From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Jun 08 2002 - 01:54:21 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
> Suppose someone started a new thread entitled "The Differences
> Between Men and Women", one of the goals of which was to have a
> completely rational discussion of a potentially explosive issue.
>
> 1. Would it be likely that it to remain "entirely rational"?
> (where you interpret that phrase however you prefer).
I don't agree that what many people consider "rational" is
either rational or particularly reasonable. Too many notions of
"rational" leave out too much I consider of critical importance.
So a discusion based on those views of "rational" would already
disown much of what would be fruitful to discuss.
>
> 2. Is it best that most discussions---serious discussions---
> remain entirely rational? (according to your usage, again)
>
I don't think so, given the mean (no pun intended - much) notion
of rational hereabouts.
> 3. Should people contributing to the thread express their
> *feelings* as opposed to conjectures & criticism (the PCR
> norm)? [Note: I am not suggesting in any way that people
> be *unfree* to post anything: I still go for complete
> openness. I just want to know whether you'd *approve*
> or not of people expressing their feelings.]
>
If not then the discussion is worthless imho.
> 4. Would you think such a discussion off-topic for this list?
>
I would certainly hope not. It hardly seems possible we can
build a future that does not come to terms with feeling and
other not-strictly PCR aspects of our being.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:39 MST