up the God hypothesis, you really do lack subtlety or > flexibility of thought. I'm no theist, but I understand that theory in a > way that does not conflict with my sense of reality. You could, too, if > you weren't so closed-minded against the notion. > Well, this is a larger discussion which has no place here. I have nothing like a "closed mind" on the subject, I've spent a lot of time studying it very closely and even more debating it with everything from open minded theistic philosophers to hardcore Christian fanatics. The God concept (that of an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, freewilled creator) juet IS internally contradictory. The only way around that is to accept that faith is belief in the absurd, and choose faith. If your concept of God is compatible with your sense of reality, you have a strange sense of reality, a modified concept of God, or you just haven't thought about it hard enough. I recommend Michael Martin's tome, "A Philosophical Justification of Atheism". It is dry and analytic, but covers the issue from almost every angle. Eb wrote: > > Well, it's probably safe to assume that Jeme has browbeaten yet > another subscriber into prolonged lurkdom. > I'm afraid 'Jeme' has offered nothing to make me feel beaten, and he doesn't seem to be aiming at the brow. If you don't hear from me, it's because I don't have time to write. Although, if all I get is harassment every time I try to get some discussions going, I may just give up and warn the RH fans I've been converting against getting mixed up with the so-called fan club, "Anagrams and anecdotes, fine, just don't try discussing the songs themselves... makes'em nervous or something" (I apologise to all polite or silent members of the list for their implication in this sweeping characterisation of the digest--I'm just being flippant). devo amicus ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:30:49 -0800 (PST) From: John Barrington Jones Subject: re: let's hear it... On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Devin Lee Ens wrote: > released" "I seen your footsteps, I seen the snow" (on this theory, 'snow' > could be semen-crust) "I'm clutching your sleeve" (again, on this theory, the Can someone check the archives for me? I believe this is the first use of the phrase "semen-crust" on fegmaniax. =jbj= np: Devo "Jerkin' Back And Forth" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:42:15 -0800 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: What is the sound of one brow beating? A Can of Bees B Underwater Moonlight A+ Invisible Hits B+ Black Snake Diamond Role A Groovy Dec[a/o]y C I Often Dream of Trains A+ Fegmania! B- Element of Light A Gotta Let This Hen Out! B+ Invisible Hitchcock C+ A Globe of Frogs B+ Queen Elvis B- Eye A+ Perspex Island B+ Respect B+ You & Oblivion B- Moss Elixir A+ Mossy Liquor A- Storefront Hitchcock B- Jewels for Sophia B- A Star for Bram C+ Nextdoorland A+ Side Three B+ Luxor B See, I really really like the music of Mr. Robyn Hitchcock, as it turns out. My first: Globe of Frogs, on, yes, cassette, purchased and listened to the same day as Rubber Soul. A mighty experience. The cassette got mangled at one point and I lovingly transferred the tape reels to a new casing and lettered it up all proper-like. Years later I had the CD but retained the cassette case because our friends had given us this upside-down glass replica of a human head in which lived two tiny frogs (you fed them through the open neck)... the cassette case sat in front of it identifying it as "The Globe of Frogs". Nuppy to Eb: >>Dude, you just told denis he was working way too hard at it. -Come >>on man! Come on fegs! whether I agree with Devo or not -Being on a >> Robyn Hitchcock list- I'd far rather read his interpretations of RH songs >>than read about most* of the non RH discussions that go on here. Yeah... the poor guy really got jumped on for being on topic. It made me feel unaccountably sad. Have a heart, Betty, and suchlike. Rex, kinda sad already, his meds not having kicked in yet ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:48:05 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: re: let's hear it... Quoting Devin Lee Ens : > What I don't get is why some people get their hackles up about > someone > attempting to get as much as possible out of their favourite songwriter's > work? Beats me. Or beats off, more like. > All I hear are people saying > on one hand that I'm pointing out the obvious (and I don't mind if it's > obvious, I just thought someone should bring it up, otherwise this would be > like a Shakespeare fanclub that does nothing but talk about how much Mel > Gibson's Hamlet sucked), and then saying the opposite, that I'm reaching. And > then throwing in a bunch of abuse in response to an offense I am entirely > unaware of. But I've never quite figured out internet ettiquette. In this case, it's not your etiquette that's in question, it's Jeme's. Where I come from (planet Earth, since you ask), it's considered rude to belligerantly go off on someone's opinions, without actually explaining any grounds for disagreement, for no apparent reason. 