On Uniformity In Halakhah

From a very interesting comment in a lengthy discussion of peoplehood unity as a direct goal in Jewish-legal ruling on Mah Rabu:

Also in recent thought I have been struggling as to whether halachik constraints, which flow from this idea of uniformity, have normative value today. (note, value, not authority). As Rashi puts it “to prevent Israel from becoming groups and groups (agudot agudot) and it will seem like two Torot.” The notion and goals of conformity are dependant on multiple variables, including the present religious situation, as mitigated by cultural as well as spiritual factors. The goal of conformity is always unity; in this case the goal is to have one Torah not two. In those times they were able to accomplish unity by creating one standardized normative practice for all groups, even when already they were geographically separate, the goal was to keep a strong solidarity and communion through regulating culture and religious practices such that they reflected a similar manner to those in Jerusalem.

Today, I do not think that such conformity creates unity. Rather, perhaps it is becoming the case that a higher level of unity is being driven for today, one that creates unity through dialogue back and forth; in the way that Talmudic dialogue is modeled. And just as in Talmudic dialogue there is often no synthesis, which conforms the two previous opposing sides to one position, but rather the sugya is always pushing itself forward with questions in a search a new level of truth, one only gained through a never-ending dialectic, which will settle for no synthesis. For unlike Hegel, spirit can never become settled and captured in any one synthesis.