As I understand it, the ROS blog is part of a Public Radio International program produced by the people at Open Source Media, Inc.

The producers may intend for the ROS blog to create a community, for example, that is a “self-selected group of enlightenment seekers” with “common perspectives at certain levels” that “will not abide a certain type of diversity.”

Or the producers may intend something quite different.

Brendan, speaking for himself according to his disclaimer, gives us a great deal of insight in the intentions of the producers. In his post he uses the word “argument” (or “argue”) thirteen times, and the word “community” only four. A three to one ratio, for what it is worth. Here are some excerpts that seem especially relevant on re-reading his post:

“All compelling arguments are welcome, …”

“… we’re aiming for honest argument and open inquiry.”

“… anyone else who doesn’t lie, swear or indulge in personal attacks — anyone who argues in Hamilton’s “spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truthâ€? — is more than welcome here.”

“The ultimate outcome of an Open Source show — and the ensuing online discussion — should not be well-apportioned diversity, but an argument that gets somewhere.”

And don’t these intentions concord with the consensus view of this discussion? That contributors are motivated to participate in the discussion in order to “improve our articulation” and “think more carefully?” That contributors are seeking open inquiry to sharpen arguments?

If so, then this intention, this idea, needs to be communicated. And one way to do so is with (I can already here the laughter) tag-lines. I actually like tag-lines. And you need a few. I mean, “A public radio show with Christopher Lydon” is, well, lame. Here are my suggestions:

Open Source

… All compelling arguments welcome

Open Source

… Open inquiry, honest argument

Open Source

… An argument that gets somewhere

Anyone have any others?

Do others concur?

I suppose that is a common thread to all of my endeavors. And it is true that I seem to defy the narrow definitions of religious groups. (I find that generally once something is institutionalized it loses its purity and goes into rapid decline.) Therefore, I seek a community where I can express and explore my higher ideals. I wasn’t clear that I was seeking this here.

I feel pretty strongly that enlightenment can’t happen in a vaccuum. Or perhaps that it can’t be actualized in a vaccuum. This forum affords me a playground for articulation. And I do get to practice being open to differing perspectives. But without live contact, its all rather abstract. Its a lot to stay composed in writing. I think about things on my own time. I reply when I have the time or inclination. I can explore my own reactions, and even discuss them with friends, before responding. Its also a lot easier to rant at a screen name. Would these discussions take the same shape in person? We have to live our lives in person. The themes we discuss here are fine to explore in the ether, but if we really want to see things improve we have to take real live action. Enlightenment, to my understanding isn’t something you achieve in your head, its a living, breathing, actualized being that drives every choice and every action one makes. Certainly, this forum can feed into our individual seekings, but enlightenment cannot be achieved here.

And I’m unsure of this word community, as well. What kind of community are we? We could all be at the same private showing of La Boheme and not even know it. Other than Chris and Brendan, i don’t know what any of you look like. Brendan is the only one I’ve met in person. We aren’t required to use our real names. We don’t post our photos. Even if we did, we have no way of verifying the authenticity of them. We are a group that is communicating. Are we a community? How do we define community and enlightenment?

I don’t ask these questions to devalue this exchange. It is probably self-evident that I enjoy this forum and appreciate this outlet. As someone who has the aspirations of a healer, I long to work at the meta-level of healing. As the mother of a young child who feels her first obligation is to attend to her child’s nurturing, I have opted to work at the intimate level by hosting a small community at my yarn store. This forum is a wonderful outlet for me.

I ask these questions of definition, simply to define. Its an organic part of the community-building process. And since there have been references to a community here and now this postulation that this community might be seeking enlightenment, perhaps we want to explore the current definition of what we are and are aiming for. (Knowing that these things can evolve.) Knowing the what’s and the why’s can help us clarify the how’s. They can also help new people understand the ‘rules of the game’ and have reasonable expectations.

We might find that if we are a self-selected group of enlightenment seekers, for instance, there will be common perspectives at certain levels that will not abide a certain type of diversity. We can’t just hold up the abstract ideal of diversity as a flag we bear when there may really be limits to the diversity we accept. A simple example would be that we don’t accept the voices of those who do not from our perspective seem to be reactionary and ignorant. We become the self-appointed arbiters. We need to be aware of that. How do we open ourselves to the value of those voices that seem unacceptable to us without feeling that we are ‘selling our enlightened souls” to the devil of ignorance in the name of openness?

Well, these are my thoughts for the day. Has this thread gotten way off track? Is it still even an active thread?

My tentative reply: ‘Enlightenment’.

Enlightenment motivated the creation of contemporary representative democracy, and the greater gift of Western Humanism.

And yet now both of those great boons are in noticeable decline—at least here in our fossilized 18th Century republic, and, perhaps worse, in the lands of peoples we target as ‘reprobates’.

Enlightenment, it seems to many of us including, it seems, allison, is in need of a mighty resurgence.

Those of us who listen, read, and then have the temerity to contribute our often fuzzy thoughts here can dare to be an aide, however small, to that effort.

I suspect that’s the prime reason we return here again and again. Of course it’s thrilling to see our words on a page in the worldwide virtual community, but it’s even better to partake of the wisdom of others, and to contribute our own, however small.

So thanks, everyone, for suffering through impulsive posts from the smart-assed likes of me.

More importantly: keep writing!

Would we want to encourage someone to defend the concept of murder as acceptable?

This might be an extreme example. What I’m getting at, is something more like the reality of a self-selecting group. Anyone who chooses to participate here values something which is the glue that binds us. That something permeates us and our dialogue. Having just read through the rest of the comments, I agree with Brendan. Its not about diversity for the sake of diversity. Its about the quality of exchange leading to something.

Do any of us know what the something is?

Happy New Year everyone. I look forward to our first full year together.

On the purpose of the blog, there is this question of community building through reaffirmation vs. the idea of debate. I like Nikos comment:

“I don’t want my off-the-spectrum sacred-cow-stabbing views to inhibit the posting of differing views. I want–quite EXACTLY–that such counter-arguments will harrass me out of the shelter of my smug know-it-all-ism into a CONVINCING articulation of my views. And if that articulation succeeds or fails isn’t nearly as important as the process of having to think it out so thoroughly that at least my point of view is comprehensible and appreciated, even if rejected.”

I have this conversation with people often. The point to debate in my mind, is to force me to think more. To improve my articulation. In that push to think more carefully, it is possible I will see something differently. But more likely, not I have found. Therefore, I am not trying to convince someone to change their views. If that happens, I’m not even sure its always a bonus. (Unless you’re trying to take action on something and need a majority vote!) I agree that a well-thought rebuttal is vital to my my own thinking process. I can’t hone my skills if everybody agrees with me, I can’t refine my thoughts if no one challenges them. So, I enjoy a hearty back and forth, as long as its respectful.

When I used to play tennis, it was understood that every player was looking for an equal or superior opponent. It was boring to play someone you could tromp. The best idea of competition is to be challenged to the point that you perform beyond your expectations. Its exhilirating to realize you’ve done better that you thought you could. Winning is secondary to that. Winning only means that you still have to find a better opponent. Losing means you still have someone to work with.

I do hope that someone I heartily disagree with, doesn’t feel they can’t post here. Its not like we’re eating all our meals together in a life full of agida.