From: smirzo@example.com   
      
   D  writes:   
      
   >> We need to deal with this.  That's a pretty big part of   
   >> communication.  That's why I appreciate some of the art of listening.   
   >> I appreciate thoughts like those of David Bohm that one would find in   
   >> ``On Dialogue''.  By the way, whatever changes you're seeing, I say   
   >> it's all on the surface.   
   >   
   > What is this about? Maybe I should make a note of that text.   
      
   That's a conversation David Bohm held with an audience (in California,   
   if I recall correctly).  The book is a transcription of the   
   conversation.  In those dialogs, David Bohm tries to convey what he   
   means by a ``dialogue''.  While an intellectual discussion is typically   
   a subtle fight, as Jiddu Krishnamurti (David Bohm's friend) would   
   describe, Bohm's dialogue is a certain construction among two or more   
   people in which /listening/ (in the Krishamurti's sense) is key.   
      
   I believe it was in an interview that David Bohm gave to Professor   
   Wilkins---which was an interview meant to write a biography of David   
   Bohm, which I believe never happened---that David Bohm remarked and   
   pretty much nobody had ever understood his notion of dialogue, and that   
   made it even more interesting because it suggests that it has a certain   
   subtleness that could be escaping people---and then I wonder if it   
   escaped me too.   
      
   >>> Well, from one point of view, he is. He is an individual, and I   
   >>> would say that as long as he is open with only looking for certain   
   >>> services, and a woman is looking to provide services, that's good!   
   >>   
   >> Your ``that's good'' here is likely materialist.  You might be saying   
   >> ``if they're happy, what's the problem?''  That's essentially   
   >> saying---it's not my problem.  People can often claim to be happy and   
   >> even appear happy, when in reality...  That's parents worry so much   
   >> about their children (and often others beyond than theirs).   
   >   
   > This is true. But they are adults, and beyond pointing out something,   
   > at the end of the day, I have no legal right or any right for that   
   > matter, to control their lives.   
      
   Sure, there's no control intended.  If I'm controlling anything, I   
   should stop this conversation right now and go put my life in order. :)   
      
     The controller is the controlled. -- Jiddu Krishnamurti   
      
   > It is perfectly true, what you are saying, and you could be right, and   
   > it would be a tragedy, but I prefer to assume things are alright,   
   > until proven otherwise.   
      
   I prefer to assume things are alright if they feel alright.  Not if they   
   /look/ alright, but it /feels/ alright.  I use a differnt verb to try to   
   capture the subtleness of things.  My neighbors, for example.  If you   
   just look, they seem alright, but if you look more carefully... It's not   
   that they are suffering more than everybody else; everybody else seems   
   to be suffering just about the same.  And people don't complain much   
   about that.  They complain about the weather, prices, public opinion and   
   so on, but they don't really complain about how their ``rights'' (if I   
   may use that word) are being denied by living a life full of stimulants,   
   boring work, lack of affection, meaningful friendship and so on.   
      
   > When it comes to parents and children, there is a different set of   
   > expectations, both cultural and legal, so I don't think it would carry   
   > over.   
      
   The comparison with parents and children was not to be taken much   
   farther.  My fault.   
      
   > There is a fine line between wanting to help, when it is justified,   
   > and being labeled a "Karen".   
      
   Lol.  I hadn't heard about ``Karen'' before.  Fun.   
      
   All in all, I'm just observing, not judging people or anything.  All I'm   
   saying about my neighbors doesn't make them anything wrong in any way at   
   all.  They're surely trying to get things right and so am I.  And I   
   wouldn't mind anyone saying that I'm the wrong one because I don't even   
   care at all about who's right or wrong.  I may be wrong, but at the end   
   of the day I need to carry myself in life as my eyes see it; if I see   
   that 1 + 1 = 3 and people tell me that it's 2, who can I do?  Should I   
   believe my brain or their brains?  Now, of course, if they can somehow   
   make my brain not make the mistake, then I'll get 1 + 1 = 2, too, and   
   then it will my brain once again tell me what the facts are.   
      
   >>>> too---, I actually say that he has a health problem that makes him quite   
   >>>> insensitive.  Who is suffering the most?  Himself.  His insensibility,   
   >>>> for example, blinds him even to his own nutrition.  He's losing his   
   >>>> health slowly year after year.   
   >>>   
   >>> That is sad. =(   
   >>   
   >> Such is life.  It's difficult.  You can tell people of their symptons,   
   >> but they don't see it---they don't believe it.  When people can't tune   
   >> themselves to intelligence, it becomes quite difficult to do anything   
   >> intelligent.   
   >   
   > This is the truth! But I think you have done what you can do, and you   
   > shouldn't feel bad about it. At the end of the day, he is an adult and   
   > responsible for his own life.   
      
   Quite right.  It's what I said before at some point---respect people.   
   If they want to throw themselves under a train, you have to respect   
   them.  I don't mean it literally, of course.  Like Noam Chomsky, I do   
   think we can exercise authority over people if we can easily justify it.   
   So, yeah, I would stop you from throwing yourself under a train.   
   Nevertheless, not forever: I couldn't follow you around each day to see   
   if you're going near the tracks.  It is absurd to me not to concede that   
   people do have the right to carry their lives however they want.   
      
   So when people question my arguments, say, I don't really bother too   
   much with some kind of over-explaining.  If you need to over-explain,   
   it's likely because we're in an intellectual conversation---a subtle   
   fight.  There's no point.  I am nearly nothing.  I'm like the wind that   
   blows.  I can blow on someone's face, but what they'll after the wind is   
   gone is completely on them.   
      
   >>>> open my window to give him a bit of privacy in his little party.   
   >>>> Chatting went on for a while and then suddenly silence.  So I   
   >>>> looked and then his friend was likely inside the house and he was   
   >>>> having sex in the pool.   
   >>>   
   >>> Wow! Brazil, here I come! ;)   
   >>   
   >> Lol.  You could be getting the wrong impression. :) But the real remark   
   >> to be made here, in a more serious tone, is that this is no good.  For   
   >> instance, when I saw them in the swimming pool, the first thing I   
   >> thought was---omg, what a place for that.  And he was in own home---he   
   >> likely left the most comfortable place for his friend.  Of course,   
   >> people might love this kind of stuff.  It's not shameful or obscene or   
   >> whatever---I couldn't care less about any of that.  I'm saying it's just   
   >> a someone trying to get some relief, without much of a clue of what's   
   >> going on.   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)