From w at david-bohm.net Tue Sep 26 00:26:49 2006
From: w at david-bohm.net (william)
Date: Wed Sep 27 01:21:15 2006
Subject: AW: Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <c20.53721c8.3249a1de@aol.com>
Message-ID: <0ML29c-1GRyuZ3Fyk-00005W@mrelayeu.kundenserver.de>
MarkHarmer
>... I also think that the group can work with
>some sort of intention, even a "task" (Bohm
>says having a task will undermine the process
>of dialogue, which, in "On Dialogue" is 'to
>discover how thought works'). I personally have
>a bit more trouble with not having a task as
>surely, pragmatically, you'd want to explore
>something specific with a group?
Well, I would say, wanting to explore something specific is not compatible
with Bohm's idea of dialogue. It would indeed undermine the process. It
would undermine the discovery aspect of it. When you explore something
specific then that's what you'll find, but 'discovery' means something else;
it means you don't know what you are going to find. It is going to be a
surprise...
William
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Sep 26 00:45:08 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Sep 27 01:39:36 2006
Subject: AW: Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <0ML21M-1GRyKB2o8E-0002fw@mrelayeu.kundenserver.de>
References: <0ML21M-1GRyKB2o8E-0002fw@mrelayeu.kundenserver.de>
Message-ID: <41335D6B-ECBB-4273-9F51-9E148DD6777C@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 25 Sep 2006, at 22:49, william wrote:
> I hope you realize it is going to change what you are. You'll
> never be
> the same again...
>
> william
Gosh, do you think it will do that for everyone?
don
From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com Tue Sep 26 03:07:24 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Wed Sep 27 04:01:55 2006
Subject: AW: Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <0ML21M-1GRyKB2o8E-0002fw@mrelayeu.kundenserver.de>
Message-ID: <C13DD96C.7367%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
There may be a better word, I don't know. Respect, for me, has to do with
the recognition that we're all in this together (including the two-legged,
the four-legged, and no legs at all). I also think of this as an ideal few
(including myself) come to realize. But in a group, it would mean listening
to what someone else has to say, even if I disagree strongly (again, not
saying I manage that) and trying to understand why that person feels that
way. This is not the kind of respect that must be earned (though perhaps it
could be forfeited?)
And I have done some of that homework, not just intellectually, & it has
changed me, ever so slightly, blessed be!
Lynne
On 9/25/06 3:49 PM, "william" <w@david-bohm.net> wrote:
>
> Lynne Tolk
>>
One thing that seemed important to the experience of
>> that group was an agreement to approach each other with
>> great respect. ?I have wondered, myself, if a group can
>> come to any kind of shared understanding (not needing
>> agreement) without this kind of respect.
>
>
> But agreeing to approach each other with respect sounds a bit contrived to
> me. Is respect a question of agreement? Can you decide to have respect? Is
> it that superficial? It sounds like putting the cart before the horse, so to
> speak. Respect may (or may not) come afterwards, but how can you start with
> it (without pretending)?
>
>> I remember reading (don?t remember where) that Bohm was
>> asked about some groups not working, and he said the
>> members need to have done their homework ? i.e. studied
>> and understood the principles behind such dialogue (I
>> would think in particular the principle of suspension
>> of assumptions).
>
> Yes, but again, you can turn that into a theory too. Are you now going to
> study the principles behind dialogue, the principle of suspension of
> assumptions? This "homework" is not an intellectual exercise; it's something
> else. I hope you realize it is going to change what you are. You'll never be
> the same again...
>
> william
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
-- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
208 376-1336
www.lifedirectionscoach.com
(visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)
"Love is never earned . . .
It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen
From lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com Tue Sep 26 03:14:27 2006
From: lynne at lifedirectionscoach.com (Lynne Tolk)
Date: Wed Sep 27 04:08:56 2006
Subject: Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <c20.53721c8.3249a1de@aol.com>
Message-ID: <C13DDB13.7369%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
I?ve never been in a group with no direction at all (unless this is?) and I
can?t imagine how that would work. My thought of the raft image was that
sometimes everyone does fall off & is that a bad or a good thing? - or just
a thing that is, & we crawl, dripping out of the water & go on.
Lynne
On 9/25/06 3:19 PM, "MarkHarmer@aol.com" <MarkHarmer@aol.com> wrote:
> I think "respect" as that people will notice and be respectful of how power
> works in a group - so I see respect as "equal power" or at least, that on
> balance, as it ebbs and flows between people, it's equal over a reasonable
> period of time. That way, people will be more prepared to take risks and the
> group can be creative. I also agree about suspension of assumpions - but I
> also think that the group can work with some sort of intention, even a "task"
> (Bohm says having a task will undermine the process of dialogue, which, in "On
> Dialogue" is 'to discover how thought works'). I personally have a bit more
> trouble with not having a task as surely, pragmatically, you'd want to explore
> something specific with a group? Without going as far as the group being given
> a "problem to solve", which framing can then start to make the group think in
> terms of problems, and which can introduce a deficit framing which permeates
> the conversation. For some reason I keep coming back to the image of balance -
> of power, of the group as a whole. My favourite image of when this process
> works well, is of the group sharing an intention, and convening on a raft. The
> raft is anchored by a rope by a riverbank. One at a time, the group steps onto
> the raft as the meeting starts, and when someone new steps on, everyone has to
> shift carefully to keep the thing balanced. So there's a sense of care. It
> obviously helps if the external conditions aren't too turbulent (which is
> where "solving a problem", particularly to a deadline, could end up with
> everyone falling off)! We have to be careful how we enter the group and leave
> it (the respect thing again, perhaps). I'd be interested in what you think of
> my idea of the dialogic process, anyone. What of that image helps, and what
> might you see differently?
>> Hi Gil,
>>
>> I have also done facilitation, and also had the experience seeing a group
>> shift into some sort of shared understanding that impressed all of us. This
>> is one reason I?ve been exploring Bohm?s thought and joined this group. One
>> thing that seemed important to the experience of that group was an agreement
>> to approach each other with great respect. I have wondered, myself, if a
>> group can come to any kind of shared understanding (not needing agreement)
>> without this kind of respect.
>>
>> I remember reading (don?t remember where) that Bohm was asked about some
>> groups not working, and he said the members need to have done their homework
>> ? i.e. studied and understood the principles behind such dialogue (I would
>> think in particular the principle of suspension of assumptions).
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
-- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
208 376-1336
www.lifedirectionscoach.com
(visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)
"Love is never earned . . .
It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060925/9e4192a1/attachment.html
From franis_franis at juno.com Tue Sep 26 04:08:36 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Wed Sep 27 06:00:35 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
Message-ID: <20060925.200243.1272.1.franis_franis@juno.com>
Reminds me of George Lakoff. He wrote about the Democrats assumption that
if they just point out the holes in someone's thinking they're going to
convince them to change their mind - when all they really get back is
further positioning.
-Franis
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 09:42:48 -0400 "Dorothy Stulberg"
<DStulberg@msw-law.com> writes:
> the age old pattern of righteous vs wrongness!! It seems easier
> doesn't
> it to just say black and white. you're wrong and I'm right or
> you're
> right and I'm wrong. Neither gets anywhere.
> I do think data have a role--but only when considered within the
> pattern. An airplane wouldn't fly without someone looking at and
> collecting data. Nor would it fly without seeing the data within a
> pattern. d.
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
> [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of
> Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 8:35 AM
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Subject: RE: Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
>
>
>
> Rodger __Hi dorothy, yes the value I saw in the Chaplin piece is as
> you
> say, but I would take it one step further; When am -I- learning, if
> not
> now?
>
> It comes down to my recognition as an individual of the age old
> pattern
> of righteous-vs-wrongness. While the data constantly changes, if the
> program is overlooked, the experience created is left essentially
> the
> same. And stemming from the same righteous emotions comes the same
> self
> defeat; albeit righteously.
>
> Some exchanges in recent dialogue exemplify this right-vs-wrong
> pattern.
> Data is used to identify as many wrongs about a thing or person as
> possible, as if to support the rightness of the person who is
> identifying the list of wrongs. But I think the data is irrelevent
> -- It
> is the pattern that remains the center of attention for dialogue. R
> .
> .
> From: "Dorothy Stulberg" <DStulberg@msw-law.com>
> Subject: RE: Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> .
> When will "they" learn? I rephrase it--when will "we" learn. d.
> .
>
From franis_franis at juno.com Tue Sep 26 05:02:42 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Wed Sep 27 06:00:36 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] conflict
Message-ID: <20060925.200243.1272.2.franis_franis@juno.com>
Sorry we didn't notice your question, Gill.
>What brings about a group working together,
>being able to improvise and co-creative together
>as opposed to what can feel to me as meaningless
>chaos where people chose to be rude and cruel
>to each other? When can conflict lead to 'true'
>dialogue and when does it destroy the possibility
>of dialogue?
What I've watched more often is the other extreme; that most people will
not go into the rude and crude in a group situation until they feel
somewhat comfortable with the other participants. The challenge is more
often getting a group of people to reveal their core assumptions and how
they came to be that way without feeling that they will be attacked. Of
course, the first person to dare do this in a group who have only been
talking 'theory' will be a sort of 'sacrificial lamb.'
Mostly what happens at first is people get comfortable to reveal their
habits of talking. Talking habits are very automatic, because it's only
the very unusual who are not merely paying attention to content rather
than style, tone of voice, etc. These habits can include really
irritating strategic or otherwise socially challenging actions. The
person's motives and meanings that others in the group may often
misinterpret in the light of these stylistic behaviors. Most people try
to ignore these irritating mannerisms and to address the content of what
the person is saying, but sometimes it gets mixed up and people do not
know what they are reacting to or how they are coming to their
unflattering conclusions of the person who is so irritating. It is
separating out this misinterpreting of assumptions that is so interesting
and dialogical - and also the way that people work out their assumptions
about misunderstandings.
I know that one time I discovered about myself that I had an assumption
that people who did not look me in the eye were liars; this was revealed
when someone who joined the group had a wandering eyes that didn't track
well and told us how often they had to deal with that reaction from the
public...!
Mostly what makes a sense of connection happen for a group that I have
been a part of is a commitment to return and to continue the
relationship. For some people, this has to, at the start, be legislated
into getting a commitment, such as being in a classroom, etc. because
most people, or certain people, will shy away from all possible conflict.
For others, the chance they may meet their next sweetie in Dialogue is
enough to get them coming back.
