Re: "defense of wilderness" (wasRe: lexicon)
From: | Andreas Johansson <andjo@...> |
Date: | Friday, June 6, 2003, 19:21 |
Quoting J Y S Czhang <czhang23@...>:
This is getting more and more off-topic, and farther and further away
from "art as defense against wilderness", but I can't resist a few choice
points.
[snip]
> In a message dated 2003:06:05 12:30:05 AM, Andreas quotes & writes:
>
> >I'm of course aware of the tendency in western thought to see humans
> as
> >very much apart from other animals.
>
> And the environment. Bingo! this is the Man Versus Nature
> conflict/dichotomy in a nutshell. "Tendency" 0_o? Do I detect a little
> bit of rationalisation
> or minimization? Or both?
It appears we've got slightly different connotations with the
word "tendency" ... Nativers, does this in English necessarily suggest
something of secondary importance?
And you've _still_ not answered by question, BTW. (Which was how my comment
about the existence of aspect of nature that are antithetical to human
existence "partakes" in the "Man Versus Nature conflict/dichotomy".)
[snip]
> What is intriguing is that the recent sciences of chaos and
> complexity
> seem to validate fatalism's model of the world.
Chaos theory is perfectly deterministic, and so, it would seem to follow, can
only validate deterministic world-views. Earlier you likened fatalism to the
roll of "many many-sided dice", which is usually taken to be a stochastic (ie,
non-deterministic) process. Care to clarify?
[snip]
> >> Animals are wiser than us Higher Primates when it comes to
> certain
> >> issues of life-or-death.
> >
> >And this is exactly the kind of remark I'd expect and be annoy by
> from
> >an animal-rightist. If you'd only supply an "other" before "animals"
> ...
>
> At least in my monkeybrains, by labelling humans "Higher Primates"
> links
> us monkeybrained fuckups directly to the animal kingdom.
And in my monkeybrains, it sounds like "poodles are bigger than dogs".
> And I am a proud animal/human-rights activist...
Well, I'm not.
Andreas