Why am I mounting a denial of myself? Human consciousness, which is in crisis and in conflict, is its content, and whereas a particular biological entity, and seat of consciousness may be separate, with a slightly different content, consciousness itself is one and the same. Therefore why is one fragment picturing a requirement to perform a thing it calls ‘dialogue’ together with another, as though it was not that ‘other’, and not the exact same consciousness as that ‘other’, with no further step to be taken? How can its offer of a thing it sees as dialogue, function as conflict resolution, when the perception it is based on is conflictual? Can it not be seen that what is driving it to seek this, is instrumental in reinforcing the division it is trying to set aside? When human consciousness itself is the thing called dialogue, with no start and no end, and whose expression is taking the form of violence and conflict, then no subset of it is going to overcome the division it is. What I am trying to point out, is that the take on dialogue here is too parochial a thing to ever bear fruit, and that the problem around communicating or meeting is deeper than is allowed for here. When I claim to want to meet yet cannot meet right here, right now, as is, I can have no one to address over it but myself.
But it does bear fruit; that is what I said right at the start. That is why I am pushing for it. If we really want to meet one another we shall do so regardless of every other obstacle. That is the seed; and the fruit is contained in the seed.
**And that seems true. But generally when someone says something “only happens in relationship,” that means human relationship, versus a relationship with ‘memories of people’. Conveying a meaning out of the ordinary context is what generally leads to disagreement.
What others may do to us is cause for fear, but so is what animals, insects, and micro-organisms may do to us, so why limit it to fear of other people? As I’ve said, we have nothing to fear until we think of something…anything.
What’s “simple” is your certainty that you are correct when you are clearly mistaken. Fear is not limited to “our relationships to one another”.
I’ve seen no evidence of it. Perhaps you could provide some?
**That’s the whole point isn’t? To ‘see’ or observe the nature of the cultural conditioning, the system of thought, creating the illusion of division, which leads to all of the conflict.
**It’s not a denial of anything to look from not knowing. It is a denial if it’s a movement of thought trying to end thought. A ‘thought-created-me’ trying to get rid of a ‘me’. The intention of K or Bohm dialogue is to observe choicelessly, which means from ‘not knowing’. If we’re observing what is together, from not knowing, it’s not denying anything, it’s a non-exclusionary observing. If we’re analyzing what is, that’s not observing together. ‘That’ would be thought in denial of itself.
But that’s the real question it seems…what are we actually doing in dialogue? Are we observing from not knowing, or, continually objecting according to the conditioned memory? Are we judging what we hear in dialogue, or observing together free of the ‘word’, the ‘me’?
Ah! But I didn’t say that.
Not quite the whole point - which is why we ask questions like : “who is observing the conditioning?” or “can conditioning observe itself?”
That is it seems what was the “intention”, whether it happened or not , we can’t ‘know’.My impression of their dialogues, rightly or wrongly, was that K. was always ‘in charge’. He moved the talk forward, not skipping over things he wanted to bring up. He was the one who did the ‘correcting’ as in “no, no, no!”. Bohm served to provide the ‘logic’ a lot of the time that may have been jumped over, as in " well you see, that doesn’t make sense, etc. They made a great team I thought, but as I saw it, it was to get K’s message out as clearly as possible to those who might be interested. We don’t have that dynamic here, do we?
We’re the recipients of all that and now bringing here what we think may be of interest to others what we have over the years found and are finding to be true in ourselves… and of course hearing what others have to say.
It would seem that Paul is offering something up that we don’t seem to be able to fully grasp (although we probably see a part of it. Eg: relationship as a mirror ) - now we are encouraging (challenging?) him to explain himself - and unfortunately we are still not getting it. Quite why we are not getting it is still to be confirmed.
**Not in those exact words, but what you pointed to in your response was memory. Isn’t this referring to memory: “What I am saying is that our human fears have their roots in relationship - probably from the earliest days in the cradle - and they are generally about what the other people may say (have said in the past) or do to us.”
Where is all of this past relationship experience stored, if not in memory, the known? If we’re by ourselves, and fear arises with regard to past relationships, that’s memory isn’t it?
so if we can’t in words explain what " a dialoque is, let’s look to the word itself.!
“dia” for example is not two or more but ‘through’ or ‘via’ and
“loque” has something to do with language and logic.
so by being in dialogue seems to be through or via words and logic coming possibly coming together in a common understanding.
Then what is ‘meeting’ beyond the word, given the context is human consciousness, of which there is only the one?
Yes, but when I am serious does it take my whole life to see that, or do I see that and move on, in which case what then is dialogue, and who or what is it between?
**I’ll offer one observation. “Deeply listening.” Not a superficial listening according to any opinions one may have, but rather to hear what each speaker is trying to convey, as they see it. Listening and observing are beyond the word. And analyzing shouldn’t be confused for listening or observing.
Yes, but given this is so, when I am able to listen deeply, what am I really listening to? And if that listening is meeting, why am I asking ‘other’ if it wants to meet?
The implication is that you actually do “meet” with others, but I find this literally incredible. You’re usually on the defensive, sounding more like a K-imitator than someone who is truly interested in what K was trying to communicate.
**I suppose that being on this website, you’ve perhaps encountered K’s questions related to an X and Y human beings. X is ready to listen, and Y may not be. So, out of consideration, there’s an asking, an invitation to listen and observe together. The other person may not be interested. More importantly, if we don’t observe together, what we’re all doing in relationship, then humanity will continue to act out of the same incoherence in thought that’s currently creating the divisiveness and conflict.
**I have no idea about the hypothetical question of taking a whole life. Seeing doesn’t take time. But if the fact of no division is seen, that’s a seeing that you are humanity. So, ‘Who’ would be ‘moving on’, and to where? If you’re looking for a description of who or what is it between, try this one: The dialogue is essentially ‘humanity’ having a dialogue with itself.