Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:47:36 EST
From:         blomberg cepeda <ST402747@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU>
Subject:      Re: God and Dowsing
Comments: To: words-l@uga.cc.uga.edu

Posted by Tony @ Brownvm

>>Don't you have enough faith in your common-sense to dismiss the
>>latter out of hand as pseudish paranormal bullshit?  To even give
>>credence to its possibility shows you to be as weak minded as those
>>who believe it unequivocally.
>
>What *are* you getting at, Graham ?  Of course I have faith in my
>own common sense.

Well, I'm glad you both knew enough to use the word "faith", although I'm not
sure you would draw all the, er, logical conclusions. A blind faith in
rationality is in itself a faith barely distinguishable from its more rational
brethren; indeed, it tends to be a bit more intolerant of the competition than
most.
       I personally find some forms of irrational belief more easily
reproducible in my own life than those of certain shibboleths of rationality.
Maybe I'm that one in however many hundreds who, by complete chance, perfectly
fits my horoscope, but that doesn't explain the uncanniness of my very
infrequent resorts to tarot (3 times in life) and the I (once a year if I push
it). Say what you may, but it works for me, better than numerology, Judeo-
Christian theology, or Newtonian physics (though that may just be an inner ear
problem).

On the other hand, the depth of your need not to believe reminds me of that
most brilliant, and most touching, of pre-Heisenberg religion debunkings,
Freud's Future of an Illusion. At the end of his often insightful (albeit
idiosyncratic) analysis of the received truth, he ends with a paean to the new
god Logos that his heartrendingly 19th-century in its innocent belief: "The
voice of the intellect is a soft one, but it does not rest until it has gained
a hearing. Finally, after a countless succession of rebuffs, it succeeds. This
is one of the few points on which one may be optimistic about the future of
mankind."
      Next page: "And secondly: observe the difference between your attitude
to illusions and mine. You have to defend the religious illusion with all your
might. If it becomes discredited--and indeed the threat to it is great enough--
then your world collapses. There is nothing left for you but to despair of
everything, of civilization and the future of mankind. From that bondage I am,
we are, free. Since we are prepared to renounced a good part of our infantile
wishes, we can bear it if a few of our expectations turn out to be illusions."
      And this from the man who not only knew the meaning of, but indeed
*defined*, the word "projection."
      Science has not proven a panacea. Indeed, at its most rarefied level, it
has been turning toward the irrational: it is striking how many physicists
turn to the east.
      What struck me, Graham, about your thermoloculatory exchange with Ruth
was how glaringly your own insecurities showed through. Your insistence on
all or nothing, your inability to let things go at so many points even after
you said you had ended, demonstrated all the hallmarks of the typical
fundamentalist, which you are, just of a different faith, but one which also
has a jealous god.
      I passionately agree with almost every point you were making. I also
believe that people like Ruth can be dangerous. But who were going to convince?
Ruth? I think not. All you were doing was raising a doubt in the convinceable
about who was the rational one, about which one was dangerous. You were
wielding all my convictions in a way which made me want to wash my hands of
them. Ruth may be obtuse, but in her methodical and calm obtuseness she looked
like a rock of calm before your sound and fury. It was your harangues, sir,
which were delivered with downright Nuremburgian bombast.
     I am far too busy this week, what with grant apps, midterms, a workshop
presentation, visits to Widener, and my first Wordsler FTF (12:30--remind me
just to order a salad, Judith;-) ), to engage in another flame war; non-
combustible responses are welcome, though.
     And Ruth, if Graham starts again when he wakes up, just ignore him.
     Please.
                               Imploring yours,
                        blomberg "recently accused of being Swedish" cepeda