From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Thu Sep 14 00:05:46 2006 From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide) Date: Fri Sep 15 00:57:44 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Truths In-Reply-To: <47119B11-550C-4608-B014-BF47224241CF@donfactor.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <BAY107-F24BE8C47C5CEBA6D958C7BA8280@phx.gbl> Seeking Factor, You want some dialogical truths? How about chewing on that one for a break ;-? A black man living in a high-crime American city can expect to live 21 fewer years than a woman of Asian descent in the United States. The man's life expectancy, in fact, is closer to that of people living in West Africa than it is to the average white American. ..... just as an aperitif, Dear! Love & Skin, Kirsten -------------------------- Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld >>Which of the zillion truths are you refering to again, please? > >Whichever one I mention I am certain that you will have a good >snarky answer for it, so what 's the point? That's a question and >that's the truth >don _________________________________________________________________ Check the weather nationwide with MSN Search: Try it now! http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=weather&FORM=WLMTAG From ae.dropper at juno.com Thu Sep 14 16:04:35 2006 From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com) Date: Fri Sep 15 16:58:54 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content Message-ID: <20060914.100436.3524.2.ae.dropper@juno.com> Objection to the content here is because of [some elaboration on or complication of] the thought that "This makes me unhappy." Objections? pat From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Thu Sep 14 16:49:49 2006 From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com) Date: Fri Sep 15 17:42:01 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 19, Issue 15 In-Reply-To: <20060915100002.B1E1622C82@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org> Message-ID: <OF7D4B9F19.D39F5FDD-ON852571E9.00483AF7-852571E9.00517774@dialogos.com> Rodger__ Aikido was essentially unheard of when I started. In most dojos it just looked like judo. But in one dojo things that should be physically impossible were being done with ease. I joined. After a couple of years of practicing I recognized an odd pattern in the group; physically impossible things were done on only some nights, and coincidentally on those nights; the group felt in harmony.By harmony I dont mean agreeable or in agreement. The class was small and the instructor rarely spoke English. It was one of those rare occassions that the instructor chose to answer me. He said, -Each group has an energy, a ki, composed of each individual in the group. When a group energy is harmonious it is capable of moving beyond boundaries of prior, self-imposed limitation. He went on, -However, even if you have 99 of 100 people willing, re: ki/ attitude, it only requires one person to be in-the-group but working against the ki/ attitude of the group, and the group will not achieve harmony. I thought, wow, that sounds pretty flakey/ delicate. But then I realized this was the only place I had witnessed that remarkable crossing over from physically mechanical to absolute fluidity; When my vision and hearing became extraordinary, and laws of gravity very flexible. Similarly, there were many dialogues with David Bohm when the group would be sitting paused in a quiet moment and that sudden shift into unexplainable group awareness would happen. Everyone felt it happen, but no-one would speak while it was happening out of a respect for the delicate nature of the new intelligence. We were beginning to learn something new about thought, beyond prior boundaries of self imposed limitation. Since 1983 research in neurology has become incomparable to all that was known about brain function prior to then. And I know thinking is not thought, but I tend to see a link. Anyway, my point is; there are always going to be rules of a sort -- no matter how right/ wrong they appear, they are simply preferences based on values. Often this group is everybit as personal as a person-to-person dialogue, but in this group members remain accessible 24-7 via the internet. Possibly some further consideration should go into the list, re: how confirmed individuals participate, not just names or pseudo names. The group might enjoy this process of learning what it gains/ loses by way of harmony, in favor of some ideas and ideals._R . . Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:39:47 +0100 From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content . I think where Kirsten's participation is concerned in this system, there is one assumption that, maybe, needs to be looked at again. Any suggestion, anyone? don . . . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060914/787d6da9/attachment.html From ae.dropper at juno.com Thu Sep 14 17:29:37 2006 From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com) Date: Fri Sep 15 18:24:48 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 19, Issue 15 Message-ID: <20060914.113003.3524.6.ae.dropper@juno.com> In an Aikido group the chances of all in "harmony" are MUCH greater than in an open dialogue group where, 3 among 10 or 20 will be remarkable. The "verbal sphere" throws out an unprecedented challenge. Bohm's capacity for allowance of "Intelligence" combined with his presence and the presence of those who respected his work on thought, could make quite a difference in the dynamic of a group, during certain moments. People in groups can do amazing things together. Get us verbalizing together though, and look out! And when we are not overtly arguing or fighting or venting, we are 'quietly' fuming verbally. And then denying this. What IS it about those little words???? And on a screen yet. No bodies in sight where guns could be hidden in pockets to account for the danger that is felt. And why all the pretending NOT, and/or pretending insignificance and irrelevance of this? pat On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:49:49 -0400 Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com writes: Rodger__ Aikido was essentially unheard of when I started. In most dojos it just looked like judo. But in one dojo things that should be physically impossible were being done with ease. I joined. After a couple of years of practicing I recognized an odd pattern in the group; physically impossible things were done on only some nights, and coincidentally on those nights; the group felt in harmony.By harmony I dont mean agreeable or in agreement. The class was small and the instructor rarely spoke English. It was one of those rare occassions that the instructor chose to answer me. He said, -Each group has an energy, a ki, composed of each individual in the group. When a group energy is harmonious it is capable of moving beyond boundaries of prior, self-imposed limitation. He went on, -However, even if you have 99 of 100 people willing, re: ki/ attitude, it only requires one person to be in-the-group but working against the ki/ attitude of the group, and the group will not achieve harmony. I thought, wow, that sounds pretty flakey/ delicate. But then I realized this was the only place I had witnessed that remarkable crossing over from physically mechanical to absolute fluidity; When my vision and hearing became extraordinary, and laws of gravity very flexible. Similarly, there were many dialogues with David Bohm when the group would be sitting paused in a quiet moment and that sudden shift into unexplainable group awareness would happen. Everyone felt it happen, but no-one would speak while it was happening out of a respect for the delicate nature of the new intelligence. We were beginning to learn something new about thought, beyond prior boundaries of self imposed limitation. Since 1983 research in neurology has become incomparable to all that was known about brain function prior to then. And I know thinking is not thought, but I tend to see a link. Anyway, my point is; there are always going to be rules of a sort -- no matter how right/ wrong they appear, they are simply preferences based on values. Often this group is everybit as personal as a person-to-person dialogue, but in this group members remain accessible 24-7 via the internet. Possibly some further consideration should go into the list, re: how confirmed individuals participate, not just names or pseudo names. The group might enjoy this process of learning what it gains/ loses by way of harmony, in favor of some ideas and ideals._R . . Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:39:47 +0100 From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content . I think where Kirsten's participation is concerned in this system, there is one assumption that, maybe, needs to be looked at again. Any suggestion, anyone? don . . . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060914/31e8d892/attachment.html From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Thu Sep 14 17:51:45 2006 From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor) Date: Fri Sep 15 18:43:50 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content In-Reply-To: <20060914.100436.3524.2.ae.dropper@juno.com> References: <20060914.100436.3524.2.ae.dropper@juno.com> Message-ID: <EA24FAED-EE9E-4AF9-844B-18E4D9105EC0@donfactor.demon.co.uk> > Objection to the content here is because of > [some elaboration on or complication of] the thought > that "This makes me unhappy." > > Objections? > > pat Not an objection, but perhaps an oversimplification. I think that just about anything can be reduced to its lowest common denominator, but in that reduction a great deal of meaning gets lost. So, it is not the content, in and of itself, that I sometimes find objectionable but the meaning of that content. We know what words denote. but we have also to intuit the connotation that they carry in any particular context. Without this tacit level of understanding, there would be no possibility of communication. But to do this we have to approach each question with more of an artistic hand than just an analytical or literalist understanding. So sometimes I find the "tone " of someone's remarks objectionable because they imply an attitude that distracts us from the seriousness of our search for understanding. Peter Krauss's behaviour, first under his own name and later as gas, was an example of this. And now Kirsten, whoever Kirsten may be, is another, perhaps, so far, less extreme example. I would suggest, though, that our inquiry here is not meant to be an inquiry into whatever someone wants to have happen as if it were a kid's playground with one of them wanting to be king or queen of the sandpile, nor is it an anything goes sort of exercise. That is what Krauss wanted to make it. Rather its an inquiry into some of the more subtle and, dare I say, significant realms of human consciousness or what Bohm called "the totality of all that is." And that's what I value here. So, I feel that such a search needs to be treated delicately and seriously. And when it is not, then, yes, it does make me feel unhappy. don From earthsky at tiscali.co.uk Thu Sep 14 18:22:07 2006 From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (Gill Wyatt) Date: Fri Sep 15 19:16:06 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 19, Issue 15 In-Reply-To: <20060914.113003.3524.6.ae.dropper@juno.com> Message-ID: <C12F403F.9473%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk> Hi Pat and Rodger, I have worked with groups as a facilitator for nearly 20 years in differing capacities. For about the last 10 years I became aware of how some groups came into harmony through the spoken word ... so that by listening to each others differences, leaning into what was expressed to unearth the assumptions and by letting patterns and connections unfold there was what I have come to call a 'holonic shift'. Its as if the group takes up a particular thread and gradually each person joins the harmonious (although at times there will be conflict and strong disagreement) unfolding of a creative shared meaning. It stuns me when this happens and I feel such awe. I wrote my Masters dissertation about this. And I'd agree one person can prevent it occurring. I'm curious about the implication that David Bohm's presence and the aikido's instructor presence played a part in the groups energy being harmonious. I've felt a shyness to look at say the part that the facilitaor plays seeing that I have been the facilitator. When this 'holonic shift' occurs the functioning of the group lifts to a much higher level and individuals consciousness seems to be at least temporarily lifted and expanded ... I know i have taken only a part of what you were exploring ...and I am finding my feet regarding how this discussion site works ... Gill From: ae.dropper@juno.com Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:29:37 -0400 To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 19, Issue 15 In an Aikido group the chances of all in "harmony" are MUCH greater than in an open dialogue group where, 3 among 10 or 20 will be remarkable. The "verbal sphere" throws out an unprecedented challenge. Bohm's capacity for allowance of "Intelligence" combined with his presence and the presence of those who respected his work on thought, could make quite a difference in the dynamic of a group, during certain moments. People in groups can do amazing things together. Get us verbalizing together though, and look out! And when we are not overtly arguing or fighting or venting, we are 'quietly' fuming verbally. And then denying this. What IS it about those little words???? And on a screen yet. No bodies in sight where guns could be hidden in pockets to account for the danger that is felt. And why all the pretending NOT, and/or pretending insignificance and irrelevance of this? pat On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:49:49 -0400 Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com writes: Rodger__ Aikido was essentially unheard of when I started. In most dojos it just looked like judo. But in one dojo things that should be physically impossible were being done with ease. I joined. After a couple of years of practicing I recognized an odd pattern in the group; physically impossible things were done on only some nights, and coincidentally on those nights; the group felt in harmony.By harmony I dont mean agreeable or in agreement. The class was small and the instructor rarely spoke English. It was one of those rare occassions that the instructor chose to answer me. He said, -Each group has an energy, a ki, composed of each individual in the group. When a group energy is harmonious it is capable of moving beyond boundaries of prior, self-imposed limitation. He went on, -However, even if you have 99 of 100 people willing, re: ki/ attitude, it only requires one person to be in-the-group but working against the ki/ attitude of the group, and the group will not achieve harmony. I thought, wow, that sounds pretty flakey/ delicate. But then I realized this was the only place I had witnessed that remarkable crossing over from physically mechanical to absolute fluidity; When my vision and hearing became extraordinary, and laws of gravity very flexible. Similarly, there were many dialogues with David Bohm when the group would be sitting paused in a quiet moment and that sudden shift into unexplainable group awareness would