From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Sat Jul 12 2003 - 03:48:52 BST
Squonk,
(Note: Since I agree with Bo's position about the S/O divide being the
mark of the intellectual level, and since I don't want to speak for Bo,
I am taking your charge of having a position that implies racism,
bigotry, etc., as applying to me.)
sq: I agree differentiation's are found in all cultures. Eastern culture
is not as severe as the West, but its there, i agree. I do not believe i
have ever said Eastern culture does NOT have differentiation's?
I never said you did. You have said that I my position implies that
Eastern culture was not intellectual, which I flatly deny.
sq: I don't see a huge link between these differentiation's and
intellect. Intellect can assert they are there, but that is another
matter all together. Intellect can assert many things - it can assert
that everything is totally material, even society, as in Thomas Hobbes.
Irrelevant. It doesn't matter how we differ in defining what is
intellect. What matters is that you have accused me of supporting
"racism in the forum".
sq: Skutvik conflates aesthetics, and in doing so denies the East of
one, namely the intellect.
You have a peculiar view of what constitutes the aesthetic, which it is
your right to have. But to use your view to interpret my position as
implying that we don't think the East has intellect is bad logic. It is
refutable by the simple observation that I DO think the East has
intellect.
sq: Considering the East is more aesthetically inclined than the West,
that is pretty damn ignorant in my view.
This seems to contradict your previous sentence, but it doesn't matter.
I haven't said that either culture is more or less aesthetic (or
intellectual) than the other. To interpret what I have said as saying
that is, again, filtering what I say through your peculiar ideas. Again,
it is your right to do so, but to turn that into a charge of racism. or
ignorance, is not OK. You are using this logic:
I think of X as being Y.
Y implies Z.
Therefore X implies Z.
and applying it to someone (me) who denies that X is Y.
This would be ok, except Z is the highly inflammatory word "racism".
sq: I feel the Skutvik doctrine to be patronising and bigoted.
You "feel" that. That isn't sufficient. You have to *show* it, without
skewing it through your aesthetic philosophy, if you are going to make
accusations of this seriousness.
sq: There are no subjects and objects in the MoQ.
Irrelevant. I am waiting for a retraction.
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 12 2003 - 23:52:11 BST