Literary Discussions

I believe that one key survival advantage to our species is a genetic tendency to discord so that each of us sees being/reality in a slightly different way. If we all saw things the same way then we would not spread out to exploit diverse ecological niches. Everyone would choose the seashore or the rain forest or islands or mountain tops or deserts.  There IS no religion that has never developed a sectarian division. Even the Jains are divided into the Svetasambra white-sheet clad and the Digambra sky-naked-clad. They both acknowledge that their founder Mahavira (Great-Man) was naked but the Svetasambra argue that he was walking deep in meditation and his sheet caught on a thorn bush and fell away.  To seek truth through the touchstone of universal consensus of agreement is foolish since all peoples in all times have not agreed upon anything non-trivial.  If all 6+ billion were lined up in a row and I spent 5 seconds before each one saying Hello it would take me 950 years. If I road a motorcycle and waved at them I might do it in a century. So how could I persuade everyone of anything and since I cannot persuade everyone of anything then what do I gain by persuading a few people of any one thing. In group discussions I rarely address individuals. I like to think that I address ideas rather than individuals. And it is like a smorgasbord where some will take something they value and ignore the rest.