In the psychology crowd, there can be sometimes a "tough love" ideal of
the Ultimate Value of Honesty where people will want to spill their guts
at any opportunity and get the group to be their therapy. We've also had
many people who act as if their religion is Humblism; they seemed to be
determined to obliterate any trace of Evil ego. Or with an academic
crowd, some might get into the debate style poking and pointing out what
is wrong that Kirsten/Peter most often do to us here.
Generally, when a group sees these formats, multiple people comment on
them by telling their motives to undo the hard effects of identifying
with them. The elegant communicators will demonstrate examples that can
go beyond either of them. What emerges are often very interesting ideals
of how power can be appropriately used - something quite rare in our
culture. People learn to not defend themselves when apparently attacked,
but instead check and see what was really intended. If an attack was
intended, then the answer in a group is, basically, 'we don't do that
here, because it's a common trap that leads nowhere.'
Before something like this happens, tempers or quick reactions could
motivate a group to get into the thick of a fight with each other and
sometimes polarize the room. In that sort of situation, it's always very,
very interesting to watch how what creative ways come up with to deal
with the offender(s.) Or if it's a group problem, what the group in
general does in response.
I'm actually in the midst of one of these situations now with a
long-standing Dialogue group. I wrote more about it on the early Sept.
posts on my blog at http://franis.blogspot.com My Oct. once a month
dialogue is coming up next week, so I'll let you know some of what
happened/is happening. - Franis
From franis_franis at juno.com Tue Sep 26 04:05:18 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Wed Sep 27 06:00:37 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] The symbolic and the strategic
Message-ID: <20060925.200243.1272.0.franis_franis@juno.com>
yeah, yuck, yuck - Franis
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:01:05 +0100 Don Factor
<donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Do you mean like a white, middle class shemale calling some other
> (possibly) white, (possibly) middle class males and females, black?
>
> don
>
> On 25 Sep 2006, at 15:25, DesCF wrote:
>
> > I suppose stereotyping is a form of simplistic symbolic thinking
> as
> > well
> >
> > On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:54:54 +0100, Don Factor
> > <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On this list, which lacks any visual component, the only access
>
> >> we have to the symbolic is our use of language, and perhaps some
>
> >> of what a few of us have revealed about our own lives. Thus, on
> >> this list, if your model is to stand up, we must be ruled mainly
>
> >> by the strategic. But it doesn't feel that way.
> >>
> >> In the real world, it would also seem that, here in the UK,
> >> Tories, at least those who I know, have either a personal,
> >> strategic - call it economic - reason for their political
> >> preferences, rather than an intellectual one or an ideological
> >> one, -"I have always voted Tory." Most of these ideological
> Tory
> >> \s are not well educated and tend to know about the world by
> >> reading the Telegraph or one of the tabloids. If they have
> digital
> >> TV the tend to watch Sky News. My left leaning friends and
> >> acquaintances tend to be much better informed by a wider spectrum
>
> >> of information sources, have been to university, and are much
> more
> >> open to being parts of the larger world. Interestingly I haven't
>
> >> found the so-called class links to politics to be very obvious.
> >> Although, I was raised in a completely different culture - the US
>
> >> - the distinction seems to be even more pronounced. So nature or
>
> >> nurture?
> >>
> >> In rereading the above it is probably pretty obvious where my
> >> heart lies.
> >>
> >> don
> >>
> >>
> >> On 25 Sep 2006, at 12:48, DesCF wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I remember several years ago a lot of people complained about a
>
> >>> particular manufacturers (I forget who) mobile phone product.
> >>> There were big red symbols that stayed lit and flashed even when
>
> >>> the phone was switched off. Customers thought that the phones
> >>> were faulty.
> >>>
> >>> A spokesman for the company on breakfast TV explained that there
>
> >>> was nothing wrong with the phones and that it was just a feature
>
> >>> of the product. The phones had originally been intended for the
>
> >>> Italian market but had been redirected to the UK consequent to a
>
> >>> shortage. In Italy, he explained, a man wears his heart on his
>
> >>> sleeve and they like big, bold, colourful symbols.
> >>>
> >>> I found this interesting because in the UK the two main
> political
> >>> parties, Labour and the Tories, are referred to as the ‘party of
>
> >>> the heart’ and the ‘party of the head’ respectively. These
> >>> descriptions could easily be likened to the symbolic and the
> >>> strategic.
> >>>
> >>> A situation has a tendency to express something recognised by
> all
> >>> – a kind of social consensus on definition regardless of
> anyone’s
> >>> particular perspective. For example a simple scene situated in
>
> >>> an office of an older man in suit and tie shouting at a younger
>
> >>> man dressed only in a shirt and trousers tends to suggest a
> >>> senior manager angry at a junior employee who has erred in some
>
> >>> way. The appearence itself is symbolic of this kind of
> definition.
> >>>
> >>> Animals can only react at the symbolic level. Their environment
>
> >>> expresses something to them and they react. This is why animals
>
> >>> are easy to fool and trap. They cannot think strategically or
> at
> >>> least only to a very limited extent. Humans by comparison, with
>
> >>> the capacity to envisage their own death, can make plans, devise
>
> >>> tactics, and generally think strategically. In this sense the
> >>> symbolic tends towards the simple and the strategic the complex.
> >>>
> >>> Simple symbolic thinking requires a delimited context, i.e. to
> >>> abstract something and view it in isolation from its
> >>> surroundings, and then make judgements and decisions in relation
>
> >>> to it. For example:
> >>>
> >>> The hospital is going to close
> >>> Closing hospitals is bad and open hospitals is good
> >>> People who close hospitals are bad and people who keep hospitals
>
> >>> open are good
> >>>
> >>> It sounds good in a sense but outside the delimited context the
>
> >>> hospital closure might be part of a strategic plan involving the
>
> >>> opening of several new hospitals.
> >>>
> >>> What makes this particularly interesting is that it is commonly
>
> >>> held that the right in politics (in the UK) are better at
> >>> handling economies and tackling crime (black economies and
> >>> illegal forms of business) than the left. Economies and crime
> >>> generally involve strategic thinking as the symbolic proves
> >>> somewhat inadequate. It’s of further interest that people who
> >>> have experience of business or crime (often as victims) tend
> >>> towards the right. So I am wondering if this distinction
> between
> >>> the symbolic and the strategic is a fundamental distinction
> >>> between the left and the right ?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Des
> >>>
> >>> --Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://
> >>> www.opera.com/m2/
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client:
> http://www.opera.com/
> > m2/
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 tangykatt at earthlink.net Tue Sep 26 05:37:47 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Wed Sep 27 06:32:19 2006
Subject: AW: Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <0ML21M-1GRyKB2o8E-0002fw@mrelayeu.kundenserver.de>
Message-ID: <C13E18CB.3243%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
I know I'm new, but how about just plain old courtesy? Kathy
On 9/25/06 5:49 PM, "william" <w@david-bohm.net> wrote:
>
> Lynne Tolk
>> ?One thing that seemed important to the experience of
>> that group was an agreement to approach each other with
>> great respect. ?I have wondered, myself, if a group can
>> come to any kind of shared understanding (not needing
>> agreement) without this kind of respect.
>
>
> But agreeing to approach each other with respect sounds a bit contrived to
> me. Is respect a question of agreement? Can you decide to have respect? Is
> it that superficial? It sounds like putting the cart before the horse, so to
> speak. Respect may (or may not) come afterwards, but how can you start with
> it (without pretending)?
>
>> I remember reading (don?t remember where) that Bohm was
>> asked about some groups not working, and he said the
>> members need to have done their homework ? i.e. studied
>> and understood the principles behind such dialogue (I
>> would think in particular the principle of suspension
>> of assumptions).
>
> Yes, but again, you can turn that into a theory too. Are you now going to
> study the principles behind dialogue, the principle of suspension of
> assumptions? This "homework" is not an intellectual exercise; it's something
> else. I hope you realize it is going to change what you are. You'll never be
> the same again...
>
> william
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 tangykatt at earthlink.net Tue Sep 26 05:53:48 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Wed Sep 27 06:48:19 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] The symbolic and the strategic
In-Reply-To: <E86C4F17-1DA4-4C6D-A075-0360AA675E39@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <C13E1C8C.3245%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Glad to have sparked a new idea for you. Bohm in "On Creativity" says that
seeing new connections is the essence of creativity.
I realize that verbal communication is up against a lot of blocks. One of
them, though, is clarity of thought, stripped of its culturally imposed, and
otherwise invalid assumptions. And believe me, there are a lot of them in
and about music! And - of course - our language is a limiting factor in
thought. (Compare English and Navajo, for instance.) And unclear, limited
thought will be expressed just that way. Remember - everything is related,
and constantly changing. But - I am very interested in cleaning out my
invalid assumptions in order to reach more clarity and accuracy. Not just
on topics, but in the process of think and learning in any topic I tackle.
Kathy
On 9/25/06 5:21 PM, "Don Factor" <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Well. our server, which is a machine somewhere in Germany, only
> allows messages up to 100KB. That was the way it was set up.
> You have two choices here. One is to send links to sites that can
> handle more, and the other, probably more suited to you, Kirsten,
> than to Kathy, would be to take your business back to TT or OD if
> either is still functioning. Of course, you could try negotiating a
> different approach to this list by asking the others if they would
> like to extend this into the sort of free-for-all that ended up in
> wrecking it last time around.
>
> Sorry, Kathy. I too like music but Bohm dialogue has always been
> primarily about gaining insight into the blocks that make verbal
> communication, especially when it is about subjects that are
> important to us, so prone to incoherence. Music and the visual arts,
> are not such a problem. That's not to say that we can't explore the
> differences or why one is easier than the other. Actually, this
> sounds like it could be a fascinating and fruitful approach, at least
> it is one that I hadn't considered before.
>
> don
>
>
> On 25 Sep 2006, at 20:39, kirsten schneide wrote:
>
>>
>> Dear Gatekeeper Donf
>>
>>
>>> On this list, which lacks any visual component, the only access
>>> we have to the symbolic is our use of language, and perhaps
>>
>>
>> You recall that it 's
>>
>> No body but your self
>>
>> Who b'locked the access
>>
>> Of other thinkgs but texts
>>
>> In this form, that was
>>
>> (for newcomers) once
>>
>> Inhabitated by all un'kind
>>
>> Of creatures ... and
>>
>> Their play/instruments
>>
>> (like pictures, paintings, montages, sounds, videos, etc etc)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ..... you, M(e)ister, are some thinkg .... "special" ;-!
