you know, it's a little late, but thank you for posting this comment, I actually just really read it and love it. You said what I wanted to say only better... :

In reply to this comment by kulpims:
you're all thinking in terms of rational explanations. what if there is none and the thing still works? if particle entaglement experiments have shown us anything it's that not only is all matter just energy but that everything in the universe is interconnected. the point is, we don't know shit yet. the behaviour of particles at quantum level shows bizzare results we are unable to backup properly with our newtonian ways. as we discovered that observation inevitably affects the results of experiments we were no longer just voayers looking from the outside into this newtonian rube-goldberg apparatus we call universe - we are the apparatus. our current description of reality is a sketch at best. i like the work David Bohm did with Karl Pribram on holonomic model of the brain and his ideas of the role consciencesness has in this universe. another wacko i like is David Deutsch and his four-strand theory of everything.
a quote from wiki about his theory:

"It aims not at the reduction of everything to particle physics, but rather mutual support among multiverse, computational, epistemological, and evolutionary principles."

which reminded me of another fine post here on the sift, a Wired editor Kevin Kelly's TED talk about remarkable similarities between the evolution of biology and technology.

you're all thinking in terms of rational explanations. what if there is none and the thing still works? if particle entaglement experiments have shown us anything it's that not only is all matter just energy but that everything in the universe is interconnected. the point is, we don't know shit yet. the behaviour of particles at quantum level shows bizzare results we are unable to backup properly with our newtonian ways. as we discovered that observation inevitably affects the results of experiments we were no longer just voayers looking from the outside into this newtonian rube-goldberg apparatus we call universe - we are the apparatus. our current description of reality is a sketch at best. i like the work David Bohm did with Karl Pribram on holonomic model of the brain and his ideas of the role consciencesness has in this universe. another wacko i like is David Deutsch and his four-strand theory of everything.
a quote from wiki about his theory:

"It aims not at the reduction of everything to particle physics, but rather mutual support among multiverse, computational, epistemological, and evolutionary principles."

which reminded me of another fine post here on the sift, a Wired editor Kevin Kelly's TED talk about remarkable similarities between the evolution of biology and technology.

Netrunner, you are biting off way more than I would ever try to. It might sound absurd, but it seems that geomoo's post on DailyKos isn't particulary concerned about 'facts' at all (Incidentally, I haven't even finished reading that article because it keeps spinning me off into separate Google searches, that's the problem with not knowing anything). If the conclusion of the article is anything like it's opening, then it isn't about facts at all. It seems to be about two concepts that result in these 'separate realities', where facts have lost meanings.

The article seems to assert that thought is flawed and is often just emotional response disguised as "thinking", and as a result "listening" isn't actually practiced. In an effort to counteract these short circuits, The article introduces Bohm's Principles":

"[A]ny method of conversation that claims to be based on the "principles of dialogue as established by David Bohm" can be considered to be a form of Bohm Dialogue. Those principles of "Bohm Dialogue" are:

1. The group agrees that no group-level decisions will be made in the conversation. "...In the dialogue group we are not going to decide what to do about anything. This is crucial. Otherwise we are not free. We must have an empty space where we are not obliged to anything, nor to come to any conclusions, nor to say anything or not say anything. It's open and free" (Bohm, "On Dialogue", p.18-19.)"

2. Each individual agrees to suspend judgement in the conversation. (Specifically, if the individual hears an idea he doesn't like, he does not attack that idea.) "...people in any group will bring to it assumptions, and as the group continues meeting, those assumptions will come up. What is called for is to suspend those assumptions, so that you neither carry them out nor suppress them. You don't believe them, nor do you disbelieve them; you don't judge them as good or bad...(Bohm, "On Dialogue", p. 22.)"

3. As these individuals "suspend judgement" they also simultaneously are as honest and transparent as possible. (Specifically, if the individual has a "good idea" that he might otherwise hold back from the group because it is too controversial, he will share that idea in this conversation.)

4. Individuals in the conversation try to build on other individuals' ideas in the conversation. (The group often comes up with ideas that are far beyond what any of the individuals thought possible before the conversation began.)

Usually, the goal of the various incarnations of "Bohm Dialogue" is to get the whole-group to have a better understanding of itself. In other words, Bohm Dialogue is used to inform all of the participants about the current state of the group they are in."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/8/194945/7976/80/531805

That seems to be a lot to take on at once, but the poster submits a personal observation that addresses really important point:

My wife and I both observed that a certain manner of speaking could have a profound effect on the listening. The group might be droning along about ideas. I might find myself reacting with boredom or anger or a mental critique. Then a participant would begin speaking from the heart, offering a specific example of the universal experience of being human.

Of course if we follow these principles, we can forget about painting any walls anytime soon. Like I said, that's more than I'm willing to chew. I'm having a hard enough time with the first steps of suspending judgment and really listening.

Again, excellent excellent post. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, it's just what I was looking for.