Concerns and Tactics

[J. Paul Everett]

In a message dated 12/23/01 1:36:24 PM, avnerh at inter.net.il writes:

<< 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? >>

Avner,

Whoops!!  Please don't attribute to me a dislike of dialogue with people with
whom I don't agree.  Not true.  I most certainly do enjoy it, in fact, use it
in my consulting practice quite extensively, on tough issues.  What I was
objecting to was the perceived set up by Kenoli wherein he would hold forth
without "polarization", that is, dissenting or other opinions.  Which we had
probably better explore the meaning of before we go much further
(polarization, I mean).  Anyway, just wanted to set that straight.  I'm not
up for a big discussion tonight.  Except for one point, which is that I
separate the two words "Agree" and "Accept".  Accept means to take in and
consider.  Agree means consent to do or act on.  To be in dialogue, we must
stay in an accepting state or all is lost.  Just a small point.

btw, the Winter issue of "YES" magazine has some very powerful articles in it
on peace, war and other issues of the commonweal.  Recommend it.  Very
challenging.  Are we ready to die for peace?  To be killed by the violent
other in order that we ourselves not be violent?  Wendell Berry ("The Failure
of War"), Walter Wink ("Pacifism With Teeth"), Yael Lachman ("Choose Love")
all write in a paradigm-stretching way.  Not directly to do with OST, though.

Peace,

Paul

*
*
==========================================================
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