GL: Unlike a regular trial, jurors may express relevant objections. And since we have no judge, both I.C. and I must take turns at that duty. He'll be fair.
Perhaps the experiment is coming together?
If so, our respective jobs are to present our cases and get out of here, leaving any remaining jurors to deliberate the outcome. I really want to send NOTA to the clink.
A set-up indeed.
Both of you trying to sell your wares and those not buying are sent to jail.
It is standard procedure in philosophy to raise objections and examine all possible replies, using the principle of charity:
On a forum, such as this, there is more informality. Communicating clearly for a better understanding can sometimes be difficult. Most do their best. At times, it frustrates all parties.
Previously, I laughed at your characterising my response as 'bitching and whining', that was wrong of me. In addition, your attitude to others as 'blathering pseudo-intellectuals' - all such should be nipped in the bud.
We are all learning as we go. Be very careful.
I studied the link you offered, which is a concise distillation of ideas expressed previously in Dr. Mortimer Adler's, How to Read a Book
. Perhaps you should study the same link again, for you seem to have made up some ideas about what it says that are different from its actual content.
The essay you offered advises that someone examining new ideas should begin by provisionally letting them into his mind with a view to understanding them before objecting to them
Adler pointed out that the mind's natural tendency is to object to new and strange ideas. I've found this to be true even when the new and strange ideas came from within my own mind. His advice, echoed in the essay you provided, was to first allow them entry into your mind-- not to agree or disagree, but to bring them in together for coherent evaluation.
I liken the process to cooking a fine beef stew. The ingredients (ideas) must be assembled in a common pot (your mind), and allowed to either simmer, ferment or fester-- according to your temperament. When the stew has cooked (ideas integrated), then it is time to turn off the burner and have a taste.
At that point one might delight in a well-integrated dinner, throw in a few more spices and cook some more, or feed it to the next family of passing javelinas.
However the charitable process of evaluating a new idea does not include introducing other ideas outside the set you are evaluating.
Imagine that you are in a magical library having a fine conversation with Descartes, who is patiently explaining his unique ideas about the nature of mind, his mind-brain dualism. You are trying to focus on him, so as to learn those ideas. Suddenly your conversation is interrupted by a brick smashing through the library window. A fellow with a woman's long, curly black hair, wearing a clergyman's frock, sticks his face through the broken glass and says, "Descartes, you are surfeit with pig feces! The human mind is a part of the infinite intellect of God."
And while you sit dumbfounded, unsure how to deal with both Descartes and Spinoza, the library door opens and in comes Daniel Dennett, bearded and wartty atop a handsome potbelly, who declares, "Whoa! All you guys need to hear about my multiple drafts model of consciousness
If you are stupid enough to let all three of these guys into the conversation, no matter how brilliant each might be, you will remain stupid because your mind cannot absorb all that bullshit, all at once. Imagine them talking at once like a gang of nitwit commentators on Fox News or The View, and you trying to glean some sense from it. Won't happen.
The smart thing to do from the library-conversation analogy would be nail a piece of plywood over the window and tell Spinoza that you'll get back to him later. Give Dennett an engraved image of Alexander Hamilton, escort him from the room and tell him that there is a tavern serving cheap beer a block down the road, where you'll meet him later. Then lock the door, and build a fire in the hearth so that Santa Claus cannot come down the chimney and interrupt your uncluttered conversation.
Perhaps by now you can understand why Trixie's and Gee's ideas, however brilliant and insightful they might be, need to be on a thread of their own. I will support their efforts by not introducing my ideas into their threads. I've been guilty of this with Gee.
So please peruse the information on the excellent link you provided, and take it home. Don't invent stuff that is not there. If I were running a forum myself, one requirement would be that every poster study those principles and abide by them.