happen. Everyone felt it happen, but no-one would speak while it was happening out of a respect for the delicate nature of the new intelligence. We were beginning to learn something new about thought, beyond prior boundaries of self imposed limitation. Since 1983 research in neurology has become incomparable to all that was known about brain function prior to then. And I know thinking is not thought, but I tend to see a link. Anyway, my point is; there are always going to be rules of a sort -- no matter how right/ wrong they appear, they are simply preferences based on values. Often this group is everybit as personal as a person-to-person dialogue, but in this group members remain accessible 24-7 via the internet. Possibly some further consideration should go into the list, re: how confirmed individuals participate, not just names or pseudo names. The group might enjoy this process of learning what it gains/ loses by way of harmony, in favor of some ideas and ideals._R . . Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:39:47 +0100 From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content . I think where Kirsten's participation is concerned in this system, there is one assumption that, maybe, needs to be looked at again. Any suggestion, anyone? don . . . _______________________________________________ info: www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net dialogue facilitator: facilitator@david-bohm.net Administrator of the mailing list: admin@david-bohm.net _______________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060914/580f4143/attachment.html From benschcoe at hotmail.com Thu Sep 14 18:35:56 2006 From: benschcoe at hotmail.com (Regina Bensch-Coe) Date: Fri Sep 15 19:28:05 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 19, Issue 15 In-Reply-To: <OF7D4B9F19.D39F5FDD-ON852571E9.00483AF7-852571E9.00517774@dialogos.com> Message-ID: <BAY123-F30505C9288C357ED190098B7290@phx.gbl> Many posts ago, Pat contributed an essay comparing the work of Byron Katie and David Bohm. Unfortunately, Byron Katie’s work began (or reached a large audience) after David died. Byron Katie holds public sessions throughout the world. Her style of dialogue involves doing “the work.” The person fills out a sheet and answers ordinary questions. Actually, they are fill-in-the-blank questions. For example, the first question might be: ___________ (name) should or should not _______________. “The work”-sheet is a list of assumptions, inquiry of the assumptions, then turn-arounds. It looks quite simple, and noneffective, until Byron Katie dialogues with the individual. The session is two hours long, thus, Byron Katie only has time to work with three or four people. Most people in the audience want to do the work with Byron Katie, however, it is kind of frightening doing it in front of 1,000 people. The work can be extremely intimate. Experiencing a core belief emerge, and then dissolve, is amazing. Witnessing this, is equally amazing. At one session, the second person Byron Katie called up to the stage was a young, attractive, fairly intelligent woman. I don’t remember her name. But for the sake of this story, let’s call her Kirsten. According to Kirsten, her life was miserable because her boyfriend would not give her enough attention. He needed to change so that her life would be better. This is a very typical opening to the way the work starts. Byron Katie then amplifies what’s on the sheet and helps the individual see other possible perspectives. For example, “Is it absolutely true that he does not give you enough attention.” “Is it absolutely true that _______”… continues on until there is a break in the belief. Or, it is suspended, while other statements are explored. Sometimes during this suspension state, Byron Katie works with the audience, and eventually returns to the person on the stage. Now for Kirsten it was ABSOLUTELY TRUE that she was perfect; the person that needed to change was her boyfriend. To the audience, it was obvious that she was using the forum to fit her agenda. Most of us were anxious to see how Byron Katie would dialogue with this very challenging person. However, Byron Katie was not the least bit disturbed. Byron Katie does not work with force or frustration, she just flows with, and follows an invisible energy. It is invisible, and yet it is not, because wherever she goes seems to be right. While suspending the Kirsten challenge, she began working with someone else in the audience. As we watched the interaction, we observed Kirsten sitting there next to Katie, smiling and patiently waiting to resume interaction. Then, Byron Katie worked with another person in the audience until there was a breakthrough. Now, we were wondering: “How is she going to deal with Kirsten since time is running out?” In fact, we were already ten minutes beyond the scheduled time. Suddenly, Byron Katie got up and sincerely thanked everyone at the session and said good-bye. We were in shock. Byron Katie did not even give Kirsten special acknowledgement. She did not ignore her, she smiled at her as she did at everyone in the audience. We watched in silence as Kirsten got up and quietly walked away … with her boyfriend. For Byron Katie, Kirsten is not a problem. However, Byron Katie only works with those who are willing to do the work. For me, this was one of the greatest learning experiences ever. The world is filled with Kirstens. I sense that for some here in this dialogue group, Kirsten is not problem. There is a magic button called: delete Regina >From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com >Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org >Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 19, Issue 15 >Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:49:49 -0400 > > > > > > > >Rodger__ Aikido was essentially unheard of when I started. In most dojos it >just looked like judo. But in one dojo things that should be physically >impossible were being done with ease. I joined. > >After a couple of years of practicing I recognized an odd pattern in the >group; physically impossible things were done on only some nights, and >coincidentally on those nights; the group felt in harmony.By harmony I dont >mean agreeable or in agreement. The class was small and the instructor >rarely spoke English. > >It was one of those rare occassions that the instructor chose to answer me. >He said, -Each group has an energy, a ki, composed of each individual in >the group. When a group energy is harmonious it is capable of moving beyond >boundaries of prior, self-imposed limitation. > >He went on, -However, even if you have 99 of 100 people willing, re: ki/ >attitude, it only requires one person to be in-the-group but working >against the ki/ attitude of the group, and the group will not achieve >harmony. > >I thought, wow, that sounds pretty flakey/ delicate. But then I realized >this was the only place I had witnessed that remarkable crossing over from >physically mechanical to absolute fluidity; When my vision and hearing >became extraordinary, and laws of gravity very flexible. > >Similarly, there were many dialogues with David Bohm when the group would >be sitting paused in a quiet moment and that sudden shift into >unexplainable group awareness would happen. Everyone felt it happen, but >no-one would speak while it was happening out of a respect for the delicate >nature of the new intelligence. >We were beginning to learn something new about thought, beyond prior >boundaries of self imposed limitation. Since 1983 research in neurology has >become incomparable to all that was known about brain function prior to >then. And I know thinking is not thought, but I tend to see a link. > >Anyway, my point is; there are always going to be rules of a sort -- no >matter how right/ wrong they appear, they are simply preferences based on >values. >Often this group is everybit as personal as a person-to-person dialogue, >but in this group members remain accessible 24-7 via the internet. > >Possibly some further consideration should go into the list, re: how >confirmed individuals participate, not just names or pseudo names. >The group might enjoy this process of learning what it gains/ loses by way >of harmony, in favor of some ideas and ideals._R >. >. >Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:39:47 +0100 >From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> >Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content >. >I think where Kirsten's participation is concerned in this system, >there is one assumption that, maybe, needs to be looked at again. > >Any suggestion, anyone? >don >. >. >. >_______________________________________________ >info: >www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue > >post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net > >dialogue facilitator: >facilitator@david-bohm.net > >Administrator of the mailing list: >admin@david-bohm.net > >_______________________________________________ > > From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Thu Sep 14 20:33:29 2006 From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor) Date: Fri Sep 15 21:25:33 2006 Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Re: Bohm_Dialogue Digest, Vol 19, Issue 15 In-Reply-To: <BAY123-F30505C9288C357ED190098B7290@phx.gbl> References: <BAY123-F30505C9288C357ED190098B7290@phx.gbl> Message-ID: <42C4D1FC-49E3-4170-B053-31ECF05F0D95@donfactor.demon.co.uk> Very interesting. I think this shows something of the difference between a moderated group, or a group with a designated leader, and a Bohm style group. In a Bohm group the intention is not to solve personal problems or even collective problems, but rather to use the group as a kind of experiment aimed at seeing the way groups function in general. The idea is that the BD group becomes a kind of microculture with all of its dissonances, cliques, scapegoats, harmonies and moments of creativity and insight where the participants are both experimenters and subjects. That, anyway, is a description of the BD in a living situation with 20 or more participants all sitting together in a circle. What we started here in this 'virtual dialogue' is, I think, a slightly different experiment, aimed at seeing if a group of people could continue Bohm's explorations, taking off from where he left off, while, of course, continuing to look deeply into his proposals and trying to use something akin to his methods along the way. For me this has been a compelling and deeply serious exploration. What I and some of the rest of us have been attempting to do is to move toward a deeper understanding "in which we see the totality as an actual process that, when carried out properly, tends to bring both thought and what is thought about in a harmonious and overall orderly action, incorporating both thought and what is thought about in a single movement, in which analysis into separate parts (e.g., thought and thing) has no meaning." How this might play out in practice is always difficult to predict. For a long while I have tended to refer to Bohm dialogue in its face- to-face form and also this variant as a "praxis", that is, I see it as a combination of theory and practice, each part flowing into and out of the other.. And for what its worth, I have found it to be fruitful in many respects, although not always comfortable, nor easily explainable. And, all of the stuff concerning Kirsten is part of that collective learning experience. How we deal with "it" is what is interesting. Whether we succeed in changing anything is pretty much beside the point. I guess you could say, at this stage of the project, I see her as a kind of lab rat, but a voluntary one, or so it would seem. don On 14 Sep 2006, at 17:35, Regina Bensch-Coe wrote: > Many posts ago, Pat contributed an essay comparing the work of > Byron Katie and David Bohm. Unfortunately, Byron Katie?s work began > (or reached a large audience) after David died. > > Byron Katie holds public sessions throughout the world. Her style > of dialogue involves doing ?the work.? The person fills out a sheet > and answers ordinary questions. Actually, they are fill-in-the- > blank questions. For example, the first question might be: > ___________ (name) should or should not _______________. > > ?The work?-sheet is a list of assumptions, inquiry of the > assumptions, then turn-arounds. It looks quite simple, and > noneffective, until Byron Katie dialogues with the individual. The > session is two hours long, thus, Byron Katie only has time to work > with three or four people. Most people in the audience want to do > the work with Byron Katie, however, it is kind of frightening doing > it in front of 1,000 people. The work can be extremely intimate. > > Experiencing a core belief emerge, and then dissolve, is amazing. > Witnessing this, is equally amazing. > > At one session, the second person Byron Katie called up to the > stage was a young, attractive, fairly intelligent woman. I don?t > remember her name. But for the sake of this story, let?s call her > Kirsten. According to Kirsten, her life was miserable because her > boyfriend would not give her enough attention. He needed to change > so that her life would be better. This is a very typical opening to > the way the work starts. Byron Katie then amplifies what?s on the > sheet and helps the individual see other possible perspectives. For > example, ?Is it absolutely true that he does not give you enough > attention.? ?Is it absolutely true that _______? > continues on until there is a break in the belief. Or, it is > suspended, while other statements are explored. Sometimes during > this suspension state, Byron Katie works with the audience, and > eventually returns to the person on the stage. > > Now for Kirsten it was ABSOLUTELY TRUE that she was perfect; the > person that needed to change was her boyfriend. To the audience, it > was obvious that she was using the forum to fit her agenda. Most of > us were anxious to see how Byron Katie would dialogue with this > very challenging person. However, Byron Katie was not the least bit > disturbed. Byron Katie does not work with force or frustration, she > just flows with, and follows an invisible energy. It is invisible, > and yet it is not, because wherever she goes seems to be right. > > While suspending the Kirsten challenge, she began working with > someone else in the audience. As we watched the interaction, we > observed Kirsten sitting there next to Katie, smiling and patiently > waiting to resume interaction. Then, Byron Katie worked with > another person in the audience until there was a breakthrough. Now, > we were wondering: ?How is she going to deal with Kirsten since > time is running out?? In fact, we were already ten minutes beyond > the scheduled time. > > Suddenly, Byron Katie got up and sincerely thanked everyone at the > session and said good-bye. We were in shock. Byron Katie did not > even give Kirsten special acknowledgement. She did not ignore her, > she smiled at her as she did at everyone in the audience. We > watched in silence as Kirsten got up and quietly walked away with > her boyfriend. > > For Byron Katie, Kirsten is not a problem. However, Byron Katie > only works with those who are willing to do the work. For me, this > was one of the greatest learning experiences ever. The world is > filled with Kirstens. > > > I sense that for some here in this dialogue group, Kirsten is not > problem. There is a magic button called: delete > > > > Regina >