From: robert kennedy (kenrob@bigpond.net.au)
Date: Fri Jun 07 2002 - 18:36:40 MDT
Hi Everyone,
I would see no point in this discussion, there are so many other
matters: I think the question itself could be discussed, why would you want to discuss the
if any difference between woman and men, and what is the reasoning behind this question.
I am concerned about progress, understanding and knowledge, I don't see how this question
would help, for me I see and treat everyone the same, race, sex, whatever.
Sorry to tag in on the back of your messages Natasha, but I'm new here and still finding
my way around.
Cheers
Rob
----- Original Message -----
From: <natashavita@earthlink.net>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Saturday, 8 June 2002 2:31
Subject: RE: About Rational Discussions on Extropians
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.
>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. 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. 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 unddermining perhaps? I'm not sure what you mean
and it would be helpful if your intention be clarified.
>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.
>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.]<
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.
>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.
Natasha
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:39 MST