[Ta-Chi]

Yide,

I entirely agree with your points. But, let me present two somewhat long comments:

1) When making rules, be prepared to confront with the fact that rules cannot solve each and every problems. Let me put here just one example which may seem a little too \"big\" but still relevant: the difficulties of democarcy.

To be legitimate, a democracy (as you have implied in your response that the rule-making process of climbing should be democratic) must ensure that the people are self-governing and that the higher rules and law guaranteeing democracy are protected from popular abuses. Conventionally, two approaches are available for articulating the rules of a democratic polity so defined. However, they both have certain defects:

On the one hand, we have the so-called \"constitutionalism,\" which, however, tends to become too preoccupied with the most fundamental issue of basic rights and principles of justice, at the expense of the MORAL DISAGREEMENTS that are and should remain at the center of ongoing debate. Constitutionalists is often said to detach themselves from the passions of everyday life while tracing popular values to a full specification of the rights and duties of citizens who are said to regard each other as free and equal beings. By overtly relying on constitutionalism, it is thus argued, democracy may run into what may be called \"substantive objection,\" which means that controversial MORAL INDETERMINANCIES are revealed in the meaning of these rights when being put to use. In the meantime, due to the fact that the constitutionalism defines in advance what can count as legitimate reasons, the citizens are being said to be deprived of the opportunity and the responsibility to grapple with the most significant moral questions and therefore lose a vital part of the training in responsibility and self-control that citizenship should bring forth.

On the other hand, we have the so-called \"proceduralism,\" the aim of which is to set the terms of full and fair participation by all citizens in democratic decision-making. But proceduralism is internally problematic: overtly relying on procedural rule is to err and discount the very possibility of serious democracies on moral controversies. For, once the rules are agreed to, policies can easily become the realm of bargaining over preferences and interests, and the result of which is often that broader coalitions of interests tend to win over narrower ones. That is to say, since ordinary people know perfectly well that it is not possible to altogether separate debates over procedures from debates over outcomes, process CANNOT remain neutral. Therefore, every choice of participatory procedure can be challenged, and must accordingly be defended, in the name of a principle. Whether justifications ascend or not, this process takes proceduralism back to just where it should be in the first place: an investigation of principles.

In short, democarcy is not an all-encompassing solution to problems. Nor are rules. They are by themselves problems needed to solve eternally. Rule-making is an art, not just a mechanic process; nor is it a solution to all the potential problems which may confront Taiwan\'s climbing community present and in the near future. Now, let us talk about the so-called \"international convention\" of naming:

2) First of all, the so-called \"international convention\" is questionable -- Is it genuine \"international,\" that is, a common rule observed by ALL climbing communities internationally, or, is it simply what we have interpreted from \"international\" magazines? To my understanding, the so-called \"international convention\" is not the former, for difefrent localities have different, albeit subtle, rules of naming, which serves those localities well becuase these rules rise historically, not being imposed upon, despite they may sometime run counter to the principles of what we have understood.

Secondly, sport climbing has been influenced greatly by commercial needs. Such influences may serve well to the princple of fairness -- indeed, it needs to becuase competition, whatever its form may be, is based on fairness, but it may not serve to a particular locality to the principles of adequacy as well as ethical harmony, the import of the latter you have already pointed out. Moreover, as I have argued else where, the scope and spirits of traditional cimbing is different than that of sport climbing. Thus, whether the \"rules\" that we are talking about are based on the commercialized standards, or based on the local balance between traditional and sport climbing, or based on Taiwan\'s particular circumstances, and what would be the likely consequences once the rules are made and implemented, needs to be thought over carefully.

So, third and finally, let us go back to the problem of democracy. Democracy is problematic, but there is one invaluable element inherent in a democractic process and democractic rule implementation: it is \"involvement,\" and alone with that, \"deliberation.\" In my opinion, we can afford not to have democracy but we cannot afford to lose \"involvement\" and \"deliberation.\" The results of the latter are qualities of \"tolerance\" and \"understanding,\" as your response has alluded to. Discussion yields these two qualities, so does participation. Taiwan needs both. Taiwan does not need \"iron cage\" -- which is so-called \"rationality\" in its strict sense as I have seen what the discussion of naming and changing holds are all about.

Again, I agree with you. This long comment serves only to clarify what I see of your response that can be subtle but important parts. [img]images/forum/smilies/icon_smile.gif[/img]