Chapter Four: Dialogue
Excerpt Chapter from Glenn Aparicio Parry's Dissertation entitled "SEED Graduate Institute: An Model Of Trans-disciplinary Education Informed by Indigenous Ways of Knowing and Dialogue"
Chapter Four: Dialogue
by Glenn Aparicio Parry
© 2007
Dialogue is at the center of SEED’s educational practice and philosophy. It is because of this that the meaning of “dialogue” and the particular history of how dialogue came to be practiced at SEED bear considerable explanation. I will begin by introducing the particular context and meaning in which David Bohm used dialogue and briefly explain some of the central components of Bohmian dialogue. Next, I will articulate some of the philosophy and practice of Plains Indian talking circle; the circumstances that brought together Bohm and Little Bear; how that led to the SEED dialogues; explain the unique hybrid of Bohmian dialogue/Native talking circle that is practiced at SEED today and how the SEED hybrid is distinguished from Bohmian dialogue. I will conclude the chapter with the relevance of dialogue for SEED and for the emerging consciousness in the larger society. The word dialogue is used today to describe a great variety of forms and practices that have something to do with furthering understanding between groups or individuals. In common language, dialogue simply means a conversation between two or more persons. However, the etymology of the word, as Bohm (1996) was quick to point out, suggests a deeper meaning. “Dialogue” comes from the Greek “dialogos:” “Dia” doesn’t mean “two” – it means “through; and “logos” means “the word.” (Bohm 1996, p.6). Thus, implied in the etymology of the word is the stream of meaning that can flow through a group engaged in the process of dialogue. Bohm was aware of the potential of dialogue to facilitate shared meaning between a group, and hold the group together in a relatively coherent whole. He was also keenly aware of the limits of thought, and the “tacit infrastructure” of conditioned consciousness that can obstruct coherence, but I will get to those concerns in a moment. The cohesive potential of dialogue, in which meaning can flow through a group, is in distinct contrast from “discussion,” which is etymologically related to the words “percussion” and “concussion,” which breaks things up (into dysfunctional fragments), or as we might say today, “breaks things down” for purpose of analysis of the separate parts (Bohm, 1996).
Einstein and Bohr
Fairly early in his career, Bohm became aware of the blocks in communication that arose between scientists who clung to their particular way of seeing, which he felt was largely predicated upon their unconscious assumptions. Einstein and Bohr is perhaps the most obvious instance in which this happened, with Einstein remaining steadfast to relativity theory, and Bohr embracing quantum theory. Although they were initially close friends, they gradually became so alienated from each other that they completely separated. Then, one well-intentioned person arranged a party in which Einstein, Bohr and their students were all invited. To the dismay of the organizer, Einstein and Bohr remained on separate sides of the room, communicating only with their own students. Bohm felt that what should have happened between Einstein and Bohr was a dialogue in which each person listens deeply to what the other is saying for the purpose of understanding and not to persuade the other of the correctness of their own belief. If either Bohr or Einstein had been able to suspend their judgments and listen without umping to defend their own position, then a breakthrough in understanding for both could have occurred (Bohm, 1996).
The Emerging Paradigm and Its Relationship to Bohmian Dialogue
Bohm was on the forefront of an emerging paradigm in twentieth century physics that recognized the undivided wholeness and interconnectedness of reality, as opposed to the prevailing Newtonian paradigm of unidirectional causality which tended to abstract and focus on the actions of phenomena apart from other phenomena. Bohm felt that the prevailing paradigm, while being instrumental in therise of utilitarian invention, was also instrumental in leading to a fragmented view of reality, and a concomitant fragmented consciousness within the society. Bohm had no illusions that the emerging paradigm had already impacted the society at large. He realized that scientific knowledge of the past several centuries had become absorbed into the tacit knowledge of the culture as the unquestioned truths of the age. Bohm felt that for a genuine transformation of humankind to take place, the tacit knowledge of the society would need to change. Bohm frequently spoke of “tacit knowledge” as the knowledge that governs much of what we unconsciously do. Riding a bicycle or driving a car is a form of tacit knowledge, but Bohm meant something deeper than this by tacit knowledge; he was referring to all the unexamined assumptions that govern our lives that create the particular lens in which we individually and collectively see the world – what he called our “tacit infrastructure” – but might also be called our paradigm. The Newtonian paradigm had objectified the world and pervaded science and culture in such a way as to create a collective incoherence at the base of society - and as this incoherence was tacit it was largely invisible. Scientific knowledge had in effect been elevated to “scientism” - another form of religion simply accepted on faith as the correct knowledge. Bohm said that science has come to “play the role that religion used to play of giving us truth.” (1996, pg xi). Bohm was greatly concerned about this for several reasons, all of which directly affected the way he practiced dialogue and his overall vision of dialogue. Perhaps the greatest motivating force for Bohm to introduce his concept of dialogue was the looming ecological, religious and political crises of a world where polarized ideologies are the norm. Bohm understood that a fragmented view of nature simply doesn’t work when addressing complex, interconnected problems such as the ecology. In order to address these complex, interconnected issues, we have to start over in a certain sense and rebuild a coherent tacit structure to society. For instance, there are literally hundreds if not thousands of groups now attempting to address the ecological crises of our time. If all of these groups were to have some basis of common understanding, then they could address the issues in a coherent manner, rather than what they do now, which is to address the issues with different underlying assumptions and agendas, and poor communication/cooperation, if there is any communication at all. We cannot address deeply interconnected issues, such as the ecology, with an incoherent, disjointed effort; at least, we cannot continue to do that and somehow expect different results. As Einstein (purportedly) said, this is the very definition of insanity.
Features of Bohmian Dialogue
For Bohm, his ongoing interest in dialogue and his attempts to implement it were a form of laboratory experiment in which he did not yet know the results (Nichol, 1994 transcript of dialogue session). The following features of Bohmian dialogue were not set out in concrete at the start, but over time, they formed the basis for the praxis. These central features of Bohmian dialogue are:
1) No pre-established purpose – no agenda
2) Shared Meaning
3) Suspending assumptions/judgments, not trying to persuade or influence
4) Flow of meaning
5) Group Size of 20-40 people to constitute a “micro-cultural context”
6) Exposing of tacit infrastructures
7) No content excluded
8) No moderation – facilitation is used only to initiate the process and is
dropped thereafter
9) Impersonal Fellowship
10) Proprioception: Self-awareness of thought, feelings, emotions, body as
one undivided whole
11) Regular weekly or monthly meetings
There is no pre-established purpose in Bohmian dialogue, so that moment to moment awareness and flow of dialogue are welcomed. Once you have a set agenda or purpose, the tendency of a group is to attempt to stick to the agenda and not allow in a change in direction. Shared meaning comes from a process of suspending assumptions/judgments and listening to understand, rather than to persuade or influence the outcome. Bringing multiple perspectives out without judgment provides a base of shared meaning. However, this does not imply that the base of meaning is static or a simple aggregate of what everyone has said. It is more fluid than that, so that even if a listener misinterprets the meaning of the speaker, “the very mis-perception of one’s spoken intent can lead to new meaning that is created on the spot. (Nichol, in Bohm, p xxi). The flow of meaning is what is created. Bohm advocated a group size of between 20-40 people to create a “micro-cultural context” – a mixed representation of many subcultures as a microcosm of the larger society. Over the course of the dialogue the process will tend to expose the predispositions, viewpoints, backgrounds and assumptions that constitute the tacit infrastructure(s) of an individual mind-set, group or sub-group. No content is excluded from the dialogue. The intent is to provide a safe space where everyone feels they can participate and contribute. Eventually, a feeling of impersonal fellowship can develop amongst the group. This is enhanced by regular weekly or monthly meetings. Bohm recommended continuing the meetings for a significant length of time, such as a year or two. In the beginning, a moderator or facilitator would be necessary to explain the process, but his objective would be to work himself out of a job, and allow the process to unfold on its own. Finally, the most challenging aspect of Bohmian dialogue to understand (and even more challenging to do) is the concept of developing proprioception – a technical term Bohm used for self-awareness of thought, feelings, emotions and body as one undivided whole. By this, he meant that “in the process of thought there should be awareness of that movement, of the intention to think, and of the result which that thinking produces. “ (Bohm, 1996, pg 91). The concept of proprioception is related to the concept of moment to moment judgment and assumption. Lee Nichol, Bohn’s long-time editor and collaborator, explains: One direction is to try to change the assumption. The other direction, having suspended, is to allow the assumption to “flower” within your entire organism. Instead of trying to alter it, let yourself feel its “meaning” – how it charges the organism emotionally, psychologically, neurophysiologically. Sense the living movement of it. This is the beginning of proprioception. We begin to explore whether or not we can proceed without the observer – the “me” – trying to control everything. Softening the opinion is still in the domain of the observer controlling its world. (1994 dialogue transcript) Bohm’s approach to issues of thought, feelings and emotions was in part developed during the course of his near quarter-century collaboration with J. Krishnamurti, a relationship that profoundly changed Bohm’s examination of the limits of thought, as well as his entire intellectual and spiritual outlook on life, according to Nichol (2007, private communication). Bohm became a trustee of Brockwood Park (one the schools founded by Krishnamurti) and the Krishnamurti Foundation, the latter of which eventually published several volumes of discussions between Bohm and Krishnamurti, including the Ending of Time (1985) and The Limits of Thought (1999). Bohm also openly acknowledged Barfield (1965), DeMare (1991) and Polanyi (1966) as influences regarding thought and tacit knowledge. I will not attempt to summarize Krishnamurti’s overall views, which is a dissertation in itself. Nonetheless, I will point out a few core perceptions of Krishnamurti that seem to have profoundly influenced Bohm’s approach to dialogue.
1) “To be is to be related.” (Bohm, 1996, p. 47)
2) All thought is limited.
3) “All thoughts, all fragments, are related to each other.” (Krishnamurti and
Bohm, 1999, pg 51)
4) All thought is moving. (Krishnamurti and Bohm, 1999, 1985)
5) “Perception is not a movement of thought.” (Krishnamurti and Bohm,
1999, pg 50)
6) In direct perception, there is no observer and observed. There is only
perception.
7) The urgency of cleansing the mind from the accumulation of time
(Krishnamurti and Bohm, 1985) Later in this chapter, we will juxtapose some of these perceptions of Krishnamurti with Native thinking, which may shed some light on the differences and similarities between Bohmian dialogue and Native talking circle. At this point, since the essence of thought is important to Bohmian dialogue and talking circle alike, we will now discuss thought in some detail.
Thought is the Problem
One of the pivotal insights of twentieth century physics was that, in the quantum world, the observer affects the observed. But what about thought? If I say, “I am angry,” and “I” identify this as a problem, and “I” seek to change my state, what I have difficulty seeing is that the observer (my ego) is not really much different than the observed (Bohm, 1996). In other words, a person identifies a problem; he/she thinks this requires change, and then thinks of a way to change the problem, but can’t change the problem and doesn’t understand why, because, as Bohm says, “thought itself is the problem (1996, p. 12).” The problem of thought is particularly evident when trying to address psychological problems, but according to Bohm, thought is also the source of the general collective incoherence of society. In fact, Bohm felt that most of the thought in the society “originates in the whole culture and pervades us.”(1996, p. 59)
Bohm believed all of thought to be an abstraction because it separates something in our attention from the whole of creation. That abstraction is a division that is not inherent in nature (which to Bohm is an undivided whole), but once we think of nature as something separate from ourselves – as “out there” – then this is what becomes real to us. It becomes so unquestionably real that it is not typically recognized as a belief, but exists in the tacit knowledge of the culture as a base of shared cultural meaning. With the important exception of intact indigenous cultures (because of reasons we will elaborate on later), this artificial sense of separation from the natural world is endemic in modernity. It is our thought that creates and sustains this perspective. Bohm says, “Thought is very active, but the process of thought thinks that it is doing nothing – that it is just telling you the way things are.” (1996, pg 10-11). But all along it is thought that creates what is manifested. Many things we may believe in, such as our “nation,” are simply constructs of the mind. “Thought produces results,” but “thought says it didn’t do it.” (Bohm, 1996, p. 11)
Thought and Fragmentation
The benefit of abstract thought is that it allows for the breaking down of large problems into manageable units in which utilitarian action can be carried out upon the smaller units to produce a desirable result. This has been the basis for scientific advances over the past five-hundred or more years. Thought is applied to a particular problem or set of problems in a direct application. Bohm, following Barfield (1965), calls this “literal thought” (1996, pg 97 ). Literal thought is still a representation of reality; it is not reality itself. It can be likened to a map that is drawn up to include what is relevant to a particular problem to be solved, and that excludes what is deemed irrelevant or unnecessary. It also tacitly claims that all things are discrete and exactly as they appear: no more, no less, no different. A cat is a cat, and that is that. (Nichol, private communication). Literal thought can be useful for problem solving as a means to a particular end. However, to accomplish its ends, literal thought must objectify the world and treat everything in it, including people, as objects. Eventually, the thinker begins to believe that their objectification of the world is the reality, and forgets that they are seeing a map and not the territory. In other words, literal thought fragments reality, and then the thinker believes that reality is in fact fragmented! This process is tantamount to a form of idol worship, (Barfield, 1965) where, over time, the idol itself is confused for the divine.
Participatory Thought
Bohm contrasted literal thought with “participatory thought,” which is a form of thinking that tends to bring things together. Bohm points out that participation has two meanings, the earliest one more of a “partaking of,” as in eating from a common bowl or breaking bread, and the latter meaning is “to partake in”, or to make your individual contribution (1996, pg 98). Bohm combines both of those meanings together to operationally define “participatory thought” as thought that “sees that everything partakes of everything.” (p. 99) This is reminiscent of Bohm’s (1980) concept of the implicate order, where he says “everything is enfolded in everything.” Bohm recognized the undivided whole of nature as a dynamic process – and used the term “holomovement” to characterize the carrying of the implicate order process (1980). The movement of participatory thought is emergent from a deep structure of thought from the origin, from the timeless ever present implicate order. This flow of meaning/knowledge bringing together individual and collective consciousness is integral to Bohm’s vision of dialogue. Finally, and very important for our purposes, Bohm recognized that participatory thought, while largely repressed in modern, Euro-American consciousness, might still be present in indigenous societies. This awareness was a foreshadowing of what was to come in Little Bear choosing to approach Bohm and initiate science dialogues between
Native elders and Western scientists, eventually to culminate in the creation of the SEED dialogues.
Plains Indian Talking Circle
The roots of indigenous talking circle go back as far as humankind does, to the sharing of stories around a campfire. It is probable that some form of talking circle still exists in all indigenous communities, even if it is often an informal process. In Little Bear’s youth, he had many opportunities to partake of an informal talking circle atmosphere that was basically “good story telling sessions.” (2007, personal communication). Plains Indian culture, like many other indigenous cultures, values the coming together of community to exchange stories. The somewhat formal process known as Plains Indian talking circle emerged from the informal process of a person having a concern and wishing to gather a community to address the concern (Little Bear, 2007, private communication). The person might then “hire” another person as their spokesperson to address the concern on behalf of him/her. The hired person in effect becomes the moderator that convenes and holds the energy in the group. The person with the concern then listens to the input from the group. The council members address the concern from their perspective but do not tell the person with the concern what to do. In a more formal talking circle process, people will gather in a circle with an opening to the east, and speak in turn in a sunwise (clockwise) direction. Each speaker will be free to speak as long as they wish without interruption. A talking stick (typically a feather or carved walking cane) is passed to each person who speaks. The talking stick gives the person the floor and carries a connection to the spirit world of thought and energy. The most important thing about talking circle is listening. In a way, “listening” is a part of speaking as well. The speaker (and listeners) must clear their mind as much as possible to open themselves up to the thought waves that come from nature through themselves. The whole group may engage in a ceremony (such as sweat lodge) or smudging ceremony prior to engaging in dialogue. It is understood that it is necessary to come to the dialogue with a purified mind and heart. This state of readiness enables the participants to act as a conduit for the flow of spirit. (Little Bear, 2007, private communication) In talking circle, the person with the concern listens intently all the way through the process and does not respond. The sharing of all points of view builds a shared meaning throughout the group. This could be spoken of as consensus, but not in the way the word is commonly used in the West, for it is not about coming to a unanimous agreement to decide on an action plan to do this or that. Instead, the process allows a shared meaning to unfold in a subtle manner, and need not be explicitly recognized. Bohm would refer to this as a “tacit” or unconscious understanding. In talking circle, the key is to begin with a clear mind and build to a shared tacit understanding.
The person with the concern then has a basis to decide what action(s) to take, and the other participants also can similarly take with them what they learned to be used in the future if circumstances warrant. However, it is not as simple as extracting a particular staticmeaning from the dialogue and applying it to another particular static situation that fits the meaning. It is understood that the meaning of what is received in the talking circle is a 1
In Bohmian dialogue, the participants begin as is, and through suspension of assumptions/judgments and proprioception, tacit infrastructures are believed to lessen over time. Both methods have the potential to end with shared tacit meaning which is more coherent.
Living meaning
It may take some time to unfold and is always a moving energy, never a time-bound static knowledge. When Krishnamurti talks about perception, there is a parallel in Native thinking, at least to my understanding. Both forms of experience are speaking about perception that is outside of linear time. They are not a form of thinking that is abstracted from the flux; they are the flux! There is no I or ego in a language such as Blackfoot (Little Bear, personal communication). When consciousness is “surfing the flux” (as Rupert Ross, 1992, puts it), there is an awareness of the interconnectedness of all. In general, the style of communication in Native societies is more deliberate than in Western cultures. Speaking is done more slowly and carefully, with the understanding that the spoken word carries an effect in living energy upon all our relations. Silence is not something to be afraid of. This is culturally quite different than the ping pong style of communication that has become the norm in the West. The difference between ordinary conversation and talking circle among indigenous cultures is much less of a gulf than when dialogue is attempted in Western culture. A lot of the measures that Bohm took to attempt to unravel the subject-object division of egoic consciousness were simply not as necessary in traditional talking circle. A shared consciousness is already implicit in tribal consciousness. In the nineteenth century, Tonnies coined the term “gemeinschaft” culture for a social organization of interpersonal reality based on blood, region, race, custom and language (italics mine), as opposed to a “gellesschaft” society (a social organization based on “objective reality)” (Stewart and Bennet, 1991). It makes sense to me that the place, customs (including rituals of renewal) and language would bring about the shared tribal consciousness – the factors of blood or race would be secondary. The same understanding is in Bohmian dialogue.
Indigenous languages embody a worldview of dynamic, moving interconnection and reciprocal relationship between themselves and the natural world (Whorf, 1956, Alford, 2001). There isn’t the separation of subject/object inherent in Indo-European languages. All of the above allows for a natural unfolding of what Bohm calls participatory thinking. Participatory Thinking from a Native Perspective According to Little Bear, participatory thought in indigenous societies goes beyond what Bohm was describing. First, we can make a distinction between “thought” and “thinking.”
