Letters to the Editor

I enjoy reading "Letters to the Editor" in our local newspaper. I enjoy the letters for various reasons. I am interested in peoples' opinions. Sometimes I am amazed that ANYONE is concerned enough about THAT topic to write a "Letter to the Editor".

Often the letters deal with familiar controversies. Sometimes I consider them to be the most eloquent writing I have encountered regarding a particular issue, while others are barely coherent. Occasionally, there will be a letter-writer who obviously feels very strongly about the issue, but after reading and re-reading their letter, I cannot discern which side they are vehemently supporting. Some letters seem to me to be making a careful, logical, iron-clad case for one side of an issue, but then reach the opposite conclusion from what I had expected.

This brings up the troubling fact that people with opposing views may appear to use precisely the same facts and same logic and same arguments to come to opposite conclusions, while being incredulous that anyone could possibly hold the opposing belief.

This further leads to the idea that in our opinionated, polarized society, many people judge ideas at least partly based on the apparent source of the idea. An idea expressed by someone from "our side" makes good sense, while the identical idea put forth by someone from "their side" is preposterous. I hasten to admit that there is a certain logic to this. An idea expressed by someone with whom we tend to agree will logically be initially viewed in a more favorable light than an idea expressed by someone with whom we tend to disagree. This is one of the shortcuts we use to manage life. Since we cannot know everything, or be experts on everything, we build up a circle of those whom we trust, and accept their ideas less critically than we accept ideas from those outside our circle of trust.

When reading "Letters to the Editor", it is difficult to not glance first at the name of the letter-writer, and often these names are familiar, and often you can guess which side they will support, and, indeed, whether their letter will be worth reading. I suppose that in a perfect world, I would read every letter, no matter what, and never know the names or views of the writers until I finished their letter. Life is too short for that.

In a perfect world, it would be enlightening to realize that those with whom we disagree sometimes make excellent, valid points, and that sometimes information that seems to point to an inescapable conclusion points just as easily to an opposing conclusion. Sadly, this is not a perfect world.

This especially applies to the world of blogging. Unless a blogger takes steps to mask their opinions, eventually anyone reading the blog will come to a realization of whether the blogger is on "their side" or "the other side" and at that point, true communication becomes much more difficult. It might be enlightening for both you and me if you could read each entry in this blog, and especially on controversial subjects, without pre-existing knowledge of my opinions or point of view, but that cannot last for long.

At the same time, one of the whole POINTS of communication, and one of the points of READING a blog, is to try and figure out "where a person is coming from" and what they are trying to say, gradually increasing your understanding of their ideas. To read or hear every word from a fresh perspective would be enlightening, but probably also counterproductive.

This gets even more complicated when you include the idea that life is short, and no one has time to read every letter to the editor or every blog entry -- though there may be something to be learned from even bad ideas. In the end, I guess all I can suggest is that if you do decide to take YOUR valuable time to listen to someone or read a letter to the editor or read this blog, you should try to understand what they are actually trying to communicate, rather than what you expect or believe they are trying to communicate.

Truth is complicated.