Questionnaires:

Ten out of the fourteen questionnaires were sent back to me, and almost five years later, six of those respondents are still involved in the dialogue exploration. I used these questionnaires as a heuristic device to see if the people involved saw any practical value to this experience in their daily living of their daily world. And my formulations were fashioned to determine through responses if there was any other applied value to the dialogue experience. In my view the members who have sustained dialogue have experienced a shared flow of meaning between each other with the accompanying unfoldments that lead to new meanings. For example, this group exhibited enhanced listening skills that contributed most definitely on remarkable occasions to clear articulations that came into their individual cognizance through the self-organizational process of reflection at a later point in time.

The one detractor that you will find referred to left the group in the first year, and I might add that one other person who left the group early due to the need to care for her children, responded affirmatively that dialogue was constructive in practical events and contributed to the creativity necessary to meet the challenge to learn to think in a new way. Of course Einstein, Bateson, and other have argued this. I leave it to the reader to decide whether Bohmian dialogue, as Bohm and his colleagues have it, makes a contribution to the harmony of the individual, social cultural, and cosmological dimension of the human being that points to a wholeness which further aids in the dictatorial circumstances of daily living

Sept. 19, 1995

Greetings

As you may remember, I initiated and participated with you in the formation of a Dialogue group in Eugene, Oregon following the guidelines of Dr. David Bohm and colleagues. We began on February 24th, 1994 with the aim of meeting every other Thursday to explore the idea of dialogue as refined by Dr. Bohm and colleagues. As you know, I am working toward the Ph.D. in Philosophy at the Union Institute, and for that reason asked that you sign an agreement allowing me to use our experience of Dialogue to further my academic project. The agreement assured your confidentiality.

I stopped participating regularly with the group (since that time once every two months) some fifteen months later on April 20, 1995, and I am currently in the process of reporting my findings. I ask those of you who were involved with the Dialogue’s first steps to respond to the enclosed set of questions about your experience. Your responses will be treated with the utmost confidentiality. For example, your name will not be associated with your response to the following questions. I will be the only researcher to see your response.

Please consider these questions and feel free to use whatever means necessary to respond. Thank you for assisting me in this inquiry into Dialogue.

Sincerely,

Nick Consoletti

The Questions that I asked the Participants were:

1. What has been your experience of dialogue?

2. Is this approach of dialogue as proposed by Dr. David Bohm and colleagues relevant to daily living issues and useful, for example, in community issues in Eugene, Oregon.

3. Do you consider this experience of dialogue as proposed by Dr. David Bohm and colleagues to be contributive to the healing of humanity and the Planet ?

Ten of fourteen responded. The numbered sequencing of Participants is for convenience and the persons reply immediately follows each question.

P1

Question One: What has been your experience of dialogue?

"It was a very enjoyable experience for me. I like the way it was like a group meditation and the way that we got to watch ourselves and each other through our communal exploration of meeting thinking and patterning. It was potentially a very enriching, edifying, intimate experience. I could see how it could be very different for any one depending on their degree of openness and attention."

Question Two: Is this approach of dialogue as proposed by Dr. David Bohm and colleagues relevant to daily living issues and useful, for example, in community issues in Eugene Oregon.

"I think it is very relevant to communal living in that things -- habits, patterns, dispositions, etc., are really brought to the surface. If someone is really paying attention they could get a good look at themselves and who they are dialoguing with."

Question Three: Do you consider this experience of dialogue as proposed by Dr. David Bohm and colleagues to be contributive to the healing of humanity and the Planet ?

"Yes, I do. I think it is an excellent arena for people to get together on neutral ground to listen to one another as well as to look at oneself and see habit or patterns that are negative, to work on".

P2

Question One: What has been your experience of dialogue?