Thinking is what Rupert Ross (1992) called “surfing the flux.” (Little Bear, private communication). It is being in the flow of the dynamic enfoldment and unfoldment of nature with no separation between the observer and the observed – what Bohm (1980) would call the “holomovement.” When you simply move with the flux, that is thinking; but when you zero in on a particular place as a reference point, that marker in time is what becomes “thought.” Little Bear explains: “David Bohm [despite the notion of the holomovement and quantum theory in his worldview], still carries a hint of separation between the thinker and everything else out there
The Native view is that all of creation thinks – that the animals, the rocks – every aspect of creation have thought processes “(Little Bear, 2007, private communication). I the person am a conduit for the manifestation of thought, but not the generator of thought. Humans have a limited range of perception, like a radio dial. Other beings are aware of other frequencies. “The Native In fairness, Bohm (1985, 1999) also made such a distinction, although in a somewhat different manner.
This could be partially attributable to the English language that Bohm is using since Bohm claims to agree there is ultimately no separation. The root of this issue may be the animate/inanimate dichotomy inherent in English (see Footnote #5. View is not on the fence of the quantum wave/particle paradox. It’s all wave” (Little Bear, SEED Dialogues, 1999, private communication, 2007).
“In talking circle, when a person is speaking, it’s really nature speaking.” (Little Bear, private communication). The person becomes a conduit to the thought processes of nature, and those thought processes reciprocally influence the thought processes of nature. All is interconnected in dynamic flux. So we can learn from the rocks and the rocks can learn from us, and so forth. (Little Bear, private communication). The uniqueness of Native languages is a critical lens for understanding these processes. Native languages are profoundly different than Indo-European languages, the latter of which are replete with nouns. In speaking a language abundant in nouns, understanding comes about from a (collective representational) stopping of the world. Native languages are completely different (Whorf, 1956,Alford, 2001). Sakej Henderson says that in his language (part of the Algonquin family), “people can go all day long without uttering a single noun.” (Alford, 2001 ). As Little Bear and Heavy Head (2003) noted, in the Blackfoot language, there are not nouns or verbs at all as we normally describe them in relation to each other. Instead, linguistic meaning is something similar to events emerging out of a fluid, constantly moving interconnected flux, rather than discrete interactions between subject and object. The Blackfoot worldview of synergistic, interconnected relationship is beyond the imagination of a Newtonian worldview, but much closer to a worldview of quantum entanglement or non-locality. I Little Bear might also have said, “All things have life force.” (Cajete, 2000, p. 71). All is animate. This is an area where it becomes easier to understand what Little Bear means in saying Bohm has a “hint” of separation between the thinker and everything else out there. For instance, Bohm says, “ Mind is implicit in inanimate matter. Given the proper conditions it unfolds and forms living beings who might even be conscious.” (1985, pg.20).In this statement, Bohm is maintaining a distinction between animate and inanimate beings, conscious and unconscious, that would not tend to be present in Native thinking. In Native thinking, all is alive. All is conscious. (Little Bear, personal communication ) will revisit the question of Native languages more thoroughly later in the dissertation, but the point to be made here is that it is possible in Native languages to “surf the flux” in ways that may be hard to imagine for non-native speakers. The investigation of language, and how Native languages afford a unique lens into the quantum world of energy, became one of the driving forces for the eventual emergence of the SEED dialogues. But before I get into outlining the differences and commonalities between the hybrid of talking circle/Bohmian dialogue practiced at SEED, it is necessary to acknowledge our roots of dialogue that brought us to this point in time, for the SEED dialogues are very much a continuation of a previous tradition.
History of the SEED Dialogues
In 1992, Dan Moonhawk Alford, my mentor into Native America, was privileged to be invited by his mentor, Sakej Youngblood Henderson, to participate in the historic first Bohmian Science dialogue between Native elders, quantum physicists and linguists, held that year in Kalamazoo, MI, sponsored by the Fetzer Institute. This first dialogue emerged out of a web of events that can most easily be traced from 1989, when Leroy Little Bear and others put on a small Native Science conference held in the Nakoda Lodge on the Indian reservation of “Stony,” located west of Calgary. David Peat was one of the participants of that conference, and Leroy knew that Peat knew David Bohm, because they had written books together by that time. Later on, Leroy found out through Peat that Bohm, who lived in London, was coming to a little place in New York State called “The Farm.” Leroy tells the story. “Someone had bought the farm, and converted it into a retreat center, and when I found out David Bohm was coming, I made arrangements to meet him. Peat was living in Ottawa at the time, and we drove down together, and went out to the farm. We had two good days of visitation with Bohm, and as a result of that meeting, David Peat and I approached the Fetzer Institute to sponsor a dialogue, which then took place in 1992.” (Parry, 2004) Little Bear was moved to approach David Bohm for three reasons in addition to the obvious respect he held for Bohm’s work. He understood quantum theory to be in consonance of spirit with Native views of the cosmos in dynamic flux. He knew that Bohm would be more likely than most other Western scientists to listen to a Native viewpoint, as Bohm had an appreciation for dialogue that was very similar in feeling to a Native American talking circle. Leroy knew that Bohm had been experimenting with a language based entirely on verbs, which he called the “rheomode,” from the Greek “rheo,” which means “to flow.” Little Bear knew that Blackfoot was a language that operated in a very similar way to the language Bohm was trying to create. (Parry, 2004) Thus, the stage was set for an auspicious first dialogue. Little Bear moderated the dialogue, and he was joined by Bohm, David Peat, Sakej Henderson, Moonhawk, Lee Nichol and twenty or so other Native and non-Native elders, physicists, linguists and so forth (See Table 1 for complete list.
Many of these people from the original 1992 dialogue have gone on to deepen their work around the ideas that were brought up in the dialogues. David Peat wrote Blackfoot Physics and founded a learning center in Italy. Lee Nichol went on to edit several volumes of Bohm’s work, including On Dialogue, a compilation of Bohm’s thoughts on dialogue and the nature of collective thought. Sakej Henderson became the Head of the Native Law Centre in Saskatoon and continued to work closely with Leroy on indigenous rights issues, most recently on biodiversity. Leroy went on to promote the concept of Native science and to lead many other Bohmian dialogues. He also became the Dean of Native Studies at Harvard before “retiring” to Lethbridge, Alberta, where he continues to teach about Native science, moderate dialogues, and act as the Academic Dean of SEED pending the launch of SEED Graduate Institute’s inaugural class. Moonhawk, who was already resurrecting the reputation of Benjamin Whorf (the linguist who had done so much to point out the unique characteristics of Native languages), continued to develop and expand his work around indigenous ways of knowing and bridging indigenous and Western science through what he came to call “quantum linguistics.” Moonhawk was the one who approached me a few years after SEED began to simply wonder, “What if we brought the dialogue to Albuquerque?” Together, we teamed up to organize the first dialogue at SEED in 1999, but before then, there were at least three dialogues sponsored by the Fetzer Institute that took place in Banff and others were sponsored by MIT and the National Science Foundation. All of these dialogues had been moderated by Little Bear, who incorporated certain elements of Bohmian dialogue together with traditional talking circle to create the unique hybrid practiced at SEED today by Little Bear and his protégés.
The SEED Hybrid of Bohmian Dialogue and Talking Circle
It is important to document that when Little Bear and Bohm first got together, Bohm came into the dialogues with the spirit of dialogue as he understood it, but did not impose his way of doing dialogue upon the meetings. Instead, he allowed the Native side who had initiated the meetings to proceed. (Nichol, 2007, private communication). What transpired, at least initially, was the Native side building a bridge of understanding toward the Western point of view (Alford, Nichol, Little Bear, private communication). Thus, the hybrid of talking circle/Bohmian dialogue that came about was not simply an appropriation of Bohmian dialogue for other purposes, but a true mixing of traditions. The actual process Little Bear uses parts ways with many of the core threads of Bohmian dialogue, (Nichol, private communication), but in other respects, it accomplishes much of the spirit and vision of Bohmian dialogue even when sometimes using other means, at least in the opinion of this author.
