Jeff,
> > I trust the contrast to conventional rant is clear. One does not start
> > with the grounds and somehow try to 'convince' by browbeating or
> > bullshit or specious argument that 'therefore' someone else 'must'
> > agree.
>
> Agreed, one must look at the relevant facts in evidence past and
> present and than make a determination. Once that determination is
> made on an individual basis, than one should have the opportunity
> to VOTE. This in the US constitution is the meaning of "We hold these
> truths to be self evident"...
The Constitution however did not posit *all truths to be self-evident -
or, more generally, that all the 'relevant facts' were going to be
visible to any one person. Insofar as democracy is a means of
making rules, the function of dialogue (in contrast to 'rant') is
precisely to bring as many of the partial and incomplete personal
glimpses into a common field of view, to which a *rule, not a whim,
can be applied. Individuals will still have individual perspectives on
that field which will affect their vote, of course, but the more
confident each can be that at least everyone is looking at the same
thing, the more sensible the outcome will be.
> I believe that you misinterpreted my previous post on this
> thread...
I'm sorry if you thought I was attacking you; I took off from your
comments to amplify the notion that voting on answers ('outcomes')
is not half as important as defining the questions -- at any scale of
organization, starting with two people 'gathered together.' It may be
the hubris of this technological age that its no longer important or
useful to be able to relate to one another as human beings, but if
virtual reality has anything at all to offer meatspace, surely it's the
resurrection and revalidation of this hoary old pastime, isnt it?
Thus, while I may well have taken your remarks differently than you
intended, I dont believe that qualifies as _misinterpretation --
merely constructive conversation.
Cheers,
kerry
