Dialogue Question: To be discovered
Greetings Everyone,
Thanks to everyone who attended last Saturday for Jackie’s facilitation. Everyone I’ve talked to found it interesting and we look forward to the possibility of her returning again.
September has 5 Saturdays, so we’re going to insert an extra dialogue this coming weekend.
And at the suggestion of Douglas Macrae Smith we’re going to be experimenting with dialogue a little bit this week. I’ve included his proposal for the experiment as well as the topic he’s suggesting for your review.
Douglas will run Dialogue I, and Crina has agreed to run Dialogue II. I will be present to assist.
Time changes are happening this time of year, and unfortunately the time changes on different dates in different parts of the world. This weekend, New Zealanders and Australians will start 1 hour later. The rest of us will start at the regular time.
Here are the dates of the time changes
New Zealand 9/24/23 +1 hour
Australia 10/1/23 +1 hour
Europe 10/29/23 -1 hour
US 11/5/23 -1 hour
India, Malaysia, Hawaii – no change
The universal times of the dialogues remain the same
Dialogue I at 3 PM UTC
Dialogue II at 11 PM UTC
See you Saturday,
John
Douglas’s suggestion:
I would like to propose another experimental game (in dialogue) : Focusing exclusively on one person’s question at a time - preferably a “real” question, as in something that the person is actually confused about.
And the rules would be (once we have encountered an interesting question) to begin by determining whether we have really heard the question being asked. This would be done by repeating in our own words what we have understood the question to be (repeating the question in our own words).
Once we are happy that we have all agreed what the question is (by this repetition, which is a process that is often recommended in Bohm dialogue) - we can move on to the second and final part of the game.
The second part of the inquiry would be to find out what the source of the question is.
By which I mean what presuppositions and conflictual ideas the question might be based on.
I suppose we could do so by revealing (via speculation and questioning) what the question implies.
That’s it - the goal is to find out whether it is possible to resolve a question without the habit of merely reacting with our habitual answers and conclusions.
Here’s a quote from a conversation between K and D Bohm in Ojai 1980 :
The Division Between Insight & Darkness
K: The person living with insight and the one not living from insight are a construct (of the mind). The person living in darkness can move away to the other (side) at any time.
DB : Yes, nothing holds us there, except that we constantly keep turning the wrong way.
I am constantly creating division.
K : By wanting to live in a space with no division, I am constantly creating division.
I constantly create and maintain the wall between insight and selfishness. And thus I live in this state of wanting not to live in this state.
What am I to do if I see that this is what I do?
Zoom Info & Link:
Schedule: 1st, 3rd & 5th Saturdays of the month
(or Sundays following the 1st, 3rd & 5th Saturdays for E Asia, OZ, and NZ)
Times:
Dialogue I at 3 PM UTC
Dialogue II at 11 PM UTC
See the attached Schedule for the time in your time zone or check the time at Kinfonet.org under Dialogue groups.
Duration: 2 hours
Zoom link to join:
