.

.

.

P A R T ~ 5: LIMITED DIALOGUE david bohm: sometimes people feel the sense of dialogue within their families. but a family is generally a hierarchy, organized on the principle of authority which is contrary to dialogue. the family is a very authoritative structure, based on obligation, and that sort of thinkg. it has its value, but it is a structure within which it might be difficult to get dialogue going. it would be good if you could - perhaps that could happen in some families. in general, it is difficult, though, because there is no place in the dialogue for the principle of authority and hierarchy. we want to be free of authority and hierarchy as we move. you must have SOME authority to 'run' thinkgs; thats why we say that if you have a "purpose", then you are bound to bring in some authority somewhere. but in dialogue, insofar as we have no purpose and no agenda and we dont have to DO anythinkg, we dont really need to have an authority, no hierarchy, where there is no special purpose - sort of an empty place, where we can let anythinkg be talked about. [...] it would be best to accept the principle of letting it be open, because when you limit it, you are accepting assumptions on the basis of which you limit it -assumption that may actually be getting in the way of free communication. so you are not looking at those assumptions. [od 42] [...] there may be no pat political answer to the worlds problems. however, the important point is not the answer - just as in a dialogue, the important point is not the particular opinions - but rather the softening up, the opening up of the mind, and looking at all the opinions [...] dialogue is the collective way of opening up judgements and assumptions. [od 46] (excerpts from david bohm's book "on dialogue" [od, routledge 1996]. what he says about bohm-dialogue has relevance for optical dialogue. P A R T ~ 4 ... coming soon

.

.

.