Interesting after yesterday's post that I read in William Isaacs' book today the etymology of the word "debate" - "to beat down". Isaacs characterises debate as the least valuable kind of conversation, because it is all about destruction and winning.
Better than debate is dialectic, which is a kind of heated battle between two alternatives. The result, if successful, is a third alternative that takes the best from each.
Best of all kinds of conversation, according to Isaacs, is "dialogue", which means literally, "flow of meaning". A dialogue is a conversation without sides, but with a centre. The centre is, I guess, at the heart of the space in which all of the participants gather.
I've had a number of private conversations in recent weeks about the validity of this blog. A frequent criticism is that the online forum and the anonymity lead nowhere. Sadly, the critics don't seem willing to post their comments here, which seems to me to be even more negative.
As a response, I'm going to open some of these questions out to the group I tutor and see what they have to say about them.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Diablogging
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Spoke to the group last night about the idea of meeting in a circle. Two of them in particular said that they find the usual format is a 'barrier' to conversation. So from next week I'll let you know how it goes.
Post a Comment