This is a work in progress and can be updated at any time.
To enjoy discovering new ideas and investigating complex issues. To change minds.
Conversations to be set up like a police investigation or scientific experiment. The hypothesis is offered and the evidence is then interrogated and weaknesses looked for.
A member or guest gives a concise presentation about an idea. After the presentation, the members discuss the concept looking for faults or missing links.
A moderator/chair supervises the discussion and either allows divergence or overrules it depending on how interesting they think the divergence might be.
If the discussion becomes heated, the moderator will assign the order of exchanges to avoid a free-for-all.
The moderator may be (democratically) replaced for each new discussion.
How it’s run:
The club is free but exclusive. Members are invited and assessed on their knowledge base and intellectual curiosity (how? By whom?)
Maximum number of participants for each conversation?
Subjects? How to choose them?
Presentations? Should these be given in a paper beforehand so the attending members have had time to consider their responses?
How do we find interesting people?
How do we find people outside of our cultural bias?
I suggest each meeting has to include a new guest to stop predictability setting in. Although, the new topic may automatically attract different people to attend.
Nothing is unsayable (all participants will be apprised of the lack of censorship).
The fundamental premise will be ‘tested to destruction’.
Members don’t have to contribute to the discussion: listening is encouraged.
If people feel nothing has changed in their beliefs or opinion after the discussion then the session will be deemed to failure.
The early topics can be about democracy and how things are decided among a group of people. We can implement the ‘best’ ideas in the structure of the club.