The Annihilation Fountain Issue #4 - An email debate between Nicolas Pattee & Paul Laurendeau

Upon checking the TAF mailbox one morning I came across an email from Nicolas Pattee about Paul Laurendeau's article "The Doom of Religion" (TAF issue#2). The letter was written in French (which I embarrassingly admit to having very little understanding of) so I forwarded it to Paul (who's first language is French) and asked for a translation. He gave me the translation and then asked for the sender's email address so he could reply. He cc'd me on his reply (as did Nicolas Pattee) and the email debate you will read below ensued. Both writers knew of my intentions to publish their words. What follows is, what I found to be, a very interesting exchange between two very well written individuals, freely expressing their beliefs in a forum that is not very well suited to the traditional notions one has of a debate, philosophical or otherwise. Note that Mr. Laurendeau's comment's that are in capital letters are not indicative of him 'shouting' as 'netiquette' would dictate, but rather he was just trying to separate his words from those of Mr. Pattee's in a visual sense (as well as philosophical). Read and enjoy.

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 00:10:00 -0400  
From: Nicolas Pattee 
Subject: Doom of religion  
 
Beau blabla plein d'hormones et d'une certaine aigreur envers la
religion qui mitige grandement l'intérêt qu'aurait pu avoir cette
recherche. C-

Translation: A beautiful babbling filled of hormone and of a certain
bitterness about religion that strongly discredits the interesting research
it could have been.
Translated by Paul Laurenedeau





Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 17:08:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Laurendeau 
Subject: A PROPOS D'UN CERTAIN "BEAU BLABLA" UN PEU SCABREUX

Bonjour Nicolas,
Merci de votre commentaire, dont l'editeur de la FONTAINE ANNIHILATRICE a
deja obtenu traduction anglaise et qui sera publie dans le numero 3 du
site (texte original et traduction). La FONTAINE a un ton et, comme toutes
publications, implique ce que l'on appelle les "lois du genre". On n'ecrit
pas dans LE CANARD ENCHAINE ou dans CROC comme on ecrirait dans la REVUE
DE PHILOSOPHIE ET DE MORALE. Je me conforme a ces lois du genre avec
jubilation et plaisir mais aussi par conviction: je crois que le ton
mordant et scabreux et les developpements de contenus ne sont nullement
incompatibles et, qu'au contraire, ils s'eclairent l'un l'autre avec une
nettete tres utile a la reflexion. Sans pretendre arriver a la cheville
d'un tel titan litteraire, je vous renvoie a l'article EZECHIEL du
DICTIONNAIRE PHILOSOPHIQUE de VOLTAIRE, ou la totalite de la problematique
tourne autour de l'ordre donne au prophete par son Dieu de manger sa
propre merde, situation servant a l'auteur d'occasion de discuter la
question du libre arbitre en matiere de soumission religieuse! Juge tres
choquant a son epoque, cet article est un pur delice humoristique pour
nos contemporains. On pourrait citer bien d'autres exemples de ce
compagnonnage licencieux mais fructueux entre ton virulent et contenu
rationnel. Pour ce qui est de l'eventuel discredit de l'un par l'autres,
je suis pres a vivre avec, tout en restant convaincu qu'un argument solide
ne perd rien de son impact qu'il sorte d'un beau ratelier aseptise et
Palmolive ou d'une gueule edentee et lepreuse qui pue la fiente et le
souvenir recent de fellations suspectes. Encore merci d'exprimer vos vues 
dans ce forum de la libre expression qu'est la FONTAINE ANNIHITATRICE.
Elle sont hautement appreciees de Monsieur Neil McKAY, l'editeur du site,
et de moi meme.
Respectueusement
Paul LAURENDEAU

Translation: REGARDING A CERTAIN RATHER SHOCKING "BEAUTIFUL RAMBLING"

Hello Nicolas,

Thank you for your comments, the English translation of which the editor 
of THE ANNIHILATION FOUNTAIN has already obtained and will be published 
in issue no. 4 of the site (in both its original and translated 
versions). THE FOUNTAIN has a certain tone and, like all publications, it
implies what is called the "laws of the genre."  You don't write in LE 
CANARD ENCHAINE or in CROC in the same way you would write in the REVUE 
DE PHILOSOPHIE ET DE MORALE.  I abide by these laws with jubilation and 
with pleasure, but also with conviction:  I believe that a biting, 
shocking tone in a piece and the development of its content are not at 
all incompatible;  on the contrary, I believe that they clarify one 
another with a sharpness that is very useful upon reflection.  Not that 
I'm claiming to even hold a candle to such a literary giant, but I refer 
you to Voltaire's article EZECHIEL in his DICTIONNAIRE PHILOSOPHIQUE 
(Philosophical Dictionary), wherein the entire problem revolves around 
the order given the prophet by his God to eat his own shit.  This gives 
the author the opportunity to discuss the issue of free will as regards 
religious submission!  Deemed very shocking at the time, this article is 
pure humourous delight to our contemporaries.  Many other examples could 
be cited of this licentious yet fruitful association between harsh tone 
and rational content.  With regard to the eventual discredit of one in 
favour of the others, I'm prepared to live with that, steadfast in my 
conviction that a strong argument loses nothing of its impact whether it 
comes from a beautiful scrubbed and sterilized set of false teeth, or a 
leprous, toothless cakehole that reeks of birdshit and the recent memory 
of suspected blow-jobs.  Thanks again for expressing your views in the 
forum of free expression that is THE ANNIHILATION FOUNTAIN.  They are 
very much appreciated by the editor of the site, Mr. Neil MacKay, and 
myself.

Respectfully,

Paul Laurendeau

Translated by the ultra cool Angie Cornack (thank's Angie! -Ed.)





Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:31:45 -0400  
From: Nicolas Pattee 
Subject: Answer to an answer  
         
A word of praise!
My compliments on your answer, it gave me quite a laugh! It is a kind of
humor I respond to. I used French in my reply because of your last name.
I was not aware that the article was part of something greater because I
stumbled upon it while searching something very different. Nevertheless
I could not help but read and enjoy that typical specimen of atheistic
propaganda. 

I majored in religious studies (the faithless version, i.e. not
theology) so I am familiar with the speech construction of religious
persons and, of course, of anti-religious persons. What ticked me off,
but then again, it always does, was the way quotations were used to back
up an evidently subjective reasoning. My main question is what is the
difference in thought structuration between that piece of work and that
of a Jehovah Witness? It seems to me both are using a most partial
selection of quotations to maintain a position, which to me revolves
around a false problem. Religion as an institution is shit like any
other institution. But then the real object of critique should be its
exercise of power and its motivations to do it so. The rest is only a
matter of cultural relativism and personal beliefs. Truth and fact are
false problems when it comes to religion because its object is beyond in
its essence and it does not matter whether that object exists or not. 

From where I stand I feel we are religious creatures like it or not
because religion is a matter of belief and belief is what we have built
our world upon. Knowledge in its true form is scarce and gained only
through personal experience. Knowledge is related with truth but if
knowledge is gained through experience and experience is not
exchangeable between human beings in its numenal dimension, therefore
truth is not exchangeable. What then do we trade between each other if
not beliefs (very strictly speaking because, functionally there is
little difference between belief and knowledge unless we stretch their
meaning to such extremes and even then...)I have never experienced Tokyo
so I must refer to the experience of others in order to draw some sort
of conviction, a logical process called sophism, if I am correct. But
until I experience Tokyo I will only have a belief functioning as
knowledge with little incidence, if any, on how I run my life. But lets
say I cook myself up a mystical experience in which I feel one with the
universe, the level of certainty attained through such an experience
will be way higher in its impact upon my life than any so-called
knowledge I have about Tokyo, but to others it will forever remain
belief because that truth can not be shared... But "knowledge" and truth
are so filling to oneself that one is compelled to share the bliss of
revelation (haha) so there is inevitably a problem because one cannot
possibly transmit every determining factor in personal experience.
Therefore, imperfect accounts arise to feed the venom of enlightened
people like you. The point of the whole big picture being, from a
religious point of view or not, requiescant in pace!!!



   
   
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 14:23:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Laurendeau
Subject: Re: A PROPOS D'UN CERTAIN "BEAU BLABLA" UN PEU SCABREUX (fwd)

> A word of praise! My compliments on your answer, it gave me quite a laugh!
> It is a kind of humor I respond to. I used French in my reply because of
> your last name. I was not aware that the article was part of something
> greater because I stumbled upon it while searching something very
> different. Nevertheless I could not help but read and enjoy that typical
> specimen of atheistic propaganda. 

WHAT YOU CALL "TYPICAL SPECIMEN" IS IN MY SENSE AN ORIGINAL ANALYSIS.
COULD YOU QUOTE THE SOURCES WHERE YOU SAW THE PROBLEM ADRESSED THE SAME
WAY AS I DO? "ATHEISTIC PROPAGANDA' IS TOTALLY ACCURATE. MY TEXT WAS
DEFINITELY NOT AN HAGIOGRAPHY!

