In a message dated 1/20/99 7:53:16 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

<< Certainly not the bastard progeny of an unholy union between Derrida,
Foucault and Mary Daly which you are here attempting to foist as philosophy.
>>

Again, try doing your thinking for yourself rather than trying to fit my
thinking into the boxes you've learned.

"you are devaluing self-consciousness for the sake of empowering flora."

I'm not "devaluing" self-consciousness ; but self-consciousness certainly
needs to be put into perspective. Human arrogance doesn't strike me as
anything worthy of praise. Hubris is hubris.

"You mean it is ineffable. "  No, I do NOT mean it is ineffable. I mean that
other descriptive systems are necessary to do justice to the experience,
because the dominant categories are inadequate.

"Your experience, qua yours, cannot be negated by anyone else's (experience
being, like Dasein, "in each case mine" (Heidegger)), but, by the same logic,
neither are you free to pull a Baudrillard on us by forcing us to adopt a
similacrum of your experience as our own."

But one can point out structures in language and in the socius which block
certain types of experience.

"Are you against the use of vaccines, antibiotics and disinfectants because of
the devastation they wreak on the microbe population (spawns of science they
are; how evil they must be!)?  My point being that just because something is
not entirely natural does not mean that to employ it is a sign of moral
deficiency."

This is entirely irrelevant. I suggested a critique of industrialism ; nowhere
in this context did I speak of the natural or indeed of science. I spoke of
production.

"Until we reduce our populations to the point where a mass agricultural
infrastructure is unnecessary, our options are limited."

Bull. It's political and social realities as well as cultural lags that block
widescale local permaculture, fungiculture,etc. It's a restructuring of lives
that is necessary. I'm not disagreeing that population reduction is part of
that equation ; but it is not the all of it.

Reply via email to