[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: pat G. and the deep eco-ist
Yuri -
2 points here I want to address. The first is a reiteration of something I
recently wrote to DKlein on this subject:
Now, debate is in large part a body of MISUSE of literature. People find the
same word in two cards and think that is a link. For those interested in the
logocentric position, call it the fallacy of equivocation. Aff does it in the
advantages, neg does it in the disad, etc. etc. etc. DISTINCTIONS are important,
whether it be between critical postmodernism and deconstructive postmodernism or
between a Heideggerean Deep-Ecology or a more mystical form of Deep-Ecology. If
debaters don't say "not my..." they have done a particularly bad form of debate.
There are IMPORTANT distinctions between these positions. Learning not to lump
ideas into broad, distinctionless categories is the fundamental basis of
cognitive complexity.
Second, I wonder why the snowballing of ecoconsciousness is so absurd, given that
it seems consistent with many theories as to the (de)construction of paradigms.
Maybe the "absurd" claims lie on all sides of this debate, and most debates.
I wonder what other claims are "absurd" enough for you to consider them prima
facie bad debate? Yuri, let's wait for the debate to happen before we consider it
"absurd."
If people hated debating Matt and I, I would hope as the Hess and Schlag evidence
indicated, that this pain was the birth of a new understanding. If not, I
apologize for your misfortune in being forced to cope with our style of debate.
Pat Gehrke
CSU Chico
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page