Karl, how dare you preach about arrogance (!) - truly breathtaking.
I joined this list by invitation and stayed (and still do) because I
saw the quality in many of the minds debating Nick's agenda "a public
debate into the nature of rationality and how it relates to the future
of education and the development of society".
I do not "guess" your opinions. If I read only a selection of your
words it's because
(a) you write so many of the damn things (as I have pointed out), and
(b) I read much more into your aggressive defensive actions, than any
actual words you write.
Stop using dirty rhetoric to suggest "I am not interested in Nick's project".
I could just as easily suggest "you do not understand Nick's project"
- but I won't because I'm trying to have a constructive debate, when I
can get past this crap.
Ian
On 3/19/07, Karl Rogers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Ian,
>
> Again, you clearly did not read what I wrote and think about it before
> replying. If you cannot be bothered to read and respond to what I wrote,
> then why do you bother to reply at all?
>
> Mathew was quoting my words, not Nick's, but I was describing Nick's
> project, as I see it, NOT MINE, in order to explain to Thomas why the
> disagreement had arisen between Mathew and Wilfred in the first place. As I
> said, there is a division on the understanding of what "wisdom" means and
> what the purpose of the Friends of Wisdom is. My point was that people who
> are not interested in developing Nick's project, in relation to Nick's
> conception of "wisdom", should leave this list to those who are. Mathew
> agreed with my description of the source of conflict and also agreed that
> people who are not interested in developing Nick's project should leave this
> list to the people who are.
>
> I WAS NOT DEFENDING THE CONTENT OF NICK'S PHILOSOPHY. That
> is something for Nick to do. I have not given any definition of rationality
> on this list -- so you are wildly guessing what my assumptions about that
> definition are. You have no idea what I think about it and you have never
> asked me to tell you. In fact, I have been saying that such a definition is
> at stake and one of the tasks of the FOW is to help develop a public debate
> into the nature of rationality and how it relates to the future of education
> and the development of society. I have not been saying that we should
> unthinkingly follow Nick's ideas as doctrine. In fact, I have repeatedly
> said that we should not. What I have been saying is that we need to relate
> our ideas to Nick's, both critically and developmentally, and I have been
> repeatedly saying that does not mean members should necessarily agree with
> him.
>
> What I am saying is that some of us joined the FOW list because we are
> interested in Nick's project and we want to help him develop it. Nick has
> been working on this for over 25 years and some of us are actually
> interested in what he has to say and we want to critically understand and
> develop his ideas. Other members seem to think that it is reasonable to join
> this list, at Nick's invitation, and then arrogantly ignore his ideas and
> project, as described on the webpage, regardless of how many times Nick and
> Mathew have called on members to attend to the description of the project as
> given on the webpage. That is what is getting in the way of constructive
> debate.
>
> If you are not interested in Nick's project and helping him develop it, then
> why did you join this list?
> Karl.
>
>
> ________________________________
> What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your
> email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship.
>
>
|