Congratulations. You have succeeded in dismissing me. Debasing my existence, without knowing me, having interacted with me, nor even looked down from your academic pedestal at a lowly layman. Perhaps I am deserving of such treatment, as I am not a 'scholar' with duties to the education of youth and thereby a service to the community. I am one of your labels... the quasi evil stew of the small 'w.'

Sadly though, you don't know me. I and my qi are wedged between the thoughts of Søren Kierkegaard and Chinese dualism. If you label me, you negate me. But then if I am to be dismissed where flies the qi of Chinese dualism. Yin cannot exist without yang. Even Newton's third law binding every action to an equal and opposite reaction, was conscious of the need for balance. Were the McCloskeys right in pursuing self- defense, did they fear for their lives? Seeing the violence purveyed on the news, perhaps. Was the George Floyd, a career criminal, an utter innocent? No. Were the McCloskeys? No. Was the only 'white' officer of the four above condemnation? Definitely No. Am I an innocent? Certainly not. But I am... therefore I think. When I see the condemnation of a person or an entire section of society; whether it is Japanese against Burakumin or Ainu, Chinese against Uyghurs, Nazis against Jews, Hutus against Tutsis, Australians against indigenous peoples, Hindu against Muslim, Christians against Mormons, the list is endless, at these times I look to those of greater wisdom. After reading your piece, I watched Dr. Martin Luther King's 'I Have a Dream' speech, among several. He asked that 'blacks and whites sit together at the table of brotherhood,' and 'that people be judged on their character not the color of their skin', then I ask my self if what you have written is a service to the community in the same way? Not to your community, not to my community or to their community... to community.

Are you applying Newton's third law to your treatise? I think not. Is your argument balanced in non- preferential terms and implications as the words of Martin Luther King's were, or based in the equanimity of dualism? I think not. Then what? It must be Kierkegaard. You have negated my 'white' existence, you have dismissed and condemned my contribution, without knowing me. It is the kind of rhetoric that gives birth to the above conflicts. Is that your position as a scholar? Sad.

I admire your piece and accept your opinion, though I do not wish to be negated by it.