Bohm discussion

[confused2]

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_Dialogue

Bohm Dialogue

(also known as Bohmian Dialogue or "Dialogue in the Spirit of David Bohm") is a freely flowing group conversation in which participants attempt to reach a common understanding, experiencing everyone's point of view fully, equally and nonjudgementally.[1] This can lead to new and deeper understanding. The purpose is to solve the communication crises that face society,[2] and indeed the whole of human nature and consciousness. It utilizes a theoretical understanding of the way thoughts relate to universal reality. It is named after physicist David Bohm who originally proposed this form of dialogue.

[C C]

[...] Dialogue should not be confused with discussion or debate, both of which, says Bohm, suggest working towards a goal or reaching a decision, rather than simply exploring and learning. Meeting without an agenda or fixed objective is done to create a "free space" for something new to happen. ... Each individual agrees to suspend judgement in the conversation. ... Individuals in the conversation try to build on other individuals' ideas in the conversation. (The group often comes up with ideas that are far beyond what any of the individuals thought possible before the conversation began.)

Hmmmph. On one hand it's nice to have a label for what might be applicable to the nature of this place or what could be potentially carried out here. "Welcome to Scivillage, welcome to Bohm Dialogue country. This is something different you've stepped into..." than the donnybrooks taking place in other forums and out in the chaotic reality of the streets over the past week.

But instead those who arrive from elsewhere often seem to want the fisticuffs variety of conversation. To wit: "Boo hoo, I'm bored -- this is so boring. OMG, I feel like I'm going to die of ennui if I hang around here any longer."

Then when they encounter Syne they seem to react as if what he's willing to deliver in that department is overkill or conspiratorial blinders or sheer political loathsomeness or tired bromides, platitudes, and misrepresentations or whatever it is that crinkles their noses. Anyway, they then gradually scurry off to rarely be seen again because it's "too much confrontational excitement".

So maybe Bohm dialogue or Bohm discussion would be the identity sign of this place to passively slap such confused, mixed up itinerants in the face with. Who pass through, who really don't seem to have a clue as to what they truly want. An austere symbol of "Hey, if you don't like either the shared exploratory serenity or the optional Republican swinging dick (def #3 or #2) then just piss-off already, since you're going to do it anyway."

[Secular Sanity]

He’s suggesting that meaning is going through and amongst people rather than an exchange where each person tries to win by making his or her view prevail. To talk while suspending personal opinions as it were holding them out in front of you for all the group to see the coherence or incoherence, while neither suppressing them, or insisting on them, or persuading others of their value. Instead, we just want to understand. He says that in a way it’s comparable to allowing the scientific spirit to infuse our conversation. We need to have a scientific attitude when we talk. For the most part we are listening to the opinions of all whether they are pleasing or outrageous. 

We’re suppose to see the whole meaning of everyone without having to make a decision on who is right or who is wrong. It’s more important to see the whole meaning rather than having any particular meaning prevail. The common content become all opinions at which we are looking. With this common coherent consciousness, we having a new kind of intelligence, capable of thinking together. Usually people in a group do not think together. Each one has his or her own idea and tries to get it across even though, he or she might sometimes accept a part of someone else’s opinion and thinking together, however, one person may have an idea and it passes to the next person, who will pick it up as though it was their own and it will go on like that just like it was one person thinking. The idea does not belong to anybody. This requires complete trust, which develops only if we’re able to get through all the obstacles to dialogue, through these unconscious modes of self-centeredness that I have mentioned.

Assumptions come out through conflict but also when people are trying to share meaning and not succeeding. You can see implicitly what the assumptions are and bring them out. Some people who are not caught up with these assumptions can see both assumptions. That’s why we need a fair-sized group. If you have just a few people, it’s not enough because people sort of adapt to each other, and don’t disturb each other, and don’t bring out each other’s assumptions. They avoid conflict as far as they can.

I like it but that’s because I assumed that’s what we were doing all along. I do, however, think that we need the big little swinging dick around. I like it when he calls me out on my shit. I let him know when I disagree with him but not when I agree him. Why? Because I’d never hear the end of it.

Also, CC does provide her personal opinions when asked and they’re well thought out. Yazata, not so much. You have to prod him, which gets tiresome.

[Syne]

The only communication crisis is that some people refuse to actually communicate. Instead, they get their feeling hurt and quit communicating or demand censorship. Yes, you have to deal with the fact that you will not like everything everyone else says. Yes, they may not agree with you and even criticize you. Yes, there will be some faulty assumptions, but the only way around that is more communication, not less. And no, snarky defensiveness is not communication - which involves being receptive (not a defensive trait), being able to echo what is said to you (at least in principle), and being willing to contribute.

Independents, libertarians, and conservatives have been practicing this a long time, while the left has gone off to sulk. These people are regularly faced with opposing views, and through communication with them, at least have a fairly thick skin and openness to engage.

[Secular Sanity]

The only communication crisis is that some people refuse to actually communicate. Instead, they get their feeling hurt and quit communicating or demand censorship. Yes, you have to deal with the fact that you will not like everything everyone else says. Yes, they may not agree with you and even criticize you. Yes, there will be some faulty assumptions, but the only way around that is more communication, not less. And no, snarky defensiveness is not communication - which involves being receptive (not a defensive trait), being able to echo what is said to you (at least in principle), and being willing to contribute.

Independents, libertarians, and conservatives have been practicing this a long time, while the left has gone off to sulk. These people are regularly faced with opposing views, and through communication with them, at least have a fairly thick skin and openness to engage.

There’s a difference between snark and witty banter though. Snark has malicious underpinnings. As someone once said, snark is not about spontaneous creativity. It’s about speedy meanness. Wit is assembling disparate ideas to delight. Snark is just rehashing the same contempt in new ways.

[Syne]

There’s a difference between snark and witty banter though. Snark has malicious underpinnings. As someone once said, snark is not about spontaneous creativity. It’s about speedy meanness. Wit is assembling disparate ideas to delight. Snark is just rehashing the same contempt in new ways.

Apparently you don't understand the difference, at least as it pertains to genuine communication. Wit at another's expense is snark. Any way you define it, wit is a defense mechanism, especially when used to avoid being receptive or being able to echo communication. So no matter the excuses, my point stands.

[Secular Sanity]

The only communication crisis is that some people refuse to actually communicate. Instead, they get their feeling hurt and quit communicating or demand censorship. Yes, you have to deal with the fact that you will not like everything everyone else says. Yes, they may not agree with you and even criticize you. Yes, there will be some faulty assumptions, but the only way around that is more communication, not less. And no, snarky defensiveness is not communication - which involves being receptive (not a defensive trait), being able to echo what is said to you (at least in principle), and being willing to contribute.

Yeah, you’re right. I’ve never really understood why people refuse to continually correct faulty assumptions, especially when they’re full of ad hominem slurs. {sarcasm} 

[Syne]

Yeah, you’re right. I’ve never really understood why people refuse to continually correct faulty assumptions, especially when they’re full of ad hominem slurs. {sarcasm} 

See the aforementioned comments on being snarky. If you can't express yourself without it being at the expense of others, expect likewise in return.

[Secular Sanity]

Yeah, you’re right. I’ve never really understood why people refuse to continually correct faulty assumptions, especially when they’re full of ad hominem slurs. {sarcasm} 

See the aforementioned comments on being snarky. If you can't express yourself without it being at the expense of others, expect likewise in return.

 Okie Dokie