Kevin's Watch

Penner Theologius Pott wrote:

paradox wrote:My first topic here guys... I was just wondering how many here actually think that the Land is real and How many think that it is just a dream?

Reasons concerning Gilden-fire are out since it wasn't really included in the actual chronicles....

Before you use Hile Troy, think about the fact that Covenant never really talked to him in the "real" world. And just because the Department of Defense could not find him does not mean that he didn't really exist.. It is the Government after all...

I'm reminded of an essay by Bill Waterson (creator of the comic strip "Calvin and Hobbes") in which he mentioned his battle to prevent merchandising for his creation, fearful that it would "settle the issue of Hobbes' reality for children once and for all." The nature of Hobbes is simple, he explained: Calvin sees him one way, everybody else sees him another way. This doesn't mean that either perspective is necessarily incorrect.

I'm also reminded of the following passage from "The Tao is Silent", by Raymond Smullyan:

"At all costs, the Christian must convince the heathen and the atheist that God exists, in order to save his soul. At all costs, the atheist must convince the Christian that the believe in God is but a childish and primitive superstition, doing enormous harm to the cause of true social progress. And so they battle and storm and bang away at each other. Meanwhile, the Taoist Sage sits quietly by the stream, perhaps with a book of poems, a cup of wine, and some painting materials, enjoying the Tao to his hearts content, without ever worrying whether or not the Tao exists. The Sage has no need to affirm the Tao; he is far too busy enjoying it!"

I like your quotes, and I like the "middle ground" approach you are advocating. Hell, I even like your style of making your point with mini-parables. However, the logic of your latter example confuses a good story with a good point. Tao was never "defined" as a separate, conscious, omnipotent, omniscent Being. So it's quite a different thing to sit back and enjoy Tao than it is to sit back and enjoy God. The comparison makes it seem as though the "bickering" between atheists and theists is silly and unnecessary, that there might be a third position which is wiser--in much the same way that two friends arguing whether or not Friendship exists would do better to simply enjoy their friendship . . . or lovers arguing whether Love exists, etc.

Sitting back and enjoying the idea of God is ALSO something the atheist would argue against. It's not a "third position" above the debate. It doesn't resolve this particular difference in perspective by retaining the validity both views; it merely sides with the theists and then stubbornly refuses to argue any more. Just because you refuse to argue your position doesn't mean that you're no longer holding a position which must be argued--in some form or another--in order to persuade others of your belief. It just means your persuasive attempts are gentler. I don't think this approach applies to the Covenant question or to the resolution of paradoxical problems in general. It's more a style of disengagement from the problem by refusing to acknowledge the problem. It's like reducing the mind/body problem by subscribing to strict materialism--and then "sitting back and enjoying" this particular reductive ontology with a complete unwillingness to recognize nonreductive features like qualia and subjectivity.

Real, the Land is definitely real.