In order to create an epistemology, hence enable meaningful social discourse, we require observance of places controlled by power. For that to be, we require independent authority to that power. Why bother with with flapping until this is enabled?
I am sorry, but I take umbrage with the question’s premise.
I do not see meaningful social discourse arising out of an epistemology created by some overarching “power”. This is because, power, for societal ‘reason’ to be possible, can never claim knowledge of THE Truth (reason: there is absolute truth, but it cannot be claimed). Otherwise, “power” will surely oppress the interests of parties.
Whereas, I see ‘meaningful social discourse’ as the rational pursuit of objective (ideally absolute) truth. As a result, it is helpful to grant power to those that facilitate the process of finding truth (if needed). Yet, that process (of reason), should always be subject to review and revision by those submitting to it’s authority (i.e. the people).
In America, that formalized system exists. It is called the justice system.
For example, ONLY the finder of fact, i.e. the jury in jury trials, can find objective truth, and not some “power”. Mind you, this result is not a finding of absolute truth either, as many objective truth decisions are overturned when the process is deemed inadequate or abused by a court of review.
There are rules for this process (Here Federal):
The FEDERAL Rules of Civil Procedure
And rules for evidence:
States have their own versions.
The thinking behind the above to documents is awe inspiring. Millions of trials over the centuries have gone into shaping them. Those two documents, and a fair arbiter of the circumscribed process, i.e. the trial judge, make for meaningful social discourse, when, in the worse case, the parties are deeply adverse to one another.
I understand that trials are not always efficient. Many questions between people should be solved more trivially, and without trials. But, the process outlined by the above documents is what required when individuals are resolutely committed to their subjective interests. If people understood the challenges, I think some shortcuts to the process can be taken. In fact, in trials, when the parties agree, they are.
But is hard. Society is complex. Nevertheless, truths must not be jammed down the throat of the governed—EVER. It is irrational.