>>
>>
>> http://www.magicsoil.com/MSREV2/blinders.jpg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Love & Memories, Kbot
>>
>> --------------------------
>> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day
>> trial! http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000001msn/direct/
>> 01/?href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 tangykatt at earthlink.net Tue Sep 26 06:00:30 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Wed Sep 27 06:55:01 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Be, with & Gentle, me
In-Reply-To: <bf1.40c2b25.32499907@aol.com>
Message-ID: <C13E1E1E.3247%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Hi Mark ? I?m also interested in founding a group dedicated to ensemble
improvisation (. As for a leader, sometimes one person will have the lead
or the solo, or simply state the theme, sometimes another will. Sometimes
the group will be busy working out the development of an idea together.
Listening to each other, complimenting and supporting each other sometimes,
leading sometimes. The thought doesn?t frighten me at all.
Oops. My computer is shutting down. Kathy
On 9/25/06 4:41 PM, "MarkHarmer@aol.com" <MarkHarmer@aol.com> wrote:
> Hi Kathy,
>
> Tell me more about your connection between music and dialogue as I'm also
> exploring this - particularly with collaborative composition in groups.
>
> Mark
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20060926/db99b12d/attachment.html
From franis_franis at juno.com Tue Sep 26 05:15:45 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Wed Sep 27 07:07:44 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
Message-ID: <20060925.210850.1272.3.franis_franis@juno.com>
Kathy & Mark,
The in-person act of Bohm Dialogue is similiar to improvisation in the
context/forum of group interaction with spoken language as the activity.
A general improvisational form such as blues or jazz does not exist in
speaking circles, so, in a sense, Bohm-style Dialogue is a sort of
improvisational speaking circle.
- Franis
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 00:26:49 +0200 "william" <w@david-bohm.net> writes:
>
> MarkHarmer
> >... I also think that the group can work with
> >some sort of intention, even a "task" (Bohm
> >says having a task will undermine the process
> >of dialogue, which, in "On Dialogue" is 'to
> >discover how thought works'). I personally have
> >a bit more trouble with not having a task as
> >surely, pragmatically, you'd want to explore
> >something specific with a group?
>
> Well, I would say, wanting to explore something specific is not
> compatible
> with Bohm's idea of dialogue. It would indeed undermine the process.
> It
> would undermine the discovery aspect of it. When you explore
> something
> specific then that's what you'll find, but 'discovery' means
> something else;
> it means you don't know what you are going to find. It is going to
> be a
> surprise...
>
> William
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 franis_franis at juno.com Tue Sep 26 05:50:29 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Wed Sep 27 07:07:45 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
Message-ID: <20060925.210850.1272.4.franis_franis@juno.com>
Mark sez: I personally have a bit more trouble with not having a task as
surely, pragmatically, you'd want to explore something specific with a
group?
Lots of beginning dialoguers have trouble with this. It's something
having to do with surrending how they are going to spend their time with
no plan, no objective, no job, equal authority, and mostly people have
never improvised a conversation in a group situation. The problem with
using metaphors to inspire is that many people say they understand the
example, but then it turns out they are not able to demonstrate the
skills necessary to actually do what it is they say they understand.
If you like metaphors, how about this one: Imagine a group of people are
teaching themselves conversationally how to speak a language. To do this,
they would usually practice scripts to establish context about what are
the appropriate situations to infer and interpret meaning from. So they
establish so they know, not just what is being said, but the context of
where and when words are happening.
In Dialogue, the group can create from scratch their own context of how
meaning is assigned. To do this, they explore the meaning that comes up,
so it happens gradually that meaning is assigned gradually as the similar
light of recognition comes on in every participant. Those who come late
to the group can't quite tell what is going on, but it just looks like
something different is happening. Most of us would like the Dialogue
activities to be transparent enough that someone would be able to
participate if they can be observant enough to see what is happening. ie:
for the Dialogue to be in English and not have to know special secrets to
decipher it.
The group does this by being aware of "frames" of meaning, where the
content changes in terms of what is beneath, above, aside or associated
with the subject(s). So as everyone says something about what they think
the subject is, the thread of meaning weaving through becomes obvious to
some, is hidden from others, and goes off on tangents that never come
back around for some. In the end, you'll have an experience of holding so
many different points of view at once that it will spin your brain,
because they all arrived at a different time.
Franis
From franis_franis at juno.com Tue Sep 26 06:08:50 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Wed Sep 27 07:07:46 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] The symbolic and the strategic
Message-ID: <20060925.210850.1272.5.franis_franis@juno.com>
Peter (a man who is masquerading as a woman, Kirsten) is still upset that
DonF and some of the rest of us will not allow the artistic expressions
of meaning (ie: pics, videos, sound files, etc.) here on this list. It's
true that we did this by limiting sizes of posts, and setting up DonF as
moderator.
We do allow links to other places on the web.
P/K revealed at one point that he was an embittered journalist. He said
he really wanted to go beyond language. Peter's version of what he
thought was Dialogue degraded into a sort of text message environment,
with lots of images, video, etc. Often nobody really knew what anyone
else was saying, unless they were able to interpret art. But it was
artistic!
It evolved on this list as the artists on the list talked. They developed
shorthand for various ideas that made little sense to those who did not
know about interpreting art, but mostly their art was a pretty
interesting contribution. Then gradually, what artists wanted to
contribute to the list was often taken to the extreme for gratuitous,
artistically justified motives. In the same way the Kirsten posts many,
many one-liners, the other artists emulated him and flooded the list with
"art" or gratuitous one-liners.
Some of us would look at our download time and wonder what useless
content was coming this time that we were going to have to delete. So,
that was another reason why we eventually separated out from the Optical
Dialogue action group and let them go into doing their own thing.
Peter never even set up a list server to do the OD list in. I'm not sure
why he wouldn't want to set up a forum either; perhaps to not be limited
by whatever agreements a webhost would impose. So the OD group feel
apart, because it was just a bunch of people emailing strange things to
each other. OD even made a website and tried to publish a dictionary, but
beause they used sentences of buzzwords that were very hard to follow,
decline was inevitable. Those who came late had to learn a whole new
language that the group had essentially invented, and it got pretty
boring after while.
Evidently, after that "Optical Dialogue" OD list petered out, Peter has
tried to sign on to this list in various guises. Now Peter, who is
calling himself Kirsten, (maybe that's his girlfriend's Blackberry?) has
perhaps returned to troll for new members who want to be doing such a
thing. So that's why DonF called Peter/Kirsten Manson in jest.
Franis
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 15:39:05 -0400 "kirsten schneide"
<kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> Dear Gatekeeper Donf
>
>
> > On this list, which lacks any visual component, the only access
> we have
> >to the symbolic is our use of language, and perhaps
>
>
> You recall that it 's
>
> No body but your self
>
> Who b'locked the access
>
> Of other thinkgs but texts
>
> In this form, that was
>
> (for newcomers) once
>
> Inhabitated by all un'kind
>
> Of creatures ... and
>
> Their play/instruments
>
> (like pictures, paintings, montages, sounds, videos, etc etc)
>
>
>
>
> ..... you, M(e)ister, are some thinkg .... "special" ;-!
>
>
> http://www.magicsoil.com/MSREV2/blinders.jpg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Love & Memories, Kbot
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>
From MarkHarmer at aol.com Tue Sep 26 10:49:34 2006
From: MarkHarmer at aol.com (MarkHarmer@aol.com)
Date: Wed Sep 27 11:44:11 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
Message-ID: <429.a6bc9d0.324a439e@aol.com>
What I was exploring with my group was how creativity / spontenaity arises
in conversations, using collaboratively-created music as the medium. I've only
really started doing this recently, so it's really useful to be reminded
about dialogue, and your explanation of how it works, works for me. Perhaps when
I was saying about exploring something specific, I should have been more
specific about what it is I do with groups, so here goes:
My proposition is that we can't always discover something by doing so from a
position within the same medium - for example, we don't use theatre to
describe a theatre performance, we don't use film to describe the impact of a
film. In each of these cases, we'd write a review. Similarly, people sometimes
use poetry to describe an event which has strong emotional impact on them, and
perhaps that's their way of taking it out of the medium (prose) which we
usually use to describe things. Hence, I've been experimenting with using
collaborative music as a way of seeing if we in a group can get insights into the
process of dialogue and creativity. I do this by inviting discovery and the
co-creation / discovery of the "rules" and do no input myself (despite being a
performer). My experience is that by talking about what it was like for each of
us involved (it's different for each person) we get a sense of how many
different realities there can be - usually at least one for each person! I think
through the process of taking dialogue into another medium, we're not using
words to describe a process involving words, and getting insights which we can
then bring back to conversation. It's a very powerful, direct and "fast"
experience but I'm still in early days with this. I'm also using some of
Stacey's work on complexity to inform my process. But I do believe the dialogic
process is important, and in some way important not to hurry it.
Any thoughts on my above stuff?
Mark sez: I personally have a bit more trouble with not having a task as
surely, pragmatically, you'd want to explore something specific with a
group?
Lots of beginning dialoguers have trouble with this. It's something
having to do with surrending how they are going to spend their time with
no plan, no objective, no job, equal authority, and mostly people have
never improvised a conversation in a group situation. The problem with
using metaphors to inspire is that many people say they understand the
example, but then it turns out they are not able to demonstrate the
skills necessary to actually do what it is they say they understand.
If you like metaphors, how about this one: Imagine a group of people are
teaching themselves conversationally how to speak a language. To do this,
they would usually practice scripts to establish context about what are
the appropriate situations to infer and interpret meaning from. So they
establish so they know, not just what is being said, but the context of
where and when words are happening.
In Dialogue, the group can create from scratch their own context of how
meaning is assigned. To do this, they explore the meaning that comes up,
so it happens gradually that meaning is assigned gradually as the similar
light of recognition comes on in every participant. Those who come late
to the group can't quite tell what is going on, but it just looks like
something different is happening. Most of us would like the Dialogue
activities to be transparent enough that someone would be able to
participate if they can be observant enough to see what is happening. ie:
for the Dialogue to be in English and not have to know special secrets to
decipher it.
The group does this by being aware of "frames" of meaning, where the
content changes in terms of what is beneath, above, aside or associated
with the subject(s). So as everyone says something about what they think
the subject is, the thread of meaning weaving through becomes obvious to
some, is hidden from others, and goes off on tangents that never come
back around for some. In the end, you'll have an experience of holding so
many different points of view at once that it will spin your brain,
because they all arrived at a different time.
