On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 07:42:20 -0700, Jeff <Log0n5150 at hotmail.com> wrote: > I didn't expect such a fast response, especially as it as early for > Steven as it is for me. Writers need to be diciplined. Some work well in mornings, others later. I wonder what Steve's work-schedule is. > The main difference in our opinions seems to be in the > definition of the word, you are using the totality of its various > definitions in your use, and I am using the definitions that seem (to > me) to > be more applicable to our society. But to further the discussion, can Man > truly be in conflict with nature? We are a part of nature, and as such so > are our works. To plagiarize a bit, what is the difference of a dam > built by > a beaver for its use, and a dam built by man for his own? Strictly > speaking, > because man has developed a society, and our creations are (for the most > part) for society as a whole, they are the same but on a larger scale > thus creating a larger effect. Of course man is part of nature. But in our egotism, we define our species as superior and apart from the rest of nature. But I also define my family as more important (to me) than the rest of mankind. Imagining a planet with multiple intelligent species - one would think that they should have different definitions of culture that are species-centric. We talk about different "cultures" on Earth, but they share common characteristics, differing mainly in style. Dragaerans are a designed species with designed biological differences, but they are still related to humans. Oddly enough, of the five "species" we see, the gods seem to be less alien than the others. I wonder if they were created from humans as well. The final two species obviously have different concepts of culture than we do. -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/