Shwa

But are you that certain about what people have faith in? It seems to me that faith is a response to the anagogic effect, both of which are certainly not fictional. We can argue first causes, but it will degenerate into the sort of 'quality of question' argument that Michael Hardner has pointed out, or a point of terms that TimG is proposing. But the faithful adhere to a set of actions, behaviours or thinking patterns - all "man made" - that are intended to produce the anagogic effect whether it is 'divine' inspiration or a simple feeling of social security. The anagogy is the 'proof' of their faith (or the proof their faith requires to continue it) and it is indeed very real. It has produced an overwhelming body of evidence in testament to its reality. I am not talking only about religion, but all creative human endeavours although religion seems to be the most sophisticated of these anagogic effect producing activities at this time.

This is all well and fine if it were not for anagogy. How do you explain that? Well you may explain it away as a function of some bio-electrical impulse that is a response to some stimulus. But you would be explaining it what it is, not it's effects which have had an undeniable profound influence on practically every single human being (and culture) since anything was ever recorded. And anagogy is not restricted to religion, but shares it's profound effect with practically all literature and art. Here is an example to help sort things out. The words may indeed be a "man-made fairytale" but can you say the same for the effect of those words (or the images they invoke)? Because when we discuss religion, that is what it will all boil down to. And the effect appears to be as natural as any other long standing and cherished human feeling. I know how you wish to use the existence of unicorns to make your point about religion and dieties. But unicorns DO exist - in literature and art, the medium from which they are known. The fact that you 'know' what a unicorn 'is' is enough proof don't you think?

Please do not project what Lictard has to say as any indication of what "Canadians" may or may not want. The dudette is a dewche. (BTW, the spelling of 'dewche' is taken from the Oxford New Dictionary of Medicine Hat Street Cred Jargon)

Here is an article from the Toronto Star about developers deciding that they would rather take the fines than wait for the OMB decision about their golf course development on protected and sensitive Oak Ridges Morraine lands. It appears that it is cheaper and easier to destroy than develop within the public trust and this destruction was done deliberately. If so, they should get a 100k fine per tree.

So seeing them is a definitive criteria for belief?

LOFL!!! Invisible teapot following you around. Awesome!!

Well even Huxley said we need a little shadow in our lives to keep from going insane. Surely you have heard of leprechauns, unicorns and dieties.

I think Michael is simply referring to the concept of that which is presently 'unknown' as opposed to that which is known, like leprechauns, unicorns, deities, etc.

I presume by "fully disprove" you mean a degree of disproof greater than, say, half or partially disprove? Meaning, while you can't fully-disprove, you can partially-disprove. Could you then partially-disprove the existence of unicorns please because I want to see if that will help get me off the fence and make me more a-unicornist. Now the unicornists have unicorn themed or unicorn-like literature and art on their side as proof of the existence and knowability of unicorns. That is, unicorns exist in literature and art. They are known from literature and art. Are you saying that someone believes unicorns are known in some other form and you cannot fully disprove that they can be known this way? Oh my...

You mean like Caledonia and Ipperwash and other land claim settlements in the province? How about the $145,000,000 settlement for some Toronto and Burlington lands for the Mississaugas of New Credit? Hmmmm... it appears you are more than a wee bit out of touch on this topic.

Well your statement here suffers from at least two glaring problems: one, the earth is a HUMONGOUS place and you would be hard pressed to prove that every nook and cranny has been searched AND searched for evidence of Leprechauns; two, the least of which is an acceptable definition of 'Leprechauns.' Interestingly enough - many cultures from all over the entire earth have folktales of a mysterious 'little people.'

I'd move to Owen Sound if I could - beautiful country indeed. However, the winters are out of the question for the spouse. Honest answer: http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/scr/on/ni/nwshie-eng.asp#Leases Make sure that everything is copasetic with INAC and the Band before signing any lease agreement, especially private ones.

