Please don't call my analysis ''philosophical manipulation''...
I think you've done this before and sorry but can't overlook it again :-)
In fact, shouldn't you actually appreciate.. even slightly.. that my
thoughts introduce some of the mainstream and bloody interesting
debates in academic circles and sociological departments?..
We all learn by re-examining our assumptions, don't we?.. And it seems
that you usually ask scientists' advise, so why such reaction now?..
Ok, I understand that many academic theories sound too challenging,
things tend to change fast, old common-sense is suddenly demolished
and replaced.. but there's nothing personal, nothing to fear, when
for example I offer criticisms to established but weak -as i explain-
ways of thinking, such as the label 'mother nature', or the self-given
'right' of intervention, or the 'progressive' as claimed human motives
in managing nature ..
It could be a new light to see things. You could offer back specific
counter-arguments. However, whether anyone here likes to join critical
thinking or not ... at least, there is nothing manipulative or 'too
philosophical' to complain about.
C.S.
On 02/09/06, James McBride <jnmcbr@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> For better or worse, man is an integral part of this ecosystem. No amount of
> philosophical manipulation can change that.
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|