Thank you, Michael. This might be one, if not the, oldest human struggle. Perhaps our species doesn’t live long enough to inculcate the lesson providing the solution. Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD (Perseveret et Percipiunt) Sent from my iPad > On May 11, 2021, at 4:56 PM, michael kazanjian <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. > Joan, Waldemar: > > It would be nice to have a mathematician maybe briefly join. This involves crisp AND fuzzy sets. Anthropologists Murray and Kluckhohn, Hillel, Teilhard, and others (to whom my book refers), would concur with Joan and you. > > All things > so connected are, > that you cannot touch a rock, > without influencing a star. > > Best, > > Michael >> On Tuesday, May 11, 2021, 06:43:30 PM CDT, Waldemar Schmidt <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> >> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. >> This is an interesting discussion. >> The underlying issue seems to be about respect for the other and treating them with dignity - that problem is well demonstrated by so-called “male chauvinism” - but it cannot be accurately perceived as solely a problem of aged males, white or otherwise. >> It is a pervasive and human problem - the solution to which is both and rather than either or - that’s a hard thing to achieve for humans (unfortunately). >> It seems too easy to see a problem starkly - such as Greta Thunberg vs Donald Trump - a comparison of the two leads to much more intelligent decision points. >> My life experience suggests viable, manageable, and rational solutions arise from male+female discussion. >> That seems a simple solution - sadly, one which is aggravatingly hard to employ. >> >> I will now step down from my soap box. >> >> Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD >> (Perseveret et Percipiunt) >> 503.631.8044 >> >> Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. (A Einstein) >> >> On May 11, 2021, at 3:06 PM, michael kazanjian <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. >> Dear Joan and All: >> >> Joan, thanks for your insights. Your thoughts help me recall a statement I once read about the White House. Men and women had gathered around a table. I cannot recall if it were the Cabinet or another situation. A woman, or group of women would propose an idea. The men would remain silent. Later, during that meeting or a different one, a male or group of them would propose the same or different idea. The males would start agreeing and positively comments on it. >> >> It appears that women's comments and proposals were not taken seriously, men's were. Thanks for the very good insight about linear, boundaried, and competitive. Society, including academia, has forgotten the nonlinear, cross-disciplinary, fuzzy or overlapping boundaries. Thank you for mentioning David Bohm. His holistic, systems perspective is crucial. He is influenced by A.N. Whitehead, a favorite of mine. Gregg's and your insights influence me. >> >> In the private sector, a few years ago I heard about the Crystal Cathedral or another case. The pastor retired or something, and he appointed his son instead of daughter to replace him. Things fell apart. The son was incompetent. A male friend of mine told me the story. After a while when the congregation left and the building was in trouble, the daughter was finally appointed to replace the son, but the situation was too late. I believe the Catholic Church may have bought the building. >> >> I love and concur with the criteria you list for good dialogue. Chapter seven, Management (justice, communication) of my Unified Philosophy: Interdisciplinary Metaphysics, Ethics, and Liberal Arts, 3rd. edition. Cognella Publishers, reflects and would concur with your ideas. I agree that Listening, silence, respect, voicing, and suspending are all part of communication, authority, management, and so on. Justice and equality, usually associated with political theory, are much broader and deeper. One could add journalism, literature, conversation, and ergonomics. Only through evolution, dialogue, and mutual interrelatedness can ideas emerge. The thinker Levinas notes that we ought respect and listen to "the other" as part of ourselves. Capra and Pirsig may be saying the same thing. The harmony of the individual and collective is, as anthropology would say, the harmony of agency and structure. >> >> Hope I have not strayed off the path in the above. >> >> All the best, >> >> Michael >> [log in to unmask] >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, May 11, 2021, 11:27:40 AM CDT, Joan Walton <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> >> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. >> Dear All >> >> This is a different kind of email to the others that have been written in response to the invitation for women in this group to contribute. It was highlighted by Gregg that 90% of contributions to this list came from men, although women constitute 40% who are signed up – and I notice that virtually all the videos include interviews with and by men. This domination by men really needs to be highlighted and addressed, and I'm delighted that Gregg has highlighted it. >> >> The main issue for me – and the reason why I do not contribute more - is that so much of the communication that takes place is a form of ‘grand narrative’, where individuals are very clear about their perspective, and although they engage in discussion with others, it is more to try to persuade the other of the arguments to support their view, rather than to share perspectives and perhaps each change their views to attain a new and developed way of understanding, which emerges from that sharing. This, in my experience, is very common in contexts where men are in the majority - or as in this case, because it happens so much, it leads to men being in the majority, and women opting out, because they don't want to engage in that kind of (what feels like) a boundaried, linear and competitive process (and perhaps leads to them questioning their own intellect, which has been mentioned in this group). >> >> Although there is a strong element of that in this group, it is not as extreme as in others, and is the reason why I remain in it. Gregg is particularly good at reading what is written, respecting, and responding reflectively (thank you Gregg, that in itself is different from so many men, who can be, not only dismissive, but also offensive in how they dismiss!). However, nevertheless, he is certainly promoting and arguing for a very sophisticated ‘grand narrative’ way of understanding the world, and although on the one hand, I am interested in the ideas, and think it is of huge value, I also feel like there is a barrier