Re: what was that?


Subject: Re: what was that?
From: miriam clinton (iriXx) (iriXx@iriXx.org)
Date: Thu Aug 18 2005 - 03:57:03 EDT


Kevin Austin wrote:

>
>
>
> I understand that Linda does not believe the naivite going on, for
> this is an emotional issue for her, and emotional concerns do not have
> access to processes of rational thought, or so Proust writes. It
> follows that the issues framed in these contexts cannot be
> 'discussed', as belief systems (articles of faith) cannot be
> 'discussed', as they are (by definition), not open to change and
> modification.

Kevin, you put my thoughts, as always, in a much more articulate manner.

/applaud.

Now, if we could get on with rational discussion instead of emotive
reasoning, perhaps we could get something interesting out of CECdiscuss
(including the guidelines which you are using at Concordia - perhaps a
good point for rebuilding this discussion) instead of incessant
emotionally derived and intentionally persuasive buzzwords - which tire
me, as a woman!

>
>
>

-- 
99% of aliens prefer Earth
--Eminem

www.iriXx.org www.copyleftmedia.org.uk



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:10 EST