Concerns and Tactics

[AVNERH]

So what happens Peggy if one like you (who beleives in dialogue with
oponents) is dependent with his life on one like Paul (Who does not beleive
in dialogue between people who disagree) and you deeply disagree on many
levels?
You know from the OsOnOs that I am deeply involved in that question. I just
heard that a Palestinian woman found recently in a research that this
difference in perception of dialogue is also the difference between Israelis
and Palestinians. ( I felt it, but never dared to say it)
I guess one of the answers can be in this case that each side have to
conduct with his own different sides his ways of dialogues while negotiating
with the other (that what we are just trying to do now).
I would like to learn about other ways as well.

Avner Haramati
Jerusalem


----- Original Message -----
From: Peggy Holman <peggy at OPENCIRCLECOMPANY.COM>
To: <OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2001 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: Concerns and Tactics


> I've been sitting with Kenoli's message, caught between the ease of going
> back to business as usual and the drive to make a difference post 9-11.
> Thanks for the question Kenoli; I find great power in the asking.  I am
> doing my best to stay with it because I have no easy answers.
>
> Paul, your response to Kenoli's statement about creating a new version of
> "solidarity" that avoids polarization really crystalized for me the
> challenge we face in creating that solidarity.  You said:
> >In the second sentence, it appears you want dialogue/discussion only if
it
> > agrees with your viewpoint and any other viewpoint, such as mine, which
is
> > definitely different, will be seen as "polarization" and therefore is
not
> to
> > be seen/heard on this board.  Is that correct?  Think, carefully.
>
> I believe the great creator of real, deep, lasting solidarity comes
EXACTLY
> from expressing viewpoints that disagree.  If you and others, with
different
> points of view weren't part of this mix, the sort of solidarity that comes
> from doing things differently will be impossible to achieve.  Indeed, I'd
> love to hear viewpoints even more different than anything expressed to
date
> on this list.  So how do we do that and avoid polarization?  I believe
that
> answer is where hope rests.  And the good news is I think we know a great
> deal about this.  What can make it different is the assumptions that unlie
> how we interact.  The unspoken purpose in the vast majority of "normal"
> communication is is to reach an answer, a single answer.  This leads to
> advocating positions in the need to get to ONE answer.  This fight to be
> right, to win the argument is what creates polarization; NOT that we see
> things differently.  The power of dialogue is that it isn't driving to
find
> an answer; it's purpose is to understand.  This leads to an emphasis on
> listening to each other.  And what seems to happen is the most amazing
> thing.  We may never agree on the vast majority of things but we will come
> to respect each other as human beings and quite likely discover some
things
> that we mutually care about.  And that leads to building the sort of
> solidarity that does lead to answers and collective action.
>
> Peggy
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "J. Paul Everett" <JPESeeker at aol.com>
> To: <OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 11:23 PM
> Subject: Re: Concerns and Tactics
>
>
> > In a message dated 12/18/01 9:40:06 AM, kenoli at igc.org writes:
> >
> > <<
> > I would love to hear from you regarding these questions.
> >
> > In (a new version of) "solidarity" (can we avoid polarization this
time?),
> >>
> >
> > My Dear Kenoli,
> >
> > Before I reply to the substance of your message, I wish to check out
your
> > meaning in the above two sentences.  In the first, I presume you want
> open,
> > free dialogue and/or discussion about the subject on which you wrote.
Is
> > that correct?
> >
> > In the second sentence, it appears you want dialogue/discussion only if
it
> > agrees with your viewpoint and any other viewpoint, such as mine, which
is
> > definitely different, will be seen as "polarization" and therefore is
not
> to
> > be seen/heard on this board.  Is that correct?  Think, carefully.
> >
> > (btw, we might both remember that his board is nominally dedicated to
OST
> > subjects and not Ashcroft & Co., nor the strategic processes of the US
> Govt.)
> >
> > Paul Everett
> >
> > *
> > *
> > ==========================================================
> > OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
> > ------------------------------
> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
> > view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu,
> > Visit:
> >
> > http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
> >
>
> *
> *
> ==========================================================
> OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
> ------------------------------
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
> view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu,
> Visit:
>
> http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
>

*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu,
Visit:

http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html