pe wrote: > If an argument isn't being had to settle and solve an issue, > there's precious little point in having one. Knowledge and > understanding are hardly to be had in the presence of > continued ambiguity. In my own experience, holding in tension two strongly held beliefs that appear on the surface to be contradictory leads to a much deeper understanding of both sides of the issue. This may be less apparent in more deterministic realms of exploration, but there are so many issues where we (humanity) have not found the answers to these hard questions where living with ambiguity and wrestling with it is much preferable to blindly adopting one stance or the other. I suppose my long term intent may still be to 'settle and solve' such issues, but I think more often than not, were the solution so readily apparent, there would be not so very much to argue about. Casey