> I majored in religious studies (the faithless version, i.e. not
> theology) so I am familiar with the speech construction of religious
> persons and, of course, of anti-religious persons. What ticked me off,
> but then again, it always does, was the way quotations were used to back
> up an evidently subjective reasoning. My main question is what is the
> difference in thought structuration between that piece of work and that
> of a Jehovah Witness? It seems to me both are using a most partial
> selection of quotations to maintain a position, which to me revolves
> around a false problem. 

ON THE USE OF QUOTATIONS I COULD ACCUSE YOU OF "CALLING ME NAMES" BY
COMPARING MY PROCEDURE TO THE ONE OF THE JEHOVAH WITNESSES. I PREFER TO
STICK TO THE THESIS PROPOSED BY THAT IRONIC COMPARAISON, ITSELF RELYING
EXCESSIVELY ON THE USUAL GIMMICK OF ACCUSING THE IRRELIGIOUS OF BEING 
RELIGIOUS!. TO QUOTE A LA JEHOVAH WITNESS IS SOMETHING VERY SPECIFIC. IT
IS, ROUGHLY, TO TRY TO REPORT A DOGMATIC SOURCE, ALLOWING YOURSELF ONLY
SUBSIDIARY COMMENTS. THERE IS A SMALL DIFFERENCE HOWEVER. A "SPECIALIST"
LIKE YOU SHOULD BE AWARE OF THAT. THE JEHOVAH BUNCH QUOTES AD NAUSEAM A
UNIQUE BOOK THAT YOU CAN FIND IN ANY MOTEL WHERE YOU GO OR DONT GO FOR A
HEALTHY FUCK, A BOOK THAT THEY ASSUME BEING KNOWN AND TAKEN FOR GRANTED
AS AN OBJECT OF FAITH BY THE PERSON THEY SPEAK TO. IT IS PREACHING, AND
PREACHING IS REITERATING FOR MEMORY OR REFLEXION THE TEXT OF A COMMONLY
AGREED UPON SACRED BOOK. I QUOTE A SERIES OF MATERIALIST THINKERS WHOSE
THOUGHT IS OCCULTATED AND UNKNOWN, DISREGARDED AND REJECTED IN OUR
CONTEMPORARY CULTURE. MY QUOTING IS FLAT DIFFUSION, PURE SHIT PITCHING IN
THE FACE OF BELIEVERS AND CRYPTO-BELIEVERS. THERE IS NO EXPECTATION OF
THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ANY FORM WHATSOEVER OF COMMUNITY TEXT IN MY
ACTIVITY OF REFERENCE. CONSEQUENTLY, I AM NOT ATTEMPTING TO "GUIDE" YOU IN
THE UNDERSTANDING OF OUR COLLECTIVE SACRALITY. I AM USING MY BROTHERS AND
SISTERS ATHEISTS AND MATERIALISTS OF THE PAST AS SIMPLE PROPAGANDA
COMPANIONS. IT IS VERY DIFFERENT AS A PROCEDURE.

> Religion as an institution is shit like any other institution. But then
> the real object of critique should be its exercise of power and its
> motivations to do it so.
 
IN THE VIEWS OF THE BELIEVERS WHO POSTULATE IT YES. THEY OPPOSE NOT TO
RELIGION BUT ITS ABUSES. FOR THE PHILOSOPHICAL ATHEIST THE INNACURACY OF
RELIGION IS SOMETHING ABOUT WHICH A DEMONSTRATION IS TO BE DONE, LIKE ANY
OTHER SPECULATIVE MATTER. THE POWER OF THE CLERICS HAS BEEN DESTROYED
PRACTICALLY SINCE CENTURIES, NOW. YOU ARE LATE! AS I SAID AT THE END OF
MY TEXT, I AM INDULGING MYSELF IN A PHILOSOPHICAL DEVELOPMENT WHERE THE
HISTORICAL MATERIAL GAME IS ALREADY PLAYED.  

> The rest is only a matter of cultural relativism and personal beliefs.
> Truth and fact are false problems when it comes to religion because its
> object is beyond in its essence and it does not matter whether that object
> exists or not. 

AGAIN THIS IS THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE BELIEVER AND OF THE IDEALIST
PHILOSOPHER. FOR MATERIALIST PHILOSOPHY THERE IS NO INTELLECTAL "BEYOND".

> From where I stand I feel we are religious creatures like it or not
> because religion is a matter of belief and belief is what we have built
> our world upon. Knowledge in its true form is scarce and gained only
> through personal experience. Knowledge is related with truth but if
> knowledge is gained through experience and experience is not
> exchangeable between human beings in its numenal dimension, therefore
> truth is not exchangeable. What then do we trade between each other if
> not beliefs (very strictly speaking because, functionally there is
> little difference between belief and knowledge unless we stretch their
> meaning to such extremes and even then...)I have never experienced Tokyo
> so I must refer to the experience of others in order to draw some sort
> of conviction, a logical process called sophism, if I am correct. But
> until I experience Tokyo I will only have a belief functioning as
> knowledge with little incidence, if any, on how I run my life. 

THAT IS AN OLD PREACHER TRICK WHICH WAS ALREADY MAKING ME FEELING SLEEPY
WHEN USED BY THE OLD FRENCH CANADIAN VILLAGE PRIEST OF MY CHILDHOOD. THE
FALSE EQUATION BETWEEN RELIGION AND BELIEF. RELIGION IS NOT "BELIEF" AT
LARGE, BUT RATHER A SUB-SET OF IT. IT IS THE BELIEF IN THE OBJECTIVE
EXISTENCE OF ONE OR SEVERAL SUPREME BEINGS CREATORS AMD "MODERATORS' OF
THE UNIVERSE, PERPETUATORS OF ITS COHESION, ETC. I CURRENTLY "BELIEVE"
THAT MY PASSPORT IS IN THE DRAWER OF MY DESK. THAT IS A STRONG "BELIEF" I
HAVE, BUT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO RELIGIOSITY INVOLVED IN IT. I SIMPLY
CONSIDER TRUE AN UNVERIFIED FACT, WITH NO REFERENCE WHATSOEVER TO ANY
SUPRANATURAL FORCE. IT IS THE SAME CASE FOR YOUR TOKYO GIG. ATHEISTS ALSO
HAVE GOOD REASONS TO CONSIDER THE EXISTENCE OF TOKYO A FACT! SINCE A
WHILE, IN ITS DECLINE, RELIGION TRIES TO SWALLOW THE TOTALITY OF
WHAT-IT-IS-TO-BELIEVE IN ORDER TO TRY TO KEEP ITSELF FLOATING. DOING SO, 
IT SIMPLY AND BLATANTLY DISTORT THE UNAVOIDABLE FACT THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE
TO KNOW EVERYTHING FROM DIRECT EMPIRICAL EXPERIENCE. TYPICAL.
 
> But let say I cook myself up a mystical experience in which I feel one
> with the universe, the level of certainty attained through such an
> experience will be way higher in its impact upon my life than any
> so-called knowledge I have about Tokyo, but to others it will forever
> remain belief because that truth can not be shared... But "knowledge" and
> truth are so filling to oneself that one is compelled to share the bliss
> of revelation (haha) so there is inevitably a problem because one cannot
> possibly transmit every determining factor in personal experience.
> Therefore, imperfect accounts arise to feed the venom of enlightened
> people like you. The point of the whole big picture being, from a
> religious point of view or not, requiescant in pace!!!

THAT FRAGMENT OF THE REASONIMG POSTULATES THE ACCURACY OF THE MYSTICAL
EXPERIENCE. I KNOW ITS CURENT EXISTENCE. I DENY ITS GNOSEOLOGICAL
ACCURACY. THANK YOU FOR THE GOOD WISHES. I WILL CONTINUE TO SLEEP WELL. I
WILL DIE WHEN MY DAY COMES, AND I WILL ROT IN ALL SIMPLICITY!
Paul LAURENDEAU





Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 21:34:40 -0400
From: Nicolas Pattee
Subject: And going...

Well met, Paul, 

I am thoroughly enjoying this debate! Let me clarify some of the points
I was trying to make and also allow me to establish the position from
which I speak in order to legitimize my right to speak and reason in the
way I do.

Your piece of work, whose academic rigor I can approve, is typical of
atheistic propaganda even though you say you addressed the problem
originally. You asked for quotes… Well, that is one thing you won't
obtain from me. Should you seek info on some religious topic, I'll
manage to find references but, when it comes to reasoning and debating I
am a most firm believer of independent thought. That in itself is an
epistemological debate we could address on an separate basis.

