Since my inaugural missive consisted largely of "comments on"; expediency and a misplaced sense of reciprocity suggested I offer up a few of my own cherished delusions this outing. Sadly, as most regular correspondents to SIGs in general understand all too well "original" ain't as easy as "snipe and snide". Which probably explains why the usual run of contributions are of the tried and trusted "You are a fool. / I most vigorously refute your swinish allegations." format. So more of the same I guess.
First though an apology. Theo apparently found "things" in what I said last time to "agree with". Noting that this seemingly runs contrary to accepted SIG protocol I apologise unreservedly for any confusion arising from my innocent faux pas. As a Mensan, I, like the majority of you, hold dear the notion that consensus is a myth fostered by those incapable of forming or holding an opinion worth rubbishing. Should such unfortunate circumstances again arise please bear in mind that coincidence, not intent, provides the cause.
Bit like Vijay (Parhar) really. I rather wonder though how, professing to lack "free-will" (I use the term loosely) Vijay can yet manage to have an opinion on the matter. Or any matter come to that. Of course it is predetermined (though by what, who or how ?) that I, as a "soft determinist" (free-will but limited options) would dissent. But it does seem as if, in this case, denial of possession implies possession. Maybe "free-will" is an illusion. But if it is, it's a good 'un.
However, I digress. I should be dragging an horse of mine own to the flaying, not taking vicarious pot shots. Which is a shame really, 'cos I'd rather have liked to have asked Philip Lloyd Lewis what makes him so enthusiastic about "Two Tier Reality". I mean, it seems pretty much self-evident that we are a part of the reality we occupy - and thus so are any perceptions of, or notions about, "it" we may have.
Come to that, if we are "Free-willed" (again I use the term with caution), aware, or otherwise granted the luxury of a subjective perspective, then, at our level of being at least, so in a sense is the reality we're part of.
Does then the question of "Divinity" revolve around "Free-will", with "aware reality" being that "something" more devotionally inclined sorts have variously taken as, or mistaken for "God" ? In which case, paraphrasing the religious cliché about "All things are in God. God is in all things", and substituting "reality,' for "god", wouldn't it make about as much sense to have "Two Tier Divinity" ? In either case though, doesn't the "Two Tier" bit only really come about because a part doesn't recognise the whole it's a part of ?
But I am an cute Stef ( erk !) , and this isn't the time to go into all that. So, in lieu of controversy - the mundane; and my vote, as it were, on Theo's editorial comments regarding format, etc. ie. grouping contributions by subject matter, chopping 'em about and what not....
As to whether Theo should exercise the old editorial prerogative or comment a month in arrears like the rest of us or not. Well, on the one hand you do make rather a lot of points, which, arguably, rob the rest of us of ammunition. On the other hand it does "start the ball rolling" - and this is supposed to be Mensa, wherein opinion, like ego, is never in short supply. So we should be able to find our own stones to throw even if you do get in first at the rock pile.
Though I'm no great fan of "endless replies" - there comes in any argument a point where folk either have to agree to disagree or else come to blows - cutting debate short doesn't seem altogether satisfactory. For one thing it reduces the chances of "spin-offs" developing and for another it means some folk will claim victory by default. In the case of those who write in a narrative style it can completely destroy what little meaning they might be trying to get across. And who needs their intellectual fodder pre-digested anyway ? Leave 'em whole, print and be damned. Better to settle issues, however long it takes. Within reason. I suppose it depends really on whether something is generating new potential as it develops - or simply dying a lingering death.
Anyway, having failed to find a single original topic, and ignoring just about all Theo’s sage editorial advice concerning making one or two coherent points rather than skimming the whole pond, time to sign off methinks.
Stef Gula
Previous Article (in Commensal 89)
Theo
Note : "an cute Stef" : That’s how it was written ... ! Ed.