Hello folks,
I don't know what "programmed" discussion is. I do have some notion about
the meaning of "adversarial" discussion and I don't like it. I think it
inhibits a free exchange of ideas by effectively eliminating the ideas of
those who may be more sensitive to, less acceptable of, the negative aspects
of the "adversarial", the "lawyerly" approach. In itself, "adversarial" is
not "censorship". The problem though, imho, is that it can be, in effect,
"censorship" by inhibiting exchange and/or driving out of the exchange those
who don't like "adversarial" exchange or are very sensitive to the kind of
hard comment that most often can be an aspect of that mode.
I also think that it is directly contra to what I see as the inherent nature
of ecopsychology, the study of human-nature-relations; the search for some
kind of harmonious relationship among Mother Nature's children, including
among her human off-spring.
My reading of Duncan's post on "Setting Sail..." leads me to believe that it
is the "adversarial" nature of many of our exchanges that moves him to
change course. And I regret that very much. Part of the problem in this
case *may* be the method Duncan chose to introduce and discuss the subject.
That is, as I read it, he presented it as if, without saying so, the Wise
Use views represented his own position rather than a point that deserves
attention whether we like it or not. In this venue, that way of
presentation might be expected to produce strong reactions. And I wonder if
that may have been part of the problem with this particular exchange?
I wonder if, as part of ecopsyc, we should search for and find better ways
for our discussions? Follow the directions suggested by Betsy and others
here?
I wonder if we can't do better?
Duncan, please stay around and help us move toward new directions.
Love,
Ray
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|