Tom, Karl,

Tom, some good points. I think in fact for every thinker paralelling
Nick's ideas, any one of us could probably name another. The point is
not who can claim originality, but whether the interpretation is a
valuable and implementable one, in our time ... hopefully that's what
we can continue to debate.

Karl when you say "my objection with Ian is that he refuses to
actually read what has been posted before launching into a criticism
of it" - show me any criticism. when I comment, I usually quote the
points I am referring to specifically. (It is simply not possible to
read every word on a subject.)

If you want people to hang on your every word - the quality of your
writing will have to improve - or reduce the number of words, to give
us a chance. My opinions do not depend on reading all your words.
Respect needs earning - and that applies to both of us.

Ian

On 3/19/07, Karl Rogers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Tom,
>
> You said
> "One signs up for this list from Nick's web site. Yet Nick has not been
> explicit on his expectations from this list."
>
> Yet the very first sentence of Nick's statement for the Friends of Wisdom
> list reads
>
> "This is an association of people sympathetic to the idea that academic
> inquiry should help humanity acquire more wisdom by rational means."
>
> That seems fairly explicit to me -- even if it needs considerable
> discussion. And, if one looks at the website, there is a clearly worded
> outline describing how Nick envisions his project -- his revolution in
> academia. You said
>
> "If he believes that his body of work is cohesive and spells out an
> actionable path, then he should make clear that is what he is expecting and
> find that body of contributors who are interested in moving this forward on
> a college campus, their own or another. Then the list becomes one focused on
> strategy and tactics along with strategic victories and defeats in moving
> the flag foward."
>
> I think that you'll find, if you look over the list archives, that Nick has
> tried to make clear what he is expecting: he has offered a philosophical
> groundwork for his project and has called on people to help him develop it
> and enact that development. Of course strategies should play a part of this.
> Both you and I (as well as a few others) have suggested some.
> But I think that Nick's project has become stuck at enrollment, but lacks
> the development of its philosophical groundwork that it needs in order to be
> enacted.
>
> "On the other hand, if, as you have suggested, the vision needs to have some
> revisions to make it complete and actionable, then we have a strategy list."
>
> I would call it a communication, development, and strategy list. We are
> nowhere near that.
>
> "If, as you suggest, the idea needs to be reforged in the fire of
> intellectual exchange, then the list is a forum."
>
> The problem is that no one seems to know what this list is for. I thought
> that it was supposed to be a discussion forum about Nick's call for a
> revolution in academia. It seems to me that you did too. It also seemed to
> me that we were just starting, as a group, to discuss values, ideals, and
> the purpose of the university, and we seemed to be making some progress,
> until Mathew censored Roger Anderton and Wilfred used it as an excuse for
> his little strop about the lack of attention he was receiving from the
> group. But, putting aside all its upleasant and farsical character, I think
> that this dispute has revealled a deep division about what the purpose of
> the FOW is. In other words, it has revealled the lack of a coherent purpose
> for the group.
>
> "Then we must decide whether we are on the hill or in the agora. Let the
> games begin."
>
> Sure, good metaphor. But before the games can begin, what we need, in my
> view, is for Nick to make it clear whether, in his view, there are some
> rules about what constitutes acceptable and valid content on this list or
> whether anything goes. That will help Mathew with his role as list moderator
> too. At present, Mathew is in an impossible position.
>
> "The list could accomplish many things if it were constructed in a different
> manner. And this venue would take a different form. But this is what we
> have. Perhaps a wiki might prove more flexible."
>
> Nice idea. But, I think that we would face the same problems that we do now.
> Either all content should be accepted (including Roger Anderton's ideas) or
> there should be some clear guidelines about or at least some discussion
> about what is considered to be acceptable content. Those guideliness and
> that discussion would involve some explicit declaration of what the goals of
> the FOW are. I think that Nick has made the reasonably clear on the website,
> but, perhaps, he needs to be more explicit.
>
> But, as I have been saying from the onset, we need some critical examination
> of our goals.
> As it stands, this list is an incoherent and aimless list of random
> postings.
>
> Karl.
>
> ________________________________
> The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from
> your Internet provider.
>
>