Being picky: The latter part of the quote was commentary by Kelly McParland of the National Post. Here is the actual link to Pearson's blog posting entitled 'Liberalism - The Power of One. The problem with this commentary is the idea that Pearson is equating "the average lives of citizens" to mean "urban activitist." Pearson doesn't say that. In fact, McParland uses quotation marks in his commentary to make it appear that the phrase "average Canadian" is directly quoted from the blog posting. It isn't. Other than McParland's dishonest commentary, the blog articles are very interesting as there are a series of posts on Pearson's take on Canadian Liberalism. Good find Keepitsimple, thanks!

Nope. I am saying the outward appearances of 1923 Presyterianism would appear to us today as a religious fundamentalism. Likely, back in the day, it would not have drawn too much negative attention which would allow someone like LM King to be elected PM. So was it his religious "fundamentalism" that drove him to prohibit cannabis? History of Drug Prohibition in Canada Deffo there is the case for racism as a driver, but it appears to be an international driver and not one limited to the Commonwealth or the royal mothership: So religion or racism? Hmmmmm..... I would imagine a bit of both since that is a prevalent theme in Canadian history.

Well King was a Presbyterian and in 1923 I think that would constitute what we moderns would call a 'religious fundamentalist.' I have never quite understood why there has been so much of a distaste between Christian religion and cannabis use. However, what do you mean by "royal racists?"

Which explains alot about V'Ger! So far into the future one of our machine civilized worlds in the outer reaches reconstitutes an unmanned space probe from our remote past and sends it back to 1979 which is really the 23rd century. Man black holes DO bend time!

From the CBC: CSIS boss defends 'foreign interference' comments So a couple of quotes strung together: So I too wondered about the timing and content of this 'revelation' which is not such a revelation at all really. Could it be a subtle shot towards a few public officials to clean up their act or get exposed? But Canadians letting CSIS know of worrisome things they see? Hmmmm...a mystery? Which reminded me of a Frye quote from his 'Anatomy of Criticism:' "pharmakos" equates roughly to mean scapegoat. So the government - as the largest producer of news items to fill the newspapers and heads of good, loyal Canadians - has given us a mystery. Of course, for the story to play out, they can't simply name suspects. Yet. I mean, where would the drama be in that?

I dunno, does it? Actually, you would have to revisit your defintion of "perfect" and then relate it to the question at hand, especially my use of the word "flawed."

And what sort of riot-avoiding economy would you have us create? And, just as importantly, how shall we transition ourselves from this riotous and revolting monetary economy into this new one? I am just trying to find out if you are a Stoic, a Buddhist, a Radical or a mixture of all of them to some degree.

So tell me then, is Art just? In other words, is Art in someway flawed that makes its meaning incomprehensible to a person or group of persons?

But "gets it" where exactly? And is "nutshell" a secret closet codeword for tighty whities?

Is there a hard and fast definition as to what constitutes a "timebomb scenario" and are there hard and fast rules to triggering it's use? There are always "imminent and significant" threats - from dirty nukes to poison powders to structure-busting car bombs. So are you saying that - since imminent and significant threats seem to be the case generally - that a general application of torture is justified? On the other hand you say, "...if no immediate intelligence is needed..." That would be well and fine if you could stock your prisons with guys who know the whole story and you can simply select them when there is an immediate need. Sort of like a menu. But I don't think it works that way. There is always an immediate need for intelligence or intelligence that can be used for future "immediate" needs...

And yet what you actually pointed out was how easily you can connect your head with the sand. Did Argus scare you that much?

No! Really??? You have like 36 posts since you joined yesterday and your retort is about battery acid on Afghani school girls? Is that any way to reply to Argus' reasonable question in a thread entitled "Christian Nationalists in the House of Commons." WOW! I think this calls for a new MLW pool: how long before Bortron pops an artery and for the tie breaker, who is he replying to when it pops?

Hyperbole? What hyperbole?? Oh, that hyperbole.