What I was wondering was what experience do you have with religions
besides bookworming through a subjective though vast selection of works?
A part of my formation is anthropology and from that point of view I
very strongly believe in participating observation. My quotes come from
my field experimentation. Remember something first: I am faithless,
creedless and to some extent godless. 

To me god's relevancy come from its signifying position as a cognition
because there is absolutely nothing for or against it that can be said
safely besides the fact that when you examine the concept from a
semiotical point of view, it falls into a category of cognition which
will potentially allow any other cognition to continue the string of
thought, (though not in the same mind). I call the concept allowing me
to categorize it in such a way "density of signification".  That density
is manifested in the relation between object and sign: a table is a
table, a picture of you isn't really you but represents you nonetheless,
the sun is the sun but can also mean truth (Pierce and Eco for the
relationship between sign and object but not for the density concept
which I have not found anywhere but to say frankly never saw the point
of looking for it. Suffice it to say it appears operational to me,
personal epistemological point of view again). That density determines
also the potential quality and abstraction of the thought patterns it
will produce. When I said typical, I meant that whenever I speak to a
confirmed atheist (I become very religious at such times) the same
behavior patterns almost always come forward and that would be fool
proof coherency and crystallization of conviction in such a way that
contradiction cannot possibly be left without answer. Typical because
such strong bearings on a particular topic subjects the human mind
potential cognitive dissonance (psychological concept: two contradictory
cognitions happening at the same time in the same mind, and the
processes used to resolve the dilemma). This comes as a consequence of
the endeavor and the only way to avoid it is not to give a damn. Though
the contents of your analysis may be original, its container (motivation
and deployment pattern) is typical.

Quoting… Let us admit after Durkheim (I cannot avoid them all it seems!)
that religion is a coherent system of beliefs and practices… the rest of
the definition isn't worth any shit but that of tearing it down. But
that first part gives religion something in common with many other
institutions not to say all of them. Bearing that in mind, you were
mislead when you thought I was using a gimmick of accusing the
irreligious of being religious. Again I use the nuance between content
and container, between objects and the way they are organized. Now, tell
me seriously that you do not speak from the position of a coherent
system of beliefs and practices. You referred to brother atheists and
certainly are using the admitted academical protocol… The Jehovah
Witness banging on your door comes to you straight to the point:
fundamentalist application of the contents of the Bible. He knows he has
about 2 minutes before you kick him out, he's been there before but
he'll try and hammer the word of god into your mind in one mighty blow.
He knows he does not have time for interminable developments and that
most probably the person he is addressing has not the mind for it.
Because don't delude yourself, it takes a hell of a lot more imagination
to maintain coherency in such a thought system because it hinges on the
most abstract of concept, god, than it takes to maintain coherency in
appeasing one's furious routine… Consequently, I have indeed found
closed minds in religious people (and in many others), but certainly
never downright morons. Of course, most of the faithful can be called
foolish, but never can you say the same of the person that has taken the
time to write on the topic of went out of his way to tell you about it.
And that is to me empirical certainty.

As for your disregarded thinkers, I know most of them though I have not
read all of them and it so happens you will find some of the same
arguments in the texts of many mystics over the world (the sufi, the
upanishads, our own mystics and even the prophets of the old testament
hold the same grudges toward religion)

The power of the clerics… Again you simplify… "Power of the clerics" as
a sentence is a mistake. A part of the power belongs to the institution
and is distributed to its enactors in the form of authority. When the
role of the institution becomes pointless so becomes the authority it
conferred to its enactors. What power the cleric personally has remains
his own. For most people, in my country, religion is pointless.
Nevertheless, there remains statistically a permanent 10% of the
population for which it still signifies something. This goes true for
most parts of the world where death is not the penalty of faithfulness
and even then. But curiously enough, when you speak (have you ever done
so?) with clerics some of them contradict that fact because they are
faced with a greater participation percentage… There are many factors
coming into play, of course, education, average age, but also, the
personal charisma of the cleric which is a power he would have even if
he were a politician or a salesman. Sorry to shatter your dreams but
religion is not dead and won't die because that 10% is comprised of the
grown up faithful and they live on and change the world in much the same
manner than the 10 % of the academical riff-raff that makes it to
emitting positions… The question is: even though the fight against
religion seems won and over does that mean it is a consequence of
"evolution" (one of the deadliest concepts man has ever created)? I
doubt that anything but a sophism can come to that conclusion… What
conclusion can be drawn on the accuracy of religion I cannot begin to
fathom? You may address the problem all you want, what can you hope to
achieve? Considering the fact that there are 3000 religions in the USA
and about 900 in my home province (to say nothing of the rest of the
world) you'd better get started right away if you wish to demonstrate
their inaccuracy by discrediting them by their faith content. If you
want to discredit them as containers of signification you'll have do the
same with every other coherent thought system… 

I am sorry to say this but what kind of argument is that: "the point of
view of the idealist philo vs the materialist" Does that mean something
akin to: I am so sorry sir but us protestant don't give credit to what
the pope is saying. They have tried to feed me such notions through the
nose but I fail to see the relevancy of  name tags appointed to groups
who were not even necessarily aware they were groups to begin with.
Could it be that your are trying to derive some sort of authority by
claiming kinship with post mortemly institutionalized  philosophical
churches? 

> THAT IS AN OLD PREACHER TRICK WHICH WAS ALREADY MAKING ME FEELING
> SLEEPYWHEN USED BY THE OLD FRENCH CANADIAN VILLAGE PRIEST OF MY
> CHILDHOOD. THE FALSE EQUATION BETWEEN RELIGION AND BELIEF. 
> RELIGION IS NOT "BELIEF" AT LARGE, BUT RATHER A SUB-SET OF IT. IT IS THE
> BELIEF IN THE OBJECTIVE EXISTENCE OF ONE OR SEVERAL SUPREME BEINGS
> CREATORS AMD "MODERATORS' OF THE UNIVERSE, PERPETUATORS OF ITS COHESION,

You missed the real equation hidden in the supposed equation between
religion and belief. The real equation was between man and belief.
Remember I do not believe there is any other knowledge than what is
obtained through experience, ALL the rest is belief. What we are doing
right now would be an exercise in futility should we think any
"knowledge" is to be derived from it. I am stating beliefs and you are
too except you back them up with the beliefs of others. As for your
definition of religion there are a few problems with it stricto sensu
for the whole wide world provides quite a few counter examples but it
bring an interesting question to mind: "what are the other sub-sets of
belief?"

As for the gnoseological accuracy of experience, damn not necessarily
mystic, of course you cannot admit it, fuck, you have not experienced it
but you cannot deny the simple fact that putting your hand into fire
will give you some pretty gnoseological certainty that it burns and that
afterwards no amount of arguments will ever make you believe the
contrary because then you KNOW it burns. Of course that experience
cannot be equated in contents with a mystical experience but it
nonetheless functions in the same way. Put that in relation with, say,
Berger's Social construction of reality…

You seem also to forget that we are not on different sides of the fence.
My own motivations for studying religion are exactly the same as
Voltaire's bewilderment with Ezechiel eating shit out of a plate. I am
also a French Canadian and I have suffered from the stupidity of our
parish priests nuns in private schools etc etc etc. Simply, instead of
rallying myself to a philosophical atheist church, I took upon myself to
see from inside, to try to witness that strange experience which will
forever elude me as enacted in others. Do not quotation mark my
"specialist" until you have stopped being a prophet in your own country.
I can say truthfully that if you had been a convinced believer I would
have been as wordy… Could you?

Farewell,

Nick





Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 19:55:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Laurendeau
Subject: Re: And going...

NOT YELLING AS USUAL...

> Well met, Paul, 
> 
> I am thoroughly enjoying this debate! Let me clarify some of the points
> I was trying to make and also allow me to establish the position from
> which I speak in order to legitimize my right to speak and reason in the
> way I do.

IT MIGHT CERTAINLY PROVIDE USEFUL DESCRIPTIVE ELEMENTS ABOUT YOU, BUT IT
WILL NOT "LEGITIMIZE" YOU. YOU MAY BE EITHER HEGEL OR THE LAST RAILROAD
HOBOE, THE LEGITIMITY OF YOUR INTERVENTION IS ALREADY INTEGRAL AND
COMPLETE IN A FORUM DEVOTED TO FREE-SPEECH...

> Your piece of work, whose academic rigor I can approve, is typical of
> atheistic propaganda even though you say you addressed the problem
> originally. You asked for quotes… Well, that is one thing you won't
> obtain from me. Should you seek info on some religious topic, I'll
> manage to find references but, when it comes to reasoning and debating I
> am a most firm believer of independent thought. That in itself is an
> epistemological debate we could address on an separate basis.
 
