I didn't follow the original discussion, but your comment above made me go flip through it.
I am reminded of why I didn't follow the original discussion. Gender politics, especially of the kind that pops up regularly in your writing, I find distasteful in the extreme.
But that's neither here nor there. My comment apropos is that, for someone who spends so much mental energy decrying the "dehumanizing" nature of "dualist" world-views, you seem to miss a glaring fact: that all Aristotelian generalizations (that is, generalizations of class) create dualities and inconsistencies. Aristotle himself got around these by very precise and quite pedantic rules of thought that today we call "logic".
Statement :: IF "no {B} is not {A}" THEN "all {A} are {B}".
Does not follow!! But this fallacy is ubiquitous, and utterly, violently aggresive when applied to human beings.
As genteel and constructive critique, may I suggest a thorough brushing up on your study of logic? This way you may avoid instinctively lashing out with the very sword of your enemies.
Square minus one.
I am reminded of why I didn't follow the original discussion. Gender politics, especially of the kind that pops up regularly in your writing, I find distasteful in the extreme.
But that's neither here nor there. My comment apropos is that, for someone who spends so much mental energy decrying the "dehumanizing" nature of "dualist" world-views, you seem to miss a glaring fact: that all Aristotelian generalizations (that is, generalizations of class) create dualities and inconsistencies. Aristotle himself got around these by very precise and quite pedantic rules of thought that today we call "logic".
Statement :: IF "no {B} is not {A}" THEN "all {A} are {B}".
Does not follow!! But this fallacy is ubiquitous, and utterly, violently aggresive when applied to human beings.
As genteel and constructive critique, may I suggest a thorough brushing up on your study of logic? This way you may avoid instinctively lashing out with the very sword of your enemies.