At least one more question relating to the ”nature of discussion” controversy…
1. What is the fear that sits behind the desire to coerce a particular form of discussion?
2. What is the desire that causes us to wield words like ”contract”?
3. Can a conference programme ever be considered as a ’contract’? How far can you go? What about the abstract of a proposed paper? [I’d be ruined!!]
4. What are the bounds of critique both in cybernetics generally and in this conference?
looking forward to a bloody good argument!
Mark
Most Discussed