Talk:Bohm Dialogue

From VfD
(article was kept post-rewrite) The VFD debate was closed by Sj on 12:33, 20 April 2004. --Muchness 06:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing could possibly redeem this article... It's a primary source quoted in part, no wikification, not even a definition. Pteron 22:28, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * And it seems to be meant to be a therapy bulletin board. Delete.  Ensiform 22:41, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Turn into a redirect to David Bohm--the topic is already discussed there as much as it needs to be (probably more). Postdlf  23:47 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Add quotation to David Bohm article, then convert to a redirect to David Bohm. Rest of article is an original essay. Should "Bohm dialogue", "Bohm Dialog", and "Bohm dialog" also be redirected? Dpbsmith 12:31, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed w/ Dpbsmith. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:22, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment - Lots of sillyness regarding "Bohm dialogue" keeps being added to Dialogue if anyone wants to keep an eye on it. Scurra 18:16, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * has anybodymind here ever read anythinkg by david bohm ... you might want to google him.... albert einstein was said to have held the opinion that if someone could take QuantumMeachnics to a new level: it would be bohm..... krishnamurti was high on bohm as well.... and the dalai lama says about bohm: "on of my science-gurus"
 * I've rewritten it. Hopefully it suits a few more people now. Some of the information contained in the original may still need to be reincorporated. -- Tim Starling 11:02, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Follow-up comments

 * I appreciate the rewrite. It is clear and helpful put in context of David Bohm, specifically, and not as an attempt to define "dialogue" per se. Nancy Glock-Grueneich Oct. 13, 2005
 * Delete. It's an ad for one guy's book, replete with a sign-up email list for new customers.  What makes this noteworthy? Brainhell 04:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, using the lit review from my Master's Theisis as a guideline, I have added to the criticisms section and added a large "post bohm 'bohm dialogue'" section to explain the relevance of Bohm Dialog. I hope that it is clear now that "Bohm Dialog" is a bigger subject than the book "On Dialogue," because many others besides Bohm have contributed to what "Bohm Dialog" is today. --BFGalbraith 08:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Usage
If Bohm Dialogue is important outside the subject of Bohm himself, it is how "Bohm Dialogue" is used in today's world. The best example of this is Peter Senge: http://www.ullerymanagement.com/art_of_dialogue.htm, BUT this IS what the rest of us Dialogue-fans mean when we say "Bohm Dialogue." We don't mean his "30-Man Meeting," we mean the principles of his communication theory that can be used with organizations today: An example of how someone might use this kind of theory in todays world is the forming of collectives, like worker coops for example: http://mail.antiochsea.edu/~benjamin_galbraith/. --BFGalbraith 18:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Group memebers doing dialogue suspend judgement on other people's ideas.
 * This allows new ideas to emerge, since people aren't worried about their ideas getting attacked.
 * This suspension of judgment allows people to build on ideas they otherwise would have rejected, opening up new possibilities in the conversation.
 * Having this kind of conversation on a regular basis allows people a much more realistic view of what that organization needs. In otherwords, dialogue more than anything else is for a whole-group-of-people to learn about it's self. It's a whole-organization mirror.

I was surprised to see the assertion (in the last paragraph) that "Bohm dialog is widely criticized for being unintelligible gibberish." Even worse, the article goes on to suggest that Bohm's ideas on dialogue might be "dangerous" and so on.

