> May I drop a process question here? Generally, when a process for
> discussion is designed, the designer makes some provision for the
> contribution of "minority" views. (Recent debates regarding the
> social sciences and art have illustrated the mechanisms of this list.)
> How might you prevent the closed list from degenerating into intellectual
> insularity?
Easy, appoint only TransIndividualists as arbiters. (:-) By definition they
take even their own views with a pinch of salt, and they won't agree even
among themselves on anything, so you'll be guaranteed a sort of moderated
openness that accepts everything except the negation of diversity itself.
Unfortunately, you'll have trouble recruiting them as the very concept of
moderating the views of others runs counter to their principles. (:-)
Rich.
-- ########### Dr. Rich Artym ================ PGP public key available # galacta # Email : rich@galacta.demon.co.uk 158.152.156.137 # ->demon # Web : http://www.galacta.demon.co.uk 194.222.245.150 # ->ampr # AMPR : rich@g7exm[.uk].ampr.org 44.131.164.1 BBS:GB7MSW # ->NTS # Fun : Unix, X, TCP/IP, kernel, O-O, C++, SoftEng, Nano ########### More fun: Regional IP Coordinator Hertfordshire + N.London