On Sat, 6 Feb 2010, Carrol Cox wrote:
> I don't want to _persuade_ anyone, at least not until they express a
> desire as it were to be persuaded, but rather to involve them in a
> shared _practice_ which, for some will lead them to see the need for a
> new perspective. The starting point is similar but not identical to
> yours. You start with merely a shared opinion; I start with a shared
> _practice_. The shared practice (which does NOT necessarily stem from
> trhe same opinions) raises the need for a ratioale beyond the original
> impulse (whatever that might have been). Over time the various people
> invovled spend a lot of time talking about this or that or the
> otherthing, not particularly focused on anyone persuading anyone of
> anything. That is not _necessary_ because they already share enough to
> keep the activity going. Within this ongoing conversation, including
> discussion of tactics, programs, guest speakers, etc, often overe time
> it appears that one or two people are beginning to feel dissatisfied
> with their initial reaons for joing the activity, and then you can
> explore _that_ with them.
I see. So you are only interested in persuading people who are already actively involved on our side. Converting the choir, as it were.
And the idea of using discourse to increase the number of people active on our side is outside your interests (and you might even consider it impossible (?)).
Then it's no mystery why our ideas differ. They are molded with entirely different audiences in mind.
Michael