Fuzzy Thinking

[Guest guest]

If it can't be explained, how can anyone new to it decide whether to " be "

one? Or know if they're succeeding?

 

 

On Sunday, February 16, 2003, at 05:23 AM, (AT) (DOT)

com wrote:

 

>> Then there can never be new Quakers?

>

> Of course there can be, and are, new Quakers. The point was simply that

> trying to explain Quakerism to non-Quakers may be pointless.

" Pavlov's Dog caused some of the domesticated primates to think that all

dog behavior was equally mechanical. This made them wonder about other

mammals, including themselves. Most primates ignored this philosophical

challenge. They went about their business assuming that they were not

mechanical. "

 

Robert Anton Wilson

Schrodinger's Cat

[Guest guest]

-

" The Stewarts " <stews9

 

Monday, February 17, 2003 2:18 AM

Fuzzy Thinking

 

 

> If it can't be explained, how can anyone new to it decide whether to " be "

> one? Or know if they're succeeding?

 

It " may " not " will " be pointless. It can be explained, but someone for whom

rigid dogma is important will probably not understand the Quaker approach to

creed and dogma. As to how they will know if they are " succeeding " , first

we would have to define " success " .

 

Lee-Gwen

[Guest guest]

IMHO~ Someone who was truly interested in becoming one would

have already gone " aha " .

 

Pixx

 

On 16 Feb 2003 at 9:18, The Stewarts wrote:

 

> If it can't be explained, how can anyone new to it decide whether to

> " be " one? Or know if they're succeeding?

>