'Lessen you stoled his girlfriend or sumpin we don't know 'bout. I mean, I may not agree with your interpretations, or your prose style, or your taste in shoes, but that's not going to make me hurl abuse in your direction. FWIW, it isn't *quite* a contradiction to claim both that you overreach and that your interpretations are obvious, though. I might have an idee fixe, like say a notion that all rock songs are about sex (obvious, even often true), but still overreach and strain to interpret every last detail of every rock song as being about sex. Still 'n' all, most of us, I'd say, are happy to let our geek flags fly, and interpret songs however we see fit. Most of us will jump in with corrections and emendations to other people's ideas, but without giving the impression that, Kansan-like, they've interpreted those ideas in a wholly personal universe, and as some sort of insult, yet, worthy of contempt-heaping on a Mr. Creosote-like scale. > Well, this is a larger discussion which has no place here. I have nothing > like > a "closed mind" on the subject, I've spent a lot of time studying it very > closely and even more debating it with everything from open minded theistic > philosophers to hardcore Christian fanatics. The God concept (that of an > omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, freewilled creator) juet IS internally > contradictory. The only way around that is to accept that faith is belief in> > the absurd, and choose faith. I agree - we should all worship Eliza Dushku, whether we know how to pronounce her surname or not. FWIW, I've yet to hear a satisfactory resolution of the contradictions among the generally accepted attributes of God you list above. Faith, though - or some vague sort of religious system generally - is more complex than simply accepting the absurd w/o thinking about it. We do it in our daily lives, as well - for example, reasoning that even though it's unlikely that something is true or will be true, things will be better if we act *as if* they are or could be. Me, I only avoid using the word "atheist" to describe myself because of the folks who've made it into a religion of its own, but I can still see the usefulness of some religious ideas. And certainly, religious belief, or a sense of the spiritual (to be even more vague), seems to be a constituent part of what it is to be human. ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: sex, drugs, revolt, Eskimos, atheism :: np: Those Bastard Souls _Between Debt & Departure_ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:55:43 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: re: let's hear it... Quoting Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey : > come from (planet Earth, since you ask), it's considered rude to > belligerantly > go off on someone's opinions, without actually explaining any grounds for > disagreement, for no apparent reason. > > 'Lessen you stoled his girlfriend or sumpin we don't know 'bout. Or unless you don't know how to use your spell-checker and left in "belligerantly" even though you told the spell-checker to correct it. Then you deserve vast, Himalayan quantities of ripe, rotting abuse, delivered direct to your door within thirty minutes, guaranteed. ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: sex, drugs, revolt, Eskimos, atheism ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:14:03 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: re: let's hear it... On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Devin Lee Ens wrote: > Capuchin wrote: > > > THEN there's "Dark Princess" which seems like a (relatively) > > > straight-forward song about mastrubation, > > > > Um, would this view of yours change at all if you knew he refered to a > > particular human being as "The Dark Princess" regularly in speech? > > I'd take anything into account I heard, of course. The lines which point > towards the song being about mastrubation are "simplistic and obvious" > naturally, "Silohuetted, you're hard to beat" "Seven minutes and you're > released" "I seen your footsteps, I seen the snow" (on this theory, > 'snow' could be semen-crust) "I'm clutching your sleeve" (again, on this > theory, the sleeve could be a foreskin). See, here we go. This is exactly what I meant in my last post. "Silhouetted, you're hard to beat" is just a simple reference to his appreciation of her silhouette. The "hard to beat" part is just an easy rhyme. "Seven minutes and you're released" is probably referencing sex, but there's no reason to believe it's solo. "I seen your footsteps, I seen the snow" has an obvious literal interpretation and probably references a specific personal memory. "I'm clutching your sleeve" might possibly bring up oedipal issues in his romantic love, but it's clearly about hanging onto and following another person... the same person referenced in the next line "you're further inside me than you'd ever believe". These consecutive lines imply the same "you" and so it makes no sense to say that his own penis was far inside himself. > Whatever the song is actually about, there seems to be a conscious > effort to lace it with mastrubatory language (which is hardly unique to > this track). I don't think so. It's just that there are so many thousands of euphemisms for masturbation, you can hardly speak without letting one fly (like semen, sure -- see?). You sound like the fellow from Blackadder (or was it Monty Python?) who keeps saying, "Sounds a bit rude, doesn't it?" It doesn't take any effort at all to interpret a line sexually. There are literary