Franis
**********************
Do you love the violin? Browse our fabulous fiddles and incredible
Incredibows in our online music shop. Everything is sent immediately on payment,
there's free postage to the UK and EU, and a 60-day no-quibble guarantee for your
complete piece of mind. Visit _http://www.danceofdelight.co.uk_
(http://www.danceofdelight.co.uk/) and you'll find out why our customers love us!
Do you love Celtic music? Then you can't miss Slainte, the seven-piece
celtic band from Gloucestershire, with a passionate following in the UK, Ireland,
Italy and the USA. Free studio videos and mp3 downloads. Meet us all at
_http://www.celtmusic.co.uk_ (http://www.celtmusic.co.uk/)
Your children deserve the best. If you live in Gloucestershire, then you owe
it to yourself to come to a MusicGarden session. You and your children will
get to play real musical instruments and lay the foundation for a lifetime of
music. Seriously Fun Music Sessions - more at _http://www.musicgarden.co.uk_
(http://www.musicgarden.co.uk/)
NEW!
What can the ebb and flow of music teach us about organisations? About
leadership and strategy? About sustainability and creativity? For organisational
consulting and group work with a sound difference, see
_http://www.yourmusic.biz_ (http://www.yourmusic.biz/) - building on 24 years of successful
organisational learning!
COMING SOON
Exciting musical instruments from around the world - fairly-traded and
fairly-priced in a way that helps communities sustain and develop. Fabulous frogs,
delightful djembes and more! Available August 2006 at
_http://www.fairtrademusicshop.co.uk_ (http://www.fairtrademusicshop.co.uk/)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060926/4395d285/attachment.html
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Tue Sep 26 11:08:07 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Wed Sep 27 12:02:43 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] assumptions
In-Reply-To: <0ML21M-1GRyKB2o8E-0002fw@mrelayeu.kundenserver.de>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F33EB04DDFEFD59A4FE4F05A8250@phx.gbl>
William
>Yes, but again, you can turn that into a theory too. Are you now going to
>study the principles behind dialogue, the principle of suspension of
>assumptions? This "homework".......
Dear William, suspension is such an old hat/idea. It has been around for
'ever'.
I recommend you to question all your beliefs except that two and two make
four.
(Voltaire, L'homme aux quarante écus)
And ever since, apparently, looking at the state of this world, it has not
worked,
is not 'working' [which, needless to say, it has in common with B-dialog]
.... &, since i joined that Chat Group here, I actually never
witnessed suspension by anyone. But if you did, please point us at it.
Love & Finger, Kbot
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself - download free Windows Live Messenger themes!
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://imagine-msn.com/themes/vibe/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Tue Sep 26 11:11:29 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Wed Sep 27 12:06:10 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] medium
In-Reply-To: <429.a6bc9d0.324a439e@aol.com>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F4A4AFC581D765E3010600A8250@phx.gbl>
Dear Mark ~ why limit yourselves to 'one' medium to begin with. Any thinkg
is any think. Or as Peter used to say: Thinkg.
>My proposition is that we can't always discover something by doing so from
>a
>position within the same medium - for example, we don't use theatre to
>describe a theatre performance, we don't use film to describe the impact of
>a
>film.
PS: Not true.... many folks out there who do just that
Love & Interdiscipline, Kirsten
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
_________________________________________________________________
Get today's hot entertainment gossip http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip
From MarkHarmer at aol.com Tue Sep 26 11:17:11 2006
From: MarkHarmer at aol.com (MarkHarmer@aol.com)
Date: Wed Sep 27 12:11:49 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] medium
Message-ID: <316.c41bf55.324a4a17@aol.com>
That would be really interesting - not limiting ourselves to 'one' medium -
and maybe you've touched on my frustration with groups in organisations
sometimes, that they limit their discussion to one dimension - people arrive with
pre-thought thoughts rather than think together. But also, and this really
got my goat, there seems to be a tacit assumption that people in organisations
(or this could well be projection) suppress the creative, the off-the-wall,
the stuff that can give us the amazing insight. I worked for a supposedly
creative organisation (the BBC) and it amazed me how much creativity was
suppressed and how little spark and life and imagination there really was as I took
part in meetings and gradually lost the will to live...
Dear Mark ~ why limit yourselves to 'one' medium to begin with. Any thinkg
is any think. Or as Peter used to say: Thinkg.
>My proposition is that we can't always discover something by doing so from
>a
>position within the same medium - for example, we don't use theatre to
>describe a theatre performance, we don't use film to describe the impact of
>a
>film.
PS: Not true.... many folks out there who do just that
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060926/2274a97a/attachment.html
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Tue Sep 26 11:18:41 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Wed Sep 27 12:13:11 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] change(d)
In-Reply-To: <41335D6B-ECBB-4273-9F51-9E148DD6777C@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F36E59C8F310E21B9D5758DA8250@phx.gbl>
Dear Changed ones ~
What did actually change?
Can you give us concrete examples
... or just (more) hot air?
Love & Frequentfliermiles, Ki
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: AW: Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
>Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 23:45:08 +0100
>
>
>On 25 Sep 2006, at 22:49, william wrote:
>
>> I hope you realize it is going to change what you are. You'll never be
>>the same again...
>>
>>william
>
>Gosh, do you think it will do that for everyone?
>
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself - download free Windows Live Messenger themes!
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://imagine-msn.com/themes/vibe/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Tue Sep 26 11:25:55 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Wed Sep 27 12:20:31 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
In-Reply-To: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D169551B20@msw2k.msw.local>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F2228451FFF9467A6E19520A8250@phx.gbl>
I don't really tie dialogue exclusively to Bohm.
>Do you? d.
Dear Dorothy, I have read Bohm for a year or so know, and I (still) cannot
see how he brought/brings any thinkg new to dialog, which goes way way back.
There truely interesting fact is: the human animal HATES dialog, its the
last thinkg it wants. It is so funda'mentally opposed to what its 'nature'
is. Bohm never got that (far), neither his Subsribers here. Bummer, but
then, (sh)it happens. But it is still fun, this chat group here. Comfort
food, sort of junk-food for the mind. Very fattening, tho ;-! ... o well,
just gotta move a'bout
Love & Chain(saw)s, Kirsten
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
_________________________________________________________________
Be seen and heard with Windows Live Messenger and Microsoft LifeCams
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.microsoft.com/hardware/digitalcommunication/default.mspx?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Tue Sep 26 11:32:58 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Wed Sep 27 12:27:32 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] medium
In-Reply-To: <316.c41bf55.324a4a17@aol.com>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F166A350674E03D06F0F59DA8250@phx.gbl>
Dear Mark, dont expect multi-media in this chat group any time soon....
there is a clear bias towards THE word...... i thinkg that simply goes back
to the fact, that the old-schoolers here, the dofs and the donls and the
engels and the droppers have some un'kind of impaired potency when it comes
to media other than text. So they feel insecure, threatened, when people
start using tools they don't have the skills for.... it really, as mostly in
society & life, boils down to 'pretty' basic insecuritiestiesties.
Love & Hardons, Kirsten
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>That would be really interesting - not limiting ourselves to 'one' medium -
>and maybe you've touched on my frustration with groups in organisations
>sometimes, that they limit their discussion to one dimension - people
>arrive with
>pre-thought thoughts rather than think together. But also, and this really
>got my goat, there seems to be a tacit assumption that people in
>organisations
>(or this could well be projection) suppress the creative, the off-the-wall,
>the stuff that can give us the amazing insight. I worked for a supposedly
>creative organisation (the BBC) and it amazed me how much creativity was
>suppressed and how little spark and life and imagination there really was
>as I took
>part in meetings and gradually lost the will to live...
>
>Dear Mark ~ why limit yourselves to 'one' medium to begin with. Any thinkg
>is any think. Or as Peter used to say: Thinkg.
>
> >My proposition is that we can't always discover something by doing so
>from
>
> >a
> >position within the same medium - for example, we don't use theatre to
> >describe a theatre performance, we don't use film to describe the impact
>of
> >a
> >film.
>
>PS: Not true.... many folks out there who do just that
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Tue Sep 26 11:40:29 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Wed Sep 27 12:35:01 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] The symbolic and the strategic
In-Reply-To: <E86C4F17-1DA4-4C6D-A075-0360AA675E39@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F23E3C7ACAD42D05309F008A8250@phx.gbl>
Donf:
>Sorry, Kathy. I too like music but Bohm dialogue has always been primarily
>about gaining insight into the blocks
http://members.tripod.com/~ScottValley/15980e00.jpg
that make verbal
>communication, especially when it is about subjects that are important to
>us, so prone to incoherence. And bla bla bla
Love & Translations, Kirsten
_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
From MarkHarmer at aol.com Tue Sep 26 11:41:07 2006
From: MarkHarmer at aol.com (MarkHarmer@aol.com)
Date: Wed Sep 27 12:35:44 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] medium
Message-ID: <c5d.3b0e93c.324a4fb3@aol.com>
Perhaps having one medium is a great constraint when you're on the web. It
would be interesting, though, to think about what you could do with other media
- but then, that would be constrained too - how could we do group sculpture,
for example? Face-to-face, I think there's no excuse for not exploring other
media. I do come across insecurities when I do music with groups - "I'm not
musical" is one typical response. Maybe there are a few people who that's
genuinely true of, but I haven't me one yet. I invite them to define what music
is, and out of that, we can make music within their definition.
I have to admit the way this group works did throw me at the beginning -
Bohm would probably have called it a "quality" of our dialogue here, and more
multimedia working would be a different "quality" rather than being better or
worse.
Dear Mark, dont expect multi-media in this chat group any time soon....
there is a clear bias towards THE word...... i thinkg that simply goes back
to the fact, that the old-schoolers here, the dofs and the donls and the
engels and the droppers have some un'kind of impaired potency when it comes
to media other than text. So they feel insecure, threatened, when people
start using tools they don't have the skills for.... it really, as mostly in
society & life, boils down to 'pretty' basic insecuritiestiesties.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060926/5d793d8c/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Sep 26 12:22:37 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Sep 27 13:17:24 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F2228451FFF9467A6E19520A8250@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY107-F2228451FFF9467A6E19520A8250@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <DD5155BD-8F71-48D8-BDF8-F985A9A0E7E7@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
On 26 Sep 2006, at 10:25, kirsten schneide wrote:
> There truely interesting fact is: the human animal HATES dialog,
> its the last thinkg it wants. It is so funda'mentally opposed to
> what its 'nature' is.