This article needs revising to include references to some source about those critics and a citation for "unintelligible gibberish." In addition, "widely" needs substantiating. It would be interesting to hear why Bohm's ideas might be "dangerous," who thinks they are, and who thinks they are not. Wjdavidson 20:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There must be deep understanding of the absolute necessity for a true dialogue! The world hence in constant conflict individually as well as collectively, and such violent behavior is growing larger and larger. It is for mankind inability of solving deep-rooted conflicts of life and living bringing about the very need for a new ways of solving and preventing such endless struggle of man. Dialogue must stand for more then means of solving, resolving and preventing individual and collective conflicts around the world even though it is harder and harder to perceive any intelligent dialogue taking place in any part of society and the world. Dialogue as a means of solving-resolving and preventing individual and collective conflict, and foremost deep understanding must take place in what prevents man from clear perception of an action in daily life and living without self-deception and self-denial among many other notions bringing about self-destruction and therefore immense never ending sorrow of mankind. Bohm's dialogue is not a tool as a means to an end if followed appropriately and repetitively as sets of rules are set ahead of each and every human being. Bohm's dialogue has on a contrary altogether different notion by opening the door to a different dimension of life and living. If, Bohm's dialogue being sustain long enough to penetrate through individual barrier of psychological conditioning, which is a conditioning of society as a whole, and such continuation of Bohm's dialogue into a collective conditioning, which is again conditioning of society as a whole. Then, perhaps Bohm's dialogue becomes a means not to an end by rather means to a clear perception of an action in every day of life and living without self-denial and self-deception in relationship to whole of life. (F.P. 05-16-09 10:30) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atriums (talk • contribs) 14:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Bohm Dialogue proposed changes
Hello - here is the proposed replacement of the first two paragraphs in the article Bohm Dialogue. The online group was dissatisfied with the phrase "existing form of free association", which prompted the change. Am looking forward to comments.

"Bohm Dialogue” or “Bohmian Dialogue” is a freely-flowing group conversation that may well be one of the most effective ways of investigating the crises that face society, and indeed the whole of human nature and consciousness. Twenty to forty participants sit in a circle, for a few hours during regular meetings, or for a few days in a workshop environment. This is done with no predefined purpose in mind other than that of inquiring into the movement of thought, and exploring the process of “thinking together” collectively. This activity can allow group participants to examine their preconceptions and prejudices, as well as to explore the more general movement of thought. Bohm’s intention regarding the suggested minimum number of participants was to replicate a social/cultural dynamic (rather than a family dynamic). This form of dialogue seeks to enable an awareness of why communicating in the verbal sphere is so much more difficult and conflict-ridden than in all other areas of human activity and endeavor.

Participants in the Bohmian form of dialogue "suspend" their beliefs, opinions, impulses, and judgments while speaking together, in order to see the movement of the group’s thought processes and what their effects may be. According to Dialogue a Proposal [Bohm, Factor, Garrett], this kind of dialogue should not be confused with discussion or debate, both of which, says Bohm, suggest working towards a goal or reaching a decision, rather than simply exploring and learning. Meeting without an agenda or fixed objective is done to create a “free space” for something new to happen.

“. . . it may turn out that such a form of free exchange of ideas and information is of fundamental relevance for transforming culture and freeing it of destructive misinformation, so that creativity can be liberated." David Bohm

Ahalani (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Since no-one has apposed your changes ...I would go ahead and make the changes ...BUT you will need references to do that!! /...Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What a horrible article - loaded with blanket statements and other bullsh*t. Please, put it out of its misery. --217.157.165.109 (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Horrible = extremely unpleasant; deplorable; disgusting. I'm curious, do you say this because you are a student of Bohm Dialogue and find the article is inaccurate?; are you unfamilar with dialoge and find the concept weird?; are you a writer and find the style and structure inelegant, or...? (seeking article improvement rather than dismissal) D1doherty (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Bohm Dialogue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120326195557/http://www.boundary.org/bi/ANPA_West/PDF/V7-1_1997.pdf to http://www.boundary.org/bi/ANPA_West/PDF/V7-1_1997.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120326195557/http://www.boundary.org/bi/ANPA_West/PDF/V7-1_1997.pdf to http://www.boundary.org/bi/ANPA_West/PDF/V7-1_1997.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110312044044/http://www.kinfonet.org:80/articles/18-wholeness-regained---revisiting-bohms-dialogue to http://www.kinfonet.org/articles/18-wholeness-regained---revisiting-bohms-dialogue

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

See also-Present
Present defined-"occurring now"-this would apply to his "Dialogue groups" activity of being present to what they are thinking-understanding and communicating.Arnlodg (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)