Comparison between Bohmian Dialogue and SEED Dialogue/Talking Circle Hybrid
I will use as a point of departure a chart which juxtaposes Bohmian dialogue with the Little Bear/SEED hybrid of Bohmian Dialogue/Talking Circle (or LBSHBD/TC). Then, I will explain these concepts more fully, although any explanation given will be somewhat lacking, because both Bohmian dialogue and LBSHBD/TC are living, breathing practices, not some models with operating instructions that are followed to the letter. Both are influenced by Spirit on a moment to moment basis, or at least they can be. Bohmian Dialogue LBSHBD/TC No pre-established purpose/no agenda No agenda, but there is a purpose to bring together Native and Non-natives in dialogue No Moderation SEED has the concern Hires moderator No kick-start question Moderator poses questions Including kick-start question
Shared Flow of Meaning/Shared Flow of Meaning
Through following the thread through opening to Spirit, not necessary to specifically build on what came before Participants are mindful of not speaking too long Can speak as long as Spirit moves Suspending judgment/assumptions Same/Safe container sustained
Not trying to persuade or influence by moderator
No content excluded same
Limitations of thought/dissolutions of Thinking/Spirit conduit emphasized
Thought emphasized
Expose tacit infrastructures – let them surface Begin with open mind/heart
Build to tacit infrastructure
Kick-start koan question serves to suspend tacit infrastructures quickly
Proprioception Not emphasized
Group Size of 20-40 people Group Size of 24 max
No audience inner circle plus audience
Ongoing meetings – weekly, monthly annual or semi-annual with
core group & new
participants Glenn Aparicio Parry © 2007
22
The biggest differences between Bohmian dialogue and LBSHBD/TC are in the moderation, the kick-start question and follow-up questions from the moderator, the somewhat different approaches to flow of meaning, the length of acceptable time to speak, the (outer circle) audience, the different emphasis on the limits of thought or thinking as a conduit to Spirit, and the question of exposing tacit infrastructures to dissolve them, or starting from a clean slate and building to a tacit infrastructure of shared meaning. Let’s first look at the role of the moderator, as the role of the moderator in LBSHBD/TC is manifold and integral to the process. The moderator sets the tone for dialogue by thoroughly explaining the process and being a model of a good listener. Once the process is understood, the moderator keeps the group immersed in the content by monitoring and safeguarding the process. The moderator asks the kick-start question (this is a critical element we will explain more fully shortly) and subsequent questions to thicken the soup of dialogue. The moderator recognizes speakers in particular order he/she determines Moderator facilitates a safe container in the room
All of these aspects of moderation could be discussed in some detail, as none of them except the first are part of Bohmian dialogue, and skillful moderation is an essential part of LBSHBD/TC. However, other than a few brief comments I will now make, there are good reasons why I will not discuss the other aspects of moderation in this chapter. For one, much of skillful moderation is done at the subtle level, and involves monitoring the flow of participatory consciousness in the room. To attempt to describe such an endeavor would involve a rather tortured (and almost certainly inaccurate) rational analysis of events that are pre-rational and spontaneous. The skill of moderation is a tacit skill that cannot be communicated through a book or dissertation. There are other aspects of moderation which are explainable but not significantly different from moderation of any group. Those aspects need not be taken up here either. For purposes of this section of the chapter, I will only discuss the kick-start question, for the kick-start question is perhaps the most fascinating and unique aspect of LBSHBD/TC that is initiated by the moderator. It has the potential to accomplish something considered very important, although immensely difficult, in Bohmian dialogue – the suspension of tacit infrastructures. In the opinion of this author, the kick-start question does (to a significant degree) successfully bring about the suspension of tacit infrastructures, and in an expeditious manner that is completely different than a Bohmian approach. In Bohmian dialogue, patience, regular meetings and proprioception are the means to suspending tacit infrastructures. In LBSHBD/TC, the kick-start question jump-starts the process. Little Bear never tells his kick-start question in advance to anyone, so because it is a surprise question, participants cannot come to the dialogue with prepared remarks that further a personal agenda. But that’s only the half of it. The kick-start question is also a riddle or koan that is challenging to Native and Non-native participants alike. A good kick-start question will (at least temporarily) lock up the mind – and in that suspension, there is the opportunity to access a deeper knowledge that is outside of ourselves and our normal ways of seeing. For example, in the first year SEED ever presented a dialogue (1999), Little Bear’s first question was “Is it possible to come up with an original thought?” He coupled that question with a corollary question: “What would be the reality that we would experience if you did not think in a language?” The first question brings into play the word “original,” which in English is an inherent paradox, because the word maintains a double meaning of returning to the origin, or source, and at the same time it also refers to something brand new. The second question is also a double bind, because it asks the participants to think about not thinking. As a person who has received training in hypnosis, I understand something of why this works. In hypnosis, there is something
called the confusion technique, which causes trance by locking up the patient’s conscious ways of seeing, and thus builds receptivity to new ideas. Paradox thinking is very similar. It brings forth creative thinking (Begay, Maryboy, Nichol, 2006). Dare we say it can bring forth “original thinking?” In 2006, Little Bear began with the kick-start question, “Do you really and truly believe in a separation of church and state?” One of the inner circle participants, Nora Bateson responded: “When you said ‘Do you really and truly believe in a separation…’ –right then, I said, No, I do not believe in separation – whatever it is - but then you said ‘of church and state’ – and, Oh, God. “ All these questions are more difficult to answer than they may first appear. The kick start question initiates a generative flow of dialogue, and then, from there, dialogue takes on a life of its own. I have made the case that a good kick-start question suspends tacit infrastructures. However, I do not mean to imply that the tacit infrastructures simply go away. Thus, even if we assume that the koan question is successful in initially suspending tacit infrastructures, how long can those structures remain in abeyance before they rise up again? This is why a good kick-start question for SEED dialogues, which bring together indigenous and Western ways of knowing, is one that in some way addresses the root of tacit knowing in both groups. Questions such as “Is it possible to think an original thought” or “Do you really and truly believe in the separation of church and state” do just that. They bring up charged issues for both Native and Non-native participants. When participants go about answering a kick-start question, they are forced to articulate an answer that in some ways will likely re-inject at least some of their pre-existing tacit infrastructures into the answer. But because their tacit infrastructures were at least temporarily suspended, they are more likely to be open to the flow of meaning from Spirit that is outside of themselves, and the same will be true for everyone who is listening in the inner and outer circles. The same principle and the same possibility are allowed for in Bohmian dialogue, but there are subtle differences. For one, without the kick-start question, it will generally take much longer to get to this level of openness. Secondly, in Bohmian dialogue (at least in the beginning stages) one speaker speaks and the next speakers tend to follow the thread of what is spoken. The flow of meaning comes primarily through the relatedness between each speaker, whereas in LBSHBD/TC, the speakers need not consciously relate their thoughts to another. A key difference between Bohmian dialogue and talking circle is that Bohm emphasized the limitations of thought, and LBSHBD/TC emphasizes the power of thought/Spirit. Everyone is free to speak as long as Spirit moves, whereas in Bohmian dialogue, an exceedingly long speaker would tend to be thought of as Long-time practitioners of Bohmian dialogue, such as Lee Nichol, take some issue with this statement.According to Nichol, this is only true at its most superficial level of Bohmian dialogue. There are at least three other means to developing flow of meaning that are possible in Bohmian dialogue besides the content of conversation: shared proprioception, shared emotion, and realization of the nature and origin of consciousness.
In LBSHBD/TC, there is more of an emphasis on acting as a conduit to a source outside of themselves, outside of the room, even outside of time.In LBSHBD/TC, what is spoken may seem a bit like a jigsaw puzzle at first; but if one waits patiently the pieces come together to get a more complete picture. LBSHBD/TC can be likened to climbing a mountain. As each person speaks, you build a mountain of ideas. There are many ways to climb the mountain, but in the end we all share a common view. (Little Bear, 1999 dialogues, private communication). This is a way to build a coherent tacit infrastructure. A
New Form of Participatory Knowing
In LBSHBD/TC, everyone, including the outer circle, is participating in the flow of meaning that is being created in the room. That sense of participation is perhaps to some degree what Barfield (1965) called “original participation” of “early man” (p. 42), to the extent that there is an emergent awareness of a collective participatory consciousness as opposed to an awareness of the self which is doing the thinking. But it may also be that something else is happening; it may be the beginnings of a new kind of participatory consciousness being created through a sustained encounter of contemporary indigenous consciousness with modern (or post-modern) Western consciousness.
The latter complaint can arise in LBSHBD/TC as well if someone is not familiar with the process, or if the speaker simply continues too long even when it is apparent that Spirit is no longer moving through them.
I do not mean to imply that these collective participatory aspects are not valued in Bohmian dialoguewhen they very much are. I think that one of the reasons Little Bear says that these aspects are emphasized more in LBSHBD/TC is simply because these practices are more commonly practiced in indigenous societies, and since the SEED dialogues feature at least half Native participants in the inner circle, these participatory aspects naturally tend to come out more.
The SEED dialogues may be a microcosm of a larger shift in the structures of consciousness. The development of rational consciousness over the past five-hundred years never actually eradicated the underlying structures of consciousness that Gebser (1985) called the archaic, magical and mythical consciousness. It only suppressed them and now we are seeing their re-emergence in a new way – which has at least the potential to merge and re-position rational consciousness in an inclusive, fuller, integral consciousness. As Western consciousness reached past the zenith point of rational consciousness, the Baconian strategy of marshalling nature to do the bidding of humankind has produced diminishing returns and/or frightening consequences for the species and for all our relations.
The postmodern “I” of separative consciousness seems to be fragmenting and dissolving, and with it, there has been a resurgence of interest in Eastern wisdom, and more recently in indigenous thought. In part, this has come from the recognition of the timelessness of the indigenous wisdom throughout the world. In part, this may be a romantic desire of the Western world to go backward in time to a simpler era. In part, it may be because of the emerging Western tradition of wholistic thought, spurred on by the advances of twentieth century physics, mathematical cosmology and systems theory, and their parallels with Native thought. In Native America, the question now being asked is what will be the form of indigenous thought that survives into the future? (Secatero, private communication) How do we understand the “original instructions” that Native elders talk about in light of the conditions we face today? (Secatero, private communication). I don’t believe that Native consciousness can ever return to the way it was in pre-colonial days. But what can happen, and in some small measure is happening at the SEED dialogues, is a hybrid consciousness that brings forward indigenous wisdom with an emergent wholistic consciousness in the West to form a new kind of participatory, wholistic consciousness. The deeper question is now, what will be a new form of this participatory wholistic consciousness that all the “fivefingered ones” can embrace, if we are survive the next five-hundred years and beyond? (Nichol, private communication, Secatero, private communication). In bringing indigenous and Western science together for nearly a decade in a hybrid of Bohmian dialogue and talking circle, SEED has been a midwife in the pending birth of this new consciousness. And just as Bohmian dialogue was an unfinished experiment, so are the SEED dialogues. To create a full graduate curriculum based on indigenous ways of knowing as an opening to all ways of knowing, dialogue is of necessity in the center of our process.