THERE IS NO SUCH THINGS AS "INDEPENDENT THOUGHT". OUR FRAME OF REFERENCE
IS EITHER IMPLICIT OR EXPLICIT. WHEN IT STAYS IMPLICIT IT CERTAINLY
CULTIVATES AN ILLUSION OF INDEPENDENCE REASSURING FOR THE SELF, BUT
SURPRISING DISCOVERIES ARE OFTEN AT THE CORNER OF THE STREET, LIKE OUR
"OPINION" WRITTEN ALMOST WORD FOR WORD (IF NOT IN A BETTER FORMULATION!)
IN SOME FREAK PHILOSOPHER OF TWO OR THREE CENTURIES AGO... A FAIR LESSON
OF MODESTY, GENERALLY. ON THESE  MATTERS I AM DEFENITELY A SPINOZIST:
"FREEDOM" AND "INDEPENDENCE" OF THOUGHT OR ACTION IS JUST THE
MANIFESTATION OF THE IGNORANCE OF OUR DETERMINATIONS. FOR THE MOMENT ALL
THAT I SEE IS THAT YOU PROCLAIM MY LACK OF ORIGINALITY WITHOUT
CORROBORATING IT.

> What I was wondering was what experience do you have with religions
> besides bookworming through a subjective though vast selection of works?
> A part of my formation is anthropology and from that point of view I
> very strongly believe in participating observation. My quotes come from
> my field experimentation. Remember something first: I am faithless,
> creedless and to some extent godless. 
 
IF YOU ARE FAITHLESS AND GODLESS, IT WILL HAVE TO SHOW UP NOT ONLY THROUGH
YOUR EXPLICIT LIP SERVICE BUT ALSO IN THE INNER ECONOMY OF YOUR
ARGUMENTATION. IF YOU SAY "I AM FAITHLESS" BUT YOU ARGUE AS A CHURCHY, AS
A CHURCHY YOU WILL BE DELT WITH. I RELY ON WHAT YOU DO, NOT ON WHAT
YOU CLAIM OR BELIEVE OF YOURSELF. NOW, FOR THE SECOND TIME IN A ROW YOU
QUALIFY MY ARGUMENTS AS "SUBJECTIVE", WHEN I CLAIM I MADE A DESCRIPTION
OF THE OBJECTIVE MOVEMENT OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF. ONE CAN AGREE OR DISAGREE
WITH THE MOVEMENT ANIMISM-THEISM-DEISM-ATHEISM, BUT IT IS DIFFICULT TO
CALL IT A SUBJECTIVE HYPOTHESIS ON A SET OF SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS... THE
FACT THAT I BELIEVE IN IT PERSONNALLY DOES NOT MAKE OF MY ANALYSIS A
SUBJECTIVE APPROACH. A SUBJECTIVE WAY TO ARGUE CONSISTS RATHER IN
FOCUSSING ON THE SUBJECT, OR THE SELF ,RATHER THAN ON OBJECTIVE REALITY,
OR THE HYPOTHESIS ATTEMPTING TO DESCRIBE IT. ACTUALLY, YOU PROVIDE AN
HONEST EXAMPLE OF A SUBJECTIVE APPROACH BY YOUR CURRENT FOCUS ON YOUR
AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL CREDENCIALS... AND YOUR QUASI-COMPULSIVE CLAIM FOR MINE.
TO THAT EFFECT YOU CAN READ MY BIOGRAPHICAL SUMMARY IN THE FOUNTAIN. WHY
ASK FOR MORE? MAYBE BECAUSE YOU HYPERTROPHY YOUR ATTENTION ON THE ARGUING
SUBJECT MORE THAN ON THE OBJECTIVE REALITY OF HIS ARGUMENTATION! FOR THE
MOMENT YOU TALK ABOUT YOURSELF (AND QUESTION ABOUT MYSELF, MY PERSONNAL
SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCES, ETC) INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT YOUR OBJECT. THAT IS
A SUBJECTIVE APPROACH, IN THE TRUE SENSE OF THE WORD. IT IS MY CLAIM THAT
YOU CALL ME "SUBJECTIVE' WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY DEMONSTRATION WHATSOEVER 
OF MY SUBJECTIVISM...

> To me god's relevancy come from its signifying position as a cognition
> because there is absolutely nothing for or against it that can be said
> safely besides the fact that when you examine the concept from a
> semiotical point of view, it falls into a category of cognition which
> will potentially allow any other cognition to continue the string of
> thought, (though not in the same mind). I call the concept allowing me
> to categorize it in such a way "density of signification".  That density
> is manifested in the relation between object and sign: a table is a
> table, a picture of you isn't really you but represents you nonetheless,
> the sun is the sun but can also mean truth (Pierce and Eco for the
> relationship between sign and object but not for the density concept
> which I have not found anywhere but to say frankly never saw the point
> of looking for it. Suffice it to say it appears operational to me,
> personal epistemological point of view again). 

THE OPERATIONAL APPEARANCE AND THE REFERENCE TO PIERCE (THANK YOU FOR IT!)
RINGS TO ME THE OLD BELL OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF PRAGMATISM. WILLIAM JAMES
KEPT GOD IN HIS SYSTEM BECAUSE IT WAS USEFUL AS A SOCIAL COHESIVE
SUBSTANCE. YOU CALL YOURSELF GODLESS. I CALL YOUR POSITION THE ONE OF
DEISM. GOD DOES NOT ACT OBJECTIVELY, BUT WE KEEP IT AS A HANDY
"SEMIOLOGICAL" HYPOTHESIS FOR ITS VALUABLE THERAPEUTICAL AND SOPORIFIC
("OPERATIONAL" IN YOUR FLASHY TERMINOLOGY) QUALITIES.

> That density determines also the potential quality and abstraction of the
> thought patterns it will produce. When I said typical, I meant that whenever
> I speak to a  confirmed atheist (I become very religious at such times) the
> same behavior patterns almost always come forward and that would be fool
> proof coherency and crystallization of conviction in such a way that
> contradiction cannot possibly be left without answer. Typical because
> such strong bearings on a particular topic subjects the human mind
> potential cognitive dissonance (psychological concept: two contradictory
> cognitions happening at the same time in the same mind, and the
> processes used to resolve the dilemma). This comes as a consequence of
> the endeavor and the only way to avoid it is not to give a damn. Though
> the contents of your analysis may be original, its container (motivation
> and deployment pattern) is typical.

AN ATHEIST BEHAVES LIKE AN ATHEIST AND ITS TENDENCIES TO BEHAVE LIKE
ANOTHER ATHEIST ARE VERY HIGH. THANK YOU FOR THAT CRUCIAL INFORMATION! I
COULD SAY THE SAME THING OF A POODLE OR OF AN ELVIS IMPERSONATOR, BUT YOU
HAVE A POINT: I CANNOT DENY SUCH A MERCILESS TRUISM. 

 
> Quoting… Let us admit after Durkheim (I cannot avoid them all it seems 

(SPINOZA, SPINOZA HA, HA, HA! - P.L.)

> that religion is a coherent system of beliefs and practices… the rest of
> the definition isn't worth any shit but that of tearing it down. But
> that first part gives religion something in common with many other
> institutions not to say all of them. Bearing that in mind, you were
> mislead when you thought I was using a gimmick of accusing the
> irreligious of being religious. Again I use the nuance between content
> and container, between objects and the way they are organized. Now, tell
> me seriously that you do not speak from the position of a coherent
> system of beliefs and practices. You referred to brother atheists and
> certainly are using the admitted academical protocol… The Jehovah
> Witness banging on your door comes to you straight to the point:
> fundamentalist application of the contents of the Bible. He knows he has
> about 2 minutes before you kick him out, he's been there before but
> he'll try and hammer the word of god into your mind in one mighty blow.
> He knows he does not have time for interminable developments and that
> most probably the person he is addressing has not the mind for it.
> Because don't delude yourself, it takes a hell of a lot more imagination
> to maintain coherency in such a thought system because it hinges on the
> most abstract of concept, god, than it takes to maintain coherency in
> appeasing one's furious routine… Consequently, I have indeed found
> closed minds in religious people (and in many others), but certainly
> never downright morons. Of course, most of the faithful can be called
> foolish, but never can you say the same of the person that has taken the
> time to write on the topic of went out of his way to tell you about it.
> And that is to me empirical certainty.
 
THE HIGH COHERENCE OF CERTAIN DELIRIUS (PARANOIAC DELIRIUS, FOR EXAMPLE)
IS NO WARRANT OF THEIR VERACITY. A CONCEPTUAL BODY CAN EASILY BE COHERENT
AND FALSE: THE GEOCENTRIC SYSTEM OF ARISTOTLE, THE TOURBILLON THEORY OF
DESCARTES, SO ON SO FORTH...

