Dear Karl,

Sigh!

You make yourself out to be so open and reasonable, yet you keep putting 
back on the table criticisms that are without foundation, in a public 
forum, which makes it very difficult for me just to leave there.

I have tried to explain and clarify again and again and again - and I 
thought that you had accepted - that there is no question of me trying to 
shut down discussion or of 'not allowing others to critically examine 
societal goals' etc. The most I have done is to question the wisdom of 
objective definition, especially when used exclusively. I think you have 
over-reacted to something you imagine I meant in my initial response to 
your wish to add an 11th 'dimension' to my list of ten characteristics of 
inclusional enquiry. At no stage have you asked me whether your 
interpretation of what I said corresponded with my intention - had you done 
so I would have said 'no'. Try just asking, without holding a club behind 
your back, 'have I understood you right?' before jumping to your own 
conclusions and making accusations. I think you see 'thought policemen' 
everywhere around you, without recognizing the thought policeman in 
yourself. I find it very difficult to sustain a conversation with you, 
knowing how likely it is that you will take umbrage: that is why I can't 
even begin to discuss the limitations of dialectic logic with you. Yes, I 
think Steve Taylor was right to describe your criticism not only as 
bad-tempered, but also unfair.

Criticism may be the 'stuff' (sic) of philosophy (though I would like to 
think there is more to philosophy than that), but it needs to be aptly 
directed! If criticism is regarded prescriptively as the primary purpose of 
philosophical enquiry, rather than receptive, creative and respectful 
consideration of diverse views and possibilities, there is a great danger 
of alienation, prejudice, unproductive argument and the rhetorical setting 
up of Aunt Sallies - witness your dispute with me, which I have found 
educational but most distressing.

To be blunt, I think that Friends of Wisdom will founder if all the 
emphasis is on criticism and a limited view of rationality. Tiresome as it 
may be perceived to be, I think there are some very important lessons to be 
drawn from our conversation for Friends of Wisdom, before the group 
attempts to 'go public'. Sympathetic as I remain to Nick's initiative and 
diagnosis I think that as it is currently being set up, the group will come 
across at best as paternalistic, uncreative and unreceptive to the reality 
of the human condition.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I agree with you that there 
is a need to reflect more critically and creatively upon Nick's stated 
goal: "seeking and promoting wisdom by rational means, wisdom being the 
capacity to realize what is of value in life, for oneself and others, 
wisdom thus including knowledge but much else besides. A basic task ought 
to be to help humanity learn how to create a better world." There are a lot 
of very questionable assumptions in this statement, broadly sympathetic as 
I have been to what until now I have assumed (!) to be its underlying 
intention. Now I am not at all sure that this is a wise basis on which to 
proceed.


Best

Alan






--On 23 October 2006 08:40 +0100 Karl Rogers <[log in to unmask]> 
wrote:

>
> Alan,
> I am not drawing a line under saying any more about inclusionality. You
> are more than welcome, if you are so inclined, to email me in person and
> continue our discussion about inclusionality off list. As is anyone else,
> including Ted.
> I was simply respecting the wishes of Mathew and Nick who clearly wish
> for us to cease using the FOW list for the forum for our current dispute.
>
> Quite understandably, they wish to discuss Nick's goal for the FOW as
>
> "seeking and promoting wisdom by rational means, wisdom being the
> capacity to realize what is of value in life, for oneself and others,
> wisdom thus including knowledge but much else besides. A basic task ought
> to be to help humanity learn how to create a better world."
> I agree with this goal and would also like to critically discuss it. It
> seems to me that you were trying to shut down the possibility of any such
> discussion.
> But, as far as I understand it, no one has asked you not to discuss
> inclusionality on the FOW. To my knowledge, neither Mathew nor Nick have
> explictly done so.
> It seems to me that Mathew's post was simply calling a time out on our
> dispute and calling our attention to the need for action. So I wanted to
> make a statement about where I see the disagreement between us, invite
> people to email off list about it, if they so wished, and then move on.
>
> My point of contention with you is about your reluctance to allow others
> to critically examine societal goals, ideals, and norms, as part of
> developing a critical philosophy of how to develop a rational society. In
> my view, the development of this critical philosophy is central to Nick's
> goal for the Friends of Wisdom.
> It is nothing personal. I think that you are a decent person. I just do
> not agree with you about the applicability of your theory. We have
> differences of perspective and opinion, that's all. We are not all going
> to share the same assumptions and perspective, and criticism (bad
> tempered or otherwise) is the stuff of philosophy.
> all the best,
> Karl.
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo!
> Mail.