Talking Circles

[coberst]

Talking Circles

 

I am posting this on this forum but request that this OP is also posted on the Social Sciences forum so that we can get as wide an audience as possible.

 

I suspect that, like me, many members find only frustration when trying to engage in a serious discourse on the Internet. I wish to solicit volunteers who will join with me in an effort to learn-by-doing. The domain of knowledge that I would like to learn about is the matter of dialogical reasoning as a means for solving some of societies many problems.

 

Talking Circles is a technique used in colleges to teach dialogical thinking. This technique has evidently proved effective when decisions are required about issues wherein there is no right or wrong answer; such matters as social and moral concerns can be discussed within a non-judgmental climate.

 

A particular issue is defined in a short statement and every entry is directed only to that statement and no comment is directed at other comments. The group should be small, perhaps seven members or less.

 

This whole matter is described here:

 

Dialectical Reasoning

 

 

Suppose we start with a topic like one of the following and ask for a first response by those who wish to enter into a dialogue; a person can take any side of the issue. The purpose of the dialogue is to reach a conclusion in which the group has some acceptable degree of confidence. Such a goal may not be possible.

 

*A prudent society would put technology on hold.

*Our society faces extinction if we do not quickly find a set of secular moral principles that are universally acceptable to a large majority of the world’s population.

*Democracy is a universally acceptable form of government that can include the moral principles needed for world harmony.

*Unity of knowledge is a necessary component for a secular moral philosophy that is universally acceptable to most of the world’s population.

*Dialogical reasoning is valuable for solving complex problems.

*Or some other topic that provides a suitable topic for dialogue.

 

I am suggesting that we attempt to dialogue in an effort to better comprehend how such a form of reasoning might help solve difficult and complex problems.

 

Dialogue+dialectic=dialogic

 

Under our normal cultural situation communication means to discourse, to exchange opinions with one another.

 

In dialogue, person ‘A’ may say something and in return person ‘B’ does not respond with exactly the same meaning as does ‘A’. The meanings are generally similar but not identical; thus ‘A’ listening to ‘B’ perceives a disconnect between what she said and what ‘B’ replies. ‘A’ then has the opportunity to respond with this disconnect in mind, thereby creating a response that takes these matters into consideration; ‘A’ performs an operation known as a dialectic (a juxtaposition of opposed or contradictory ideas). And so the dialogical process proceeds.

 

A dialogical process is not one wherein individuals reason together in an attempt to make common, ideas that are already known to each individual. ”Rather, it may be said that the two people are making something in common, i.e., creating something new together.” Dialogical reasoning together is an act of creation, of mutual understanding, of meaning.

 

Dialogic can happen only if individuals wish to reason together in truth, in coherence, without prejudice, and without trying to influence each other. Each must be prepared to “drop his old ideas and intentions. And be ready to go on to something different, when this is called for…Thus, if people are to cooperate (i.e., literally to ‘work together’) they have to be able to create something in common, something that takes shape in their mutual discussions and actions, rather than something that is conveyed from one person who acts as an authority to the others, who act as passive instruments of this authority.”

 

Quotes are from “On Dialogue” written by “The late David Bohm, one of the greatest physicists and foremost thinkers this century, was Fellow of the Royal Society and Emeritus Professor of Physics at Birkbeck College, University of London.”

 

Bohm is convinced that communication is breaking down as a result of the crude and insensitive manner in which it is transpiring. Communication is a concept with a common meaning that does not fit well with the concepts of dialogue, dialectic, and dialogic.

 

I would like to discuss this possibility with interested parties.

[hug]

Yes, coberst, I'd be very interested in trying Talking Circles. We'll need to get several other people interested in trying it, focusing on some question that is interesting to all. I heard the other day (I think it was on NPR) someone suggest that our education, thinking and discussion in the U.S. is often broad but not very deep. People often listen to sound bites, and give each other sound bites, then stop paying attention, walk away, or "agree to disagree." How often do we really get to, or even near, the bottom of a given subject these days, as Socrates tried to do (and often did very well) over 2,000 years ago? So, I'm very interested. The trick will be finding interested people. It might take awhile, a week or two or three in the other forums/threads, seeking people who may want to participate in this (and on what key question?), before we have a complete group. Anyhow, I'm interested. Great idea. Any suggestions?

[coberst]

Hug

 

Welcome aboard! Thanks for your interest in this topic.

 

I suggest that you look at the following site to see what procedure CraigD has suggested that we might want to follow in this experiment.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/suggestions-wish-list.html

[IMAMONKEY!]

Although this is not a bad idea, I think it would become a bit of a hassle. I Don't believe this is neccesary either. Although it would give the forums a little bit more order it seems too formalized and strict to be useful...

 

I do see where you're coming from though. The topics can get a little chaotic and sometimes the discussion is off-topic, but I believe such discussion is conducive to a more inviting environment where opinions can be shared and analyzed without stringent formality. o.O

[hug]

coberst, yes, I like the process steps and guidelines the person in the other thread has suggested. (I forgot his screen name, sorry.) The only thing I'd suggest (not a requirement, of course) is that, if someone wants to join in the middle of the thread, they should read previous posts. Otherwise, the original participants will be left with the uncomfortable choice of rehashing old points and arguments or ignoring some comments from the new person. If anyone can join midstream without at least reading previous posts, I think a main point of the exercise is lost, isn't it?

