This is completely different from the "objectivist" case that was at issue in the original discussion, you'll note. As I, for one, am (at the very worst) agnostic about any of the above statements, I don't think if this had been what had been proposed that the discussion would have ever occurred, in fact. Is this an attempt to settle that debate, or to start a whole new one?
> 4: As the subjective position below, with a small degree of objective
> nature. [...]
> 5: Fully subjective. Gods are manipulated and/or created purely from the
> beliefs of their worshippers, any change in the style of worship or belief
> will change the god, since he/she is defined by the worshippers' beliefs.
And as I've said several times now, this is _not_ the "subjectivist" case that _anyone_ has argued on the Digest. What's in question is whether _experience_ of the gods can be different and/or "contradictory"; their "nature" is at most a side-light to that, and how that nature comes about, or might be changed, is _entirely_ besides the point.
> Many people will disagree with how I have discibed the positions above...
> but that was reflected, I assure you, in the answers people gave.
I'd be fascinated to learn who ended up in 4&5, and what they said that led to them being put there...
> I rate myself a position 2. Am I an HVO? Perhaps, but the Hidden
> Variables are to do with doorways of perception in that case.
That sounded very Huxleyesque, but I'm not sure what it meant. To explain my "HVO" terminology a little more, the point is that the "Objective Reality" is what's "Hidden", to wit from those Gloranthans who're experiencing its "subjective" manifestations. (The term itself is stolen from a pseudo-classical explanation of a phenemonon of non-classical physics, for those who're wondering. It adds a variable to the model which can't ever be observed directly, but affects the behaviour of the modelled situation in a particular way.) The "Variable" in this case isn't strictly a variable -- it's just that no-one seems too sure what its "value" is. (Constants aren't, variables won't, as the old programmer's mantra has it.)
> UK: 12
> It was a nice surprise to see so many brits on the digest!
As I posted on this subject several months ago, there were 75 poeple with ".uk" domain names then on the list. Obviously, this doesn't count UK people with ".com" domain names, and the like...
Spoiling his ballot paper,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail