Two points in the article that stand out for me are:
1. it’s a logical flaw to think that if we have to take it seriously, we also have to take it literally.
That literalness narrows us, keeps us in the confines of language. Seriousness let's us act/respond, literalness is extra.
2. The experiences of everyday life — my real feeling of a headache, my real taste of chocolate — that really is the ultimate nature of reality.
Returning/remembering the sensual world, the everydayness of things, less cluttered by our literal interpretation is a way of reconnecting with "reality". It is a move away from metaphysics by questioning the metaphysics we may hold without realizing it.
How about various angles views of a tennis court that is no longer in much use as originally intended? Maybe no nets or deteriorating nets, lines barely there, the play of life on the court. Could include people using the court in unusual or usual ways. Or taking off from this and using your own ideas of seeing an athletic arena/field in different ways.
The pitch could be shorter, but it got me to sign up.
Democratic debate seems to nuanced to be classified as For/Against. Dialog takes a back seat here as you have to drill down to another layer of for or against.
Is there some inspiration to be found in http://www.justiceharvard.org/ that might be integrated into the next iteration?
Also might be relevant here https://hoursofidleconversation.wordpress.com/essays/interru...