permaculture

["S.K. Harrison" <skh23ca@yahoo.com>]

> From: "Rex Teague"

> No you haven't quoted my post in full.

A petty issue. What I left out added nothing to
the substance of your post.


> My point was simple, a rebuttal of your 
> advocacy of the scientific/rational as the sole

> arbiter of understanding. I believe I correctly

> attributed the following (excerpted here from a

> larger previous quote) to you and not 
> Korzybski: "... but you need to provide 
> quantitative and verified data to convince 
> those of us who don't want to be led around by 
> the stupid-ring in our noses." Correct me if I 
> was wrong?

In spite of your accusation, I made no sweeping
claim for the sole value of scientific knowledge.

John made a *single* statement that can be
quantified, to which single statement I replied
with my request for data. If I'm to inform my
choices with knowledge--which I can't help but
do, as an independent thinking human being--I
want bona fide evidence, not the isolated
anecdotal musings of some joe on the street, or
even of a lone professor. Read my other posts in
this thread, in Out of Control, and in language,
meaning and nature (or something). Careful
reading will demonstrate that your comment
remains undeserved.


> > I suspect that the measure of your
> > comprehension of my last post stands in 
> > inverse proportion to the amount of the 
> > Korzybski quote that you didn't chop.
> 
> To my original list of Schumacher's "higher
> faculties" I should add charity. 8<]

Spare me your moralisms. Phrasing a point as a
joke does not qualify as an uncharitable
attitude. You failed to understand me in the last
post--and you continue to do so here. Look again.

Sean

______________________________________________________ 
Send your holiday cheer with http://greetings.yahoo.ca