Re: In defence of humans

On 23 Jan 96 at 15:38, tomdill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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

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,



Partial thread listing: