From: Colin Dey <C.R.DEY-AT-dundee.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 01:44:40 GMT Subject: Re: In defence of humans On 23 Jan 96 at 15:38, tomdill-AT-womenscol.stephens.ed wrote: > I think the problem is... possibly a conflict between those who > assume a discourse is possible and the couple who seem to want to > transform the list... with one announcing a simple dichotomy and demanding an instant > choice, then announcing in bullying tones that the choice is > WRONG, then ridiculing the "children" for failing to agree. How > easy it is on these lists for a shouting anti-intellect to > derail discussion. Tom Dillingham Tom, I do believe a discourse is possible. I have to - I am working on new forms of (accounting) discourse. And I think the discussion on this list is generally very good indeed, if a little long-winded and verbose. All I have tried to do is offer you intellectual thought from outside the ivory towers of academia, which seems to have failed disastrously. I wonder why...? But I admit, I do not like to be serious about philosophy all the time, just in case I disappear up my own arsehole! The need to be pragmatic at least some of the time helps, I feel. My "demand" for an "instant" choice was crude, because it was tongue in cheek. I am sorry that you do not appreciate my attempt to cock a snook at the Cybertheorists deluding themselves through discourse. I thought it made an important point actually. Never mind though. I certainly didn't intend to ridicule the people contributing to the list. You may not believe it but I am as concerned as you about the discussion. If I may make a suggestion, why don't you offer us all a constructive contribution? cheers now, Colin. ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005