'This the season to be OPEN. To dialogue, that is
(if you want to get things done, of course
(if you want to get things done, of course)
This short post is two very different things at once. First, it is another step of the exchange between me and Von on dating, marriage, parenting and related issues:
(by me) A letter on dating, and a method for public debate in the 21st century
(by Von) And God Brought the Woman
The other purpose of this post, which also is one of the main general goals of this newsletter, is to insist on how critical dialogue it is, in this age of troublesome elections and good faith,but backfiring reactions to hate speech, and on how easy it may be to do it fruitfully.
In my first post, I deliberately and explicitly gave definitions of dating, marriage, parenting, and answers to related questions, that were: - precise enough to be concretely usable, acceptable starting points for discussing those issues - vague enough to make it actually possible to start such discussions with everybody, whatever they think of those issues
You can judge by yourself whether I failed or not in doing so here (and please let me know!). In his answer, Von declares himself to be "pretty sure that Marco and I differ rather dramatically in the definition of ‘marriage’ that we use, which will make a difference in our views on how to get there."
This is not really or completely correct though. I'm pretty sure that, should I disclose my full vision of marriage etc..., Von would surely discover that, while still pretty great, the difference is not as dramatic as he assumed; but I'm also pretty sure that, besides the few that would just misunderstand a deep explanation, many more people would find it unnecessarily boring and therefore just quit reading. But... should I (or Von, of course) really, really go for full disclosure? Why, exactly?
If we were to discuss whether a patch of public land should become a parking lot or a football field, for example, wouldn't it be unproductive to tell each other the full story of all our past car trips, or athletic achievements? How much should it matter, in that context, where each of us bought cars, or football shoes?
When starting the exchange, I deliberately exposed only the bare minimum of my own full vision of marriage, dating etc... that, in my opinion, the other side of a debate about specific actions about those issues (e.g. how to support them with public money) should really know about me, before starting the debate.
Von's answer, instead, put on the same table what is, as far as I can tell, Von's own complete, uncompromising definitions of marriage, dating etc.., sources and all. Point is, regardless of their merit, it's not absolutely necessary for me to have all input in the given context.
What matters, in this and all other possible public debates on any topic (because, again, a general goal of this newsletter remains to propose and test effective ways to do that!) is that I agree with Von when he says that, as far as ANY definition of marriage is concerned, "our current system is producing disaster after disaster."
Why stop there then? Because Von's first answer ends before dealing with my initial invitation on how, and why to continue the exchange:
is there some parts of my answers you like, or at least would accept as common building ground or at least issue of non-belligerence, if we were, say, two political activists in the same district?
I renew the invitation to Von, and everybody else who'd like to participate, in this form:
let's stop sharing definitions, or expanding them. Let's move on: do you see any common denominator between the definition we already shared, or not, and what is it, exactly?
let's be more specific: is that common denominator enough to make you think that the two of us could e.g. lay down a proposal to support marriage that is compatible with both our definitions, and what that proposal would be?
I'd really like to read from Von a first draft of such a proposal, and then develop it together. It would be a good test, and demo, of how all of us could get lots of good things done, in any field, if each of us would just agree to self- inflict a little bit of "pragmatic violence" on his or her brain, instead of ending like the "knitters who got knotted in a purity spiral".
On this Earth, Perfect is the enemy of good.
Usual final note: please remember that you can directly, concretely support this “newsletter” (especially if you have these specific issues with the platform that I am FORCED to use) in any of these ways, and that ANY help is greatly appreciated, and really useful.