Table 1: (Participants in the 1992 Historic Dialogue)
Leroy Little Bear, Blood Indian Tribe, Blackfoot Confederacy
Amethyst First Rider, Blood Indian Tribe,
Blackfoot Confederacy David Bohm, physicist,
Saral Bohm, wife of David Henry Bush - Potowatomi
Lou Ann Bush - Potowatomi
Joe Couture - Cree psychologist
Ruth Couture - Cree
Carol Hegedus - Fetzer Institute
Alan Ford, linguist studying Cree
Sam Kounosu, a Japanese physicist
Danny Musqua - Seauteau elder
Buff Parry - linguist
Lee Nichol - writer and editor of Bohm’s work
Paul Grof - psychiatrist
Dick Katz - psychologist
Tobasonakwut Peter Kinew - Ojibway elder
Anab Whitehouse - Sufi philosopher
Joel Elkes - medical anthropologist
Therese Schroeder-Sheker - thanatologist/harpist - aka “The Angel.
by Glenn Aparicio Parry
© 2007
Dialogue is at the center of SEED’s educational practice and philosophy. It is because of this that the meaning of “dialogue” and the particular history of how dialogue came to be practiced at SEED bear considerable explanation. I will begin by introducing the particular context and meaning in which David Bohm used dialogue and briefly explain some of the central components of Bohmian dialogue. Next, I will articulate some of the philosophy and practice of Plains Indian talking circle; the circumstances that brought together Bohm and Little Bear; how that led to the SEED dialogues; explain the unique hybrid of Bohmian dialogue/Native talking circle that is practiced at SEED today and how the SEED hybrid is distinguished from Bohmian dialogue. I will conclude the chapter with the relevance of dialogue for SEED and for the emerging consciousness in the larger society. The word dialogue is used today to describe a great variety of forms and practices that have something to do with furthering understanding between groups or individuals. In common language, dialogue simply means a conversation between two or more persons. However, the etymology of the word, as Bohm (1996) was quick to point out, suggests a deeper meaning. “Dialogue” comes from the Greek “dialogos:” “Dia” doesn’t mean “two” – it means “through; and “logos” means “the word.” (Bohm 1996, p.6). Thus, implied in the etymology of the word is the stream of meaning that can flow through a group engaged in the process of dialogue. Bohm was aware of the potential of dialogue to facilitate shared meaning between a group, and hold the group together in a relatively coherent whole. He was also keenly aware of the limits of thought, and the “tacit infrastructure” of conditioned consciousness that can obstruct coherence, but I will get to those concerns in a moment. The cohesive potential of dialogue, in which meaning can flow through a group, is in distinct contrast from “discussion,” which is etymologically related to the words “percussion” and “concussion,” which breaks things up (into dysfunctional fragments), or as we might say today, “breaks things down” for purpose of analysis of the separate parts (Bohm, 1996).
Einstein and Bohr
Fairly early in his career, Bohm became aware of the blocks in communication that arose between scientists who clung to their particular way of seeing, which he felt was largely predicated upon their unconscious assumptions. Einstein and Bohr is perhaps the most obvious instance in which this happened, with Einstein remaining steadfast to relativity theory, and Bohr embracing quantum theory. Although they were initially close friends, they gradually became so alienated from each other that they completely separated. Then, one well-intentioned person arranged a party in which Einstein, Bohr and their students were all invited. To the dismay of the organizer, Einstein and Bohr remained on separate sides of the room, communicating only with their own students. Bohm felt that what should have happened between Einstein and Bohr was a dialogue in which each person listens deeply to what the other is saying for the purpose of understanding and not to persuade the other of the correctness of their own belief. If either Bohr or Einstein had been able to suspend their judgments and listen without umping to defend their own position, then a breakthrough in understanding for both could have occurred (Bohm, 1996).
The Emerging Paradigm and Its Relationship to Bohmian Dialogue
Bohm was on the forefront of an emerging paradigm in twentieth century physics that recognized the undivided wholeness and interconnectedness of reality, as opposed to the prevailing Newtonian paradigm of unidirectional causality which tended to abstract and focus on the actions of phenomena apart from other phenomena. Bohm felt that the prevailing paradigm, while being instrumental in therise of utilitarian invention, was also instrumental in leading to a fragmented view of reality, and a concomitant fragmented consciousness within the society. Bohm had no illusions that the emerging paradigm had already impacted the society at large. He realized that scientific knowledge of the past several centuries had become absorbed into the tacit knowledge of the culture as the unquestioned truths of the age. Bohm felt that for a genuine transformation of humankind to take place, the tacit knowledge of the society would need to change. Bohm frequently spoke of “tacit knowledge” as the knowledge that governs much of what we unconsciously do. Riding a bicycle or driving a car is a form of tacit knowledge, but Bohm meant something deeper than this by tacit knowledge; he was referring to all the unexamined assumptions that govern our lives that create the particular lens in which we individually and collectively see the world – what he called our “tacit infrastructure” – but might also be called our paradigm. The Newtonian paradigm had objectified the world and pervaded science and culture in such a way as to create a collective incoherence at the base of society - and as this incoherence was tacit it was largely invisible. Scientific knowledge had in effect been elevated to “scientism” - another form of religion simply accepted on faith as the correct knowledge. Bohm said that science has come to “play the role that religion used to play of giving us truth.” (1996, pg xi). Bohm was greatly concerned about this for several reasons, all of which directly affected the way he practiced dialogue and his overall vision of dialogue. Perhaps the greatest motivating force for Bohm to introduce his concept of dialogue was the looming ecological, religious and political crises of a world where polarized ideologies are the norm. Bohm understood that a fragmented view of nature simply doesn’t work when addressing complex, interconnected problems such as the ecology. In order to address these complex, interconnected issues, we have to start over in a certain sense and rebuild a coherent tacit structure to society. For instance, there are literally hundreds if not thousands of groups now attempting to address the ecological crises of our time. If all of these groups were to have some basis of common understanding, then they could address the issues in a coherent manner, rather than what they do now, which is to address the issues with different underlying assumptions and agendas, and poor communication/cooperation, if there is any communication at all. We cannot address deeply interconnected issues, such as the ecology, with an incoherent, disjointed effort; at least, we cannot continue to do that and somehow expect different results. As Einstein (purportedly) said, this is the very definition of insanity.
Features of Bohmian Dialogue
For Bohm, his ongoing interest in dialogue and his attempts to implement it were a form of laboratory experiment in which he did not yet know the results (Nichol, 1994 transcript of dialogue session). The following features of Bohmian dialogue were not set out in concrete at the start, but over time, they formed the basis for the praxis. These central features of Bohmian dialogue are:
1) No pre-established purpose – no agenda
2) Shared Meaning
3) Suspending assumptions/judgments, not trying to persuade or influence
4) Flow of meaning
5) Group Size of 20-40 people to constitute a “micro-cultural context”
6) Exposing of tacit infrastructures
7) No content excluded
8) No moderation – facilitation is used only to initiate the process and is
dropped thereafter
9) Impersonal Fellowship
10) Proprioception: Self-awareness of thought, feelings, emotions, body as
one undivided whole
11) Regular weekly or monthly meetings
There is no pre-established purpose in Bohmian dialogue, so that moment to moment awareness and flow of dialogue are welcomed. Once you have a set agenda or purpose, the tendency of a group is to attempt to stick to the agenda and not allow in a change in direction. Shared meaning comes from a process of suspending assumptions/judgments and listening to understand, rather than to persuade or influence the outcome. Bringing multiple perspectives out without judgment provides a base of shared meaning. However, this does not imply that the base of meaning is static or a simple aggregate of what everyone has said. It is more fluid than that, so that even if a listener misinterprets the meaning of the speaker, “the very mis-perception of one’s spoken intent can lead to new meaning that is created on the spot. (Nichol, in Bohm, p xxi). The flow of meaning is what is created. Bohm advocated a group size of between 20-40 people to create a “micro-cultural context” – a mixed representation of many subcultures as a microcosm of the larger society. Over the course of the dialogue the process will tend to expose the predispositions, viewpoints, backgrounds and assumptions that constitute the tacit infrastructure(s) of an individual mind-set, group or sub-group. No content is excluded from the dialogue. The intent is to provide a safe space where everyone feels they can participate and contribute. Eventually, a feeling of impersonal fellowship can develop amongst the group. This is enhanced by regular weekly or monthly meetings. Bohm recommended continuing the meetings for a significant length of time, such as a year or two. In the beginning, a moderator or facilitator would be necessary to explain the process, but his objective would be to work himself out of a job, and allow the process to unfold on its own. Finally, the most challenging aspect of Bohmian dialogue to understand (and even more challenging to do) is the concept of developing proprioception – a technical term Bohm used for self-awareness of thought, feelings, emotions and body as one undivided whole. By this, he meant that “in the process of thought there should be awareness of that movement, of the intention to think, and of the result which that thinking produces. “ (Bohm, 1996, pg 91). The concept of proprioception is related to the concept of moment to moment judgment and assumption. Lee Nichol, Bohn’s long-time editor and collaborator, explains: One direction is to try to change the assumption. The other direction, having suspended, is to allow the assumption to “flower” within your entire organism. Instead of trying to alter it, let yourself feel its “meaning” – how it charges the organism emotionally, psychologically, neurophysiologically. Sense the living movement of it. This is the beginning of proprioception. We begin to explore whether or not we can proceed without the observer – the “me” – trying to control everything. Softening the opinion is still in the domain of the observer controlling its world. (1994 dialogue transcript) Bohm’s approach to issues of thought, feelings and emotions was in part developed during the course of his near quarter-century collaboration with J. Krishnamurti, a relationship that profoundly changed Bohm’s examination of the limits of thought, as well as his entire intellectual and spiritual outlook on life, according to Nichol (2007, private communication). Bohm became a trustee of Brockwood Park (one the schools founded by Krishnamurti) and the Krishnamurti Foundation, the latter of which eventually published several volumes of discussions between Bohm and Krishnamurti, including the Ending of Time (1985) and The Limits of Thought (1999). Bohm also openly acknowledged Barfield (1965), DeMare (1991) and Polanyi (1966) as influences regarding thought and tacit knowledge. I will not attempt to summarize Krishnamurti’s overall views, which is a dissertation in itself. Nonetheless, I will point out a few core perceptions of Krishnamurti that seem to have profoundly influenced Bohm’s approach to dialogue.
1) “To be is to be related.” (Bohm, 1996, p. 47)
2) All thought is limited.
