And Neil Young comments on the same idea:
One ot the “Think Tank” recorded phone conversations.
I liked the one above, and so have now downloaded the first one, I think you can listen in any order:
Here is the publisher he recommends:
The website with the course he mentions:
I have enjoyed some of the writing and audio from Al Turtle a relationship therapist. I get an RSS feed of his updates and today found a link to his favourite books. Great idea!
I found a ebook of A. E. Van Vogt’s The World of Null-A, non-Aristotelian logic in SF form. I see that this is not a one-off in Al’s list! He is into General Semantics – intrigued I went off on a search trail.
I am somewhat disturbed by the Hellinger material I read. However there new clarity around the creativity inherent in dialogue (see the last Bhom quote in this post.)
Here are two snippets which I find illuminating. Especially if we hold in mind that reality includes an observer.
No two people can have the same insight about the same thing. If they both have an insight about the same thing, that of one differs slightly from that of the other.
… when awareness meets awareness both are enhanced by the encounter.
That “enhancment” is the new, something is created.
“Each person is participating, is partaking of the whole meaning of the group and also taking part in in it”
I am reading On Dialogue. Not sure where I got that quote from though, had it hovering here in some scraps. It is central to the idea that dialogue is NOT just exchanging information but CREATING something new, that that is common to the participants.
This idea has been central my understanding ever since I first participated in groups in the early eighties. I knew something was happening that was bigger than me yet fully connected. My Psychodrama thesis tries to articulate this ideas. Now it is here well expressed by David Bohm.
Listening is not just about “getting it”, it is also about doing something more. I am thinking of the Imago dialogue as I read the passage below from the first chapter: On Communication, page 3. Imago is about getting it, and the doing the Validation step, which is still not quite what Bohm is getting at. Perhaps the “difference” does not emerge until the response?
Nevertheless, this meaning does not cover all that is signified by communication. For example, consider a dialogue. In such a dialogue, when one person says something, the other person does not in general respond with exactly the same meaning as that seen by the first person. Rather, the meanings are only similar and not identical. Thus, when the second person replies, the first person sees a difference between what he or she meant to say and what the other person understood. On considering this difference, they may then be able to see something new, which is relevant both to their own views and to those of the other person. And so it can go back and forth, with the continual emergence of a new content that is common to both participants. Thus, in a dialogue, each person does not attempt to make common certain ideas or items of information that are already known to him or her. Rather, it may be said that the two people are making something in common, i.e., creating something new together.
But of course such communication can lead to the creation of something new only if people are able freely to listen to each other, without prejudice, and without trying to influence each other…
The full summary, validation & empathy steps seem important not just to exchange information, but to connect. To go beyond prejudice and trying to push an agenda requires the Imago steps.
Validation also leads to the creativity that Bohm is valuing. Validation involves making sense of the other while standing in their shoes, then facing them and saying you makes sense, and what makes sense is… seeing and experiencing how things hang together in their world. Understanding involves knowing how various things interconnect. To see the other persons world like that, and then to let them know how you see it may lead to encounter. Validation is a step towards encounter. Stepping into the other’s shoes and seeing the world differently may lead to new insights in the listener. The suspension of judgment is not to abandon ones judgment or perspective. There is an internal encounter… material for the next response.
Validation operationalises what Bohm is calling creativity – and Moreno calls encounter.
Eric Maisel’s motivation for creating continues to inspire.
Reviews of this book:
Deep Writing: Seven Principles that Bring Ideas to Life by Eric Maisel
are worth reading.
One by Trish Lawrence And this one…
Following is a link to Amazon, the full review, and a link to blog I got it off.
I have linked to this quote before, I just noticed it again & saw it in a new light. In relationship to Moreno’s Canon of Creativity. I think the word “attention” is wonderful. Eastern traditions use attention in meditation, but what is attention? A Buddhist friend of mine said it is simply love. It is a mystery alright! I can put my attention where I will! Attention is intentional. Right now it is on the blinking cursor. A moment later on the song playing on the radio downstairs.
Attention & blessing are all forms of warm-up?
Compare this from with the passage below from an essay I have that will be in the next Psychodrama journal. Michael Meade:
What happens if they’re not shown the recognition of that seed?
Now, we’re back to death. William Blake said that the garden of the soul is already planted and is waiting for the water of life. Call it the water of attention. There are innate ideas, dreams, stories, buried in people. When we don’t water those seeds, culture loses ideas. It loses imagination. It loses the capacity to dream itself forward. I mean that literally.
What happens to someone whose innate core cannot grow?
The “second nature” of a person (the innate capacities) needs two kinds of attention. The person has to attend to it themselves. It also needs the other kind of attention which used to be called a blessing, the attention, especially from someone who’s respected, someone who says, “I saw that. I heard that. I see the seed of life you’re coming from.” If these two kinds of attention don’t happen, a kind of death is occurring, a withering.
From my essay, with a quote from Moreno:
“The universe is infinite creativity.” – Moreno
Moreno envisaged creativity as integral to the universe. Humans have creativity by virtue of being born in the universe and thus creativity itself lives within us. Yet not all of us are able to tap into our creative potential. What is the difference between those who create successfully and those who do not?
“What separates them is the spontaneity which, in the successful cases, enables the carriers to take full command of their resources, whereas the failures are at a loss with all their treasures; they suffer from deficiencies in their warming-up process. Creativity without spontaneity becomes lifeless; its living intensity increases and decreases in proportion to the amount of spontaneity in which it partakes. Spontaneity without creativity is empty and runs abortive. Spontaneity and creativity are thus categories of a different order; creativity belongs to the categories of substance — it is the arch substance — spontaneity to the categories of catalyzer — it is the arch catalyzer.”
This quotation is drawn from Who Shall Survive, where Moreno describes the Canon of Creativity. This quotation, drawn from Who Shall Survive, describes the Canon of Creativity. I interpret Moreno’s Canon as a heritage of paths to creativity; on the one hand, our innate vitality and ability to be spontaneous beings and on the other, our artifacts, all that we have made, the tools we use, our alphabet, language and literature, all the items conserved in the culture. The inherited past including art works and treasures remain dull and dead until we come to them with spontaneity. Our cultural items cannot influence our creativity until we bring them back to life. We are automatons unless we are co-creators.