Re: Objects and Relations

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 01:52:16 GMT
Message-ID: <kp7Ch.1042051$5R2.554381@pd7urf3no>

Cimode wrote:

> On 18 fév, 19:01, paul c <toledobythe..._at_oohay.ac> wrote:
> 

>>Cimode wrote:
>>
>>
>>>While I agree with the general thematics guiding the above description
>>>of RM vs OO, I would like to draw your attention on the danger of
>>>locking up RM in an elitist bias.
>>>...
>>
>>It's the savages who should be locked up, not the RM which needs to be
>>protected from being mangled by them. Nothing wrong with intelligent bias.
>>
>>p

>
> *savages*? Is there a need for such etymology from another time?

sure there is when there is so much unnecessary overkill here.

> People maybe *misguided*, *uneducated* but what exactly is a > *savage*?.

somebody who in desperation prefers mindless opportunity over sensible motive.

On a scientifc perspective, Elitist bias is the opposite > of intelligence.

hardly. Elitist is a moniker given to people who prefer their own company over that of others who don't understand what they are talking about by the other people who don't understand what the "elitists" are talking about.

nobody is born with intelligence, although most animals are born smart.   the ability to be intelligence does seem to be innate among us but it must be developed and refined. any usenet group is proof of that.

    Elitism is a power driven phenomenon. How can > power driven motives help scientifc progress? >

i think you are confusing physics with metaphysics. just my opinion.

p Received on Sun Feb 18 2007 - 19:52:16 CST