3) “All thoughts, all fragments, are related to each other.” (Krishnamurti and
Bohm, 1999, pg 51)
4) All thought is moving. (Krishnamurti and Bohm, 1999, 1985)
5) “Perception is not a movement of thought.” (Krishnamurti and Bohm,
1999, pg 50)
6) In direct perception, there is no observer and observed. There is only
perception.
7) The urgency of cleansing the mind from the accumulation of time
(Krishnamurti and Bohm, 1985) Later in this chapter, we will juxtapose some of these perceptions of Krishnamurti with Native thinking, which may shed some light on the differences and similarities between Bohmian dialogue and Native talking circle. At this point, since the essence of thought is important to Bohmian dialogue and talking circle alike, we will now discuss thought in some detail.
Thought is the Problem
One of the pivotal insights of twentieth century physics was that, in the quantum world, the observer affects the observed. But what about thought? If I say, “I am angry,” and “I” identify this as a problem, and “I” seek to change my state, what I have difficulty seeing is that the observer (my ego) is not really much different than the observed (Bohm, 1996). In other words, a person identifies a problem; he/she thinks this requires change, and then thinks of a way to change the problem, but can’t change the problem and doesn’t understand why, because, as Bohm says, “thought itself is the problem (1996, p. 12).” The problem of thought is particularly evident when trying to address psychological problems, but according to Bohm, thought is also the source of the general collective incoherence of society. In fact, Bohm felt that most of the thought in the society “originates in the whole culture and pervades us.”(1996, p. 59)
Bohm believed all of thought to be an abstraction because it separates something in our attention from the whole of creation. That abstraction is a division that is not inherent in nature (which to Bohm is an undivided whole), but once we think of nature as something separate from ourselves – as “out there” – then this is what becomes real to us. It becomes so unquestionably real that it is not typically recognized as a belief, but exists in the tacit knowledge of the culture as a base of shared cultural meaning. With the important exception of intact indigenous cultures (because of reasons we will elaborate on later), this artificial sense of separation from the natural world is endemic in modernity. It is our thought that creates and sustains this perspective. Bohm says, “Thought is very active, but the process of thought thinks that it is doing nothing – that it is just telling you the way things are.” (1996, pg 10-11). But all along it is thought that creates what is manifested. Many things we may believe in, such as our “nation,” are simply constructs of the mind. “Thought produces results,” but “thought says it didn’t do it.” (Bohm, 1996, p. 11)
Thought and Fragmentation
The benefit of abstract thought is that it allows for the breaking down of large problems into manageable units in which utilitarian action can be carried out upon the smaller units to produce a desirable result. This has been the basis for scientific advances over the past five-hundred or more years. Thought is applied to a particular problem or set of problems in a direct application. Bohm, following Barfield (1965), calls this “literal thought” (1996, pg 97 ). Literal thought is still a representation of reality; it is not reality itself. It can be likened to a map that is drawn up to include what is relevant to a particular problem to be solved, and that excludes what is deemed irrelevant or unnecessary. It also tacitly claims that all things are discrete and exactly as they appear: no more, no less, no different. A cat is a cat, and that is that. (Nichol, private communication). Literal thought can be useful for problem solving as a means to a particular end. However, to accomplish its ends, literal thought must objectify the world and treat everything in it, including people, as objects. Eventually, the thinker begins to believe that their objectification of the world is the reality, and forgets that they are seeing a map and not the territory. In other words, literal thought fragments reality, and then the thinker believes that reality is in fact fragmented! This process is tantamount to a form of idol worship, (Barfield, 1965) where, over time, the idol itself is confused for the divine.
Participatory Thought
Bohm contrasted literal thought with “participatory thought,” which is a form of thinking that tends to bring things together. Bohm points out that participation has two meanings, the earliest one more of a “partaking of,” as in eating from a common bowl or breaking bread, and the latter meaning is “to partake in”, or to make your individual contribution (1996, pg 98). Bohm combines both of those meanings together to operationally define “participatory thought” as thought that “sees that everything partakes of everything.” (p. 99) This is reminiscent of Bohm’s (1980) concept of the implicate order, where he says “everything is enfolded in everything.” Bohm recognized the undivided whole of nature as a dynamic process – and used the term “holomovement” to characterize the carrying of the implicate order process (1980). The movement of participatory thought is emergent from a deep structure of thought from the origin, from the timeless ever present implicate order. This flow of meaning/knowledge bringing together individual and collective consciousness is integral to Bohm’s vision of dialogue. Finally, and very important for our purposes, Bohm recognized that participatory thought, while largely repressed in modern, Euro-American consciousness, might still be present in indigenous societies. This awareness was a foreshadowing of what was to come in Little Bear choosing to approach Bohm and initiate science dialogues between
Native elders and Western scientists, eventually to culminate in the creation of the SEED dialogues.
Plains Indian Talking Circle
The roots of indigenous talking circle go back as far as humankind does, to the sharing of stories around a campfire. It is probable that some form of talking circle still exists in all indigenous communities, even if it is often an informal process. In Little Bear’s youth, he had many opportunities to partake of an informal talking circle atmosphere that was basically “good story telling sessions.” (2007, personal communication). Plains Indian culture, like many other indigenous cultures, values the coming together of community to exchange stories. The somewhat formal process known as Plains Indian talking circle emerged from the informal process of a person having a concern and wishing to gather a community to address the concern (Little Bear, 2007, private communication). The person might then “hire” another person as their spokesperson to address the concern on behalf of him/her. The hired person in effect becomes the moderator that convenes and holds the energy in the group. The person with the concern then listens to the input from the group. The council members address the concern from their perspective but do not tell the person with the concern what to do. In a more formal talking circle process, people will gather in a circle with an opening to the east, and speak in turn in a sunwise (clockwise) direction. Each speaker will be free to speak as long as they wish without interruption. A talking stick (typically a feather or carved walking cane) is passed to each person who speaks. The talking stick gives the person the floor and carries a connection to the spirit world of thought and energy. The most important thing about talking circle is listening. In a way, “listening” is a part of speaking as well. The speaker (and listeners) must clear their mind as much as possible to open themselves up to the thought waves that come from nature through themselves. The whole group may engage in a ceremony (such as sweat lodge) or smudging ceremony prior to engaging in dialogue. It is understood that it is necessary to come to the dialogue with a purified mind and heart. This state of readiness enables the participants to act as a conduit for the flow of spirit. (Little Bear, 2007, private communication) In talking circle, the person with the concern listens intently all the way through the process and does not respond. The sharing of all points of view builds a shared meaning throughout the group. This could be spoken of as consensus, but not in the way the word is commonly used in the West, for it is not about coming to a unanimous agreement to decide on an action plan to do this or that. Instead, the process allows a shared meaning to unfold in a subtle manner, and need not be explicitly recognized. Bohm would refer to this as a “tacit” or unconscious understanding. In talking circle, the key is to begin with a clear mind and build to a shared tacit understanding.
The person with the concern then has a basis to decide what action(s) to take, and the other participants also can similarly take with them what they learned to be used in the future if circumstances warrant. However, it is not as simple as extracting a particular staticmeaning from the dialogue and applying it to another particular static situation that fits the meaning. It is understood that the meaning of what is received in the talking circle is a 1
In Bohmian dialogue, the participants begin as is, and through suspension of assumptions/judgments and proprioception, tacit infrastructures are believed to lessen over time. Both methods have the potential to end with shared tacit meaning which is more coherent.
Living meaning
It may take some time to unfold and is always a moving energy, never a time-bound static knowledge. When Krishnamurti talks about perception, there is a parallel in Native thinking, at least to my understanding. Both forms of experience are speaking about perception that is outside of linear time. They are not a form of thinking that is abstracted from the flux; they are the flux! There is no I or ego in a language such as Blackfoot (Little Bear, personal communication). When consciousness is “surfing the flux” (as Rupert Ross, 1992, puts it), there is an awareness of the interconnectedness of all. In general, the style of communication in Native societies is more deliberate than in Western cultures. Speaking is done more slowly and carefully, with the understanding that the spoken word carries an effect in living energy upon all our relations. Silence is not something to be afraid of. This is culturally quite different than the ping pong style of communication that has become the norm in the West. The difference between ordinary conversation and talking circle among indigenous cultures is much less of a gulf than when dialogue is attempted in Western culture. A lot of the measures that Bohm took to attempt to unravel the subject-object division of egoic consciousness were simply not as necessary in traditional talking circle. A shared consciousness is already implicit in tribal consciousness. In the nineteenth century, Tonnies coined the term “gemeinschaft” culture for a social organization of interpersonal reality based on blood, region, race, custom and language (italics mine), as opposed to a “gellesschaft” society (a social organization based on “objective reality)” (Stewart and Bennet, 1991). It makes sense to me that the place, customs (including rituals of renewal) and language would bring about the shared tribal consciousness – the factors of blood or race would be secondary. The same understanding is in Bohmian dialogue.
Indigenous languages embody a worldview of dynamic, moving interconnection and reciprocal relationship between themselves and the natural world (Whorf, 1956, Alford, 2001). There isn’t the separation of subject/object inherent in Indo-European languages. All of the above allows for a natural unfolding of what Bohm calls participatory thinking. Participatory Thinking from a Native Perspective According to Little Bear, participatory thought in indigenous societies goes beyond what Bohm was describing. First, we can make a distinction between “thought” and “thinking.”
Thinking is what Rupert Ross (1992) called “surfing the flux.” (Little Bear, private communication). It is being in the flow of the dynamic enfoldment and unfoldment of nature with no separation between the observer and the observed – what Bohm (1980) would call the “holomovement.” When you simply move with the flux, that is thinking; but when you zero in on a particular place as a reference point, that marker in time is what becomes “thought.” Little Bear explains: “David Bohm [despite the notion of the holomovement and quantum theory in his worldview], still carries a hint of separation between the thinker and everything else out there
The Native view is that all of creation thinks – that the animals, the rocks – every aspect of creation have thought processes “(Little Bear, 2007, private communication). I the person am a conduit for the manifestation of thought, but not the generator of thought. Humans have a limited range of perception, like a radio dial. Other beings are aware of other frequencies. “The Native In fairness, Bohm (1985, 1999) also made such a distinction, although in a somewhat different manner.