"I feel fortunate to have been a part of [the] dialogue and I was pleased as punch that Nick was initiating a dialogue group and that I was involved in preparatory discussion. I was also happy to help find a location (bragging rights). I remember being with Nick and Quinine at [not his real name] at a coffee shop. What’s his name and I pledging our support to help him in his endeavor. So a big part of my experience was the joy of partaking in a project that was launched by a friend of mine. I also like having been around the conversation for a dialogue group from before, during, now and after. For me the next elements were the attraction of curiosity and the excitement of the unknown. A great part of the experience for me was the tingling thrill of tension brought forth from sitting in a room with thirty or so people, most of them strangers with no set agenda waiting to see who would speak and what they would say, and then enjoying the avalanche that was set off with almost everyone wanting and vying to respond. What a blast! Another great part of this experience was the guiding thoughts of Bohm and Krishnamurti. The notion of keenly noticing our thoughts and reactions, and inquiring into the origination of these thoughts and reactions are emotional hazards. Having Bohm’s work as a reference or source point provided some rigorousness to the dialogue; that is, when we challenge ourselves to make use of it. This reminds me to mention we were overall a gang of know thyself nuts. that is, many of the regular attendees were interested even outside of the dialogue circle were training in evolving themselves in self awareness. So there was an understanding of an ownership of our personal transformative mushroom stuff -- shit -- that’s me talking. Even if the practice of ownership wasn’t already immediately forthcoming. There were fits, tiffs, tits for tats and reactions and to some degree these interactions were cleaned up with ownership. We would often hear someone proclaim "We’re only human" or, "We’re human beings,. I’m just being human", "We are human after all." There are times when people including myself always were very serious and significant. I think that is when we were caught up in protecting and defending a pet belief If we as a group did have any agreed to ground rule it was to look at any of our unnegotiables that were concealed. There were mixed results efforted and it was certainly a worthwhile intention. A major component of the dialogue experience for me was in relationship to attendance, according to Bohm Chapter 9 verse 6 a dialogue group is looking for thirty to forty people for maximum effectiveness So there was a call for folks to invite others to participate. So part of my experience of dialogue was sharing my dialogue experiences outside the dialogue group with friends an acquaintances, and inviting them to join us and try dialoging. I enjoyed sharing with people and inviting them, generally. Some accepted the invitation, others didn’t. Some people I invited said they were interested but couldn’t make it this week, so they asked me to call them for the next gathering. What I noticed is that I didn’t manage these requests well at all. They would slip out of existence only to be remembered while sitting in the dialogue circle, wishing I had brought people with me to bring our numbers up. So after awhile the thoughts I didn’t have time to invite people and I don’t want to begin to"thunk me regularly. They were the smoke screens covering up my feelings of failure around effectively inviting people. After awhile, I was wallowing in hope in regards to the issue of attendance, hoping others would take care of bringing the necessary warm bodies, or hoping that the attendance of thirty five would magically occur without effort. I see looking back that I charged myself with an accountability for attendance. To add to this attendee dilemma, part way through the year a group of dialoguers split off to form their own Celestial Seasonings discussion group. Even if some of those folks were contentiously verbose, I miss them. I don’t think that we ever rallied to within Bohmian best possible scenario from that point forth. My experience of dialogue was also a product of what my intentions were in being part of the dialogue group. I came to the group like the bear who came to the mountain to see what I could see. I also had no intention of being miserable so I came with fun in mind. I also came to contribute whatever wisdom I could to the compost. Lastly I was committed to gleaning value for myself. I listened for the gold so I came prepared to create the experience. Whatever it was is valuable. I think one to hearing folks express this, that many people expected something to occur out of the dialogue group. Even if they didn’t specify exactly what they were looking for, they were disappointed nonetheless by its absence. Expectation, unfulfilled disappointment. So lastly I’m appreciative to have experienced participatory dialogue."

Question Two. Is this approach of dialogue as proposed by Dr. David Bohm and colleagues relevant to daily living issues and useful, for example, in community issues in Eugene Oregon.

"My most memorable quote from the dialogue group is What if we were to listen what others said as if we were speaking the words? One of the most vital components dialogue has to defer to daily living issues our primarily relationships and our community interactions is the training and developing of ourselves as listeners. This would be truly relevant and possibly very fruitful for ourselves as inhabitants of a shared space (earth, that is) in all its divisions and compartmentalizations. What a word. Questionable -- Questioning ourselves as to whether or not I am listening to what this person is saying or am I formulating my reaction, having my response, preparing my reply, separating our judgments, evaluations and criticisms of the person and what the person is saying from actually hearing what the person is saying. I found that in listening to people and in turn being listened to a relationship developed. Even the people I found disagreeable became tolerant or even affectionate towards -- Basically I guess we were honoring the presence of the other. So maybe if people viewed life as a large participatory dialogue, an ever unfolding evolving conversation and inquiry, we could relate to everyone with respect as an equal participant. Their game could be How well can I listen to you? instead of Do I agree or disagree with you? As I mentioned, in my experience of dialogue another element of dialogue which would be relevant in general public use is practice of self-observation and awareness. Instead of looking for who to blame, we would be looking at a responsibility in every matter. I can see that there is a gap or maybe in relating the first proposition to the second statement people’s focus or background or intention in dialogue is to be of observing their assumptions, perception, interpretations, reactions, beliefs, etc.. We can uncover the hidden unnegotiable assumptions we have, we can begin to own them, track their history, unravel them, and have some power over them as opposed to them finally controlling us so our emotional response or reactions to someone’s speaking or actions will begin to be about us , not about them. We can allow people the space to be whatever they are. On one of my favorite jokes, a psychologist walks up to another psychologist at a party and slaps him, and the slapped psychologist pauses shrugs, says, That’s his problem, and walks away. The more we know and appreciate ourselves, the more relate to an appreciate others..

