Discussion ad hominem

Not long ago I decided to effectively leave the Zaadz community and abandon my post there for several reasons. First, I felt the promised transformative platform was being pampered and traded for an irritating LOHAS chic, soon to be confirmed with Zaadz (a Friend of the I-I) being sold to Gaiam (origin: "Gaia+I am", OMG) and then adequately renamed to Gaia dot com (on the web, semantics is everything). Second, it was becoming obvious that even the best discussions at Zaadz are inescapably tainted with endless and painful logical and emotional circularity, defended as PC tolerance at this crucial time when the unsophisticated, deeply narcisistic sensitivity of so many is assaulting every trace of authenticity to be found in so few. Other reasons seem to stem from these two. You know, anybody is equally entitled to anything, and the only sin is a violation of That. Not of duty, not of privilege, but of an absurd entitlement. Basically, I wasn't dissapointed or disheartened, but have come to conclusion that Zaadz was a herald of a project that will be progressive enough to boldly proclaim standards that go beyond sheer egalitarianism, to usher a new standard of communal excellence and depth, immune to the extreme of uncritical acceptance otherwise celebrated as a cardinal virtue. In short, Zaadz was somewhat a hype.

Recently Julian Walker (see here) and Bruce Alderman (see here) both contributed remarkable posts to their blogs. The discussions themselves tended to blur the points made in original posts, and eventually seemed to neutralize the potential opened by the posts themselves. I wouldn't and couldn't take part in the ensuing discussions, since I have already left the tribe. It doesn't hurt to peek, though, right? Yes, the discussions can be fun and entertaining and even empowering, but so can many other things in life, while some things, some ideas, some practices, some phenomena etc. deserve a special treatment, because of their explicit transformative potential. Meanwhile, Julian became annoyed after taking so much "flak from everyone", Bruce felt that Julian doesn't stop long enough to actually understand what someone else is saying, and others - with few exceptions like Jim and James and David - mostly used their combined authenticity to chip in with anything from admiration to agreement to self-promotion to ill-hidden sarcasm to childish f*ck yous to simple gratitude. Despite all that, Julian and Bruce, with a little help from some friends, did manage to make at least some differences stand out rather clearly.

However, I was now in position of an onlooker, an intellectual peeper, as most readers of such discussions are by definition, and I discovered how frustrating discussions can be for the most part, and often useless. In order to have a meaningful discussion, participants must share a common purpose, that implicitly transcends their respective views or agendas. An example of such purpose is given in the dialogical notion of Raimon Panikkar (e.g. see Balder's take on Panikkar).

Something like this has happened already, and will happen again. For example, when the Integral Institute launched its forums, the Road Rules were set forth to "not just regulate traffic, but to call all participants to their own highest awareness." The guidelines were all variations on the simple dictum: "Let the next words out of your mouth (and into this forum) be from your Highest Self as you understand it." Well, it was an attempt, that didn't work very well. I haven't visited the I-I Forums for a loooong time.

On the other hand, hardcore discussion can only take place in protected spaces (online or real world), far from anything resembling universal entitlement. Instead, deep discussion is delineated by merit and realization. Whether in business, politics, or spirituality, deep dialogue is sustained by those who are willing and capable to embody that which is being aimed at by discussion with a common purpose and an open mind, or else to remain silent and respectful. Is that too much to ask? Fortunately, there are such places. But we need more hybrids, where some of that deep conversation can be joined by the public in a meaningful way. Any thoughts?