Here is the text of this conversation:
“There may be two paths or more to a conclusion of meaning and the meaning is the same but one may be derivative and the other initial. Chuck had an initial meaning of Mach One plus, and there were others who speculated on it and thought it so, but they approached it from the side of not more than Mach One.
“Ok, I will try another analogy. Someone who knows her herbs makes up a sauce based on their knowledge of herbs and their cultural traditions. Another person just tastes and cooks.
Wintergreen. Would you eat a wintergreen candy? If you were a Brit, you would consider it a disinfectant scent. So if you were a Brit, you would never use it in cooking, but if you simply tasted it, you might.
“So you could reach a point of meaning based solely on external understanding that was the same as experiential, but one would be derivative and inorganic and the other original and organic.
“Now, conflict can arise when people talk about the reason why something is meaningful and the disagreement usually is based on whether the understood meaning has its own origin or is dependent on other systems of thought.
“ ‘People are basically good.’ For someone who bases this on their own experience to be told it is true because of the infinite goodness of the Creator creates a conflict. Both may say the same thing, but ascribe it differently. ‘Don't tell me it's not about my experience, but about your God.’ ‘Don't tell me, you think your experience is better than my God.’ Slap, slap… guns drawn… 100 Years War. [And they agreed as to the conclusions, but it does make a difference in your experience] Because organic is radical and inorganic is traditional. [So from inorganic, you can't go anywhere. It can't lead to anything else or develop into anything else.] Stuck."