There is actually no difference, as there is no difference between sort of
fool and prat.
I picked up a book in a school recently. It was called England's greatest
poets or something like that. Of the one hundred and fifty poets, only one
was a woman. Now why is this?
I mentioned patriarchy, but actually it is rational thought itself as
language which is been claimed by men to the exclusion of woman and others
who are foreign to it's structures.
isabel.
Best wishes
http://bobtwice.blogspot.com/
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/meetingpool
----- Original Message -----
From: "ian glendinning" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 12:41 PM
Subject: [FRIENDSOFWISDOM-D] Emotion and Respect (aka Content and Style
Police)
> Dear All,
>
> My point when I started this thread was
> "The last thing we need though, is "direction and clarity" reduced to
> objectivity at the expense of emotion. (IMHO)"
>
> Perhaps I should re-phrase that.
>
> The last thing FoW needs are people imposing their "linear language
> stuck in time" (to quote isabel) on the style and content on the
> wisdom debate.
>
> The reason this board is bogged down on meta-issues like this is
> BECAUSE of the sefl-appointed police. None of the poets wants to talk
> about or defend their poetry, they want to use it to change the world
> - one word at a time.
>
> Ian
>
>
> On 3/12/07, Harvey Sarles <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Ian, David, et al,
>> I think reinstate, and then work on talking (wisely?) with one
>> another, and get past this conversation.
>> Harvey
>> On Mar 8, 2007, at 3:09 PM, David M wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Ian
>> >
>> > Maybe what is useful here is for those who can
>> > to try and help all of us understand what choices
>> > and possibilities we have and what the implications
>> > of those choices are. And to highlight those manipulations
>> > where TINAs are made out to be valid where they are not.
>> >
>> > TINA-there is no alternative
>> >
>> > David M
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "ian glendinning"
>> > <[log in to unmask]>
>> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 11:29 PM
>> > Subject: Re: Emotion and Respect
>> >
>> >
>> >> Karl, you asked ...
>> >>>
>> >>> But how do we know whether we are injecting wisdom or folly?
>> >>>
>> >> We don't, that's the point of wisdom, knowing that we don't know.
>> >> We don't "know" anything do we ?
>> >> We as a group of people concerned with wisdom will find at least some
>> >> traits / qualities / values we can agree are wiser than others ....
>> >> just one will do ... and we have the courage of our convictions to
>> >> propose those (But we do not have the presumption that we are
>> >> "necessarily" right.)
>> >> We take a risk. We make sure we do it in a "fast failures / minimum
>> >> casualities" environment ... and we learn ... and we go round again.
>> >> Ian
>> >>
>>
>
|