Seems once again the 'conversations' have stopped.

I now offer no apologies, other than in the sense of 'apologetics' for my particular persuasion- which is really another matter.

I am left with no choice... I must conclude (as I have before) that it isn't really 'conversation' (continuing or otherwise that is being advocated here. Rather, it is a 'certain perspective' under the banner of getting 'it' (reality or our speculations of reality's nature) less wrong.

Since I am not advancing that perpective, but challenging it (and rather overtly and forcefully I might add), it appears that I am being ignored... It is your school not mine, so it is not as though you must encourage (any more than you have already have) the kind of participation and analysis I have hitherto been so persistent in giving rather generously.

Nonetheless, I have another observation for you Anne...

You said, "If you start (as Paul does) with the presumption that generativity is the aim, then getting it less wrong gets you there "better" than Getting It Right, Which Stops The Process."

Though I agree that 'getting it less wrong' is the short term goal, we must assume (as you admitted) that 'that' is the right thing to do.

It's not the statement as a whole that is wrong in my mind, but the way it is stated. It is a contradiction as quoted, and I assume we can all agree that contradictions are nonsense.

If we start with the 'presumption' that 'generativity' (a rather peculiar term I might add) is the aim then let us all confess that, in that sense, 'generativity' has already been abandoned by the presumption of it's 'superior and right role' as the lead process.

After-all, a presumption is just another name for an 'absolute', what is 'right' or the 'truth'. Without it, the spoken word is vacuous...