I am sorry about that, we all have limitations on our ability to
communicate.
> I need not grace your
> version of my thoughts with answers.
This is what I find frustrating, I never seem to get real answers to
my questions, only more quotes.
> I said what I had to say, the ideas are there in Rosens writings.
> I am not ashamed of using someone I respect and find useful and
> enlightening as a reference.
True, but once a view has been internalised you can surely argue
from your internal understanding.
> I am also dismayed when the discussion focuses on debate between
> individuals ratyher than a pursit of truth.
It was not intended to be personal, I do though wish to talk about
the manner and basis of the discussion, which inevitably involves
your replies. Fault is not at issue, only "truth" realtive to the
manner of the debate. Is this possible?
> I don't find that "pragmatic". We can declare you the "winner"
> if you like.
No, when a dialogue degenerates, all are losers. Despite it bieng a
frustrating experience I have learnt from you. I am sorry it is not
useful to you - everyone will have different needs and wishes.
> ironically, these discussions have a great value relative to this
> critique. They seem to demostrate clearly the effects of reduction and
> fragmentation. I see no way around the deliterious effects of these
> inthis format. It seems to be a severe limitation on what is otherwise a very
> fruitful process.
This is a very good point. An e-mail list does necessarily involve a
fragmentation of approach on a piecemeal basis. This makes it
particularly difficult to discuss a holistic view like Rosens. As I
understand it The structure of PCP what to be that these limitations
could be, at least, partially overcome by using a hypertext format
for such a antithesis-synthesis process, maybe using annotations.
Maye this list should be dicontinued in this format and moved into a
pure hyper-text format with annotations. In this way we could
approach discussions in a different and more holistic way.
In order for this to happen we need some way for people to be
automatically informed (by e-mail) of relevant annotations (maybe the
list would distribute URLs and titles of contributions only to
annotations - so as to encourage the viewing of replies in context).
Having to scan an HTML tree for new additions is tedious, and if
there is a lot of traffic just a mere HTML generated list of new
additions is not quite specific enough. Thus we need a combination
of "recent additions" list with a tree-based seach facility (a tree
display of nodes of depth of N links from node **** within the last
X days). Ideas Francis, Clifff , anyone?
> Therefore, I strongly recommend that anyone interested
> in serious scholarship, rather than chat or debate for its own sake, go to
> the original works for a holistic view of what is being fragmented, often
> beyond recognition, in this forum.
With this I heartily concurr!
----------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Edmonds
Centre for Policy Modelling,
Manchester Metropolitan University, Aytoun Building,
Aytoun Street, Manchester, M1 3GH. UK.
Tel: +44 161 247 6479 Fax: +44 161 247 6802
http://bruce.edmonds.name/bme_home.html