From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Jun 08 2002 - 12:53:22 MDT
Natasha writes
> From: Lee Corbin lcorbin@tsoft.com
>
> >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.<
>
> I'm not sure I understand the title for your proposed thread, but I think it
> might be a meaningful exercise to have a completely discussion.
Sorry, what is unclear or ambiguous about the proposed title
of a discussion? Most people believe that, on the average, men
and women approach issues (and life) differently.
> >1. Would it be likely that it to remain "entirely rational"?
> (where you interpret that phrase however you prefer).<
>
> The challenge might be the varied interpretations of what is rational.
Yes, indeed!
> I also think we'd have to add an addendum to this clause by
> saying "entirely rational writings" because we do not have
> visuals to show the mood behind the belayed tongue.
I gather that you have found or believe this to be very
important. Certainly the limitations of writing are numerous;
but I've had discussions over the telephone that appeared to
me every bit as communicative as conversations in person.
Have you?
> And here's something else -- rational conversation does not include
> machinations, do you think? I mean, the topic of your proposed
> subject is a bit undermining perhaps? I'm not sure what you mean
> and it would be helpful if your intention be clarified.
A bit undermining? Now ;-) I don't follow you! Well,
my original intention would be (although a discussion soon
takes on a life of its own) to explore interesting differences
that have come to my attention. First on the list is someone's
recent remark that women multitask better than men, which
accords with some things I've seen.
> >2. Is it best that most discussions---serious discussions---
> remain entirely rational? (according to your usage, again)<
>
> Isn't this paradoxical? While we can get deeply serious while drawing from
> life experience (emotional) and express it though rational discussion
> structures, it might be like putting a tourniquet on the mental process to
> determine content. It's the mental process in-between emotional memory and
> rational expression of experience that is flexed. By flexing this mental
> muscle we become better and better at communicating content.
That's very intriguing. I would like to hear more about that;
I'm not, of course, getting a clear picture from your abbreviated
discussion here.
> >3. Should people contributing to the thread express their
> *feelings* as opposed to conjectures & criticism (the PCR
> norm)?
>
> It depends on how people express their feelings. Again, without visuals I
> wonder if this experiment is totally honest or merely a placebo for a
> positively purported “entirely rational” discussion.
Well, the efficacy of the discussion would certainly be
open to.... discussion.
> >4. Would you think such a discussion off-topic for this list?<
>
> Not at all -- if you want to entertain a thread as an experience/experiment.
I hope you have time to contribute to it.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:40 MST