and it's true - once you've adopted a common moniker, you
inherit ALL the people that ALSO share that same moniker to
those who do not share that moniker. I never liked monikers but
I begrudgingly accept Agnostic because I can explain myself and
anybody who says, "Yeah, well what about "so-and-so who also
says they're Agnostic", I can usually find something ok about
it. Besides, it's the closest to accurate enough for me for now.
-- Another one that took me a long time to "get to" is "I'm a
fan of embodied cognition". It was eye opening to find it, as I
was teetering around areas like an Ecological viewpoint, which
is _basically_ a systems view, but it had some 'extras' I didn't
like... and the Holographic viewpoint, which had a bit more
'woo' than I'd like... ..and I kept hovering around these and
other areas, trying to find the "it" that I could stand behind.
So when I came across the Embodied Cognition family of concepts
I thought, "Ah! Ok, even though I can poke holes in it like
anybody else can, I'm ok with the flaws". -- Somebody once ran
me through the standard 20 questions to try to atheize/theize my
agnosticism. They _did_ hit upon an interesting point in the...
conversation, such as it was, though, which made it worth my
time. I was able to identify Systems as the closest thing to a
god concept. I'm ok with that. Systems neither require a
designer for the systems BUT THEY COULD and neither must they
spontaneously arise due to subsystems nor do they require a
magical randomness either. In short, God/not-God, wasn't really
an issue for me as I'm fine with either way. In short, my big
fat "I don't know" fits perfectly fine there in the inertial
frame. smile emoticon --
