Text archives Help


Re: [projectvrm] Does this list welcome natural law/rights wonks?


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Graham Hill < >
  • To: Crosbie Fitch < >
  • Cc: ProjectVRM list < >
  • Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Does this list welcome natural law/rights wonks?
  • Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 10:20:15 +0000
Hi Crosbie

Do we need to decide at all? 

This forum should be big enough to cater for all kinds of ideas, opinions and beliefs, irrespective of how different or incompatible they may be. There is no need to decide for one or another. This forum should also be adult enough to know when to take an errant discussion off-line. 

To misquote Voltaire, "I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

Best regards from Bishopsgate, London, Graham


Here's an opportunity for list subscribers to decide if natural law/rights
discussion is constructive to the VRM mission, or disruptive and not
conducive to progress.

As Swilson put it: "Insisting on physicality, and denying the possibility of
virtual powers and arrangements, is quite a state of denial. An ironical act
of imagination."

If I was to write something similar, it'd go more like this: "Insisting upon
the possibility of virtual powers, whilst denying physical limitations, is
quite a state of denial (of reality), and a victory of imagination over
pragmatism."

Are such polar opposites a sign that each should go their own way, or that
they should remain to sort out their differences?




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

§