Question Three: Do you consider this experience of dialogue as proposed by Dr. David Bohm and colleagues to be contributive to the healing of humanity and the Planet ?

"The possibility for healing and growth through the dialogue experience was certainly present for me. As I said, I came at least one question I pose to measure the quality of my relationships on a daily basis is: Am I listening as if I were the speaker.? So, in the sense that I gain something that I will contribute to the world, I came into contact with. Yes, I consider the experience successful in those terms. As I said earlier, if we relate to life as dialogue, then I would have questions as to what they mean by ‘healing of humanity and the planet.’ By listening to their answer I might discover that those areas of concern for them involving humans on the planet, I may not agree, but I would look anew from their perspective as a function of fully listening. Then I might propose that if we were as a species just making traces and reaping the consequences, then maybe there is no right or wrong, and therefore no illness. Everything is just the way it is. What would be the need for healing if there is no illness. But if we were making choices and reaping consequences, in my viewpoint regarding some choices and consequences as they are beneficial to all, or have some other value, then the game I could play might be inviting others to join me in those choices, not because those choices were right are better. And so the inquiry loops on. I would have to wonder about my proposal: Why do I feel or think or believe that way? And I would be interested in hearing what somebody else had to say, as it might add to my hearing or understanding or appreciation of the situation. So maybe with Bohmian approach strategies or methods, I wonder if he would cringe about it being labeled a strategy, life might be more fluid, and in apparent non working situations people more flexible, open and free. Life could be conceived as an inquiry instead of life as opinion."

P 3

Question One: What has been your experience of dialogue?

"What I felt most of all has just been a shared common goal. It was magical. I experienced more than the sum of the individual comments, but I learned that with the implicit rule of no rules that group dynamics could be dominated by one individual. With others powerless to get the group unstuck. The group then was a micro version of what occurs in larger settings. Some people find that fascinating. I don’t. I find many more things interesting than the effect that an angered or insecure or (. . .) might have on a small group of well-meaning dialogue participants.

Question Two Is this approach of dialogue as proposed by Dr. David Bohm and colleagues relevant to daily living issues and useful, for example, in community issues in Eugene Oregon?

"No. Because it is ineffective because it has no internal checks and balances. Its nature is to believe all people will paddle in the same direction. As a model it is flawed for our society embraces laws which govern how people can influence the system. I might not like either that system or the dialogue as a model but I am especially critical of using the dialogue form as a way of solving community issues. It doesn’t work because selfishness can dominate. Not just material selfishness but simple egotism soap box preachings that might be a good form for some to let off steam perhaps with a direct benefit to the community at large."

Question Three: Do you consider this experience of dialogue as proposed by Dr. David Bohm and colleagues to be contributive to the healing of humanity and the Planet ?

"We have to cure selfishness first, in my opinion, which will take steps that are not taught or learned by those that might need it most. Sorry to be pessimistic on this. I’ve watched how subtly people can destroy others spirit and willingness to contribute because of unawareness of their bullheaded answers which they bring to the group. Until a mechanism is introduced to alleviate that, it will be self eliminating."

P4

Question One: What has been your experience of dialogue?

"I have never read in any depth the writing of David Bohm with the exception of a few essays. I think the crux of his thought is that dialogue is an ongoing process. Naturally, our own expectations will shape our experience with the group in dialogue. I would be extremely skeptical on any quest for pure objectivity. But what I understand of dialogue, there is no proposition or a way to pure objectivity. But the participants often heard that in cases refining thought or an overlay of thought perhaps described as light. Often the word light would set the participants into a religious groove, or a phenomenologist or agnostic camp, causing a division in the group. Some of those divisions would lead the participants in search of new metaphors, sometimes outright disagreements. With the embellishment of metaphors, often the personal agendas of the participants were revealed or stripped away as well. Often there was an initial attention to some group members. There were accusations of agendas, power trips, and emotional outbursts. Personally speaking I find dialogue an ongoing process with whatever emotional tumult or search for the good and the beautiful. The minds of the participants were ever-changing and new. Again the focus on listening and the non hierarchical approach seem to be central to Mr. Bohm. The group seemed to hold to these two important tenets of dialogue groups. Non hierarchical and listening. I would like to mention that there is a Buddhist link to Dr. Bohm’s thought. It is well know that Dr. Bohm and the Dalai Lama have met and discussed consciousness. I have heard the Dalai Lama stress the word dialogue between people, nations and members of religious communities. It can be said that Dr. Bohm has influenced the Dalai Lama and his ideas of social dialogue, I can say personally that I have found dialogue a window of opportunity for people to boil down differences, if not to reveal what lies behind our personas. It is very revealing process. I find that dialogues ‘s weak perspectives are when people in the group have too much intellectual baggage, and the conversation becomes too psychotherapeutic, religious or pure phenomenology. Once again, speaking personally, in our erratic compulsive behavior or inane insane behavior in myself or in other group members cannot be discounted either. Such shortcomings are, no doubt, part of our materialistic, harried, overwrought society and can perhaps be healed through discussions, What I observed as Buddhist, the emphasis on the intangibility of inherent existence, subjective or objective truth. Examination of discursive thoughts, techniques for purifying thoughts or seeing purely has much in common with dialogue."

Question Two:. Is this approach of dialogue as proposed by Dr. David Bohm and colleagues relevant to daily living issues and useful, for example, in community issues in Eugene Oregon?

"I find dialogue would be a community need in Eugene if people in Eugene could tell the truth. Eugene is a very dualistic society. For example, we have as a community had to deal with Hyundi. Community forums were set up. One hundred people testified. On the surface, a panel was set up so this all could be heard. Unfortunately, the most time was given to the experts and specialists. Community people refused to acknowledge each other. There was no interest in anyone to get to know each other. Eugene as a whole is in a state of denial. The process that our elected officials that our elected officials to invite this cooperation showed a flawed lack of concern for notifying the public. And the forums were staged choreography as a democratic process. What Eugene has is good clean air and water, a low population density, good clean air and water, university, shining city on a hill. Unfortunately, there’s a huge real estate land development with no planning, and more people coming. The last effort to protest before the new technology (computer chips) which is here. Welcome California."

Question Three: Do you consider this experience of dialogue as proposed by Dr. David Bohm and colleagues to be contributive to the healing of humanity and the Planet ?

"I think there is a small light dialogue can place on our current situation. Other small lights are true religious practices of rejoicing in the nexus of oneself and in others, that all can come to some omniscience (Buddhism). In the West practice of charity is praised and is a noble endeavor. In Christianity at least. In Buddhism offerings are made to the local protectors demons gods and what it be. Perhaps people in the West when they light a candle make similar offerings. Yet it is inconceivable to most Westerners, this animism {mumbling}. Sadly people of the highest intellectual capacity as well as those of the mass culture with atrophied intellect are really out of touch with the cosmic dance. (At this juncture I must apologize for generalizing about those with high intellects and those with atrophied intellects. Human beings are quite complex and are truly astonishing and more praiseworthy than damnable. The population on one sense the more refined the population is given to ease and effortlessness, command of information, nobility of the civilizing influence, liberalism, multicultural involvement of the individual is paramount. Yet, however, instead of a stronger more harmonious person, often you have an abstract broken human being with no roots and a culture as passŽ, let’s say, espresso. Dialogue in one sense can be viewed as cool or like espresso, for jaded bourgeois wanting to have a dialogue but more concerned with being haven’t heard that Eugene is the Birkenstock crowd and the Dockers crowd aptly described by a syndicated columnist. And, unfortunately, whether you drive a BMW or wear Birkenstocks, you must deal with the bureaucrats of your particular culture. bureaucrats must perpetuate themselves. If not they must have often new bureaucracies. Unfortunately as well this syndicated columnist pontificating on Hyundi, Eugene, spin-offs, so far into different digressions where he doesn’t say anything at all. Most people seem to have little hope for all of us. Most visionaries have their blinders on as well. About the most Eugene has for a vision is a county fair, and what a commercial feeding frenzy that is. At least Ben and Jerry have a new ice cream flavor: Berry Garcia."

P 5

Question One: What has been your experience of dialogue?

"Thanks for allowing me this opportunity to express some of my feelings about Bohemian dialogue. sometimes personal opinions of participants are neglected by the benefit of the group dynamic. The progress of content has not the expectation of result or conclusions. To be concerned with any gain only results in frustration. Insights only occur without attachment. So the goal of the process is inquiry, original and shared thought that is coherent is exciting in a motive. It draws one into the demand of listening and the relationship between minds. Attending diligently can bring true insights into oneself. This is the experience to nurture. Learning to listen is a tool to develop, and with emotions running high at times, it is most difficult to hear what is really going on. Opinion is the one thing dialogue never seems to run out of. The other tool I have noticed is the springboard effect of dialogue on dialogue. Sometimes the spirit of overanalysis reaches a saturating point and there’s a feeling in the group of what it means to have no agenda. The focus on exploration is a vector where we ride and when no attempts are made to control. There is a subtle shift of flow into thoughts the group is sharing. Losing oneself and becoming one with the totality is a source of constant renewal. It is aliveness. Now that maintains the flow."

Question Two: Is this approach of dialogue as proposed by Dr. David Bohm and colleagues relevant to daily living issues and useful, for example, in community issues in Eugene Oregon?

"First of all it is only by personal experience that cannot be transmitted by words that quiet acknowledged direction is validated in ones life. Whatever the practical outcome will be, the community can only be richer and more diverse with the experiences through dialogue. Direct action will only occur by individual initiative and it take time to develop the clarity of right action. Apathy is the norm state and its usually because there is so much information and stress to filter and sort. Most folks recognize that they only have so much energy in a day, a week a month and a life goes by with self interest and survival of the fittest. Dialogue offers the forum for a kind of sharing, sometimes boring with selfish opinion or rude remarks, always flexible to allow this and another side drips away from the true search. The return to a sanity is the simplest of works. To return to the center that is alive with hope and offering nothing in return for your commitment.

Question Three: Do you consider this experience of dialogue as proposed by Dr. David Bohm and colleagues to be contributive to the healing of humanity and the Planet ?

"I should continue on the same general personal direction. That inner knowing, that what little one can do is sometimes enough. If there could be more true acting out of ones faith and personal ethic there would be more coordination in the process of healing ourselves, our environment, our planet. There is a tacit assumption that humanity wants the same things we want. There needs to be more conscious effort to be aware of these wants as needs. The life of the entire planet depends on this co-evolving attitude of "first things first, second things second" that would upset the current balance of power and selfish interest for good. of a simple logic for a survival we can shape We have to share to see that there is the love, the logic is inaccessible, it will take great heart and new values. This is will and dialogue. This will and dialogue as an offering to the original voice of Humanity."

P 6

Question One: What has been your experience of dialogue?

"Participating in the dialogue was instructive to me in uncovering more of the subtleties of my cultural and family conditioning. I believe that my background reading of Bohm’s work in dialogue and that of others as well was essential in helping me grow from the experience. At times I could see the incredible power of assumptions and beliefs. I recognized this in myself and I believe at times in other participants. There were many times that the dialogue seemed little more than an interesting discussion. Occasionally, however, a different spirit was present and it was at those times I saw the potential for dialogue."

Question Two: Is this approach of dialogue as proposed by Dr. David Bohm and colleagues relevant to daily living issues and useful, for example, in community issues in Eugene Oregon?

"It is my belief based upon my experience in dialogue that this avenue is certainly worth exploring. The key problem, it would seems to me, is insuring that the participants understand something of the nature of Bohm’s work. For example, that this is not a debate or a discussion. It is very difficult shift to me, naturally, but I certainly see it as one that we really need to make."

Question Three: Do you consider this experience of dialogue as proposed by Dr. David Bohm and colleagues to be contributive to the healing of humanity and the Planet ?

"I feel confident it does contribute in such a way. The question of degree is one I can’t answer, however. By this I mean I cannot judge how large an impact it can make. That is far beyond my perspective. I feel comfortable in claiming I don’t know what a healed humanity would look like, to be quite honest. I’m sure there are quite a few notions about that floating around, some of them undoubtedly contradictory. Suffice it to say his work and the dialogue experience have had value in my life and it seems reasonable to assume it can help others."

P 7

Question One: What has been your experience of dialogue?

"Prior to the bi-monthly meetings I had been introduced to dialogue as a method of communication by a organization development consultant. I primarily learned about dialogue through this professional field by Peter Senge and Margaret Wheatley. It was through the Thursday evening sessions that I began to expand my awareness of dialogue as well as expand my understanding of how it can be applied in the world to bring about change. Dialogue is a mechanism for individual as well as group transformation. Nick brought in articles and tapes that were essential for my learning regarding Bohmian dialogue The continued self study assisted me each time. I would read more, and then experience, I’d read and experience, then I began to be involved with dialogue on a national level seeking out other consultants who dialogue network Currently I’m writing a book including a chapter on dialogue. It has become part of my life. When I assumed the responsibility of gathering this group together and providing resources, we had . . . prior to the bi-monthly meetings I had been [ I lost that] . . .We have continued to meet bi-monthly, There is a core of about ten people that drift in and out. My husband and I both attend and occasionally my son. My experience of dialogue is to be a source for my personal life. I facilitate dialogue Spiritually on an ongoing basis."