On the face of it, it is difficult to argue with this, but the
question remains, is it nature or nurture? If it turns out to be
nature, then we probably are wasting our time and should support
Aldous Huxley's suggestion that scientists invent a pill that will
change this. Of course, there is always obligatory pre-frontal lobotomy.
My own view - or choice - is to treat it as nurture since there is no
evidence strong enough for either of these views to prevail. Not yet,
anyway.
So, I suggest that this quality of human behaviour is learned. But
where do we learn it? Who has taught us to think/behave this way?
Bohm shared this view, but took it further. His reason for proposing
a group dialogue was that groups of 20 to 40 people would be able to
expose the sociocultural dimension of the problem. This is where he
believed that the incoherence is generated and where it can be
displayed and, perhaps, understood.
Here is an interesting short paper, that approaches this aspect of
the subject from a more formal, academic point of view complete with
references. What surprised me was that it mentions that the study of
this sociocultural dimension is only just emerging. Anyway, I found
this paper very interesting. I hope you do to.
don
Definitions of Sociocultural Theory
http://www.unm.edu/%7Edevalenz/handouts/sociocult.html
Sociocultural Theory
Current conceptualizations of sociocultural theory draw heavily on
the work of Vygotsky (1986), as well as later theoreticians (see, for
example, Wertsch, 1991, 1998). According to Tharp and Gallimore
(1988) "This view [the sociocultural perspective] has profound
implications for teaching, schooling, and education. A key feature of
this emergent view of human development is that higher order
functions develop out of social interaction. Vygotsky argues that a
child's development cannot be understood by a study of the
individual. We must also examine the external social world in which
that individual life has developed...Through participation in
activities that require cognitive and communicative functions,
children are drawn into the use of these functions in ways that
nurture and 'scaffold' them" (pp. 6-7). Kublin et al (1998)
succinctly state that "Vygotsky (1934/1986) described learning as
being embedded within social events and occurring as a child
interacts with people, objects, and events in the environment" (p. 287).
Considering the contributions to sociocultural theory to
understanding the development of communication, Adamson and Chance
(1998) argued that
...There are two particularly noteworthy aspects to a Vygotskian
approach to social interactions. First, it is fundamentally cultural.
Caregivers are agents of culture (Trevarthen, 1988) who set an
infant's nascent actions within an intimate setting that is deeply
informed by the caregiver's cultural knowledge. Caregivers cannot
help but view infants' expressions as meaningful within the human
sphere of their own culture. Infants, in complement, are
quintessential cultural apprentices who seek the guided participation
of their elders (Rogoff, 1990).
Second, the notion of a zone of proximal development reveals a
pattern of developmental change in which a phase of adult support
precedes a phase of independent infant accomplishment. Each cycle
begins with a newly displayed behavior, such as a smile, a visually
directed reach, or a babble. The adult's reaction and interpretations
transform the infant's emerging behavior into a social act. In
essence, the child induces the adult to recruit the act for
communication (Bakeman, Adamson, Konner, & Barr, in press). After
many experiences of supported expression, the child gradually masters
an action that is qualified with cultural meaning. The act has passed
through the zone of proximal development during which the adult has
educated the child in its use. (p. 21)
Clearly, sociocultural theory is much more complex than this brief
description might lead one to believe. Nonetheless, the aspects
described above are important components to consider when examining
the communicative and cognitive development of learners. Below are a
few links to websites with more information on Vygotsky and
sociocultural theory:
http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/vygotsky.html http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/
~gwells/NCTE.html http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/
constructivism.html
References:
Adamson, L. B., & Chance, S. E. (1989). Coordinating attention to
people, objects, and language. In A. M. Wetherby, S. F. Warren, & J.
Reichle (Eds.), Transitions in prelinguistic communication (pp.
15-38). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Kublin, K. S., Wetherby, A. M., Crais, E. R., & Prizant, B. M.
(1989). Prelinguistic dynamic assessment: A transactional
perspective. In A. M. Wetherby, S. F. Warren, & J. Reichle (Eds.),
Transitions in prelinguistic communication (pp. 285-312). Baltimore,
MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life:
Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press. .
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press. .
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach
to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. .
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University
Press.
From earthsky at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 26 13:33:19 2006
From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (Gill Wyatt)
Date: Wed Sep 27 14:29:28 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
In-Reply-To: <DD5155BD-8F71-48D8-BDF8-F985A9A0E7E7@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <C13EC39E.964C%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
>
> the human animal HATES dialog,
Kirsten this is not my experience ... when groups experience 'true dialogue'
they are touched to their core and it seems to me people 'love' it rather
than hate it when it occurs.
What makes you say they hate it?
Gill
From earthsky at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 26 13:33:19 2006
From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (Gill Wyatt)
Date: Wed Sep 27 14:29:30 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] conflict
In-Reply-To: <20060925.200243.1272.2.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <C13ECE8A.9650%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Thanks Francis for replying ... one of the old assumption that I have about
myself which still caries some emotional pain is that 'if there is no
response I'm insignificant, disappeared, bad' or something like that.
Obviously not the case ... I now know ...
I guess I was noticing that some people seem to edge into what I experience
as 'rude' and 'cruel' in this group recently. I know this group is not set
up to be a dialogue group yet I guess sometimes an exploration of a
particular thread could become something like a dialogue ... I have
witnessed a tentative exploration of an assumption or two here ... and I
guess we could do more.
I hope you enjoy your next dialogue group ... I had a quick visit to your
'blogsite' .... sometimes I think stories are necessary and sometimes
something very short can be very personal. The quality of how we listen and
how we talk is so very different.
I was also curious about your reply to Kathy and Mark ... I didn't
understand what you saw as the difference between the general improvisation
of jazz or blues and the improvisational speaking circle of Bohmian
dialogue?
Gill
> From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com>
> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:02:42 -0700
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] conflict
>
> Sorry we didn't notice your question, Gill.
>
>> What brings about a group working together,
>> being able to improvise and co-creative together
>> as opposed to what can feel to me as meaningless
>> chaos where people chose to be rude and cruel
>> to each other? When can conflict lead to 'true'
>> dialogue and when does it destroy the possibility
>> of dialogue?
>
> What I've watched more often is the other extreme; that most people will
> not go into the rude and crude in a group situation until they feel
> somewhat comfortable with the other participants. The challenge is more
> often getting a group of people to reveal their core assumptions and how
> they came to be that way without feeling that they will be attacked. Of
> course, the first person to dare do this in a group who have only been
> talking 'theory' will be a sort of 'sacrificial lamb.'
>
> Mostly what happens at first is people get comfortable to reveal their
> habits of talking. Talking habits are very automatic, because it's only
> the very unusual who are not merely paying attention to content rather
> than style, tone of voice, etc. These habits can include really
> irritating strategic or otherwise socially challenging actions. The
> person's motives and meanings that others in the group may often
> misinterpret in the light of these stylistic behaviors. Most people try
> to ignore these irritating mannerisms and to address the content of what
> the person is saying, but sometimes it gets mixed up and people do not
> know what they are reacting to or how they are coming to their
> unflattering conclusions of the person who is so irritating. It is
> separating out this misinterpreting of assumptions that is so interesting
> and dialogical - and also the way that people work out their assumptions
> about misunderstandings.
>
> I know that one time I discovered about myself that I had an assumption
> that people who did not look me in the eye were liars; this was revealed
> when someone who joined the group had a wandering eyes that didn't track
> well and told us how often they had to deal with that reaction from the
> public...!
>
> Mostly what makes a sense of connection happen for a group that I have
> been a part of is a commitment to return and to continue the
> relationship. For some people, this has to, at the start, be legislated
> into getting a commitment, such as being in a classroom, etc. because
> most people, or certain people, will shy away from all possible conflict.
> For others, the chance they may meet their next sweetie in Dialogue is
> enough to get them coming back.
>
> In the psychology crowd, there can be sometimes a "tough love" ideal of
> the Ultimate Value of Honesty where people will want to spill their guts
> at any opportunity and get the group to be their therapy. We've also had
> many people who act as if their religion is Humblism; they seemed to be
> determined to obliterate any trace of Evil ego. Or with an academic
> crowd, some might get into the debate style poking and pointing out what
> is wrong that Kirsten/Peter most often do to us here.
>
> Generally, when a group sees these formats, multiple people comment on
> them by telling their motives to undo the hard effects of identifying
> with them. The elegant communicators will demonstrate examples that can
> go beyond either of them. What emerges are often very interesting ideals
> of how power can be appropriately used - something quite rare in our
> culture. People learn to not defend themselves when apparently attacked,
> but instead check and see what was really intended. If an attack was
> intended, then the answer in a group is, basically, 'we don't do that
> here, because it's a common trap that leads nowhere.'
>
> Before something like this happens, tempers or quick reactions could
> motivate a group to get into the thick of a fight with each other and
> sometimes polarize the room. In that sort of situation, it's always very,
> very interesting to watch how what creative ways come up with to deal
> with the offender(s.) Or if it's a group problem, what the group in
> general does in response.
>
> I'm actually in the midst of one of these situations now with a
> long-standing Dialogue group. I wrote more about it on the early Sept.
> posts on my blog at http://franis.blogspot.com My Oct. once a month
> dialogue is coming up next week, so I'll let you know some of what
> happened/is happening. - Franis
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 earthsky at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 26 13:33:19 2006
From: earthsky at tiscali.co.uk (Gill Wyatt)
Date: Wed Sep 27 14:29:51 2006
Subject: Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <C13DA009.7345%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Message-ID: <C13EC5C1.964D%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Hi Lynne,
Yes My experience has been that the group has come to respect each other
when the group has been able to create shared understandngs and meanings ...
its not where they have necessarily started but somewhere there is a shift
to respecting and caring for each other, often as a result of exploring
assumptions and discovering them and experiencing the feelings that are
trapped within them. Once we are engaged in checking assumptions and melting
them, people's presence seems to deepen or expand and maybe our
communication comes from the heart a little more.
By the way, are you American? I wonder as sometimes my name gets changed
from Gill (short for Gillian) to Gil and usually its Americans (smile)!!
Gill
From: Lynne Tolk <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 15:02:33 -0600
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Subject: Re: Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
Hi Gil,
I have also done facilitation, and also had the experience seeing a group
shift into some sort of shared understanding that impressed all of us. This
is one reason I?ve been exploring Bohm?s thought and joined this group. One
thing that seemed important to the experience of that group was an agreement
to approach each other with great respect. I have wondered, myself, if a
group can come to any kind of shared understanding (not needing agreement)
without this kind of respect.
