Keith Hudson wrote:
>
> Ed,
>
> Just for now:
>
> At 14:13 21/10/02 -0400, you wrote:
> <<<<
> What can men still do that women can't? Well, they can still play football.
> >>>>
>
> Don't you believe it!
[snip]
Once again, we are asking the wrong *kind of* question.
I think the battle for civilization is lost as soon as we
yield to the myth of the ontological significance of groups --
i.e., the idea that groups have any value except for
epidemiological and allied statistical studies. By groups,
I am referring to: "Christianity", "Islam", "The Jewish people",
"France", "the mother/fatherland", "Yale" [as in: "For God, for country
and for..."], "the company", "us", "our team", you
name it....
There are individuals. The question in each case
should be: What can this individual do/not do?
Of course, the more there are the less each is worth. This,
or rather its opposite: The fewer there are the more each
is worth -- has been argued as a reason why Russia
did not do its usual in Chechnya and simply pile up
casualties until the enemy was worn away:
http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/etc.html#fn27
Whenever group membership is a good, the situation is
bad. (Yes, I know, "people" still like to crowd --
to merge into a symphony or Superbowl or Rock concert
audience....)
The collective form of the word "person" needs to
be expunged from the lexicon, or at least turned into
a curse-word: There are persons. "People", and: "a people",
either do not
exist or else they are a less-than-person*s*.
\brad mccormick
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
