Replying to LO24915 --
Andrew quoted from Bill Isaacs on the topic of dialogue
>People recognize that their thoughts--in
>the form of collective assumptions and choices--create and sustain
>fragmentation and separation.
snip
>At this point, the distinction between memory and
>thinking becomes apparent. People may find it hard to talk together using
>the rigid categories of previous understanding. The net of their existing
>thought is not fine enough to begin to capture the subtle and delicate
>understandings that begin to emerge. This too may be unfamiliar and
>disorienting. People may find that they do not have adequate words and
>fall silent. Yet the silence is not an empty void, but one replete with
>richness.
Thanks for this Andrew. I would like to respond by telling a story out of
my journey in relation to what is referred to here as dialogue.
When I was in my late teens from time to time I would find myself in a
conversation where a line of questioning emerged between those of us
involved (usually but not exclusively two people) that took on a "life of
it own" and penetrated through four or five layers of underlying
assumptions to a level where I felt that the quality of intelligence that
had begun the conversation was no longer actively engaged; it was as if
this initiating level of intelligence had gone into in a form of suspended
animation, witnessing the conversation but no longer actively
contributing. The intelligence that was active seemed to emerge in some
way as the conversation deepened and slowed until it seemed as if time
itself had vanished, to be overtaken by Eternity. It seemed that a greater
intelligence, a being perhaps, of quite a different order than our normal
human intelligence, immensely deeper, slower, more resonant and endlessly
present emerged into the conversation whilst our normal intelligences
simply witnessed what passed before us. Somehow these timeless moments
would pass away, only to emerge again when the conditions were right. Some
people would recoil from them. My own response was love, and perhaps a
kind of awe, but without understanding, as I had no reference points, nor
the capacity to process these experiences. Only more questions.
Gradually over the years these conversations lessened in frequency and
then died away (despite efforts to find my way back to them) apart from
occaisional glimpses. I remembered them though. Love kept them alive in me
like precious seeds. But I could not remember the way back. All I could
remember was that increasingly deep questions seemed to provide the
vehicle, particularly questions about the nature of reality - but
specifically what kinds of questions I did not know. These conversations
sparked a long and sometimes tortuous journey into a variety of so called
spiritual practices and traditions, almost to the point where I became so
confused that I forgot the original impulse that had welled up of its own
account through these conversations (or dialogues).
Then just a month or so ago I again found my way back into such a
conversation. The spark was a question shared between a friend and I about
what is happening to human consciousness as the global internet
conversation begins to develop and quicken. The context was having worked
through a difficult conflict of interest between the two of us over a few
days previous to this conversation. Having found myself unable to access
these depths of conversation over many years I was enthusiastic about
spending some time reflecting afterwards on what sorts of questions seemed
to have provided the capacity for this deeper shared intelligence to
emerge into our exchange. It seems to me now that one key idea is hidden
in the meaning caught up in the word "agreements". In particular that by
surfacing and exploring the tacit linguistically constructed agreements
that we employ to enable what we call conversation or perhaps dialogue. It
is as if under certain circumstances we can begin to "vertically" explore
the agreements themselves, rather than simply employ them for the purposes
of sharing assum ed meanings. The depth of vertical exploration seems to
be connected to getting down to those agreements that concern the present
moment nature of our agreements about what constitutes reality.
So perhaps dialogue is itself a kind of hall with many doorways on each
side, but also stairs leading to upper and lower floors?
Warm regards
Mark
Mark Feenstra
mark@bookrite.com
PO Box 99 193
Newmarket, Auckland, New Zealand
Ph. 64 9 307 3770
Fax 64 9 307 3740
--"Mark Feenstra" <mark@strategiclearning.co.nz>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.