Question Two: Is this approach of dialogue as proposed by Dr. David Bohm and colleagues relevant to daily living issues and useful, for example, in community issues in Eugene Oregon?

"It is relevant to daily issues. It is critical for cultural transformation, our world-view position is to find either-or in a situation. We look for one right way. Dialogue is relevant because it transcends difference and it goes beyond one view pitted against the other allowing for the diversity of the whole. In my work with an organization, dialogue has helped resolve differences and provided a forum for opinions to be voiced in a non-defensive atmosphere. It’s applications are vast and important. In my personal life dialogue has had a relevant impact on my relationships with my husband and my son. It has given me practice with my own inner work. I am very able to accept difference and see where my own perception comes in, in the way of healthy communication. It is relevant in the world and to a degree it is allowed it goes against our cultural grain in that it is not aiming at results or decision. It is difficult for people to realize the results when the results aren’t measurable. It’s difficult to get people to value taking time to engage with a process that is not results oriented. It is essential for personal, organizational and planetary change. It is not the only process to turn to. It is a viable and accessible one.

Question Three: Do you consider this experience of dialogue as proposed by Dr. David Bohm and colleagues to be contributive to the healing of humanity and the Planet ?

Yes most definitely it’s part of a whole movement towards transcending difference and using the potential of difference at the same time. I believe dialogue is an emerging thing. I believe there’s no right way for one kind of dialogue. Dialogue is the process of discovery. The important thing is that this process has begun and continues."

P8

Question One: What has been your experience of dialogue?

"I perceive dialogue as a social extension of the meditative practice of observation of thought, allowing (verbal) thoughts to pass through while maintaining a certain sense of attentive neutrality. I have come to notice patterns which otherwise one would have simply become caught up in. For me, then, dialogue has been chiefly a matter of listening to others and myself and noticing when I or others get caught up in particular types of verbal patterns. Agreement, disagreement, rambling, pet theory, exposition etc.. The primary importance that I attach to the practice of listening is the result of my observation that the value of the dialogue, as I judge it, afterwards seems to be far more dependent on my state of attention and on the content of the dialogue as such. Several times I have heard different people expressing radically opposed views on the quality of the dialogue session just past. And it seems that people can experience the same dialogue in very different ways depending on the style of listening and participation that they bring to it. Participation when it is appropriate can be tremendously energizing, but this trade off between the sense of focus which my own participation creates and a certain disruption of the calm openness that comes from dispassionate listening."

Question Two: Is this approach of dialogue as proposed by Dr. David Bohm and colleagues relevant to daily living issues and useful, for example, in community issues in Eugene Oregon

"I think that the main contribution of dialogue to everyday life comes from the training it gives of patient listening. I would say that I have become less argumentative in my everyday life as a consequence of my experience of dialogue. While it seems to me that the approach of dialogue should be highly relevant to the question of how community issues are decided, I think that there is a major problem in seeing how it could be applied to practice."

Question Three: Do you consider this experience of dialogue as proposed by Dr. David Bohm and colleagues to be contributive to the healing of humanity and the Planet ?

"Although I felt the dialogue has been a very useful experience for me personally, and I certainly will continue to explore it, I am pessimistic about what Bohm hoped for. The main problem is I have experienced in the Eugene group is that dialogue ultimately seems to appeal to only a small group of intellectual mis-fits. That is, while other kinds of people may come to the group at the beginning or later for a session or two the dialogue naturally comes to be dominated by the more aggressive and verbally fluent participants. It intimidates those who are less inclined to enjoy intellectual conflict. These people leave and we are left with a small group that is relatively homogenous, unfortunately. While a small group experience is certainly on an individual level psychotherapeutic, I am rather afraid that the effect in the end is one of deradicalization, and that the conservative element sin society which maintain the state of inter-group prejudice and conflict are never really effected. If I am right about this then the only hope is that if dialoguer’s come to realize what is happening, suggestions will arise for modifying dialogue as to it’s current limitations. In the long term then there is the hope that dialogue may evolve into something more generally effective in bringing about social harmonization."

