Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: ggggg grasping

Expand Messages
  • jaime.denada
    You fail and succeed with your misrepresentations. There is no one authority of meaning. And even if one bows to such, the personal and individual
    Message 1 of 69 , May 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      You fail and succeed with your misrepresentations. There is no one
      authority of meaning. And even if one bows to such, the personal and
      individual interpretation automatically invalidates that authority
      because it's personal and individual. Of course it's a burden to write,
      decide and act on what we think things mean, but one can't write/act
      without expecting someone to interpret differently. That will happen
      and it should. This is how we don't own and still remain responsible.
      To achieve such an impossibility isn't blissful.

      JD

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <TriniCruz@...> wrote:
      >the central philosophical
      > issue in deconstruction is authority. Existentialism defines this
      > authority over meaning as altogether personal and individual. This
      > authority is a personal burden on the existentialist as he must use
      it
      > to keep it. The existentialist must decide what things mean when they
      > intrude into his experience of existence and act. It is the
      > existentialist who dirties his hands with meaning and writes what he
      > thinks things mean. Deconstruction is no argument against such
      > writing, and perhaps that is where deconstructionists fail to
      > understand.
    • Exist List Moderator
      A few years ago there was a man we called President. He knew the power of words. He declared he would be the Real Environmental President and vowed to
      Message 69 of 69 , May 29, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        A few years ago there was a man we called President. He knew the
        power of words. He declared he would be the "Real" Environmental
        President and vowed to protect "wetlands." (We won't dwell on his
        vice-president, since that might contradict his current persona.)

        Anticipating a change, the Department of Agriculture, the Department
        of the Interior, and (separately) the Bureau of Land (mis-)Management
        set forth to define "wetland" since this term lacked an official
        definition. As a result, scientists and activists attended policy
        forums and started to get a definition of "wetland" codified. This
        upset farmers and developers, who then demanded more hearing and
        public forums. These hearings were during the presidential campaign,
        so there were sob stories from farmers who had lost their land to
        lizards and shrimp.

        In academic circles, the definition of "wetland" had been set in
        works by Tripp (1991, p. 203) and Golet (1991, 635) as "areas
        sufficiently saturated by water that only specially adapted plants
        can grow there. Saturation with water prevents oxygen from working
        its way into the soil and therefore creates conditions of no
        oxygen" (Tripp's definition).

        In 1989, under a different President (who must not have been an
        environmentalist since he was marked with the Red R), the Interagency
        Committee for Wetland Delineation published a precise manual on how
        to map wetlands and protect them from human activity. This was deemed
        good by many, but not trusted because of his Red R.

        Ah, but the "Real" Environmental President promised no net loss of
        wetlands during his administration. The scientists were happy. They
        trusted him. Unfortunately, to win an election in the United States,
        you must promise farmers in Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, Minnesota,
        Illinois, Kansas, and so on, more land and more subsidies.

        Let us cut all of the boring dates and federal papers... you already
        know what happened. "Wetland" was redefined and there were hearings.
        The definition began to change. A "Revised Manual" was developed and
        "wetlands" as defined by Congress (1992) according to Francis Golet
        "disregards more than 15 years of scientific research."

        By the time the New Improved Environmental President took office,
        legislation was ready to be passed and there are now two definitions
        of wetlands: the one in academic texts and the one maintained by the
        federal government.

        Politicians don't care about science unless they can control the
        terms. Scientists are not very good at public relations, it seems --
        until there is an emergency and people have to listen to them.

        Science and politics -- without a discussion of stem cells or
        anything controversial.

        - CSW
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.