At 02:19 PM 12/10/1998 -0500, you wrote:
>hi steven, you never mentioned it, but i assumed that i was the principle
>person to whom this post was addressed....
>
>>Words are not without meaning, they shouldn't mean just anything you want.

There is something of course that is missing here and that is poetic
licence. None of the dictionary definitions regarding altruism indicate that
this is "the selfish gene" acting in animals, but only "selfless" behaviour
in humans, hence the francais: un autre or in spanish un otro, or the other.
The term altruistic came from Auguste Comte back in the 17th when he coined
the phrase "altruism" to mean selfless behaviour for helping some other
person. The first meanings were more or less used poetically due to lack of
usage in a certain social context. The term altruism now means two different
things: in animals it is selfishness for one's genes, and in humans it being
selfless for others [include relations, animals, etc.].

Definitions for many social constructions [definitions as social
constructions] such as waste for instance are subject to the
inter-subjective interpretation of the melieu in which they arise. For
instance nuclear waste as a definition varies and is different depending on
the culture, and community that perceives the waste. It is difficult to
obtain anything but a cognitive definition of waste here since people are
unable to sense radionuclides (gamma rays, beta particles, etc.) perhaps
except through a burning sensation. One community may see the waste as a
threat to wilderness and tourism, ecological health, while another community
may see the waste as an economic boon to the local economy. Industrialized
areas with high unemployment, and other dominant sorts of paradigmatic views
expressing a technological/scientific orientation will construct social
definitions about nuclear waste that are vastly different than say a resort
community or a farming community. See for instance "Environmental Conflict
as a Social Construction: Nuclear Waste Conflict in Finland" by Tapio
Litmanen. 1996. In_Society and Natural Resources 9: pp523-535. In this paper
for instance it is stated


"...the days of strongly biased NIMBY perspectives are numbered.
Sophisticated studies of environmental conflicts have shown that many of the
local views expressed reflect several concerns that should be taken into
account in the formulation and reformulation of nuclear waste policy....An
analysis of an environmental conflict must discover the system of internal
and external relationships that constitute the action, not reduce the scene
to a dualistic situation, as in the dichotomy between general versus
particular interest (NIMBY). *In other words, the analysis must
conceptualize the movement or the conflict as a social construction.*"

What must be said here is that definitions are social constructions and as
such are subject to change, interpretation and cultural inter-subjective
perspectives.


>
>i agree... however, i must plead ignorance to knowing the exact definition
>of every word in the english language, especially some of the more slippery
>ones that we tend to use in ethical debate.... there's no excuse for me not
>studying up more for such arguments, but i don't think that i should stop
>expressing my views just because i am not 100 percent versed in the exact
>meaning of the words.... i'm not changing their meanings arbitrarily...
>just trying to explain what i mean by them.... and as people so generously
>provide exact definitions of those words on this list, it makes it much
>easier!... :)

Jon

<snip>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%