Re: foundations of relational theory?

Perhaps the nearest we can get to expressing it is to say this: that his mind moves in a perfect but narrow circle. A small circle is quite as infinite as a large circle; but, though it is quite as infinite, it is not so large. In the same way the insane explanation is quite as complete as the sane one, but it is not so large. A bullet is quite as round as the world, but it is not the world. There is such a thing as a narrow universality; there is such a thing as a small and cramped eternity; you may see it in many modern religions. Now, speaking quite externally and empirically, we may say that the strongest and most unmistakable mark of madness is this combination between a logical completeness and a spiritual contraction. The lunatic's theory explains a large number of things, but it does not explain them in a large way. I mean that if you or I were dealing with a mind that was growing morbid, we should be chiefly concerned not so much to give it arguments as to give it air, to convince it that there was something cleaner and cooler outside the suffocation of a single argument. (G.K. Chesterton)

It appears to fit right into this thread. If the relational proponents don’t understand why MV works, so be it. If it’s not *pure* enough for them. That’s amusing as well. I’m still looking for the spell to get Ed’s evaluation working.

Patrick, <;=)

P.S. Ed, I think you face South as the Sun rises to your left. :)- Received on Wed Oct 22 2003 - 02:45:20 CEST