I remember reading (don?t remember where) that Bohm was asked about some
groups not working, and he said the members need to have done their homework
? i.e. studied and understood the principles behind such dialogue (I would
think in particular the principle of suspension of assumptions).
Lynne
On 9/25/06 7:03 AM, "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
Hi everyone reading!!
I signed up to this group a few weeks ago. I've been very curious about how
this group works and it's really chnaged over the few weeks I have been
reading mails. I've enjoyed hearing from more people ... as initially it
just seemed to be the same half a dozen people and it felt pretty hard to
join in.
I've enjoyed how some people are saying more about who they are ... and I've
really liked how you have joined and participated Mark. I liked your music
too.
I am currently in the middle of a long sabbatical while I transition between
being a psychotherapist and group facilitator into whatever next I am going
to do. I sent an email a couple of weeks ago that fell between the pages of
this dialogue ... nobody responded and of course as a result I don't even
know if anybody read it ...
But I guess in reading this mail of your's Don and reading through a whole
load of mail as I have been away for a few days ... I am again reminded by
what I wrote then ... and the question that remains for me ... What brings
about a group working together, being able to improvise and co-creative
together as opposed to what can feel to me as meaningless chaos where people
chose to be rude and cruel to each other? When can conflict lead to 'true'
dialogue and when does it destroy the possibility of dialogue?
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
So I guess the point I am making is that I have experienced some groups
working together with dialogue like jazz musicians. I ran a workshop on
Saturday on 'Transcending the victim/oppressor dynamic' and I wasn't
expecting what happened ... it was as if for the whole day we were dialoging
and improvising, creating a shared understanding and meaning of the focus
... and of course that meant that at least for that time we had either
suspended or transcended the power plays inherent in victim/opppressor
stuff!
So with hope ...
Gill
From: Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 09:58:42 +0100
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
For a long time I've felt that dialogue ought to be able to do something
like jazz musicians do - to improvise collectivity. It seems, though that
humans can do all sorts of things together except talk together about stuff
that is important to them. It was this recognition along with the fact that
talking is what we have to do in order to get along together - in families,
businesses, parliaments, etc. - that got us interested in exploring this
approach to dialogue in the first place.
don
?
On 24 Sep 2006, at 22:58, MarkHarmer@aol.com wrote:
Hi Franis,
?
Thanks for telling me a bit about yourself and it's great to find a bit
about the people whose names I'm starting to recognise as the emails arrive.
?
It took me a while to discover how this list works - I was expecting a
"forum" thing where you get to see what everyone's posted, and this seems a
bit different to that. So I'm going to hang?around and get the sense of how
this all works.
?
I'm fascinated by Bohm and the possibilty of encouraging better dialogues.
I'm a musician and am interested in some of the parallels between dialogue
and (particularly) improvisation - and wondering if we can learn by moving
between the two. I've left my "day job"?of 23 years to explore this a bit
more, as I think people, particularly in groups,?can discover amazing things
when they create stuff together - and?have found that?health professionals,
in particular,?are attracted to this sort of work.?By the way, if you want
to see what I look like and hear a piece of music you are most welcome - I'm
at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFlKx3YPL5I?but I wouldn't recommend it on
a dialup modem!
?
All the best, and thank you for your welcome!
?
Mark
Hey Mark -
We're pretty forgiving around here, except to Kirsten, (who some members
are convinced is masquerading as former troublemaker Peter Krauss.)
Both/either of them had to work a long time to earn it.
>I guess the gentleness was a bit of humour - not sure if humour is
allowed in dialogue?!! -
Yeah, humor is even encouraged, but it's a little difficult for it to
come across in writing sometimes.
Kirsten/Peter writes: welcome to that
white-middle-class-health-insured-truth-seeking... ~
Don't know about others, but I'm an exception to that. I think that I'm
volunteer poverty level, well-educated, non-health insured and I've
worked for myself all my life so I'm not going to get any Social
Security. (Of course, I probably wouldn't have gotten it either way by
the time I get old.) Up until six months ago I was, in the legal
definition, homeless for the previous ten years. It was because I lived
in my own RV here and there. I may go back to that lifestyle again,
because it was so low stress. I'm suffering from a disease where the
treatment is worse than the disease, in my case. I often tease my
boyfriend that he's middle class - because he doesn't recycle, is
constantly spending money with the justification of convenience, and has
ruined his credit. I don't believe in credit, so I'm one of the people my
age who doesn't owe thousands of dollars that I must keep paying to have
borrowed. It's a rare item in my house I haven't gotten free - including
the two free computers I own. I was lucky to buy a three dollar a month
dialup eons ago, so life is good.
So - I'll add my welcome the others to you.? Hope you enjoy reading us
all in some way; many of us are glad to have someone who writes back.
- Franis
?
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
-- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
208 376-1336
www.lifedirectionscoach.com
(visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)
"Love is never earned . . .
It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen
_______________________________________________
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/20060926/d81d5eb2/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Tue Sep 26 13:55:42 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Wed Sep 27 14:50:53 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
References: <C13EC39E.964C%earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Message-ID: <002b01c6e162$b9aff940$f54f153f@DL01>
when groups experience 'true dialogue' they are touched to their core and it
seems to me people 'love' -- Gill
What is "true dialogue", untrue dialogue? -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gill Wyatt" <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
>
>>
>> the human animal HATES dialog,
>
> Kirsten this is not my experience ... when groups experience 'true
> dialogue'
> they are touched to their core and it seems to me people 'love' it rather
> than hate it when it occurs.
>
> What makes you say they hate it?
>
> Gill
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 ae.dropper at juno.com Tue Sep 26 14:06:27 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Sep 27 15:13:33 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
Message-ID: <20060926.081820.3964.24.ae.dropper@juno.com>
when groups experience 'true dialogue' they are touched to their core and
it
seems to me people 'love' -- Gill
What is "true dialogue", untrue dialogue? -- Don L
"True" dialogue is in the eyes of the beholder.
"True" dialogue is the seeing of the "trueness"
of all dialogue, in the moment that this is seen.
pat
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Tue Sep 26 14:28:26 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Wed Sep 27 15:23:01 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] The symbolic and the strategic
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F23E3C7ACAD42D05309F008A8250@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <C13E952A.325E%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
There are many kinds of blocks. About everything including music. Reread
Mark, for instance. I suggest its possibly one of the blocks to exclude any
topic.
On 9/26/06 5:40 AM, "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Donf:
>> Sorry, Kathy. I too like music but Bohm dialogue has always been primarily
>> about gaining insight into the blocks
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~ScottValley/15980e00.jpg
>
> that make verbal
>> communication, especially when it is about subjects that are important to
>> us, so prone to incoherence. And bla bla bla
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Love & Translations, Kirsten
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC.? Get a free 90-day trial!
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.w
> indowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Tue Sep 26 15:11:44 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Wed Sep 27 16:06:41 2006
Subject: Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <20060927100004.57E59232B7@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFD82301ED.425BDC81-ON852571F5.0043E72C-852571F5.00487C6C@dialogos.com>
Rodger __Hi Gill, welcome! Thanks for re-entering your words, I remember
having to make a choice about which topic to respond to when I first read
them.
As an amateur musician I prove to be hopelessly incapable, except for
improv, which left out sing-alongs at the campfire and parties. Eventually
I found myself playing along side some accomplished musicians who were
inclined toward improv and so discovered music did include something other
than scores and sheets.
My facilitating is similar to my incompetence as a musician -- mainly
applying sensitivity to subtle willing of people down a garden path, rather
than seeking to gain specific outcomes.
Re: the aikido sensei -instructor- plays a critical part in whatever level
of experience is made possible to the students. If the instructor practices
with a clear understanding of -ki-, the energy, then unexplainable actions
can be witnessed. In witnessing the unexplainable students open to new
possibilities in themselves, especially if they gain understanding of how
its done.
But for me, practicing the unexplainable wouldn't have been enough to keep
me in the dojo -- it was the trust I felt as a result of the instructors
non-competitive nature -- I think that is what gave the orientation point
for collective/group harmony.
And from what I saw, I think the weighty times happened when our karate
and/or jujitsu black belt people had it in mind to prove how much more
effective their discipline was than aikido. _R
.
.
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 14:03:59 +0100
From: Gill Wyatt <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
I wrote my Masters dissertation about this. And I'd agree one person can
prevent it occurring.
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060926/bac1ebe8/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Tue Sep 26 15:17:50 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Wed Sep 27 17:05:18 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Be, with & Gentle, me
In-Reply-To: <20060927100004.57E59232B7@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFA8389C81.58973F26-ON852571F5.0048EB28-852571F5.00490B8C@dialogos.com>
Rodger __Welcome Kathryn! Good luck. _R
.
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:07:43 -0400
From: Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Be, with & Gentle, me
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060926/32aa94f5/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Tue Sep 26 16:10:31 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Wed Sep 27 17:05:19 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <20060927100004.57E59232B7@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF38EAAFD0.E2FB4890-ON852571F5.004B5CA8-852571F5.004DDE34@dialogos.com>
Rodger __I'm interested in how you define different realities for each
person. For example, a Catholic may differ from a Buddhist by way of their
doctrine.
But if the doctrines each promote the idea that they are more real/true
than the other, I think their difference is reduced to a variation of one
premise.
As such, they may lack something of the origin of awareness of self, which
in a certain respect, quantifies -different realities-.
And of course we each do live our different realities, its just that I tend
to think most are unaware of what is unique or original about their
reality.
Instead they suffer an ongoing awareness of all the differences they seem
to have in common._R
.
.
From: MarkHarmer@aol.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
My experience is that by talking about what it was like for each of
us involved (it's different for each person) we get a sense of how many
different realities there can be - usually at least one for each person!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060926/8d6435fb/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Tue Sep 26 16:44:22 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Wed Sep 27 17:43:38 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
Message-ID: <20060926.104758.3964.30.ae.dropper@juno.com>
We walk the busy streets, one world per person (each with a different
self/world image), while each of us is doing the same thing, seeing our
own world.
Many of us used to go out to eat after the weekly dialogues. Again and
again the post dialogue talk revealed how each of us had seen the
dialogue differently. And there was common appreciation for the repeated
opportunity to see this.
The "one premise" or the initial "shared meaning" in a dialogue cannot be
reduced much more than to the premise of "I am right."
It is the collectiveness of thought, especially the collectiveness of
function, that is especially revealing and interesting in this form of
dialogue. Content, which is often a lot of head knocking [often subtle] -
moving into emotional defensiveness [often subtle] - is almost endlessly
available as a gateway to observing function.
pat
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 10:10:31 -0400 Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com writes:
Rodger __I'm interested in how you define different realities for each
person. For example, a Catholic may differ from a Buddhist by way of
their doctrine.