This could be partially attributable to the English language that Bohm is using since Bohm claims to agree there is ultimately no separation. The root of this issue may be the animate/inanimate dichotomy inherent in English (see Footnote #5. View is not on the fence of the quantum wave/particle paradox. It’s all wave” (Little Bear, SEED Dialogues, 1999, private communication, 2007).
“In talking circle, when a person is speaking, it’s really nature speaking.” (Little Bear, private communication). The person becomes a conduit to the thought processes of nature, and those thought processes reciprocally influence the thought processes of nature. All is interconnected in dynamic flux. So we can learn from the rocks and the rocks can learn from us, and so forth. (Little Bear, private communication). The uniqueness of Native languages is a critical lens for understanding these processes. Native languages are profoundly different than Indo-European languages, the latter of which are replete with nouns. In speaking a language abundant in nouns, understanding comes about from a (collective representational) stopping of the world. Native languages are completely different (Whorf, 1956,Alford, 2001). Sakej Henderson says that in his language (part of the Algonquin family), “people can go all day long without uttering a single noun.” (Alford, 2001 ). As Little Bear and Heavy Head (2003) noted, in the Blackfoot language, there are not nouns or verbs at all as we normally describe them in relation to each other. Instead, linguistic meaning is something similar to events emerging out of a fluid, constantly moving interconnected flux, rather than discrete interactions between subject and object. The Blackfoot worldview of synergistic, interconnected relationship is beyond the imagination of a Newtonian worldview, but much closer to a worldview of quantum entanglement or non-locality. I Little Bear might also have said, “All things have life force.” (Cajete, 2000, p. 71). All is animate. This is an area where it becomes easier to understand what Little Bear means in saying Bohm has a “hint” of separation between the thinker and everything else out there. For instance, Bohm says, “ Mind is implicit in inanimate matter. Given the proper conditions it unfolds and forms living beings who might even be conscious.” (1985, pg.20).In this statement, Bohm is maintaining a distinction between animate and inanimate beings, conscious and unconscious, that would not tend to be present in Native thinking. In Native thinking, all is alive. All is conscious. (Little Bear, personal communication ) will revisit the question of Native languages more thoroughly later in the dissertation, but the point to be made here is that it is possible in Native languages to “surf the flux” in ways that may be hard to imagine for non-native speakers. The investigation of language, and how Native languages afford a unique lens into the quantum world of energy, became one of the driving forces for the eventual emergence of the SEED dialogues. But before I get into outlining the differences and commonalities between the hybrid of talking circle/Bohmian dialogue practiced at SEED, it is necessary to acknowledge our roots of dialogue that brought us to this point in time, for the SEED dialogues are very much a continuation of a previous tradition.
History of the SEED Dialogues
In 1992, Dan Moonhawk Alford, my mentor into Native America, was privileged to be invited by his mentor, Sakej Youngblood Henderson, to participate in the historic first Bohmian Science dialogue between Native elders, quantum physicists and linguists, held that year in Kalamazoo, MI, sponsored by the Fetzer Institute. This first dialogue emerged out of a web of events that can most easily be traced from 1989, when Leroy Little Bear and others put on a small Native Science conference held in the Nakoda Lodge on the Indian reservation of “Stony,” located west of Calgary. David Peat was one of the participants of that conference, and Leroy knew that Peat knew David Bohm, because they had written books together by that time. Later on, Leroy found out through Peat that Bohm, who lived in London, was coming to a little place in New York State called “The Farm.” Leroy tells the story. “Someone had bought the farm, and converted it into a retreat center, and when I found out David Bohm was coming, I made arrangements to meet him. Peat was living in Ottawa at the time, and we drove down together, and went out to the farm. We had two good days of visitation with Bohm, and as a result of that meeting, David Peat and I approached the Fetzer Institute to sponsor a dialogue, which then took place in 1992.” (Parry, 2004) Little Bear was moved to approach David Bohm for three reasons in addition to the obvious respect he held for Bohm’s work. He understood quantum theory to be in consonance of spirit with Native views of the cosmos in dynamic flux. He knew that Bohm would be more likely than most other Western scientists to listen to a Native viewpoint, as Bohm had an appreciation for dialogue that was very similar in feeling to a Native American talking circle. Leroy knew that Bohm had been experimenting with a language based entirely on verbs, which he called the “rheomode,” from the Greek “rheo,” which means “to flow.” Little Bear knew that Blackfoot was a language that operated in a very similar way to the language Bohm was trying to create. (Parry, 2004) Thus, the stage was set for an auspicious first dialogue. Little Bear moderated the dialogue, and he was joined by Bohm, David Peat, Sakej Henderson, Moonhawk, Lee Nichol and twenty or so other Native and non-Native elders, physicists, linguists and so forth (See Table 1 for complete list.
Many of these people from the original 1992 dialogue have gone on to deepen their work around the ideas that were brought up in the dialogues. David Peat wrote Blackfoot Physics and founded a learning center in Italy. Lee Nichol went on to edit several volumes of Bohm’s work, including On Dialogue, a compilation of Bohm’s thoughts on dialogue and the nature of collective thought. Sakej Henderson became the Head of the Native Law Centre in Saskatoon and continued to work closely with Leroy on indigenous rights issues, most recently on biodiversity. Leroy went on to promote the concept of Native science and to lead many other Bohmian dialogues. He also became the Dean of Native Studies at Harvard before “retiring” to Lethbridge, Alberta, where he continues to teach about Native science, moderate dialogues, and act as the Academic Dean of SEED pending the launch of SEED Graduate Institute’s inaugural class. Moonhawk, who was already resurrecting the reputation of Benjamin Whorf (the linguist who had done so much to point out the unique characteristics of Native languages), continued to develop and expand his work around indigenous ways of knowing and bridging indigenous and Western science through what he came to call “quantum linguistics.” Moonhawk was the one who approached me a few years after SEED began to simply wonder, “What if we brought the dialogue to Albuquerque?” Together, we teamed up to organize the first dialogue at SEED in 1999, but before then, there were at least three dialogues sponsored by the Fetzer Institute that took place in Banff and others were sponsored by MIT and the National Science Foundation. All of these dialogues had been moderated by Little Bear, who incorporated certain elements of Bohmian dialogue together with traditional talking circle to create the unique hybrid practiced at SEED today by Little Bear and his protégés.
The SEED Hybrid of Bohmian Dialogue and Talking Circle
It is important to document that when Little Bear and Bohm first got together, Bohm came into the dialogues with the spirit of dialogue as he understood it, but did not impose his way of doing dialogue upon the meetings. Instead, he allowed the Native side who had initiated the meetings to proceed. (Nichol, 2007, private communication). What transpired, at least initially, was the Native side building a bridge of understanding toward the Western point of view (Alford, Nichol, Little Bear, private communication). Thus, the hybrid of talking circle/Bohmian dialogue that came about was not simply an appropriation of Bohmian dialogue for other purposes, but a true mixing of traditions. The actual process Little Bear uses parts ways with many of the core threads of Bohmian dialogue, (Nichol, private communication), but in other respects, it accomplishes much of the spirit and vision of Bohmian dialogue even when sometimes using other means, at least in the opinion of this author.