> As for your disregarded thinkers, I know most of them though I have not
> read all of them and it so happens you will find some of the same
> arguments in the texts of many mystics over the world (the sufi, the
> upanishads, our own mystics and even the prophets of the old testament
> hold the same grudges toward religion)

MATERIALISM CAN BE SEEN IN SACRED TEXT. I NEVER DENIED THAT. THE BOOK
OF SOLOMON, AS AN EXAMPLE, IS A FULL AND EXPLICIT PRESENTATION
OF THE DOCTRINE OF EPICURUS. I NEVER OBJECTED TO THAT POSSIBILITY. WHO ARE
YOU ARGUING WITH?

> The power of the clerics… Again you simplify… "Power of the clerics" as
> a sentence is a mistake. A part of the power belongs to the institution
> and is distributed to its enactors in the form of authority. When the
> role of the institution becomes pointless so becomes the authority it
> conferred to its enactors. What power the cleric personally has remains
> his own. For most people, in my country, religion is pointless.
> Nevertheless, there remains statistically a permanent 10% of the
> population for which it still signifies something. This goes true for
> most parts of the world where death is not the penalty of faithfulness
> and even then. But curiously enough, when you speak (have you ever done
> so?) with clerics some of them contradict that fact because they are
> faced with a greater participation percentage… There are many factors
> coming into play, of course, education, average age, but also, the
> personal charisma of the cleric which is a power he would have even if
> he were a politician or a salesman. Sorry to shatter your dreams but
> religion is not dead and won't die because that 10% is comprised of the
> grown up faithful and they live on and change the world in much the same
> manner than the 10 % of the academical riff-raff that makes it to
> emitting positions… The question is: even though the fight against
> religion seems won and over does that mean it is a consequence of
> "evolution" (one of the deadliest concepts man has ever created)? I
> doubt that anything but a sophism can come to that conclusion… What
> conclusion can be drawn on the accuracy of religion I cannot begin to
> fathom? You may address the problem all you want, what can you hope to
> achieve? Considering the fact that there are 3000 religions in the USA
> and about 900 in my home province (to say nothing of the rest of the
> world) you'd better get started right away if you wish to demonstrate
> their inaccuracy by discrediting them by their faith content. If you
> want to discredit them as containers of signification you'll have do the
> same with every other coherent thought system… 
 
THE ARGUMENT OF THE GREAT NUMBER OF RELIGIONS! YOU SPOKE TOO MUCH WITH 
CLERICS, OBVIOUSLY. HOW MANY CASTLES IN FRANCE AND ENGLAND. THOUSANDS. BUT
FEODALITY IS OVER ANYWAYS! THESE CONSTRUCTIONS ARE ALL MUSEUMS! THE SOCIAL
ORDER THAT CONSTITUTED THEM IS GONE WITH THE HISTORICAL WIND. THE
"MULTIPLICITY OF RELIGION" (ANY BOZO PUTTING A RADISH ON A PEDESTAL IS
CALLED A RELIGIOUS LEADER!) IS A BLATANT INDICATION OF THE FRAGMENTATION,
THE DWINDLING OF THE RELIGIOUS PARADIGM, A CLEAR SYMPTOM OF DECLINE.

> I am sorry to say this but what kind of argument is that: "the point of
> view of the idealist philo vs the materialist" Does that mean something
> akin to: I am so sorry sir but us protestant don't give credit to what
> the pope is saying. They have tried to feed me such notions through the
> nose but I fail to see the relevancy of  name tags appointed to groups
> who were not even necessarily aware they were groups to begin with.
> Could it be that your are trying to derive some sort of authority by
> claiming kinship with post mortemly institutionalized  philosophical
> churches? 

THERE ARE TWO FUNDAMENTAL PHILOSOPHICAL STREAM. YOU ARE WITH ONE OR WITH
THE OTHER. THIS IS NOT A TAG, BUT A DEMONSTRABLE INTELLECTUAL FACT.

> THAT IS AN OLD PREACHER TRICK WHICH WAS ALREADY MAKING ME FEELING
> SLEEPYWHEN USED BY THE OLD FRENCH CANADIAN VILLAGE PRIEST OF MY
> CHILDHOOD. THE FALSE EQUATION BETWEEN RELIGION AND BELIEF. 
> RELIGION IS NOT "BELIEF" AT LARGE, BUT RATHER A SUB-SET OF IT. IT IS THE
> BELIEF IN THE OBJECTIVE EXISTENCE OF ONE OR SEVERAL SUPREME BEINGS
> CREATORS AMD "MODERATORS' OF THE UNIVERSE, PERPETUATORS OF ITS COHESION,
> 
> You missed the real equation hidden in the supposed equation between
> religion and belief. The real equation was between man and belief.
> Remember I do not believe there is any other knowledge than what is
> obtained through experience, ALL the rest is belief. What we are doing
> right now would be an exercise in futility should we think any
> "knowledge" is to be derived from it. I am stating beliefs and you are
> too except you back them up with the beliefs of others. As for your
> definition of religion there are a few problems with it stricto sensu
> for the whole wide world provides quite a few counter examples but it
> bring an interesting question to mind: "what are the other sub-sets of
> belief?"
 
NOW YOU APPEAR AS AN EMPIRICIST, DAVID HUME WOULD PLEASE YOU: NO
KNOWLEDGE, ONLY BELIEF. THAT COULD BE ARGUED AGAINST THOROUGHLY.
I MIGHT DO IT LATER. LET JUST SAY FOR THE MOMENT THAT EMPIRICISM AND
PRAGMATISM ARE TWO IDEOLOGICAL BROTHERS. PHILOSOPHICAL IDEALISM IS THEIR
NURISHING MAID. YOU ARE PHILOSOPHICALY COHERENT, MY FRIEND!.

> As for the gnoseological accuracy of experience, damn not necessarily
> mystic, of course you cannot admit it, fuck, you have not experienced it
> but you cannot deny the simple fact that putting your hand into fire
> will give you some pretty gnoseological certainty that it burns and that
> afterwards no amount of arguments will ever make you believe the
> contrary because then you KNOW it burns. 

THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING MY ANSWER:
	> Of course
	(THAT OF COURSE DOES NOT PROTECT YOU FROM THE NECESSITY TO ANSWER
	TO THAT ARGUMENT:)
	> that experience cannot be equated in contents with a mystical
	> experience but it nonetheless functions in the same way
	(NO, NO, NO. I DO NOT TAKE THAT VERBAL NON DEMONSTRATIVE TRICK).

> You seem also to forget that we are not on different sides of the fence.
> My own motivations for studying religion are exactly the same as
> Voltaire's bewilderment with Ezechiel eating shit out of a plate. I am
> also a French Canadian and I have suffered from the stupidity of our
> parish priests nuns in private schools etc etc etc. Simply, instead of
> rallying myself to a philosophical atheist church, I took upon myself to
> see from inside, to try to witness that strange experience which will
> forever elude me as enacted in others. Do not quotation mark my
> "specialist" until you have stopped being a prophet in your own country.
> I can say truthfully that if you had been a convinced believer I would
> have been as wordy… Could you?
 
WHEN I WROTE THE DOOM OF RELIGION I WAS NOT A FRENCH CANADIAN. I WAS A
HUMAN BEING. I AM NOT FIGHTING YOU AS A SUBJECT OR AS A PERSON, MY FRENCH
CANADIAN BROTHER IN ETHNO-CULTURAL OPPRESSION. I AM RATHER CONTRIBUTING TO
THE STRUGGLE AGAINST THE OBJECTIVE SYSTEMS OF REPRESENTATIONS THAT OPERATE
THROUGH YOU AS I SAW THEM IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF YOUR ARGUMENTATION. DONT
BE SO SUBJECTIVIST, NICOLAS, MA BONNE GANACHE! 

> Farewell, 

SEE YOU SOON, AS YOU SAY. I AM STILL WAITING FOR A REFUTATION OF THE
CONTENT OF THE DOOM OF RELIGION ITSELF...





Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 15:16:08 -0400
From: Nicolas Pattee
Subject: (demande de précisions

You asked for a refutation of your objective account of the evolution of
the god and religion concepts into atheism. Reportedly, the game has
already been played out and the conclusion imposes itself on our
reality. The modern mind, freed from the manacles of irrationality,
embraces more and more the ideology of atheism, that being that there is
no such thing as God.

Such state of enlightenment has been painfully reached through
successive stages, which proceed from one another by modifying the space
man is allowed to occupy in the world and by reducing progressively the
space the god concept is allowed to occupy in collective representation.
Nowadays, there remains mainly the dwindling theist position while most
god addicts are now hooked on to deism and the forerunners are atheists
driven onward by the tentative examples of a few visionary predecessors.
These atheists form the true yolk of intellectual rigor and are bound to
sweep away the last remnants of the churchy heresy as they shed light on
the uselessness of religion and god as organizing factors of human
consciousness and social cohesion.