But if the doctrines each promote the idea that they are more real/true
than the other, I think their difference is reduced to a variation of one
premise.
As such, they may lack something of the origin of awareness of self,
which in a certain respect, quantifies -different realities-.
And of course we each do live our different realities, its just that I
tend to think most are unaware of what is unique or original about their
reality.
Instead they suffer an ongoing awareness of all the differences they seem
to have in common._R
.
.
From: MarkHarmer@aol.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
My experience is that by talking about what it was like for each of
us involved (it's different for each person) we get a sense of how many
different realities there can be - usually at least one for each person!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060926/3a642cd0/attachment.html
From donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk Tue Sep 26 17:26:03 2006
From: donfactor at donfactor.demon.co.uk (Don Factor)
Date: Wed Sep 27 18:21:24 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] The symbolic and the strategic
In-Reply-To: <C13E952A.325E%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
References: <C13E952A.325E%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <91066E2C-1402-42E9-9BF1-CA7FF107C1C3@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
I agree, no topics should be excluded, but the technology to include
the actual media does limit us. It seems to me that a group that
included music, pictures, and talk would require a Web2 site
something like a combination of Flicker, Youtube, and Myspace along
with a good search engine with overlapping comments threads that
would include pictures, sounds, and voices. But that is way beyond an
e-mail list such as this.
However, if you or anyone you know wants to put such a site together,
please let me know, I would certainly want to join
don
On 26 Sep 2006, at 13:28, Kathryn Arizmendi wrote:
> There are many kinds of blocks. About everything including music.
> Reread
> Mark, for instance. I suggest its possibly one of the blocks to
> exclude any
> topic.
>
>
> On 9/26/06 5:40 AM, "kirsten schneide"
> <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Donf:
>>> Sorry, Kathy. I too like music but Bohm dialogue has always been
>>> primarily
>>> about gaining insight into the blocks
>>
>> http://members.tripod.com/~ScottValley/15980e00.jpg
>>
>> that make verbal
>>> communication, especially when it is about subjects that are
>>> important to
>>> us, so prone to incoherence. And bla bla bla
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Love & Translations, Kirsten
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-
>> day trial!
>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000001msn/direct/01/?
>> href=http://www.w
>> indowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 DStulberg at msw-law.com Tue Sep 26 17:38:09 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Wed Sep 27 18:32:11 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D169551B58@msw2k.msw.local>
is "I am right" the same thing as coming to a better understanding
through dialogue? The "I am right" to me, means there has to be there
are "wrongs". Black and white. D.
________________________________
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of
ae.dropper@juno.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 9:44 AM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
We walk the busy streets, one world per person (each with a different
self/world image), while each of us is doing the same thing, seeing our
own world.
Many of us used to go out to eat after the weekly dialogues. Again and
again the post dialogue talk revealed how each of us had seen the
dialogue differently. And there was common appreciation for the repeated
opportunity to see this.
The "one premise" or the initial "shared meaning" in a dialogue cannot
be reduced much more than to the premise of "I am right."
It is the collectiveness of thought, especially the collectiveness of
function, that is especially revealing and interesting in this form of
dialogue. Content, which is often a lot of head knocking [often subtle]
- moving into emotional defensiveness [often subtle] - is almost
endlessly available as a gateway to observing function.
pat
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 10:10:31 -0400 Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com writes:
Rodger __I'm interested in how you define different realities
for each person. For example, a Catholic may differ from a Buddhist by
way of their doctrine.
But if the doctrines each promote the idea that they are more
real/true than the other, I think their difference is reduced to a
variation of one premise.
As such, they may lack something of the origin of awareness of
self, which in a certain respect, quantifies -different realities-.
And of course we each do live our different realities, its just
that I tend to think most are unaware of what is unique or original
about their reality.
Instead they suffer an ongoing awareness of all the differences
they seem to have in common._R
.
.
From: MarkHarmer@aol.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
My experience is that by talking about what it was like for
each of
us involved (it's different for each person) we get a sense of
how many
different realities there can be - usually at least one for
each person!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20060926/80e5f709/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Tue Sep 26 17:46:52 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Wed Sep 27 18:41:34 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
In-Reply-To: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D169551B58@msw2k.msw.local>
Message-ID: <C13EC3AC.326F%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
How about shades? I?ve found that some answers and solutions work more
effectively than others in certain circumstances, and other people have
concurred, but I don?t see that as ?right? or ?wrong?. k
On 9/26/06 11:38 AM, "Dorothy Stulberg" <DStulberg@msw-law.com> wrote:
> is "I am right" the same thing as coming to a better understanding through
> dialogue? The "I am right" to me, means there has to be there are "wrongs".
> Black and white. D.
>
>
> From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
> [mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of ae.dropper@juno.com
> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 9:44 AM
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
>
> We walk the busy streets, one world per person (each with a different
> self/world image), while each of us is doing the same thing, seeing our own
> world.
>
> Many of us used to go out to eat after the weekly dialogues. Again and again
> the post dialogue talk revealed how each of us had seen the dialogue
> differently. And there was common appreciation for the repeated opportunity to
> see this.
>
> The "one premise" or the initial "shared meaning" in a dialogue cannot be
> reduced much more than to the premise of "I am right."
>
> It is the collectiveness of thought, especially the collectiveness of
> function, that is especially revealing and interesting in this form of
> dialogue. Content, which is often a lot of head knocking [often subtle] -
> moving into emotional defensiveness [often subtle] - is almost endlessly
> available as a gateway to observing function.
>
> pat
>
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 10:10:31 -0400 Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com writes:
>>
>>
>> Rodger __I'm interested in how you define different realities for each
>> person. For example, a Catholic may differ from a Buddhist by way of their
>> doctrine.
>> But if the doctrines each promote the idea that they are more real/true than
>> the other, I think their difference is reduced to a variation of one
>> premise.
>>
>> As such, they may lack something of the origin of awareness of self, which
>> in a certain respect, quantifies -different realities-.
>>
>> And of course we each do live our different realities, its just that I tend
>> to think most are unaware of what is unique or original about their reality.
>> Instead they suffer an ongoing awareness of all the differences they seem to
>> have in common._R
>> .
>> .
>> From: MarkHarmer@aol.com
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> .
>> My experience is that by talking about what it was like for each of
>> us involved (it's different for each person) we get a sense of how many
>> different realities there can be - usually at least one for each person!
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20060926/9cf40232/attachment.html
From DStulberg at msw-law.com Tue Sep 26 18:04:06 2006
From: DStulberg at msw-law.com (Dorothy Stulberg)
Date: Wed Sep 27 18:58:03 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
Message-ID: <0D25D6CD52646E4B992A5CAED007D169551B5A@msw2k.msw.local>
I liked this!!! (below of Franis)The thoughts or brain or whatever is
meaninful to call it stop spinning and forms a very nice holistic way
of considering or being aware of. D.
"In the end, you'll have an experience of holding so many different
points of view at once that it will spin your brain, because they all
arrived at a different time."
-----Original Message-----
From: bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org
[mailto:bohm_dialogue-bounces@david-bohm.org] On Behalf Of Franis Engel
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 10:50 PM
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
Mark sez: I personally have a bit more trouble with not having a task as
surely, pragmatically, you'd want to explore something specific with a
group?
Lots of beginning dialoguers have trouble with this. It's something
having to do with surrending how they are going to spend their time with
no plan, no objective, no job, equal authority, and mostly people have
never improvised a conversation in a group situation. The problem with
using metaphors to inspire is that many people say they understand the
example, but then it turns out they are not able to demonstrate the
skills necessary to actually do what it is they say they understand.
If you like metaphors, how about this one: Imagine a group of people are
teaching themselves conversationally how to speak a language. To do
this, they would usually practice scripts to establish context about
what are the appropriate situations to infer and interpret meaning from.
So they establish so they know, not just what is being said, but the
context of where and when words are happening.
In Dialogue, the group can create from scratch their own context of how
meaning is assigned. To do this, they explore the meaning that comes up,
so it happens gradually that meaning is assigned gradually as the
similar light of recognition comes on in every participant. Those who
come late to the group can't quite tell what is going on, but it just
looks like something different is happening. Most of us would like the
Dialogue activities to be transparent enough that someone would be able
to participate if they can be observant enough to see what is happening.
ie:
for the Dialogue to be in English and not have to know special secrets
to decipher it.
The group does this by being aware of "frames" of meaning, where the
content changes in terms of what is beneath, above, aside or associated
with the subject(s). So as everyone says something about what they think
the subject is, the thread of meaning weaving through becomes obvious to
some, is hidden from others, and goes off on tangents that never come
back around for some. In the end, you'll have an experience of holding
so many different points of view at once that it will spin your brain,
because they all arrived at a different time.
Franis
_______________________________________________
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 tangykatt at earthlink.net Tue Sep 26 18:07:39 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Wed Sep 27 19:02:15 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Be, with & Gentle, me
In-Reply-To: <OFA8389C81.58973F26-ON852571F5.0048EB28-852571F5.00490B8C@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <C13EC88B.3272%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Thanks, Rodger. More later. I?m trying to work on improvisation in music
while I keep up with the dialog! k
On 9/26/06 9:17 AM, "Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com" <Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com>
wrote:
> Rodger __Welcome Kathryn! Good luck. _R
> .
> Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:07:43 -0400
> From: Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Be, with & Gentle, me
> .
> .
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20060926/837a7602/attachment.html
From franis_franis at juno.com Tue Sep 26 20:21:49 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Wed Sep 27 21:48:49 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] medium
Message-ID: <20060926.115002.1120.1.franis_franis@juno.com>
Words for me are the easiest medium of the web, probably because I have a
slower older computer!
I'm not finished with this part of my site, but if Mark wanted the file
that's the content for it, I'd send it to him. Perhaps it would be useful
for you Mark to encourage people to learn that they are musicians.
http://www.franis.org/out4improv/ -Franis
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 05:41:07 EDT MarkHarmer@aol.com writes:
>
>
> Perhaps having one medium is a great constraint when you're on the
> web. It
> would be interesting, though, to think about what you could do with
> other media
> - but then, that would be constrained too - how could we do group
> sculpture,
> for example? Face-to-face, I think there's no excuse for not
> exploring other
> media. I do come across insecurities when I do music with groups -
> "I'm not
> musical" is one typical response. Maybe there are a few people who
> that's
> genuinely true of, but I haven't me one yet. I invite them to define
> what music
> is, and out of that, we can make music within their definition.