 

Anyhow, I am interested and ready to move forward when we have enough interested parties. But, we should probably do this in one location or the other, otherwise it's hard (for me) to figure out where I should post my next comment or whether I need to read both locations of the thread?

 

In any case, all of this is up to you. I support the idea and am ready to go. I think it will be informative and fun. Of course, you should pick an interesting topic. Almost anything is fine with me. If you pick morality itself or something having to do with morality, then I'll have much to say (and to listen to) on that subject. But, if you pick nearly anything else, I'll also have much to say (and to listen to), so it doesn't matter much to me. It should be engaging, though, and of interest to the entire group, otherwise the thread won't be very rich and it will be hard to get participants.

 

Have a nice day to all.

[coberst]

I request approval from the moderator to start a TCT (Talking Circle Thread) on this forum. Posting of the TCT will be made following approval.

 

Discussion to begin at 7 AM, May 8, 2007.

[InfiniteNow]

I request approval from the moderator to start a TCT (Talking Circle Thread) on this forum. Posting of the TCT will be made following approval.

 

Discussion to begin at 7 AM, May 8, 2007.

 

Two questions:

1) Since when is moderator approval required to start a thread?

2) 7 AM, May 8 ... relative to what time zone? This is a global community, and my 7:00 has a low probability of aligning with your 7:00. :)

 

:hihi:

[hug]

I am ready and awaiting the start of what should be an interesting and fun excercise. How many participants do you have all together now? And as was mentioned in the just-previous post, what time zone does the 7:00 am refer to?

 

Onward and upward.

[coberst]

CraigD suggested this procedure when I placed a thread "Talking Circle" on the suggestion forum. In the last paragraph you will find his statement about seeking aproval.

 

The time of 7 AM will be as shown here on this site time zone. Your post was submitted at 5:46 AM this site time zone.

 

I propose the following procedure:

Thread-starting post describes topic for discussion, and Talking Circle Thread procedure (these steps), including “Start” date/time that must be reached before discussion can begin.

Until Start is reached, participants post a single “Join” post. No content beyond the word “join” is allowed in these posts. If the thread starter wishes to be a participant, they may post a “Join” post.

After Start is reached, the post starter (or the first member to post a Join post) posts a “Begin” post containing a single (possibly wrapped) line listing of the circle order, which is in order of the Join posts. Again, no additional content is allowed in this post.

The first person in the order list – the “talking stick holder”:

Posts any content he wishes

Ends his post with the order, his name moved from the front of the list to the back.

This step is repeated indefinitely.

At any time after Start a new participant may post a single “Join” post. Upon posting, the current stick holder adds her to the end of the list, immediately before their own name.

At any time, a participant may post a single “Un-join” post. This post may contain nothing but the word “Un-join”. Upon posting, the current stick holder removes him from the order.

When the current talking stick holder makes no post, the discussion is effectively ended.

In the spirit of experimentation with new things, if this procedure is agreeable to all, I suggest that somebody (Coberst?) start a thread as described in the procedure.

 

Before doing so, however, I propose he state the forum in which he will start the first TCT, and that a moderator for that thread (or an administrator) post their approval and willingness to serve as the rule enforcer/mistake fixer for it.

[coberst]

I am ready and awaiting the start of what should be an interesting and fun excercise. How many participants do you have all together now? And as was mentioned in the just-previous post, what time zone does the 7:00 am refer to?

 

Onward and upward.

 

Look at the suggested procedure posted by CraigD at

http://hypography.com/forums/suggestions-wish-list.html

 

If we follow this stated prcedure we will have people signing up between my first post stateing my intention and 7 AM on May 8. The time 7 AM wil be that time zone here at this site. If you look at the time of your last post here was 6:26 this time zone of the forum site. I hope that several individuals will sign up before we begin, if not it will be just you and I.

[hug]

I agree with the process and thoughts and suggestions in coberst's recent post. I look forward to participating.

 

"We want the comforts of opinion without the discomfort of thought."

-- William Sloane Coffin

 

(from a 1986 speech at Harvard. In a 1962 commencement address at Yale, President JFK said, "We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.")

[Tormod]

Just for the record - there is no "time zone for this site". You all selected your desired time zone when you signed up, so the times at the forums will always be your local time (if you set it to be the same as where you live).

 

Therefore you will need to set a starting time like "11am GMT" or something, and each of you will have to figure out what that is relevant to your time zone.

 

:hihi:

[coberst]

Just for the record - there is no "time zone for this site". You all selected your desired time zone when you signed up, so the times at the forums will always be your local time (if you set it to be the same as where you live).

 

Therefore you will need to set a starting time like "11am GMT" or something, and each of you will have to figure out what that is relevant to your time zone.

 

:D

 

 

Is this the approval I seek?

[hug]

Sounds good. I'm looking forward to it. Please don't forget to participate in the poll, "What is 'morality' ultimately about?". Cheers.

[coberst]

I registered my vote. I went with the survival idea. I would have selected another one also but I was allowed only one choice.

[hug]

coberst, As before, this is a great idea. One thing might help. If you are going to come up with a subject or question or interesting hypothesis to discuss using this approach (Talking Circles), then it probably would help to come up with that and let people know? There may be some people out there who would love to participate in this type of approach but who aren't sure yet because they don't know if they'll be interested in the topic itself. With a good, juicy, reasonably important topic, more people will be willing to try the approach. Just a thought. "hug"

[coberst]

hug

 

I cannot do anything without approval. It appears that no moderator or administrator will give me approval.