From: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com
Date: Sun Jul 13 2003 - 03:28:35 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.)
squonk: You will just have to get used to the idea that some people find you
objectionable won't you?
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.
squonk: Skutvik disagrees with you, for he feels Eastern culture's are
mindful but not intellectual.
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".
squonk: What constitutes intellect is central to a metaphysics that
differentiates intellect on cultural grounds. i.e. the Skutvik doctrine.
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.
squonk: It may be said with equal force that Skutvik has a peculiar view of
what constitutes the 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".
squonk: Truth is subservient to the good.
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.
squonk: Truth is subservient to the good. If your sense of what is good tells
you that the Skutvik doctrine is good, then as for as you are concerned its
good.
sq: There are no subjects and objects in the MoQ.
Irrelevant. I am waiting for a retraction.
- Scott
squonk: Then it is likely you will be waiting for along time.
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 : Sun Jul 13 2003 - 03:29:04 BST