10 wnt. Revisiting the stated purpose of this site

It happened at least 4 times last year; people came up to me with the idea that they would build a context for discussion. One was even face-2-face in my town. I let the idea germinate a little bit.

But then I quickly said “count me in”.  I could have also been the initiator, but better for their commitment if they are the author.  They each went a little way, and then ran out of steam with the original player.

WhyNotThink is the outcome of the last one, and we did gather some additional team-members, and are hoping for more of them.  We especially need one or more female voices.  Maybe half of our subscribers are active, maybe a quarter of them are female.

Even now, there is another opportunity to break into some talks.  It doesn’t matter that our subject matter has been different, (this guy), but only if we will have a commitment to talk it over.  I’ll explain:  I am committed to dialog, even though it is extremely rare. (I’m finding that it’s more rare than I had imagined).  But the only requirement is two such beings with a similar commitment, and it takes off by itself.

Debate is more formal, and is dedicated to a preconceived context.  It is bounded by the chosen issues, where you can say anything you want, as long as it is within those boundaries.  If you choose the boundaries carefully enough (which is easy), nothing but more-of-the-same can come out of it.  It is easy because people's thinking is already compartmentalized.  Chomsky said the same thing some time ago:

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow a very lively debate within that spectrum."

That is the Democratic and Republican party my friends.  That is "Democracy-theater", as staged in the US of A.  If you want to say "anything" in America, you have to play by these rules.  If you try to consider non-accepted propositions; first of all, they are unlikely to be very different.  They are still sharply constrained within your idea of "the problem".  Besides, the world media will consider you as marginal at best, and just as likely label you as "Bonkers".

I can’t resist adding this graphic of group discussion:

.

Is there a way where you can seem to follow the rules, but sneak in a wider context?  That is your experiment, if you have the time for it. Maybe everyone is attempting it.

___________________

On the other hand, dialog is a process, not a preparation. It is not “Robert’s Rules of Order”, (1876). It is the process of examining the content of what is being said.  That text includes some concepts that are the basis of the limited boundaries.  These concepts must be opened up, to allow the rest of the world (of ideas) to come in.

Dialog must be done for its own rewards, not to have a "solution" as its end-product.  That would already focus the context down a narrow tunnel.  "Its own rewards" refers to your growth in understanding of what are the true underlying issues.   You can come to a certain premise that might seem a worthy alternative.  If it is in the personal realm, or the realm of personal relations, it can be implemented, - put to the test, - and something can be determined.  Either build on that, or drop it. This is building your world from successes.

With regard to world events, nothing will be implemented outside of the existing inertia.  Nothing will come out of your "debate".  This amounts to building your world on top of your failures.  (Everything remains static, in the realm of your theory).  At most you may be able to say "I told you so" 5 years down the road.  Many of our famous pod casters are saying that continually; I said the same thing years ago (link), or this is exactly what I wrote in my book 10 years ago, (link to buy it).

In these cases, you participate in a debate with someone famous, to have some of their notoriety rub off on you.  He won't debate you unless he feels he can capture some of your notoriety, (if you have any).  He probably knows just as well as you do, that there is no risk that these ideas will be tested.  So, it becomes a "windfest", two electric fans blowing hot air on each other.  And the viewer's undying curiosity is the end-product for both of them.

I have retracted my curiosity, and so I know nothing of “these recent trends”.  Still, if someone is willing to discuss it, I will hear-them-out.

In the mean time let’s relax while these discussion partners make up thier mind.

Ernesto Köhler 1849 - 1907 (Vivo)

.