to me engaging in a wider conversation about its significance. I have written to Gregg about this, so he knows how I feel; I do think our different ways of seeing things makes it challenging to find a collaborative way forward - and my main interest (and belief) is that if we are to create a better world, it will be through evolving ideas and ways of understanding the world through collaboration, not through the 'winning through' of one grand narrative over another. >> >> I prefer a form of dialogue – and a closer relationship between action, reflection and theorising (as in forms of action inquiry) – and I think more women gravitate to that. A colleague of mine, a female professor in the USA who works in that kind of way, and whom I have recently interviewed, states that her experience is that the balance is 70% women, 30% men in her action inquiry initiatives (which are about making a positive difference in the world, and theorising what is going on so that it makes an original contribution to knowledge). >> >> In relation to dialogue, I recently wrote a paper to form the basis of a number of working groups (as part of the Scientific and Medical Network's Galileo Commission, which at least some of you may know about) who are interested in exploring understandings of consciousness. I don’t think it is appropriate to include it all here (the original paper talks about ontology and epistemology), but I am going to include just the section on the method used, and the rationale for that, based on David Bohm’s ideas on Dialogue. I hope you find it of value. >> >> Best wishes >> >> Joan >> >> Learning and Researching through Dialogue >> For the purpose of the working groups, I would propose that what has commonly been called ‘Bohm Dialogue’ would provide a good basis. The method was created by David Bohm, and was explained in his book On Dialogue (1996). William Isaacs developed it further in Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together (1999). These two books explain clearly and in detail the theory informing this approach to dialogue, including how it creates a method for evolving knowledge and wisdom, and reveals an effective way for ‘humanity to discover meaning and to achieve harmony’[i] >> >> Bohm, using the ontological view of the world that he had gained through quantum physics, and with an awareness of the Greek origins of the term, devised dialogue as a means of ‘collective participation’ which allows for the ‘harmony of the individual and the collective, in which the whole constantly moves toward coherence’[ii] >> >> Dialogue as a method supports a more open culture, in which thoughts and experiences can be shared with mutual respect. Groups of people learn to think together; the outcome is that there is a generation of ideas and ways of perceiving reality that no one person would have had on their own. >> >> Isaacs identifies four key dialogical skills: >> >> Listening >> The effectiveness of dialogue depends on the quality of the listening that takes place. There needs to be a commitment to subdue own thoughts, theories and feelings, and listen at a deep level to what others are saying. There is also the aim of listening to the whole – the practice of collective listening to that which lies beyond individual contribution makes it possible to access new levels of insight. >> >> Respecting >> The need to value the right of another person to have their point of view, and to take it into consideration, even if it does not relate to one’s own way of seeing things. Difference in views will be inevitable, but the process of challenging a point of view, and giving an alternative, should be done without diminishing or critiquing the other person for holding that view. >> >> Suspending >> A critical aspect of dialogue is about being prepared to become aware of, and suspend, deeply held assumptions, theories and certainties, in order to be able to go deeper into any area being spoken about. This is essential if the ‘wisdom in – and beyond – the room’ is to be accessed. If we can suspend our views, and truly listen to, and reflect on, what others are saying, then a deeper order can become visible that allows us to think in new and different ways. It creates space for the previously unseen. >> >> Voicing >> Voicing is the ability to speak in response to what is engaging you in the present moment; involving you as a whole person, and not feeling that you have to censor your own truth. Rather than repeat well versed arguments and theories, there is a need to ‘tune it’ to what is going on in the groups, through the silences as well as the contributions, and to be able to express what is going on deeply within you, whatever that may be. We learn to improvise, and by this means, create something new in the group, thus experiencing the freedom of open communication in creative dialogue. >> >> >> Groundrules >> The SMN has, in the past, used Bohm Dialogue to the great benefit of participants. It is sometimes difficult to get into a very different mode of conversing, so it is useful to agree a set of Groundrules at the outset, in order for the ethos of dialogue to become embedded in the process. Everyone takes responsibility for maintaining the Groundrules, and suggestions for amendment can happen at any time. The following are proposed as a base-line, but can be added to or changed by any group. The main aim, though, is to establish a way of communicating that enables the essential principles of Dialogue to be integrated and enhanced throughout the conversational process. This allows for the full benefit of the ‘synergy’, learning and wisdom, which comes from accessing deeper aspects of ourselves in the company of others, to be realised to its fullest extent. >> Demonstrate respect and non-judgementality at all times. >> One person speak at a time; avoid side conversations. >> No one person should speak for very long at any one time (a ‘normal’ limit of 2 minutes may be agreed). Avoid ‘soap box’ presentations. >> What takes place in the silence is as important as the content of the speaking. Aim for a silence between each contribution (perhaps a minimum of 20 seconds?), to allow for true listening and reflection to take place. >> >> >> [i] David Bohm On Dialogue, back cover. >> [ii] On Dialogue, p. 32. >> ############################ >> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 >> >> ############################ >> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 >> > > > ############################ > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 > > ############################ > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 ############################ To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1