so where does this leave us then? not back at the beginning in rootsie's original post? that the thing that defines rasta is not uniform and not accepted by all that sight themselves as rasta? isnt that what has eventually come out of this? so where now do we take this reasoning from here? we are divided on one thing but agree on others.. is that not the nature of all groups? is blind abject uniformity what we really desire anyway or is it dynamic movement and progress? this is an important question. often reasoning here descends into the emotional. we must transcend the base emotion, channel it through the mind and respond, not react. what is very important here (and ones should have realized ths by now) is that it is not only the content but the charachter. your view may be differnt but how do you conduct yourself in presenting it and how do you conduct youself when your view is threatened?

so i ask again, where do we take this reasoning from here?