and cultural references galore. > >(re: each track perfect production) > > Huh?!? I disagree totally here. Groovy Decoy, Respect, and Queen Elvis > > all have this trait. > > Respect, yes. Then your claim that Jewels For Sophia was first is erroneous. > > I don't see how you could possibly hold this view and still come up > > with some of the interpretations you wrote in this post which you've > > injected with your own certainty about transgendered references where > > they don't exist. (They're all over his work, sure, but you're really > > grasping on some of that.) > > I never mean to sound certain in lyric interpretation. I'm throwing out > conjectures and hoping I can make it work. It's fun. But that's not exactly accepting that "things are always what they seem". I suppose you could take the line to mean that your interpretation is the only thing you'll ever know, hence that is your reality -- what it seems to you is all it can be to you, but that strips the philosophy of any hope of human communication. I would think that any other interpretation of the line (as a metaphysical philosophy -- which I don't think you should be culling from rock lyrics) would require you to leave all but the literal interpretation of lyrics until such time as you are told by the author that the lyric was a metaphor or otherwise. > I have yet to hear anything resembling counter-interpretations, tho. Gads, we could play this game for weeks. Pick a song and a thesis and a reasonably educated person can invent an interpretation that fits the song into the supposed meaning. > All I hear are people saying on one hand that I'm pointing out the > obvious [snip] > , and then saying the opposite, that I'm reaching. See Jeffrey's relatively eloquent explanation of how this is not contradictory. > And then throwing in a bunch of abuse in response to an offense I am > entirely unaware of. I don't know what abuse you're referencing, but I can certainly understand someone being offended by your condescending remarks about us not being "academic" enough for you or that there's something about being Canadian that puts you closer to Robyn than you could feel to any American. > > If that's how sum up the God hypothesis, you really do lack subtlety > > or flexibility of thought. I'm no theist, but I understand that > > theory in a way that does not conflict with my sense of reality. You > > could, too, if you weren't so closed-minded against the notion. > > Well, this is a larger discussion which has no place here. You've been lurking for five years and you think there's a discussion which has no place here? > I have nothing like a "closed mind" on the subject, I've spent a lot of > time studying it very closely and even more debating it with everything > from open minded theistic philosophers to hardcore Christian fanatics. How about discussing it with non-theistic folks? Those who believe with faith don't need to have rational understanding of their God. > The God concept (that of an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, > freewilled creator) juet IS internally contradictory. It defies human logic, perhaps. But there's nothing you could do to convince me that the universe operates by our brain's wiring. > The only way around that is to accept that faith is belief in the > absurd, and choose faith. The definition of faith that I like is that "faith is proof of things otherwise unprovable". That is to say, faith is what folks use to accept something as fact that cannot be established or contradicted otherwise. > If your concept of God is compatible with your sense of reality, you > have a strange sense of reality, a modified concept of God, or you just > haven't thought about it hard enough. Perhaps it's my strange sense of reality, then. My reality is one in which human understanding is limited to the physical structure of the brain which, near as we can tell from our limited perspective, evolved through a biological process. As any serious biologist will tell, evolution is a process that favors functionality, but does not pursue any kind of engineering excellence. (The example of the vertebrae is a fine and oft-cited one. It seems that every vertebrate creature has back problems... not just the upright ones.) The brain is just good enough to provide a functional view of the world that prevents suicidal activity (though it doesn't seem to take much to push a functioning brain into this malfunctioning territory -- which just furthers the argument that it's an inadequate machine). Logic is a human abstraction that attempts to describe the function of the brain's electro-chemical circuitry. This logic applies to our perception of the world because it evolved to do so. However, there is no reason to have evolved a logic that could encompass the imperceptible (be it sub- or supernatural -- meaning outside the natural, or perceptible, world). When someone says God defies logic, I say "Of course!". But that's not God's fault, it's a possible failing of logic. That said, this imperceptible supernatural world, by its very definition, can have no perceivable influence on the natural world and, therefore, is irrelevant to our lives. In other words, there might well be a God (or many gods), but we can't know and it doesn't matter. > I'm afraid 'Jeme' has offered nothing to make me feel beaten, and he > doesn't