Hello Zork, when you first shared this post with me I was enthusiastic. I thought Zork wants to discuss things. Discuss means take a deep look at the content and say what seems to be missing, or how the assumptions are not general enough, or that at least my assumptions are a bit different. Then transmit that as a feed back, and see if there is any acknowledgement, or if even I have overlooked things.
That's what I want to do. So let's go.
But then I looked more at the formality that you propose. There will be 12 "debates" a year each with 8 important people. Then by a payment some people can vote and there will be winners and losers declared. Because there is no room for hysterics in the long form interview, we will be able to treat taboo subjects. (My ‘reward’ will be my increased exposure.) Will you be one of those 8 important people? (96 people altogether in the full series.)
So I wrote a post on Why Not Think to explain these differences. I don't see you come on my site, so here's the link:
Basically I said that dialog can have rules (or understandings), but it takes off by itself, if two people committed to talking come together. There could be 3 - 4 or more people, (a tie breaker), but then you can't comment very well, because there are too many points. Not too many points to digest, but why write a book just to make a comment. Which indicates that you can keep this dialog confined to a few important arguments. Then expand on the next one, a series of sorts.
_________________
There is another post where we experimented with a "debate format" all in one post. I am not sure how to define debate, if it has to be for and against? It wasn't that. It was more an examination of what would be the differences in an oral society, (pre-printing, manuscripts are OK), and a visual society programmed by the phonetic alphabet. The point is uncovering our built-in biases, just because we are in an English western society.
If you want to talk, about anything, I am ready. If you want to talk with Jordan Peterson Just propose one of his articles, (if he has any less than an hour), and defend or critique it. I'll do the same. We'll be each talking with Jordan Peterson, but without his propensity to look-good to his followers.
Think it is a great idea -
Well, I know THAT! I would not have posted it otherwise :)
The question is what can we do to make it happen. How can I make the idea go viral?
How can I make, for example, people who like it like you, to help it grow by contributing - let's say - three debate proposals.
What would YOU like to debate?
Hello Zork, when you first shared this post with me I was enthusiastic. I thought Zork wants to discuss things. Discuss means take a deep look at the content and say what seems to be missing, or how the assumptions are not general enough, or that at least my assumptions are a bit different. Then transmit that as a feed back, and see if there is any acknowledgement, or if even I have overlooked things.
That's what I want to do. So let's go.
But then I looked more at the formality that you propose. There will be 12 "debates" a year each with 8 important people. Then by a payment some people can vote and there will be winners and losers declared. Because there is no room for hysterics in the long form interview, we will be able to treat taboo subjects. (My ‘reward’ will be my increased exposure.) Will you be one of those 8 important people? (96 people altogether in the full series.)
So I wrote a post on Why Not Think to explain these differences. I don't see you come on my site, so here's the link:
https://whynotthink.substack.com/p/10-wnt-revisiting-the-stated-purpose
Basically I said that dialog can have rules (or understandings), but it takes off by itself, if two people committed to talking come together. There could be 3 - 4 or more people, (a tie breaker), but then you can't comment very well, because there are too many points. Not too many points to digest, but why write a book just to make a comment. Which indicates that you can keep this dialog confined to a few important arguments. Then expand on the next one, a series of sorts.
_________________
There is another post where we experimented with a "debate format" all in one post. I am not sure how to define debate, if it has to be for and against? It wasn't that. It was more an examination of what would be the differences in an oral society, (pre-printing, manuscripts are OK), and a visual society programmed by the phonetic alphabet. The point is uncovering our built-in biases, just because we are in an English western society.
https://whynotthink.substack.com/p/1-dbt-ancient-mankind-lived-only
If you want to talk, about anything, I am ready. If you want to talk with Jordan Peterson Just propose one of his articles, (if he has any less than an hour), and defend or critique it. I'll do the same. We'll be each talking with Jordan Peterson, but without his propensity to look-good to his followers.
WHAT DO YOU SAY?
.