Is this synthesis correct? If not complete it.

Also, I am not that much a fan of yours yet to wish to undertake yet
another of your tedious reading. So, please explain in palatable words
your distinction between ontology and gnoseology. I fucked off and
enjoyed it very much thank you.

Once I have the necessary precisions, I shall proceed with the
refutation of your text. Though as I said, it is not entirely untrue but
demands, screams and supplicates for nuances and subtle readjustment
before it can properly cum out of your ivory tower with any hope of
fertilizing anyone or anything but your own flock of pews!

See ya!

P.S.
Also, should you find yourself idle while I prepare the final assault,
try to answer that question you so deftly avoided: What experience do
you have with religions ans religious persons?





Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 20:52:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Laurendeau
Subject: Re: (demande de précisions

> You asked for a refutation of your objective account of the evolution of
> the god and religion concepts into atheism. Reportedly, the game has
> already been played out and the conclusion imposes itself on our
> reality. The modern mind, freed from the manacles of irrationality,
> embraces more and more the ideology of atheism, that being that there is
> no such thing as God.

I CERTAINLY DID NOT ADOPT THAT FLASHY POSITIVISTIC VISION. I DESCRIBED THE
STEPS OF THE DECLINE OF RELIGION AND RELIGIOSITY WITHOUT TAKING ANY STAND
ON THE "FREEDOM FROM IRRATIONALITY" IT MAY OR MAY NOT INVOLVE (THERE CAN
BE NON-RELIGIOUS MANIFESTATIONS OF IRRATIONALITY - I DID NOT ADRESS THAT
MATTER). YOU PRESENT ATHEISM AS A POSITIVE IDEOLOGY THAT ONE MIGHT EMBRACE
OR ADHERE TO. THAT IS VERY WRONG. ATHEISM IS A NEGATIVE FRAME OF MIND. A-
IN ATHEISM IS PRIVATIVE. WE ARE DESCRIBING A FADE OUT, A DECLINE, A BLURR 
AWAY! THE HEADS ARE EMPTYING THEMSELVES OF THEOLOGICAL REFERENCES AND
CULT-LIKE PERSPECTIVES. THE PHENOMENON IS NOT DUE TO ANY POSITIVE
REVELATION WHATSOEVER BUT TO A DECOMPOSITION OF A CERTAIN VISION OF THE
WORLD WHERE THE DIVINE USE TO HAVE A ROLE. FLAT DERELICTION IS WHAT IS
DESCRIBED HERE. YOU CONTINUE TO THINK ATHEISM AS SOME PECULAR TYPE OF
FAITH IN SOMETHING, WHEREAS IT IS A NO-SOMETHING (YOUR DEFINITION OF IT
CATCHES EXACTLY WHAT THAT THING IS).

> Such state of enlightenment has been painfully reached through
> successive stages, which proceed from one another by modifying the space
> man is allowed to occupy in the world and by reducing progressively the
> space the god concept is allowed to occupy in collective representation.
> Nowadays, there remains mainly the dwindling theist position while most
> god addicts are now hooked on to deism and the forerunners are atheists
> driven onward by the tentative examples of a few visionary predecessors.
> These atheists form the true yolk of intellectual rigor and are bound to
> sweep away the last remnants of the churchy heresy as they shed light on
> the uselessness of religion and god as organizing factors of human
> consciousness and social cohesion.
 
ONCE AGAIN I DOUBT THAT SUCH A POSITIVISTIC READING IS TO BE DEDUCTED FROM
MY TEXT. AT THE END OF YOUR LAST EXCHANGE YOU SPOKE OF AN "ATHEIST
CHURCH", YOU NOW GIVE ME THE "CHURCHY HERESY" AND THE "VISIONNARY
PREDECESSORS". YOU CONTINUE TO USE THE OLD GIMMICK OF PROJECTING RELIGIOUS
CATEGORIES ON A NON RELIGIOUS ANALYSIS. THESE THREE PLAY-ON-WORDS ARE
RIDICULOUS ATTEMPTS TO HAM INSTEAD OF ARGUYING. "ATHEIST CHURCH" MEANS
NOTHING, IT IS AN OXYMORON, JUST AS "SQUARE CIRCLE". NOWHERE IN MY TEXT
DID I, AS YOU PATHETICALY TRY TO MAKE ME DO HERE, PRESENT ATHEISTS AS
PROPHETS OF A NEW TRUTH, SO YOU CAN KEEP YOUR "VISIONNARY PREDECESSORS"
FOR YOURSELF. "CHURCHY HERESY" IS RIDICULOUS. AN HERESY IS THE ADOPTION
OF A VARIANTE OF AN INITIAL RELIGIOUS SYSTEM AS SEEN FROM THE STRICTLY
REACTIONNARY POINT OF VIEW OF THE TENNANTS OF THE OLD ONE FROM WHICH IT
EMERGES. IF THE REACTIONNARY OPTION REMAINS STRONGER WE SAY "HERESY" TO
DESCRIBE THE FAILED ATTEMPT OF REDEFENITION CARRIED BY THE VARIANTE. IF
THE "HERESY" IS STRONGER, THE WORD CEASES TO BE USED AND WE END UP WITH A
RELIGIOUS SCHISM. YOU KNOW THAT PERFECTLY, BUT YOU ARE STILL TRYING TO
MAKE PHILOSOPHY WITH THEOLOGICAL CONCEPTS. THE FUNDAMENTAL GIMMICK BEING
TO TRY TO RE-RELIGIONIZE AN INTELLECTUAL AND MATERIAL MOVEMENT EXTERNAL TO
ANY RELIGIOUS REPRESENTATION, AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ONLY ONE APT TO
DESCRIBED ITS DOOM

> Is this synthesis correct? If not complete it.

IT IS VERY POOR. WHERE ARE MY ARGUMENTS? SO, CF ANNIHILATION FOUNTAIN
#2.

> Also, I am not that much a fan of yours yet to wish to undertake yet
> another of your tedious reading. So, please explain in palatable words
> your distinction between ontology and gnoseology. I fucked off and
> enjoyed it very much thank you.
 
BEING MORE AND MORE CERTAIN THAT YOU ARE AN EMPIRICIST, I UNDERSTAND YOUR
HESITATIONS TOWARD THESE ONE. ONTOLOGY: DOCTRINE OF BEING. GNOSEOLOGY:
DOCTRINE OF KNOWLEDGE. EXAMPLE. YOU TAKE A NOTION: SAY THE IDEA OF
JUSTICE. QUESTION: IS JUSTICE AN ONTOLOGICAL OR A GNOSEOLOGICAL CONCEPT.
IF YOU CONSIDER THE NOTION OF JUSTICE AS ONTOLOGICAL, YOU CLAIM THAT
JUSTICE IS A CATEGORY OF EXISTENCE, THAT SOME FORM OF IMMANENT JUSTICE
EXISTS IN THE WORLD INDEPENDENTLY FROM OUR CONSCIOUSNESS. YOU BELIEVE THAT
WE EVENTUALLY PAY OR GET REWARDED FOR EVERYTHING DE FACTO. IF YOU CONSIDER
THE NOTION OF JUSTICE AS GNOSEOLOGICAL, YOU CLAIM THAT JUSTICE IS A
CATEGORY OF KNOWLEDGE, AN INTELLECTUAL NOTION SUCEPTIBLE TO VARY WITH THE
CHANGES OF HISTORY AND TOTALLY DETERMINATED BY THE EXISTENCE AND
CONFIGURATION OF HUMAN SOCIETIES. AN IDEA SUBORDINATED TO THE SET OF
BELIEF OR KNOWLEDGE WE HAVE OF THE WORLD. IS THAT SO COMPLICATED? IF SO CF
MY PART IN THE FOUNTAIN #1.

> Once I have the necessary precisions, I shall proceed with the
> refutation of your text. Though as I said, it is not entirely untrue but
> demands, screams and supplicates for nuances and subtle readjustment
> before it can properly cum out of your ivory tower with any hope of
> fertilizing anyone or anything but your own flock of pews!
 
SO ARE YOU GOING TO PRODUCE A GENUINE OPPOSITIVE REFUTATION OR A SIMPLE
AMPLIFICATION OR REFINEMENT OF MY ARGUMENTATION??? AND WHAT IS YOUR OWN
TOWER MADE OF: GOLD, PLATINUM, OR SIMPLY IVORY TOO (SINCE WE ARE INDULGING 
OURSELVES TO INTERACT IN THE SAME SPHERES)?

> See ya!
> 
> P.S.
> Also, should you find yourself idle while I prepare the final assault,
> try to answer that question you so deftly avoided: What experience do
> you have with religions ans religious persons?
 
