Thanks Jerry--I am glad you brought out the positive value that
debate of the more legalistic kind can also have. Peirce's negative
comments--those cited previously, anyway--obscure this somewhat, and
they do not do justice to the best of what the American legal system
has produced by way of its own version of debate.
Jon, thanks also for your comment--I look forward to the next
recurrence of this metalogue!
Best wishes,
Sally
Sally, Gary:
The exploration of the term 'debate' was of significant value. The
value of debate, it seems to me, is heavily context dependent. I
agree that often, when the bipolar opposites are firmly held, the
act of debating is often futile. More frequently, the polarizations
are not so fixed and hence debate becomes a way to inform ourselves.
I do think some thought should be given to the "internal debate"
within ourselves which I view as closely related to inquiry. This
can, on occasion, lead to stalemate.
For example, I have been debating with myself for the past month on
the relations between "collective" and "distributive" in the
context of 'communicational communities'. A complete stalemate
exists. I have no idea what this phrase might mean logically or
socially.
Good job! Sally!
Cheers
Jerry
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the
PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a
message to [email protected] with the line "SIGNOFF
PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the
list, send it to [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To
remove yourself from this list, send a message to [email protected] with the
line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the
list, send it to [email protected]
