Implicit in many of our pieces, and explicit in several, is the assertion that where we “end” depends on where we “begin.” Of course people often begin at different points and arrive at the same destination; and arrival by two people at the same destination does not presupposes a common starting point. We zig; we zag; we weave from point to point, even if our perspective and vision obscure (to ourselves) our variances from a straight line. We hasten to add that identification of a starting point (as well as an ending point and a straight line) presupposes consensus on measurement and definitional criteria. And the metaphors of language – as if any behavior equates to a straight line – complicate our framing and articulation.

Could it be that the shrill of public discourse, intensified by the impenetrable convictions of the most vocal, magnifies superficial differences and masks consensus? And if so, then we become exposed (or do we expose ourselves?) to the risks that consensus brings, including attenuation of our invariably under-nourished impulse to question and challenge. The fundamentals are settled and settle; the settled views sprawl; and our quarrels become quibbles, albeit presented with passionate conviction that feeds on the quibbles it fosters.

Would it be too much to ask of our elected “officials” – whose office cloaks their views with an official’s imprimatur – to vocalize, without trivializing, the views of those with whom they debate? To press for self-awareness informed by an understanding of the starting point(s) of one’s self and of others? Where do our limits of deception reside and how do we achieve consensus through transparency?