[ Post Message Here ]
Interactive online dialogue
We now have an online interactive (planet-wide!) Krishnamurti dialogue up and running in the so called chatroom at:
http://www.kinfonet.org/Discussion_forums/default.htm
Things start to get moving in there weekdays, from about 18.30 GMT to
24.00 GMT, when the European & US convenient time windows overlap. We also have participants from India, the Phillipines,
and Australia.
Dan Scorpio 7-22-00
On the cusp
Thank you for the site. I think that the establishment of such local
Bohm dialogue groups should be a high priority. I participate in a group
that meets here in Boise once every few months, and we've discussed
shifting to a more frequent schedule so that our dialogues (which are
not called Bohm dialogues but which are close, in essence) and their
effect can be sustained.
I also feel that dialogue of this kind will be a (or the) hallmark of
the next evolutionary plane that we will experience. I met Jonas Salk
shortly before his death five years ago, and we discussed his idea of
five such eras: the pre-biological, the biological, the metabiological
(evolution of culture), the teleobiological (conscious evolution), and
the symbiological. We are apparently on the cusp of the
"teleobiological".
On a related note, those interested in dialogue might also be interested
in the work of Bela H. Banathy on the conscious, participatory design of
social systems - "Designing Social Systems in a Changing World" is a
good start. In this kind of design, Bohm dialogue is called "generative
dialogue", and is considered essential to creating the "glue" before and
while people engage in the decision-oriented "strategic dialogue."
If I'm successful as an Internet entrepreneur (!), I plan to start a
foundation, and one of its priorities would be catalyzing Bohm dialogue
everywhere.
Matthew Shapiro 7-11-00
Call for dialoguers in Saskatchewan
Any suggestions for finding a facilitator in the Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada area to contact with regard to starting a DIALOGUE group at the University of Saskatchewan? Thanks for your time in considering my request for information.
Contact Paul C. Hamilton (paul.hamilton@usask.ca)
Art & Art History
University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, SK, Canada
Paul Hamilton 7-7-00
Kudos
I really like your webpage. The colours, the lady blacksmith, the
simplicity of it all. Well done. A Choc Top to all your helpers.
Regards,
Ty Criddle 5-20-00
Language uses us
Hello everybody. In travelling around various groups on dialogue (I'm
looking for something on line actually, so if anyone knows of such, pls
email), I came across Larry's statement on the electron. The controversy, which as
I understand it raged for years, illustrates how our thoughts get
trapped by archaic language patterns, patterns which we never had a
choice in selecting when we entered this world, patterns which represent
an extant, virtually immobile STRUCTURE that traps us.
Quite recently, I came across E-Prime, English with all forms of the
(Aristotelian) verb TO BE deleted. When you use E-Prime, you can't say
'the electron IS a wave', neither can you say (or think) 'the electron
IS a particle'. In technical terms, both those statements represent
'identity' uses of the verb TO BE. You would quite simply say: 'In my view (that restores a speaker or thinker) under certain conditions - and
using certain measuring instruments - the electron BEHAVES as a wave.'
The way we use language conditions our perception - sometimes it seems
that the language uses us.
Dan Scorpio 4-28-00 http://www.angelfire.com/nd/danscorpio/ep1.html
Science doesn't actually exist
I read Stenger's take a long time ago. He is, in my opinion, a character
assassin. His critique of Fritjof Capra is in my view, beyond belief. Stenger claims that Bohm is the father of the new age movement; he then lays into Capra with his new age critique. He is a dubunker. At least Murray Gell-Mann, who is involved in some capacity with the Journal of Skeptical Inquirer, said he would change his mind on psi if the evidence were warranted. However, the distinction between Stenger and Gell-Mann is also tricky, as the rationalists, such as Stenger, claim to be open to the evidence, but based on their criteria, they don't see such evidence (answer from the question).
If one checks out Jack Sarfatti's web site, he represents the limitations of Stenger's view. Although I am not a Sarfatti fan, he technically and critically balances out Stenger's new age hysteria.
As John Mowat notes, the possible is not the actual, yet, Joe Clinton, who was involved with getting the man on the moon NASA project, pointed out that when they coordinated together, they did yield the possible, and it was the imagination that got them there. They did not have the technology to begin with, but they did have the dream.
Bohm gave supremacy to the imagination and beyond (totality of perception). As I have said at more than one of the dialogue meetings, in my view, true science doesn't "actually " exist yet—it is out there ahead of the curve, somewhere in the bend of the possible.
John seems to see only one use for myth, and that compels me to take Kuhn's tack, and point out the history of scientific revolution. In addition, I am not sure that the current divisions (chasms) between spiritual/arts/sciences will prevail. One of Capra's mentors, Eric Jantsch , who was an astrophysicist who turned to social issues, probed at this sort of approach in his book Design for Evolution.