THE STANDARD EXPERIENCE OF AN ORDINARY CITIZEN OF THE WESTERN WORLD AT THE
END OF THE MILLENIUM. I MET BELIEVERS, I MET ATHEISTS. I INTERACTED WITH
CATHOLICS, PROTESTANTS, MUSLIMS, SIKHS, AND BUDDHIST. WHAT ELSE DO YOU
WANT TO KNOW? BE MORE SPECIFIC?





Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 19:43:37 -0500
From: Nicolas Pattee
Subject: Final

Being a very busy person, I seem to have lost interest in the debate.
The main reasons for this are that it seems to me you have failed to
adress the most important parts of my argumentation to focus on rather
insignificant parts. Is also seems to me you were in no way paying it
the attention I gave it myself.

Though you may not wish to be religionnized, you nevertheless evolve in
the field of belief. I CANNOT see what argument you can bring on that
save the old myth of objectivity or that ludicrous notion of knowledge.
I claim your subjectivism because there is absolutely no way it can be
avoided for anyone unless they are delusionnal and believe themselves
objective. If you read our texts again, you will notice you contradict
youself on that point, "ignorance of our own deterninism" "I wrote as a
human being" Seems to me I would have to undertake the tedious task of
teaching you that objectivity is a myth... 

As for the dwindling of religion, I would rather adress the current
phenomenon as a category translation. My own definition of religion is
apparently less restrictive than yours and I doubt you could so easily 
maintain your position should you be prepared to accept my definition.
but then again, that would take too long to be spilled on someone as set
in their beliefs as you are.

Open your TV on Much Music. Though I doubt you have the eye for it, try
and notice the multitude of religious inputs you`ll find there... I am
sorry to say but from my point of view, even though you can call it
marketing, I call wall-mart morning pep-talks W-A-L-L  tadidaa! M-A-R-T
ritual behavior whose purpose is intensification of belief. Though you
may call it a uniform, I call a judges regalia the means by which he or
she imposes respect and fear and that my friend are both proprieties of
an object called sacred. the example of category transferal are...
Legion haha! I see fragmentation as the survival of religion not as its
dwindling, much like stepping on mercury. Religion as a mass uniting
factor is truly dwindling but look hard and you will notice that ALL
mass uniting institutions are dwindling. Isn't that called
postmodernity? Surely you have heard that trendish word?

I adress the mechanics. I believe you just don't like the word religion
to be applied to anything else than your own conception because it
becomes suddenly harder to deflate. I said it was reductionnist and I
maintain that position though I will not try to expand your horizons.

BECAUSE, MY FRIEND, IT HAS BECOME APPARENT THAT NEITHER OF US ARE GOING
TO CHANGE POSITION OR HAVE ANY INTENTION TO DO SO. Also, from the point
of view of cognitive dissonance, the easy parry that no valid argument
was given does not hold because in essence, there will always be a way
to circumvent it and that, my friend, is religious behavior... Like it
or not...

See ya!

P.S.
As for your personnal experience, I just wanted to know if you had ever
bothered to step out of your way and go see inside... It appears not.
You are right, I am probably an empiricist, and from that position, I
believe we cannot relate for all my experience tell me the contrary and
it appears it would be necessary for you to have at least some prolonged
contact with a religion in order to understand my position. This refers
to my own incapacity of transmission. Having been there, a lot and in
many places, I say you don't even begin to understand the phenomenon you
adress with your classy definitions. All I see there is yet again an
evolutionnist theory whose hidden purpose is to glorify us occidentals
to pole position ( I just cannot admit that Indians who remain
polytheists and are nevertheless authorities in computer dynamics,
thanks to very old Panini`s sanskrit grammar, are less evolved than we
are). And to use one of your own gimmicks, don't even try to say the
contrary cause you'll be ignoring your own determinisms





Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 13:20:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Laurendeau
Subject: THE FINAL DUD OF SAINT NICOLAS

NOT YELLING (NOT IMPRESSED ENOUGH FOR THAT)

> Being a very busy person, I seem to have lost interest in the debate.
> The main reasons for this are that it seems to me you have failed to
> adress the most important parts of my argumentation to focus on rather
> insignificant parts. Is also seems to me you were in no way paying it
> the attention I gave it myself.

THIS SUDDEN LACK OF INTEREST HAPPENS AT AN INTERESTING MOMENT IN THE
EXCHANGE: EXACTLY WHEN THE "FINAL" ASSAULT OF YOUR REFUTATION WAS SUPPOSED
TO STORM OVER. YOU COULD HAVE WASTED LESS ENERGY WITH YOUR
MAMBO-JAMBOISH PERORAISONS ABOUT PIERCE AND SO ON EARLIER. BUT THAT IS
OKAY, IT WAS ENTERTAINING TO READ... LET NOW INQUIRY INTO YOUR FINAL DUD.
 
> Though you may not wish to be religionnized, you nevertheless evolve in
> the field of belief. I CANNOT see what argument you can bring on that
> save the old myth of objectivity or that ludicrous notion of knowledge.
> I claim your subjectivism because there is absolutely no way it can be
> avoided for anyone unless they are delusionnal and believe themselves
> objective. If you read our texts again, you will notice you contradict
> youself on that point, "ignorance of our own deterninism" "I wrote as a
> human being" Seems to me I would have to undertake the tedious task of
> teaching you that objectivity is a myth... 
 
RIGHT. THE STANDARD EMPIRICIST ATTACKS AGAINST THE POSSIBILITY TO
STABILIZE AN OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE. BISHOP BERKELEY IN PERSON (I WILL
POSSIBLY WRITE SOMETHING LATER IN THE FOUNTAIN ON THIS...). HEAR CAREFULLY
THE ANSWER. IF OBJECTIVITY IS A MYTH IT MEANS THAT IT IS EITHER TOTALLY OR
PARTIALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO STABILIZE AN OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE. IF YOU ENTERTAIN
THE HYPOTHESIS THAT IT IS TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO STABILIZE ANY OBJECTIVE
KNOWLEDGE YOU ENCOUNTER SEVERAL PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES. WHAT MAKES YOU
OPEN YOUR UMBRELLA AT THE RIGHT MOMENT WHEN IT RAINS, WHAT PERMITS YOU TO
DISTINGUISH A GLASS OF COKE FROM A GLASS OF 7UP, OR EVEN WHAT PERMITS YOU
TO OBSERVE THAT I DIRSREGARD WHAT YOU CONSIDER IMPORTANT. INFORMATIONS
GRASPED ABOUT THE OBJECTIVE WORLD, COMING FLATLY THROUGH YOUR SENSES OR
THROUGH A CONGLOMERATE OF PERCEPTION AND REASONNING. HELVETIUS USED TO SAY
THAT EVERYBODY IS SEEING THE MILK WHITE NOT RED, SOME CAN SEE IT LIGHTER,
DARKER, OFF OR BRIGHT, THERE IS A CERTAIN FLUCTUATION BUT THERE IS A
STABILIZED ELEMENT. BACON, VERY MISTAKENLY CONSIDERED AS THE FATHER OF
EMPIRICISM, USED TO SAY THAT SENSES ARE AN UNEVEN MIRROR. AH, AH, AH!
"UNEVEN" WILL YOU SAY... BUT STILL "A MIRROR", WILL I ANSWER. ADD ALSO THE
IMPACT OF THE COLLECTIVE. IF EVERYBODY SEES THE AIRPLANE IN THE SKY BUT
YOU, YOU WILL PEACEFULLY CONCLUDE THAT YOU MISSED THAT PERCEPTION OF A
REAL OBJECT WHEN EVERYBODY WAS SCREAMING "THERE OVER THE BARN!", AND NOT
THAT YOUR GROUP OF PEERS IS A BUNCH OF MYTHOCRATIC OBJECTIVISTS. THE
TOTALLY SHIZOPHRENIC UNIVERSE WHERE WE HAVE NO PERCEPTION WHATSOEVER OF
OBJECTIVE REALITY IS TO BE TOSS ASIDE. THEN, LET ENTERTAIN THE SECOND
HYPOTHESIS. OBJECTIVITY IS A MYTH BECAUSE IT IS PARTIALLY, OR EVEN MAINLY, 
IMPOSSIBLE TO STABILIZE AN OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE. FAR MORE ACCURATE, AND
MORE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE GENUINE NOTION OF MYTH: NOT AN INTEGRAL 
FALSITY BUT A DISTORTED LORE MIXING THE HISTORICAL AND THE LEGENDARY. BUT
YOUR CLAIM IS NOW IN JEOPARDY DUE TO ONE OF ITS FLATLY DIRECT
CONSEQUENCES. IF OBJECTIVITY IS PARTIALLY, OR EVEN MAINLY, DISTORTED, IT
HAS TO BE PARTIALLY, EVEN MINIMALLY, ACCURATE AT THE SAME TIME. 'COURSE!
THAT IS WHAT PARTIAL AND IMCOMPLETE IS ALL ABOUT, SWEETIE! TO DENY THE
INTEGRALITY OF OBJECTIVITY IS TO ACKNOWLEDGE ITS LOCAL EXISTENCE, THE
CATEGORY YOU WERE TRYING TO REJECT FROM THE SYSTEM IS BOUNCING BACK ON
YOU. A FLAWED MACHINE IS STILL A MACHINE. IT IS A WRECK, BUT THE STRAIGHT
FACT THAT IT DOES NOT WORK WELL CONFIRMS THAT IT WORKS. AND THE MINUT WE
CAN KNOW OBJECTIVELY EVEN A LITTLE BIT AND IN A DISTORTED WAY, THAT BIT
CAN BE BIGGER OR SMALLER, IMPROVED OR DETERIORATED. THE POSSIBILITY OF THE
PROGRESS OF OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE, WHATEVER YOUR IRRATIONALIST HYSTERIA CAN
BE ABOUT IT, IS UNAVOIDABLE. IN OTHER TERMS, THE MINUT YOU CANNOT LIVE
WITH THE CERTAINLY THAT WE ARE INTEGRAL AND COMPLETE IGNORANTS OF THE
OBJECTIVE WORLD, ROUND AND INERT PEBBLES ON THE BEACH OF EXISTENCE, YOU
HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE OBJECTIVITY AND YOUR COLLAPSE IS UNAVOIDABLE.