P 9

"I will write about the three questions following the letter and the order 1-3-2, considering the general theory of how dialogue could work in societal decision making groups, before trying to apply the theory in a concrete way to the issue of growth in Eugene."

Question One: What has been your experience of dialogue?

"One of my life goals is to progress spiritually by becoming aware of unconscious assumptions, biases, beliefs, world views, and either to give these up entirely or to hold them more lightly. Whether or not such ‘relaxation’ exercises lead to some kind of ‘enlightenment’ as Buddhist imply, or merely to an ability to see more clearly and creatively doesn’t’ seem to matter very much. In either case the attempt at ungrasping is worthwhile. Dialogue, it seems to me, has been a new and successful way of helping me along the spiritual path of ungrasping. Curiously, this has not happened to me in a direct way by other’s questioning my assumptions, biases by the proprioception of thought, but through the discipline of concentrated listening. By hearing and understanding what other participants in the dialogue group are saying one enters somewhat into their world, takes it on, so to speak. The result when the new world clashes this quickly with my own is an automatic realization of my own presuppositions. At home afterwards I feel exhausted after all the work, exhilarated by new insights. Needless to say, I find dialogue very exciting. In addition, on a less serious note, the dialogue for me is often a great deal of fun, and I have come to enjoy many of the other participants."

Question Three: On can dialogue be contribute to the healing of humanity?

"Let’s take an oversimplified view of two contrasting paradigms: discussion and dialogue. Actually discussion seems to me to be too mild a term for what has become a dominant paradigm in our society, for discussion, to me, implies pursuit of truth albeit in an inefficient way, while on political talk shows and in government chambers we see people representing interest groups who already know the truth, and are interested only in selling their point of view and rebutting the opposition using any means, fair or foul. The mode is attack. The defense is to grasp tighter and concede nothing. The point is power. If one can get the votes, one can ram through one’s agenda. Goals are conceived narrowly, and as being in logical opposition to the goals of other parties. Group mentality. Us or them. The game is zero. Some compromise is either impossible or is on a one dimensional scale. Positions are locked in. There is no fluidity. Though what I have just described seems almost a parody of what I mean by discussion, I will, following Bohm, call it discussion. Looking at this discussion paradigm and considering the multiplicity of interest groups in our society, in the United States and Worldwide. It is no wonder that our solutions to problems only seem to make problems worse and that no-one is happy with the performance of the political system or their piece of the cake. When one considers Bohmian dialogue as a paradigm for problem solving and policy making in society, one sees that in almost every aspect mentioned above there is a marked contrast to the discussion paradigm. In dialogue we don’t know the truth. We are searching for it. We listen to the opposition and try to enter into their world, we try to follow the spiritual path of ungrasping from our assumptions, we realize that the other parties share some of our goals and that by the creativity that flows from ungrasping the goals can shift and broaden so that the area in common becomes larger. Other parties become our friends because in a sense we have walked in their moccasins. We understand our differences. The game tends toward win-win rather than zero sum compromise occurs in an open arena where there are multi-dimensional ways of looking at things and new policies to try. Finally, although the final outcome may ultimately depend on vote rather than consensus, this outcome will be more positive and better for all parties, because it reflects an area of common goals which have broadened and shifted in creative ways. When one states the two paradigms of social decision making as I have above it becomes blindingly obvious that Bohmian dialogue not only has a contribution to make but that a paradigm shift toward dialogue is an absolute necessity if we want to attack our problems and the fragmentation of society in an intelligent manner."

Question Two: Is this approach of dialogue as proposed by Dr. David Bohm and colleagues relevant to daily living issues and useful, for example, in community issues in Eugene Oregon?

