******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
"I've never seen so many non sequiturs, debater's tricks . . ." My very short commentary was not really intended to debate you, Andrew. Simply to point out that just because a scientist tries to explain the whole of science doesn't absolve one of the context he is writing within. Science doesn't happen in a vaccuum it isn't "blind" (postivism) and unbiased, and, therefore, one who hopes to explain "science's" patterns should recognize any theory he develops is going to be at one abstract and subject his limitations. I found the paper interesting, but not really as laudable as you seem to think. Your defensiveness about being a White male (and looking for other White male experts to "set me straight") only proves my point. I got the impression you were trying to make yourself appear "intellectual" and informed in your overly idolatrous commentary, so, I am sorry if I struck a nerve (seems to be happening with more frequency these days). I suppose you may believe that my "short contribution" was trying somehow to denounce Scialabba's review of Watson's book and Watson's book and take them on with petty debater's tricks. It was nothing of the sort and simply observing the nature of this kind of discourse--it is constrained by White male bias despite your wishing such intellectualism were somehow free and untouched by our social order--is not something I at least am willing to accept given this social order. And, you are correct that I harbor an antagonism to White people thinking that they have a franchise on the truth just because they get to write and be all intellectual wi th so much more recognition and, you know, attention and cash, than too many people of color who may have similar or, horror of horrors, different than the established discourse. It is endemic to the discourse of even the best political left (which I do count you among) to believe that White people have so much more to contribute to ideas "in general" that aren't seen as directly the purview of the oppressed, which, of course, that same White political left take such great pains to ally themselves because, after all, you are Marxists and can't afford to appear uncaring of "our" interests even if "we" don't really have that much to say on such matters as "big history" and whether or not "convergent patterns" are, you know, a thing. Finally, you may be tempted to observe that none of what I said above appears to have much to do with the actual ideas within Scialabba's review or of Watson's book and, therefore, appears "non sequitur" or irrelevant. That is largely your fault and more broadly the fault of the White political left who demonstrate with every word their utter arrogance about the "common enterprise" we--you all and, you know, the oppressed--supposedly share. It is quite easy for you to appear all "solidarity" when you perceive the oppressed to need you, but your color (or lack of it) always tends to show at those times when you believe "we" (that's the oppressed in case you can't follow) really aren't reading or have little to understand never mind say. I can understand why many people of color (and women for that matter) tend to just "skulk" on some of these lists because it can be disheartening and frustrating to raise an opinion among the more "erudite" (read, the more able to be published and hear d). You can largely accept differences of opinion or even be enthralled with the opinions people of color if they are from other countries, especially if they coincide with your way of thinking, but let anyone raise a point, any point, if they are to "close" to you but have the wrong color (or name), then, we are just engaging in non-sequitur, debater's tricks, and irrelevancies (after all, what else could we be doing since we don't really know anything). You probably can't even imagine how tiring it gets to feel you have to write more just to defend yourself to have an opinion and really have so little opportunity to discuss actual ideas when you are assaulted with banalities and racist antagonism simply because you made an observation that didn't set well with the more "knowledgeable" in our midst. You probably don't even believe I have any will to say anything else than to decry the racist hostility of the "progressive" Marxist left. I have much to say, but I actually refuse to d o so because such racist antagonism (and I a! m using the term consciously and in its true scientific meaning) leaves me cold and unfeeling to your and such people's sensibilities. I find it therapeutic to lambaste your racially founded antagonisms than to engage you intellectually. I'm sure you will want to engage your impulse to be arrogant and dismiss me (perhaps even unfriend me), which is your right. However, doing so only illustrates why I've spent so much time condescending to your limited worldview; of cosmogony, of the people for whom you purport ally, and, of course me. _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