> As for the dwindling of religion, I would rather adress the current
> phenomenon as a category translation. My own definition of religion is
> apparently less restrictive than yours and I doubt you could so easily 
> maintain your position should you be prepared to accept my definition.
> but then again, that would take too long to be spilled on someone as set
> in their beliefs as you are.
 
THAT IS CALLED THE CONVENTIONNALIST ARGUMENT. IT GOES AS FOLLOWS. IN MY
TERMINOLOGICAL CONVENTION "IDIOT" HAS A DIFFERENT MEANING. IT MEANS
"PERSON". THEREFORE, DUE TO MY "APPARENTLY LESS RESTRICTIVE" NOTION OF
IDIOCY, I AM SIMPLY REFERRING TO YOUR EXISTENCE AS A PERSON WHEN I CALL
YOU AN "IDIOT". IF YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO FLIP ENGLISH LANGUAGE UP SIDE
DOWN TO ACCOMDATE MY LITTLE CONCEPTIONS, IT IS BECAUSE YOU ARE "TOO SET IN
YOUR BELIEFS" 

> Open your TV on Much Music. Though I doubt you have the eye for it, try
> and notice the multitude of religious inputs you`ll find there... I am
> sorry to say but from my point of view, even though you can call it
> marketing, I call wall-mart morning pep-talks W-A-L-L  tadidaa! M-A-R-T
> ritual behavior whose purpose is intensification of belief. Though you
> may call it a uniform, I call a judges regalia the means by which he or
> she imposes respect and fear and that my friend are both proprieties of
> an object called sacred. the example of category transferal are...
> Legion haha! I see fragmentation as the survival of religion not as its
> dwindling, much like stepping on mercury. Religion as a mass uniting
> factor is truly dwindling but look hard and you will notice that ALL
> mass uniting institutions are dwindling. Isn't that called
> postmodernity? Surely you have heard that trendish word?
 
THE DISTINCTION IS TO BE MADE HERE BETWEEN RELIGION AND RELIGIOSITY.
APPLYING IT STRICTLY TO RELIGIOSITY AS A SPECIFIC TYPE OF GNOSEOLOGICAL
SENSITIVITY, I AM READY TO FOLLOW YOU PARTLY HERE (WITH SEVERAL
RESERVATIONS: WHAT YOU SAY HERE IS TOO GROSS AND SIMPLISTIC). BUT THAT
CONFIRMS MAGISTRALLY MY VIEWS. RELIGIOSITY, OR RELIGIOUS SENSITIVITY, 
SHOWS A CERTAIN TENDENCY (OVERESTIMATED BY YOU, BUT TO EXIST PARTIALLY IS
TO EXIT, AS I SAID. SO, FINE...) TO MANIFEST ITSELF OUTSIDE OF THE CULT
EXPLICITELY DELIVERED TO A GOD, AND IN INTEGRALLY SECULARIAN SECTORS
(WALL-MART!). THAT IS A BLATANT AND FLAMBOYANT SYMPTOM OF THE DOOM
OF ITS ORIGINAL TRADITIONNAL CHANNEL OF MANIFESTATION: RELIGION(S).

> I adress the mechanics. I believe you just don't like the word religion
> to be applied to anything else than your own conception because it
> becomes suddenly harder to deflate. I said it was reductionnist and I
> maintain that position though I will not try to expand your horizons.
 
DO YOU LIKE THE WORD "IDIOT" APPLIED TO A "PERSON". TO PLAY MONOPOLY WITH
THE TERMINOLOGY BY SPECULATING AT THE STOCK EXCHANGE OF TERMINOLOGICAL
CONVENTIONS WILL NOT PROTECT YOUR ARGUMENTATION FROM ITS BANKRUPCY...

> BECAUSE, MY FRIEND, IT HAS BECOME APPARENT THAT NEITHER OF US ARE GOING
> TO CHANGE POSITION OR HAVE ANY INTENTION TO DO SO (YOUR TEXT - P.L.).

THANK YOU FOR REVEALING AT LAST YOUR DOGMATIC FOUNDATIONS. AS FAR AS I AM
CONCERNED, I CHANGE MY MIND THE VERY MINUT I AM CONVINCED. I DO NOT PLAY
"DEVILS ADVOCATE" JUST FOR THE PLEASURE OF ARGUYING, WITHOUT RISQUING THE
TOTALITY OF MY CONCEPTIONS IN THE EXCHANGE. YOU DO. 

> Also, from the point
> of view of cognitive dissonance, the easy parry that no valid argument
> was given does not hold because in essence, there will always be a way
> to circumvent it and that, my friend, is religious behavior... Like it
> or not...
 
TERMINOLOGICAL DISTORTION.

> See ya!

THANK YOU FOR BEING GENUINE AND EXPLICIT.

> P.S.
> As for your personnal experience, I just wanted to know if you had ever
> bothered to step out of your way and go see inside... It appears not.
> You are right, I am probably an empiricist, and from that position, I
> believe we cannot relate for all my experience tell me the contrary and
> it appears it would be necessary for you to have at least some prolonged
> contact with a religion in order to understand my position. This refers
> to my own incapacity of transmission. Having been there, a lot and in
> many places, I say you don't even begin to understand the phenomenon you
> adress with your classy definitions. All I see there is yet again an
> evolutionnist theory whose hidden purpose is to glorify us occidentals
> to pole position ( I just cannot admit that Indians who remain
> polytheists and are nevertheless authorities in computer dynamics,
> thanks to very old Panini`s sanskrit grammar, are less evolved than we
> are). And to use one of your own gimmicks, don't even try to say the
> contrary cause you'll be ignoring your own determinisms

I REJECT AND DISREGARD THE ACCUSATIONS OF ETHNOCENTRISM. YOU SPEAK FOR THE
INDIANS AND DECLARE THEM POLYTHEISTS. YOU CONFUSE INDIAN AND HINDUIST.
STOP TO PLAY THE CHEAP 19TH CENTURY ETHNOLOGIST AND LISTEN FIRST DEGREE
FOR WHAT THESE PEOPLE HAVE TO SAY. THE INDIAM MUSLIMS WOULD SIMPLY LAUGH
AT YOU. EVEN THE HINDUISTS WOULD PROVIDE YOU WITH A PANTHEON COVERED UNDER
THE DEIST VISION OF A SUPREME BEING. BUT WHAT CAN I SAY TO A BOZO WHO
EVEN USES PANINI AS A INSTRUMENT OF THEOLOGICAL GARBAGE.





Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 21:49:03 -0500
From: Nicolas Pattee
Subject: Re: THE FINAL DUD OF SAINT NICOLAS

Just read your reply...

Well... Seems to me that your refusal to acknowledge possible
discrepancy between our reciprocal definitions of religion and its
import on our debate closes it efficiently. So be it.

I do not feel that the relation between extra-institutionnal religious
behavior and secularization as a sign of religion dwindling has been
demonstrated properly. I call it survival you call it dwindling... I
fail to see...

Though I may well have underestimated you, I must say that you final
reply about hinduism is also an underestimation of me... Do you really
think I don't know these facts? Come on... That is as cheap as any
Jehovic exegetical brainless shortcut...

Sad...

See ya
Nick
And here ends the debate. Is there a clear winner or loser? Is it a draw? Does it matter? I guess it's up to the individual reader to come to their own conclusions...

Main Page | Dead Media | CIA Torture Manual | TAF Gallery
Terrence McKenna | Contact TAF