George Rebane
The lengthy comment streams on RR, each containing several comment threads dissecting various ideas, are a joy to behold. In these pages we join to discuss weighty propositions and happenings that range from the nature of the universe to the why, what, and how of the critters that inhabit our planet. Mostly we are like the blind men, each groping a part of the pachyderm attempting to describe the whole from what they grasp.
Intuitively we know that we can better discover the overall ‘nature of the beast’ if we accurately communicate our own observations to others, and in turn correctly understand what others are perceiving from their points of vantage. (‘No Harry, that’s my leg. The elephant is over here.’)
There are many dimensions to such discussions and/or debates. And not everyone comes to hug the elephant with a common objective. Some are there to present and defend their long held idea against all comers. Some come just to denigrate an idea, or to denigrate the class of people who value the idea, or worse, to simply denigrate the individual who holds to the idea without much concern for the idea itself.
The saddest exchanges are those in which a discussant, out of whole cloth, ascribes to his opposite a position (usually simplistic) that is not supported by any careful read of the other’s words. Then the discussant proceeds at length to attack and vilify that auto-ascribed position, and doubly so his intended target. The astute reader recognizes this as the algorithmic basis of political dialogue and debate. It frustrates the intelligent, and merely plays to the gallery of idiots. The goal is not greater understanding, but to gain the march on the other. Most media debates, commentaries, and blogs – sadly including RR – have generous dollops of such back and forth.
Then on rarer occasions we witness a thread in which the participants begin to productively build a mutually shared understanding, each contributing what they know and civilly pointing out what they believe are errors in the previous contributions, independent of their contributors. In my mind, that is the sought for elixir of blogs that traffic in ideas. Don’t get me wrong, productive results do not come only from full agreement or consensus. Because there are an uncountable number of coherent systems of logic, there can be an equivalent number of ideas (propositions) that are correctly supported by such logics.
And to me at least, discovering such differences, and how they can stand, is itself an illumination and a giant step toward greater understanding in diverse societies. Such discoveries made in good faith allow the discussion to go to a meta-level where, perhaps, a new and more powerful consensus could be achieved, or at least understood why it still eludes.
From a perusal of RR’s comment streams over its relatively short tenure, I believe that bit by piece we may be moving toward such a forum here.
rebanesruminations.com 
Leave a comment