Finally, one of the difficulties I have with this dialogue web site is that it is written and dialogue is of course about verbal parleying. This message board isn't intended to be a dialogue, and that should be clarified for new visitors. It also concerns me that too much material extraneous to Bohm dialogue will be included (links, etc.)
Nick Consoletti 2-01-00
Verify the dynamic
John, I thought science had more to do with the replication of events
and outcomes using identical procedure and materials as a method of
verification. This replication, in my opinion, has been mistaken for
the test of reality when it may be nothing more than verification of one
facet or perhaps even one dimension of a reality in the same way a piece
may be mistaken for the whole if that piece is all that is known.
Myth allows consciousness to venture beyond the boundries of what is
known and more. It allows a way to embrace and bring knowledge back to
the group society where it will no doubt be tested by these scientific methods until it can be
judged useful or useless to common society.
Somehow it reminds me of the old particle-wave controversy. Is it one
or the other? Hard science or flowing myth? It can be both, it just
depends on the situation and perhaps what is required at the time,
thereby creating a dynamic situation, which in my opinion (so far) is the nature of the wave and particle, life and the material which gives it form.
Larry Arsenault 1-30-00
Myth yields meaning
This morning was my first chance to review the recent changes to the website, in particular the new links.
While Victor Stenger's piece on Quantum Quackery expresses my point of view very closely, what makes me a
little uncomfortable about the attitude of "The Skeptical Inquirer" is that there is often a complete dismissal of
"myth". Myth speaks to the semantic part of our mind. It gives meaning to things and so fills
what would otherwise be a gap in our understanding of life, the universe and ALL THAT. Consider Yeats'
"Sailing to Byzantium", Stanza III:
O sages standing in God's holy fire
As in the gold mosaic of a wall,
Come from the holy fire, perne in a gyre,
And be the singing masters of my soul.
Consume my heart away; sick with desire
And fastened to a dying animal
It knows not what it is; and gather me
Into the artifice of eternity.
These lines are deeply meaningful, and as deeply mythical. The problem that can arise, however, is that one takes it a step farther with myth = science, and that to my mind is superstition.
Superstition = taking a possibility that occurs to one, to be a statement about reality without any experimental verification. In this sense Democritus's statement that the universe consists of atoms, void, and nothing else—is a superstitious statement,
because he did no experiments to show the nature of atoms or how they worked in chemistry or the nature of sub-atomic particles. In other words, he had a lucky hit which can be attributed to pure chance. (There are not all that many possibilities
about the way things can generally be that can occur to the human mind.)
In the same way all the stuff about "quantum consciousness" may actually turn out to be true when psycho-physical experiments are conceived and performed.
Meanwhile, to take a possibility for an actuality, is sheer superstition.
John Mowat 1-19-00
Where's K.?
In your page about Bohm's biography, the most important encounter of
his life, namely,that with J. Krishnamurti, is omitted. (See F. David Peat's
Infinite Potential.) Why?
Rogério Palmeira 10-22-99
Editor’s note: Rogério brings up an excellent point. I've addressed this in the latest update; you'll find note of Bohm's sustained dialogues with J. Krishnamurti on the biography page, and links to Krishnamurti sites on the links page. Coming soon: More!
Please don't hesitate to contribute material, links, or other suggestions regarding Krishnamurti focus, please send them to the message board posting address (my address).
Dialoguers in Dallas?
I was referred to your web site by a friend, Ron Bramhall. We have
enjoyed the concept of Dialogue and ideas of Bohm's for years. If I
were in Eugene, I would definitely be a regular at your sessions.
Unfortunately, I live in Dallas, Texas. Do you know of any individuals
or organizations which practice and meet for Dialogue sessions in my
area? Any information would be greatly appreciated.
Continued Success with your endeavors.
Scott Trent 9-21-99
Looking for dialogue in Seattle
I have been interested in the work of David Bohm for a while. I
would like to start a new dialogue group or join one locally. Where
can I get information about such groups? I live in Seattle, WA, USA.
Anil Coumar 9-14-99
Thanks for pointing me at the updated Eugene website. I like the graphic—I
wonder what the dignified old guys do when they are not dialoguing; one of
them seems to have an apron on. The statements of members are very well
written—short and to the point. I have enjoyed exploring the links too and
I can see that they will keep me busy for some time yet.
Come to think of it, that’s something that has always seemed important to me—dialogue as a displacement, sublimation, critique, or avoidance of other less humane activity such as unchosen (necessary?) work and conflict.
Rob Mooney 7-15-99
I just spent some time looking over the new web page and I think it is much
improved (not that it wasn’t good before). Now it seems much richer.