seem to be aiming at the brow. Well, that's a relief. But why would you put my name in quotes? J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:21:06 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: let's hear... > > Well, it's probably safe to assume that Jeme has browbeaten yet >> another subscriber into prolonged lurkdom. >> >> Eb > >???? >Dude, you just told denis he was working way too hard at it. -Come on >man! My reply was "critical." Jeme's was an assassination. And now *you* had to go and get Devin's name wrong. Oh, the indignity. ;) Eb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:32:31 -0800 From: Eb Subject: re: let's hear it... >Devin: >I'd take anything into account I heard, of course. The lines which point >towards the song being about mastrubation are "simplistic and obvious" >naturally, "Silohuetted, you're hard to beat" "Seven minutes and you're >released" "I seen your footsteps, I seen the snow" (on this theory, 'snow' >could be semen-crust) "I'm clutching your sleeve" (again, on this theory, the >sleeve could be a foreskin). Whatever the song is actually about, there seems >to be a conscious effort to lace it with mastrubatory language >(which is hardly >unique to this track). Oh lordy. Snow = semen crust? Sleeve = foreskin? You *really* are working too hard at it. I remember one of my only English essays which got a "B" during high school. We had been learning about Jungian archetypes, and I was deep in my "Hesse period." We had to write an in-class essay about some short story -- it might have been by Joyce, but I'm not sure anymore. And I ended up going on and on trivially about the Jungian implications of the mere "blackness" of a ship in the story. I took way too long to finish, was late to my next class as a result and, still, received a richly deserved "B." This is the memory you evoke. >Although, if all I get is harassment every time I try to >get some discussions going, I may just give up and warn the RH fans I've been >converting against getting mixed up with the so-called fan club, "Anagrams and >anecdotes, fine, just don't try discussing the songs themselves... makes'em nervous or something" Oh dear. You do make it hard to be polite. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:43:22 -0500 From: "Mike Hooker" Subject: off topic: i pod hi, i think there are some on the list with an ipod. my daughter wants one for christmas and i have a few questions. does it pay to get the 20 gig or bigger? seems to me 10 gig of mp3's ought to hold anybody. she has a pc, not a mac. i think the ipod comes with a firewire cable? should i purchase the USB cable or blow that money on a firewire card? lastly, whats a good place, good price to buy one? thanks take at look at my music trading list ( new URL) http://hometown.aol.com/mhooker216/myhomepage/index.html have fun, Mike Hooker ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:45:01 -0800 From: "Brian" Subject: Re: let's hear... > >???? > >Dude, you just told denis he was working way too hard at it. -Come on > >man! Eb: > My reply was "critical." 'Jeme's' was an assassination. Agreed. > And now *you* had to go and get Devin's name wrong. Oh, the indignity. ;) Yoinks! ;) - -Nuppy - -- Brian nightshadecat@mailbolt.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:55:33 +0100 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: re: let's hear it... - -- Capuchin is rumored to have mumbled on Montag, 1. Dezember 2003 12:14 Uhr -0800 regarding re: let's hear it...: > My reality is one in which human understanding is limited to the physical > structure of the brain which, near as we can tell from our limited > perspective, evolved through a biological process. As any serious > biologist will tell, evolution is a process that favors functionality, but > does not pursue any kind of engineering excellence. (The example of the > vertebrae is a fine and oft-cited one. It seems that every vertebrate > creature has back problems... not just the upright ones.) The brain is > just good enough to provide a functional view of the world that prevents > suicidal activity (though it doesn't seem to take much to push a > functioning brain into this malfunctioning territory -- which just > furthers the argument that it's an inadequate machine). > > Logic is a human abstraction that attempts to describe the function of the > brain's electro-chemical circuitry. This logic applies to our perception > of the world because it evolved to do so. However, there is no reason to > have evolved a logic that could encompass the imperceptible (be it sub- or > supernatural -- meaning outside the natural, or perceptible, world). > > When someone says God defies logic, I say "Of course!". But that's not > God's fault, it's a possible failing of logic. > > That said, this imperceptible supernatural world, by its very definition, > can have no perceivable influence on the natural world and, therefore, is > irrelevant to our lives. > > In other words, there might well be a God (or many gods), but we can't > know and it doesn't matter. Everything else aside, I thought this was very well put. - -- Sebastian Hagedorn Ehrenfeldg|rtel 156, 50823 Kvln, Germany http://www.spinfo.uni-koeln.de/~hgd/ "Being just contaminates the void" - Robyn Hitchcock ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #442 ********************************