(...) denial as if accurately describing something somehow debases it.
David asserts that this is an accurate description, yet this is one of the
most abstract statements I've ever read. I for one need to know what's
being said before I can talk about it. Can someone please descend a few
rungs on Hayakawa's Ladder of Abstraction here?
What kind of love are we talking about?
And Ken wrote,
>"A exploits B" means
that A takes advantage of B without doing anything for B in return. The
"mutual" qualifier mitigates this
and a question even arises as to if or not, according to this definition,
there can logically be 'mutual exploitation': If A gets something from B
(by exploiting B), and B gets something from A (by exploiting A), then,
necessarily, A _did_ do something for B in return and vice-versa.
If they do for each other, why call it 'exploitation' / 'parasitism'
instead of 'mutualism'?
>BTW, congratulations Eva! I wish you every happiness.
Ditto!
lena
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lena Rotenberg "Kein Panik auf dem Titanik!"
lenar@netkonnect.net (unknown, deceased author)
Please note: my <hermesnet.net> and <crosslink.net>
addresses will sink shortly!