At Mon, 15 Mar 1999 22:10:57 -0800 (PST), you wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---joe dees wrote:
>>
>> The Laws of Thought are as follows:
>>
>> If A, Then A
>> If Not A, Then Not A
>> Either A or Not A
>> Not (Both A And Not A)
>>
>> How can these rules, drawn from, reflective of, and uncontradicted
>by our common reality possibly "oppress" anyone more than anyone else?
>
>These rules are those followed by manstream logic. They ignore the
>realities of people whose lives are full of contradictions. For
>example, I can both love and hate something. I can have confidence
>and doubt in myself. These rules deny me a form of expression. I
>think that everyone can find that they have some contradictions
>between their emotions and their "rational" minds. These rules do not
>allow for resolution of these contradictions. We need a new paradigm,
>one which allows for, in fact demands, that we address the emotional
>and the logical. And any other factors I have not included.
>
>That is how I see these rules, this very traditional patriarchal
>system of knowledge, as oppressive.
>Heather
>__
I see what you mean. You can delete my post to protect youself from my oppressive,
patronizing, patriarchal and sexually threatening words (did I miss a cliche?), and
yet, at the same time, answer it comfortably, confidently, assertively, and
fearlessly. I must truly represent an intolerable danger to you. However, you and I
are not things (nor would I ever think of objectifying you); therefore you and I, as
complex, dynamic, self-conscious and recursively self-aware persons, may
simultaneously hold multitudes of mutually contradictory emotions, opinions, ideas,
and tendencies, as may we all. This does not change the face that the laws I gave are
directly extractable from everyone's perception of objects. Either I see a rock or I
don't. I can't both see and not see a rock at the same time. If I see a rock, I see a
rock. If I don't see a rock, I don't see a rock. They seem pretty central and
fundamental to me. In fact, I wouldn't like to try to build anything without t!
!
hem, either a house or an argument (I notice that you, while denying their validity
above, were nevertheless using them pretty handily - gotta watch that). Maybe I "just
don't get it" (oh, another cliche!). And maybe I do.
_______________________________________________________
>DO YOU YAHOO!?
>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
Joe E. Dees
Poet, Pagan, Philosopher
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access your e-mail anywhere, at any time.
Get your FREE BellSouth Web Mail account today!
http://webmail.bellsouth.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