Comparison between Bohmian Dialogue and SEED Dialogue/Talking Circle Hybrid
I will use as a point of departure a chart which juxtaposes Bohmian dialogue with the Little Bear/SEED hybrid of Bohmian Dialogue/Talking Circle (or LBSHBD/TC). Then, I will explain these concepts more fully, although any explanation given will be somewhat lacking, because both Bohmian dialogue and LBSHBD/TC are living, breathing practices, not some models with operating instructions that are followed to the letter. Both are influenced by Spirit on a moment to moment basis, or at least they can be. Bohmian Dialogue LBSHBD/TC No pre-established purpose/no agenda No agenda, but there is a purpose to bring together Native and Non-natives in dialogue No Moderation SEED has the concern Hires moderator No kick-start question Moderator poses questions Including kick-start question
Shared Flow of Meaning/Shared Flow of Meaning
Through following the thread through opening to Spirit, not necessary to specifically build on what came before Participants are mindful of not speaking too long Can speak as long as Spirit moves Suspending judgment/assumptions Same/Safe container sustained
Not trying to persuade or influence by moderator
No content excluded same
Limitations of thought/dissolutions of Thinking/Spirit conduit emphasized
Thought emphasized
Expose tacit infrastructures – let them surface Begin with open mind/heart
Build to tacit infrastructure
Kick-start koan question serves to suspend tacit infrastructures quickly
Proprioception Not emphasized
Group Size of 20-40 people Group Size of 24 max
No audience inner circle plus audience
Ongoing meetings – weekly, monthly annual or semi-annual with
core group & new
participants Glenn Aparicio Parry © 2007
22
The biggest differences between Bohmian dialogue and LBSHBD/TC are in the moderation, the kick-start question and follow-up questions from the moderator, the somewhat different approaches to flow of meaning, the length of acceptable time to speak, the (outer circle) audience, the different emphasis on the limits of thought or thinking as a conduit to Spirit, and the question of exposing tacit infrastructures to dissolve them, or starting from a clean slate and building to a tacit infrastructure of shared meaning. Let’s first look at the role of the moderator, as the role of the moderator in LBSHBD/TC is manifold and integral to the process. The moderator sets the tone for dialogue by thoroughly explaining the process and being a model of a good listener. Once the process is understood, the moderator keeps the group immersed in the content by monitoring and safeguarding the process. The moderator asks the kick-start question (this is a critical element we will explain more fully shortly) and subsequent questions to thicken the soup of dialogue. The moderator recognizes speakers in particular order he/she determines Moderator facilitates a safe container in the room
All of these aspects of moderation could be discussed in some detail, as none of them except the first are part of Bohmian dialogue, and skillful moderation is an essential part of LBSHBD/TC. However, other than a few brief comments I will now make, there are good reasons why I will not discuss the other aspects of moderation in this chapter. For one, much of skillful moderation is done at the subtle level, and involves monitoring the flow of participatory consciousness in the room. To attempt to describe such an endeavor would involve a rather tortured (and almost certainly inaccurate) rational analysis of events that are pre-rational and spontaneous. The skill of moderation is a tacit skill that cannot be communicated through a book or dissertation. There are other aspects of moderation which are explainable but not significantly different from moderation of any group. Those aspects need not be taken up here either. For purposes of this section of the chapter, I will only discuss the kick-start question, for the kick-start question is perhaps the most fascinating and unique aspect of LBSHBD/TC that is initiated by the moderator. It has the potential to accomplish something considered very important, although immensely difficult, in Bohmian dialogue – the suspension of tacit infrastructures. In the opinion of this author, the kick-start question does (to a significant degree) successfully bring about the suspension of tacit infrastructures, and in an expeditious manner that is completely different than a Bohmian approach. In Bohmian dialogue, patience, regular meetings and proprioception are the means to suspending tacit infrastructures. In LBSHBD/TC, the kick-start question jump-starts the process. Little Bear never tells his kick-start question in advance to anyone, so because it is a surprise question, participants cannot come to the dialogue with prepared remarks that further a personal agenda. But that’s only the half of it. The kick-start question is also a riddle or koan that is challenging to Native and Non-native participants alike. A good kick-start question will (at least temporarily) lock up the mind – and in that suspension, there is the opportunity to access a deeper knowledge that is outside of ourselves and our normal ways of seeing. For example, in the first year SEED ever presented a dialogue (1999), Little Bear’s first question was “Is it possible to come up with an original thought?” He coupled that question with a corollary question: “What would be the reality that we would experience if you did not think in a language?” The first question brings into play the word “original,” which in English is an inherent paradox, because the word maintains a double meaning of returning to the origin, or source, and at the same time it also refers to something brand new. The second question is also a double bind, because it asks the participants to think about not thinking. As a person who has received training in hypnosis, I understand something of why this works. In hypnosis, there is something
called the confusion technique, which causes trance by locking up the patient’s conscious ways of seeing, and thus builds receptivity to new ideas. Paradox thinking is very similar. It brings forth creative thinking (Begay, Maryboy, Nichol, 2006). Dare we say it can bring forth “original thinking?” In 2006, Little Bear began with the kick-start question, “Do you really and truly believe in a separation of church and state?” One of the inner circle participants, Nora Bateson responded: “When you said ‘Do you really and truly believe in a separation…’ –right then, I said, No, I do not believe in separation – whatever it is - but then you said ‘of church and state’ – and, Oh, God. “ All these questions are more difficult to answer than they may first appear. The kick start question initiates a generative flow of dialogue, and then, from there, dialogue takes on a life of its own. I have made the case that a good kick-start question suspends tacit infrastructures. However, I do not mean to imply that the tacit infrastructures simply go away. Thus, even if we assume that the koan question is successful in initially suspending tacit infrastructures, how long can those structures remain in abeyance before they rise up again? This is why a good kick-start question for SEED dialogues, which bring together indigenous and Western ways of knowing, is one that in some way addresses the root of tacit knowing in both groups. Questions such as “Is it possible to think an original thought” or “Do you really and truly believe in the separation of church and state” do just that. They bring up charged issues for both Native and Non-native participants. When participants go about answering a kick-start question, they are forced to articulate an answer that in some ways will likely re-inject at least some of their pre-existing tacit infrastructures into the answer. But because their tacit infrastructures were at least temporarily suspended, they are more likely to be open to the flow of meaning from Spirit that is outside of themselves, and the same will be true for everyone who is listening in the inner and outer circles. The same principle and the same possibility are allowed for in Bohmian dialogue, but there are subtle differences. For one, without the kick-start question, it will generally take much longer to get to this level of openness. Secondly, in Bohmian dialogue (at least in the beginning stages) one speaker speaks and the next speakers tend to follow the thread of what is spoken. The flow of meaning comes primarily through the relatedness between each speaker, whereas in LBSHBD/TC, the speakers need not consciously relate their thoughts to another. A key difference between Bohmian dialogue and talking circle is that Bohm emphasized the limitations of thought, and LBSHBD/TC emphasizes the power of thought/Spirit. Everyone is free to speak as long as Spirit moves, whereas in Bohmian dialogue, an exceedingly long speaker would tend to be thought of as Long-time practitioners of Bohmian dialogue, such as Lee Nichol, take some issue with this statement.According to Nichol, this is only true at its most superficial level of Bohmian dialogue. There are at least three other means to developing flow of meaning that are possible in Bohmian dialogue besides the content of conversation: shared proprioception, shared emotion, and realization of the nature and origin of consciousness.
In LBSHBD/TC, there is more of an emphasis on acting as a conduit to a source outside of themselves, outside of the room, even outside of time.In LBSHBD/TC, what is spoken may seem a bit like a jigsaw puzzle at first; but if one waits patiently the pieces come together to get a more complete picture. LBSHBD/TC can be likened to climbing a mountain. As each person speaks, you build a mountain of ideas. There are many ways to climb the mountain, but in the end we all share a common view. (Little Bear, 1999 dialogues, private communication). This is a way to build a coherent tacit infrastructure. A
New Form of Participatory Knowing
In LBSHBD/TC, everyone, including the outer circle, is participating in the flow of meaning that is being created in the room. That sense of participation is perhaps to some degree what Barfield (1965) called “original participation” of “early man” (p. 42), to the extent that there is an emergent awareness of a collective participatory consciousness as opposed to an awareness of the self which is doing the thinking. But it may also be that something else is happening; it may be the beginnings of a new kind of participatory consciousness being created through a sustained encounter of contemporary indigenous consciousness with modern (or post-modern) Western consciousness.
The latter complaint can arise in LBSHBD/TC as well if someone is not familiar with the process, or if the speaker simply continues too long even when it is apparent that Spirit is no longer moving through them.
I do not mean to imply that these collective participatory aspects are not valued in Bohmian dialoguewhen they very much are. I think that one of the reasons Little Bear says that these aspects are emphasized more in LBSHBD/TC is simply because these practices are more commonly practiced in indigenous societies, and since the SEED dialogues feature at least half Native participants in the inner circle, these participatory aspects naturally tend to come out more.
The SEED dialogues may be a microcosm of a larger shift in the structures of consciousness. The development of rational consciousness over the past five-hundred years never actually eradicated the underlying structures of consciousness that Gebser (1985) called the archaic, magical and mythical consciousness. It only suppressed them and now we are seeing their re-emergence in a new way – which has at least the potential to merge and re-position rational consciousness in an inclusive, fuller, integral consciousness. As Western consciousness reached past the zenith point of rational consciousness, the Baconian strategy of marshalling nature to do the bidding of humankind has produced diminishing returns and/or frightening consequences for the species and for all our relations.
The postmodern “I” of separative consciousness seems to be fragmenting and dissolving, and with it, there has been a resurgence of interest in Eastern wisdom, and more recently in indigenous thought. In part, this has come from the recognition of the timelessness of the indigenous wisdom throughout the world. In part, this may be a romantic desire of the Western world to go backward in time to a simpler era. In part, it may be because of the emerging Western tradition of wholistic thought, spurred on by the advances of twentieth century physics, mathematical cosmology and systems theory, and their parallels with Native thought. In Native America, the question now being asked is what will be the form of indigenous thought that survives into the future? (Secatero, private communication) How do we understand the “original instructions” that Native elders talk about in light of the conditions we face today? (Secatero, private communication). I don’t believe that Native consciousness can ever return to the way it was in pre-colonial days. But what can happen, and in some small measure is happening at the SEED dialogues, is a hybrid consciousness that brings forward indigenous wisdom with an emergent wholistic consciousness in the West to form a new kind of participatory, wholistic consciousness. The deeper question is now, what will be a new form of this participatory wholistic consciousness that all the “fivefingered ones” can embrace, if we are survive the next five-hundred years and beyond? (Nichol, private communication, Secatero, private communication). In bringing indigenous and Western science together for nearly a decade in a hybrid of Bohmian dialogue and talking circle, SEED has been a midwife in the pending birth of this new consciousness. And just as Bohmian dialogue was an unfinished experiment, so are the SEED dialogues. To create a full graduate curriculum based on indigenous ways of knowing as an opening to all ways of knowing, dialogue is of necessity in the center of our process.
Table 1: (Participants in the 1992 Historic Dialogue)
Leroy Little Bear, Blood Indian Tribe, Blackfoot Confederacy
Amethyst First Rider, Blood Indian Tribe,
Blackfoot Confederacy David Bohm, physicist,
Saral Bohm, wife of David Henry Bush - Potowatomi
Lou Ann Bush - Potowatomi
Joe Couture - Cree psychologist
Ruth Couture - Cree
Carol Hegedus - Fetzer Institute
Alan Ford, linguist studying Cree
Sam Kounosu, a Japanese physicist
Danny Musqua - Seauteau elder
Buff Parry - linguist
Lee Nichol - writer and editor of Bohm’s work
Paul Grof - psychiatrist
Dick Katz - psychologist
Tobasonakwut Peter Kinew - Ojibway elder
Anab Whitehouse - Sufi philosopher
Joel Elkes - medical anthropologist
Therese Schroeder-Sheker - thanatologist/harpist - aka “The Angel.