-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.2 May 2004

1. Would you mind using the occasional linebreak in your bizarre rants?

2. I fear you've become terribly confused. This isn't some sort of competition to see who can have the theory of human nature that requires the most spine to accept. Whether or not one theory is more difficult to accept than another is beside the point. The question is which theory better explains human nature.

You seem determined to hold a theory which is demonstrably buncombe because it poses a "deeper challenge". You think that artificially imposing a grand cosmic structure on your life is a worthwhile thing to do. Fine. But whether it's worthwhile to do that is totally separate from whether you can explain actual human behaviour with some grand cosmic theory of "spirituality".

A good theory of X explains all of the observations about X with the fewest exceptions and special cases. But your theory is based on the principle that humans are essentially "spiritual", which means that for the 90% of human behaviour which isn't "spiritual", you have to make exceptions and call them special cases. Ergo it is a buncombe theory.