I would think that people could really get interested based on a clearer statement of what dialogue is about. I especially liked your exposition of “What is Dialogue”.
John Mowat 7-15-99
Very nice job [on the website]. One suggestion, the blue on blue used for the main menu is VERY hard to read on my old IE.
Bill Faust 7-13-99
Editor’s note: If you have problems with browser rendition of the site, please let me know. Internet Explorer users should be aware that some websafe colors are not viewable in IE browsers older than 4.0; I am not yet aware of other difficulties. I will address those color problems at the next content update.
If you like the new design, or can see a use for additional features, let us know. Thanks!
The site is well designed, easily navigatable, professional, accurate, gives a well balanced perspective. Internet standards have been maintained (html, stats, web promotion, load speed, server response, browser compatibility, etc.). What about search engine submissions, press releases, association with other sites (associate programs), marketing tie-ins…? Perhaps “too” focused on Eugene for broad appeal. Perhaps needs more links (as a complete one-stop reference on the topic).
On a more personal note: I was hesitant to read “what dialogue is”… seems this is a touchy area and “threatens” my assumptions (though most of what I read was fairly neutral and commonly held… as well, the perspective was balanced with “what members say”). I thought the pictures were a nice personalizing touch (well done thumbnails, loads quickly).
I didn't personally care for the homepage graphic (two greek “statues” in dialogue pose)... the grayscale didn't work with the motif, somehow; but, contentwise, the graphic still seemed to convey a “professional” image (not cats, dogs, children, furbies, etc.). Maybe you could colorize the existing graphic.
Add a professional “seal of approval” (or an award section, professional associates, something like that) and I think you will have presented a web presence on par with the best sites online.
Brett Lane Robertson 7-13-99
Regarding Todd Gastaldo’s comment on Skinner and Bohm, it seems unlikely that Skinner’s view is similar to Bohm’s. Skinner seemed to stay mum on the subject of consciousness, whereas so many now deem it necessary, and for good reasons, to take risks looking into the age-old inquiry on whether or not humanity can see what such an abstraction might mean, and subsequently leading to turns of play in daily events.
Understanding that comes from going into this question of consciousness, whatever it is, will turn out to be most practical regarding matters of humanity’s survival. Operant learning claimed to have such
a bias, addressing only the practical behavior, but I think that as time has gone on the obvious limitations of the behaviorists, such as Watson and Skinner(i. e., not examining their own epistemology) let the “to have” and “to be” component of the meaning of behavior go by the wayside.
At any rate, I wonder what other inquirers of Bohm’s work have to say?
Nick Consoletti 7-13-99
[The site] looks good. I feel all those Bohm and Dialogue sites should be linked to each other. So, if you don't mind I would like to make a link from my Bohm Dialogue site to yours.
Good luck with your project.
William van den Heuvel 7-13-99
Fascinating site. All dialogue groups ought to have something similar.
One of the strange things about Bohm dialogue groups is that they seldom
communicate with one another so it is difficult to discover what is
going on in different places. This site may, I hope, establish a precedent.
Don Factor 6-4-99
Thanks for letting me know about your website and inviting the posting of a memo onto your message board. Delighted the Proposal seems to be of some
help, and would be pleased in due course to let you know a little about the dialogic work I am now doing.
Peter Garrett 3-14-99
Thanks for sending me your website page. I am very impressed by it. My warmest greetings to all the group.
Saral Bohm 3-11-99.
You have a very nice website. I will be happy to pass on the word about the Eugene dialogue group; I have been working with Peter Senge, Fritjof Capra, Humberto Maturana and Joe Jaworski recently. Peter and I have been collaborating for a few years now. This past June I became a Research Trustee on the Council of Peter's Society for Organizational Learning. I am now conducting learning organization research at Creswell Schools and Hewlett Packard as well as helping Peter to establish a Society for Organizational Learning fractal in South America. Using the Biology of knowledge (Piaget) and the Biology of Cognition (Maturana) Peter, myself and a few others are reframing learning organization.
Dennis Sandow 3-5-99
I thought it a beautiful web page - easy to read and navigate. I liked this: "What is needed is a means by which we can slow down the process of thought in order to be able to observe it while it is actually occurring." I have always marveled at our verbal behavior. How does it work? How do I know what to say as I say it? Why do I pause in conversation at times? Why is there a torrent sometimes? Bohm et al.'s reference to present thoughts depending on past thoughts reminded me of BF Skinner's radical behaviorism, wherein (as I understand it) all behavior is dependent upon the consequences of past behavior... Bohm seems to interpose himself between past behavior and consequences, asking if (or rather asserting that) perhaps past consequences were affected by failure to heed the ramifications of one's own behavior prior to the consequences.
Todd Gastaldo 3-5-99