Talk:Bohm Dialogue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] From VfD

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the VfD debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the VfD debate was (article was kept post-rewrite)

  • 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)
  • 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)

The VFD debate was closed by Sj on 12:33, 20 April 2004. --Muchness 06:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:

  • 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.

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)

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)