"A concrete example, the issue of growth and development in Eugene [that’s the last question -- how could the theory be applied to the growth issue in Eugene?] This is an obvious issue to consider because we had a rather hot discussion -- yes, discussion -- in our dialogue group on this very issue. We all forgot for awhile our discipline and training in dialogue but towards the end we recovered. Unfortunately, the time was late so we quit so to speak. It needed a rest. Or, at least that was my feeling. Let’s begin by presenting this issue as it appears in the current reality of the discussion paradigm, limiting the interest groups to two: we hippies and new developers. I attach "we" to hippies and "you " to developers, because it appeared to me that everyone in our dialogue group tended to fall more or less in the anti-growth camp. It is remarkable how fierce the discussion in our group became, considering that we were all basically in agreement. We hippies: No growth! Keep Eugene like it is! Or was! We don’t need Southern California here! New developers, unconstrained growth, good for me, improved economic opportunities for everyone. I think we are all to familiar with how the discussion paradigm deals with these issues so I will just mention three examples. There are power plays in the city council, Hyundi is invited to Eugene without the invitation being made public. Voters vote down the Ferry Street Bridge project. Suppose we now imagine where dialogue might lead. First there are some uncomfortable facts for both sides. For the no growth hippies one can’t prevent new residents from coming to Eugene. There will be growth of population whether we like it or not. If we hide our head in the sand and do nothing we have passed up the opportunity to meliorate some of the bad side effects of population growth, and our worst fears will be realized. For the developers. You live here too? You’re not immune to being a member of the human race. Those who promote all kinds of growth are in fact birds who follow their own nests. Some morning you will wake up and realize you have destroyed the environmental community. It’s so easy attract people in outside companies to the Eugene area. For our dialogue to start we might realize that growth is too general a term. It has become a code word which signals which group one belongs to but no-one considers what it might really mean. In actuality there are millions of different kinds of growth. Some are material others intangible. Some are quantifiable others not. Here are some examples of possible growth statistics that occurred to me within a five minute period. Bicycle path lengths as a percent of city road length. Population density within the urban growth boundary. Public open space as a percent of the total scenery. Daily commute passenger miles. Average commute passengers per vehicle. Homeless people as a percent of city population. Number of start up business with in the city. Per capita income of the city residents. Percent population growth within each income quartile. Gang membership as a percent of high school population. A genuine dialogue would begin with people relaxing, talking about their dreams. It would become obvious that there are many shared goals. Few of us like heavy traffic, poverty, drug dealing, driveby shootings, the homeless, begin out of work. Many of us like a comfortable income, useful work, the river, bike paths, the new micro breweries, whatever parks one patronizes, Hendrix Park, Alton Baker Park . . . Oh, at this point I’ve run out of time. Also, quite apart from time pressure, it is hard for one person to imagine and come up with examples of where dialogue might lead. One of the main points of dialogue is that the group is more creative than any single person alone. So I will have to leave it here in abeyance. Perhaps we can get back on this topic some other time in the dialogue group and see if we can collectively come up with some exciting ideas, problems, opportunities. I can’t resist adding a small extra section to this response. I’ve been often accused of being negative because I tend to see problems. I will just say that seeing problems is perhaps not entirely negative for someone who makes his living by solving problems. Without problems life would be dull indeed. Problem one: in considering the possibility of interest groups dialoguing I feel an air of unreality. People who are locked in grasping discursive mode will have a hard time seeing dialogue as practical. some people have their agenda and want improved methods of promoting it. The thought of ungrasping and listening seems wildly impractical and idealistic. To put it bluntly, there is a credibility gap. To put it another way, the side that goes all out with disgusting propagandistic effort usually wins. Where is the motive to adopt a different paradigm? So, we who would promote dialogue face some difficult if not interesting questions. Imagine any group. What can we do to promote dialogue when the group consists of all A’s and one B? Fifty A’s and Fifty B’s. All B’s except for one A. Another problem is Business in our society. It is unlikely that people such as business executives, developers, city council members, or we hippies for that matter could find time to promote dialogue unless everyone felt that the idea had promise. Creative endeavors in dialogue is very much a creative endeavor, and gulps down vast quantities of time. Part of the answer to the problem is that people by and large spend time on their highest priorities.. If dialogue is seen as offering a worthwhile means of coming up with policies and decisions which are intelligent and have the support of diverse interests within society, it has the potential to become a high priority. Of course there is a catch 22 here. One has to find time to try dialogue without knowing whether it is worth while. Also, if dialogue is tried and reverts to discussion, the effect could be negative. It seems to me that we need to make a great deal of progress in dealing with problem one, keeping dialogue from slipping without violating the precepts of dialogue without before going all out to sell dialogue as a practical methodology. Good luck to all who would like to see dialogue as it’s intended; a spiritual growth force in society."

P 10

1. What has been your experience of dialogue?

"Part group therapy, part contemplation, part self-therapy. Very fascinating, sometimes exasperating. Much like a graduate seminar. But I’ve persisted for four years and will continue . . ."

2. Is this approach of dialogue as proposed by Dr. David Bohm and colleagues relevant to daily living issues and useful, for example, in community issues in Eugene, Oregon.

"Yes." Very valuable for any community politics."

3. Do you consider this experience of dialogue as proposed by Dr. David Bohm and colleagues to be contributive to the healing of humanity and the Planet ?

"Yes."

Contextual Essay ... by Nick Consoletti