>
> I have to admit the way this group works did throw me at the
> beginning -
> Bohm would probably have called it a "quality" of our dialogue here,
> and more
> multimedia working would be a different "quality" rather than being
> better or
> worse.
>
> Dear Mark, dont expect multi-media in this chat group any time
> soon....
> there is a clear bias towards THE word...... i thinkg that simply
> goes back
> to the fact, that the old-schoolers here, the dofs and the donls
> and the
> engels and the droppers have some un'kind of impaired potency when
> it comes
> to media other than text. So they feel insecure, threatened, when
> people
> start using tools they don't have the skills for.... it really, as
> mostly in
> society & life, boils down to 'pretty' basic insecuritiestiesties.
>
>
>
From franis_franis at juno.com Tue Sep 26 20:23:49 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Wed Sep 27 21:48:50 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] conflict
Message-ID: <20060926.115002.1120.2.franis_franis@juno.com>
http://www.franis.org/out4improv/ for you too Gill, hoping that you can
imagine the similarities. - Franis
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:33:19 +0100 Gill Wyatt <earthsky@tiscali.co.uk>
writes:
> Thanks Francis for replying ... one of the old assumption that I have
> about
> myself which still caries some emotional pain is that 'if there is
> no
> response I'm insignificant, disappeared, bad' or something like
> that.
> Obviously not the case ... I now know ...
>
> I guess I was noticing that some people seem to edge into what I
> experience
> as 'rude' and 'cruel' in this group recently. I know this group is
> not set
> up to be a dialogue group yet I guess sometimes an exploration of a
> particular thread could become something like a dialogue ... I have
> witnessed a tentative exploration of an assumption or two here ...
> and I
> guess we could do more.
>
> I hope you enjoy your next dialogue group ... I had a quick visit to
> your
> 'blogsite' .... sometimes I think stories are necessary and
> sometimes
> something very short can be very personal. The quality of how we
> listen and
> how we talk is so very different.
>
> I was also curious about your reply to Kathy and Mark ... I didn't
> understand what you saw as the difference between the general
> improvisation
> of jazz or blues and the improvisational speaking circle of Bohmian
> dialogue?
>
> Gill
>
> > From: Franis Engel <franis_franis@juno.com>
> > Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:02:42 -0700
> > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > Subject: RE: [Bohm_Dialogue] conflict
> >
> > Sorry we didn't notice your question, Gill.
> >
> >> What brings about a group working together,
> >> being able to improvise and co-creative together
> >> as opposed to what can feel to me as meaningless
> >> chaos where people chose to be rude and cruel
> >> to each other? When can conflict lead to 'true'
> >> dialogue and when does it destroy the possibility
> >> of dialogue?
> >
> > What I've watched more often is the other extreme; that most
> people will
> > not go into the rude and crude in a group situation until they
> feel
> > somewhat comfortable with the other participants. The challenge is
> more
> > often getting a group of people to reveal their core assumptions
> and how
> > they came to be that way without feeling that they will be
> attacked. Of
> > course, the first person to dare do this in a group who have only
> been
> > talking 'theory' will be a sort of 'sacrificial lamb.'
> >
> > Mostly what happens at first is people get comfortable to reveal
> their
> > habits of talking. Talking habits are very automatic, because it's
> only
> > the very unusual who are not merely paying attention to content
> rather
> > than style, tone of voice, etc. These habits can include really
> > irritating strategic or otherwise socially challenging actions.
> The
> > person's motives and meanings that others in the group may often
> > misinterpret in the light of these stylistic behaviors. Most
> people try
> > to ignore these irritating mannerisms and to address the content
> of what
> > the person is saying, but sometimes it gets mixed up and people do
> not
> > know what they are reacting to or how they are coming to their
> > unflattering conclusions of the person who is so irritating. It is
> > separating out this misinterpreting of assumptions that is so
> interesting
> > and dialogical - and also the way that people work out their
> assumptions
> > about misunderstandings.
> >
> > I know that one time I discovered about myself that I had an
> assumption
> > that people who did not look me in the eye were liars; this was
> revealed
> > when someone who joined the group had a wandering eyes that didn't
> track
> > well and told us how often they had to deal with that reaction
> from the
> > public...!
> >
> > Mostly what makes a sense of connection happen for a group that I
> have
> > been a part of is a commitment to return and to continue the
> > relationship. For some people, this has to, at the start, be
> legislated
> > into getting a commitment, such as being in a classroom, etc.
> because
> > most people, or certain people, will shy away from all possible
> conflict.
> > For others, the chance they may meet their next sweetie in
> Dialogue is
> > enough to get them coming back.
> >
> > In the psychology crowd, there can be sometimes a "tough love"
> ideal of
> > the Ultimate Value of Honesty where people will want to spill
> their guts
> > at any opportunity and get the group to be their therapy. We've
> also had
> > many people who act as if their religion is Humblism; they seemed
> to be
> > determined to obliterate any trace of Evil ego. Or with an
> academic
> > crowd, some might get into the debate style poking and pointing
> out what
> > is wrong that Kirsten/Peter most often do to us here.
> >
> > Generally, when a group sees these formats, multiple people
> comment on
> > them by telling their motives to undo the hard effects of
> identifying
> > with them. The elegant communicators will demonstrate examples
> that can
> > go beyond either of them. What emerges are often very interesting
> ideals
> > of how power can be appropriately used - something quite rare in
> our
> > culture. People learn to not defend themselves when apparently
> attacked,
> > but instead check and see what was really intended. If an attack
> was
> > intended, then the answer in a group is, basically, 'we don't do
> that
> > here, because it's a common trap that leads nowhere.'
> >
> > Before something like this happens, tempers or quick reactions
> could
> > motivate a group to get into the thick of a fight with each other
> and
> > sometimes polarize the room. In that sort of situation, it's
> always very,
> > very interesting to watch how what creative ways come up with to
> deal
> > with the offender(s.) Or if it's a group problem, what the group
> in
> > general does in response.
> >
> > I'm actually in the midst of one of these situations now with a
> > long-standing Dialogue group. I wrote more about it on the early
> Sept.
> > posts on my blog at http://franis.blogspot.com My Oct. once a
> month
> > dialogue is coming up next week, so I'll let you know some of what
> > happened/is happening. - Franis
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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 franis_franis at juno.com Tue Sep 26 20:10:06 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Wed Sep 27 21:48:51 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] welcoming content
Message-ID: <20060926.115002.1120.0.franis_franis@juno.com>
In dialogue, rather than shooting down an idea or saying it's not
"right," dialoguers might act "as if" the idea were true and make
observations about what might happen if that premise was in operation.
So, if I did this with your idea, I would say that it's based on the idea
that if you have a comparison, it's easier to find the assumptions.
It's kind of like using Italian to talk for awhile, and then describing
the differences and similarities to talking in English, without
discussing the content of what you were saying in each language. Sort of
like using the linguistics of music to reveal the assumptions of putting
meaning into words.
I guess that might be more successful if you were practiced at the
language of music or a particular instrument. So, this would be something
that people would get better at as they practiced.
Franis
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 04:49:34 EDT MarkHarmer@aol.com writes:
>
>
> What I was exploring with my group was how creativity / spontenaity
> arises
> in conversations, using collaboratively-created music as the medium.
> I've only
> really started doing this recently, so it's really useful to be
> reminded
> about dialogue, and your explanation of how it works, works for me.
> Perhaps when
> I was saying about exploring something specific, I should have been
> more
> specific about what it is I do with groups, so here goes:
>
> My proposition is that we can't always discover something by doing
> so from a
> position within the same medium - for example, we don't use theatre
> to
> describe a theatre performance, we don't use film to describe the
> impact of a
> film. In each of these cases, we'd write a review. Similarly, people
> sometimes
> use poetry to describe an event which has strong emotional impact on
> them, and
> perhaps that's their way of taking it out of the medium (prose)
> which we
> usually use to describe things. Hence, I've been experimenting with
> using
> collaborative music as a way of seeing if we in a group can get
> insights into the
> process of dialogue and creativity. I do this by inviting discovery
> and the
> co-creation / discovery of the "rules" and do no input myself
> (despite being a
> performer). My experience is that by talking about what it was like
> for each of
> us involved (it's different for each person) we get a sense of how
> many
> different realities there can be - usually at least one for each
> person! I think
> through the process of taking dialogue into another medium, we're
> not using
> words to describe a process involving words, and getting insights
> which we can
> then bring back to conversation. It's a very powerful, direct and
> "fast"
> experience but I'm still in early days with this. I'm also using
> some of
> Stacey's work on complexity to inform my process. But I do believe
> the dialogic
> process is important, and in some way important not to hurry it.
>
> Any thoughts on my above stuff?
>
> Mark sez: I personally have a bit more trouble with not having a
> task as
> surely, pragmatically, you'd want to explore something specific
> with a
> group?
>
> Lots of beginning dialoguers have trouble with this. It's something
> having to do with surrending how they are going to spend their time
> with
> no plan, no objective, no job, equal authority, and mostly people
> have
> never improvised a conversation in a group situation. The problem
> with
> using metaphors to inspire is that many people say they understand
> the
> example, but then it turns out they are not able to demonstrate the
> skills necessary to actually do what it is they say they understand.
>
>
> If you like metaphors, how about this one: Imagine a group of people
> are
> teaching themselves conversationally how to speak a language. To do
> this,
> they would usually practice scripts to establish context about what
> are
> the appropriate situations to infer and interpret meaning from. So
> they
> establish so they know, not just what is being said, but the context
> of
> where and when words are happening.
>
> In Dialogue, the group can create from scratch their own context of
> how
> meaning is assigned. To do this, they explore the meaning that
> comes up,
> so it happens gradually that meaning is assigned gradually as the
> similar
> light of recognition comes on in every participant. Those who come
> late
> to the group can't quite tell what is going on, but it just looks
> like
> something different is happening. Most of us would like the
> Dialogue
> activities to be transparent enough that someone would be able to
> participate if they can be observant enough to see what is
> happening. ie:
> for the Dialogue to be in English and not have to know special
> secrets to
> decipher it.
>
> The group does this by being aware of "frames" of meaning, where
> the
> content changes in terms of what is beneath, above, aside or
> associated
> with the subject(s). So as everyone says something about what they
> think
> the subject is, the thread of meaning weaving through becomes
> obvious to
> some, is hidden from others, and goes off on tangents that never
&