Re: what was that?

Subject: Re: what was that?
From: miriam clinton (iriXx) (
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.


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

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