FootprintsintheWind.com

Footprints in the Wind^sm # 1327

In those days
We feel most flat
Lacking being
Start conversing
For each person
Adds to us
A dimension

Each a new dimension
But do we allow
Only more flatness
Or that which runs across
Our grain
Or which produces a new & different
Light note?

Please pass it on.

© c 2013, Learning Works, Incorporated. All rights reserved. Easy reprint permissions: 574/321-0022, or by e-mail to mailto:Doug AT FootprintsInTheWind.com. Back issues available at http://www.FootprintsintheWind.com

Fire engines going past: hold them in the light of Christ, that is the light of the good, the true, the beautiful, the whole: to be safe, to be good, to be loving. I feel like I just gained some understanding of that phrase, hearing “Christ” as the larger pulsing heart of the one all there is.

:- Doug.

The meta-conversation problem is approached by hearing on a different level. Sometimes subtle are the sounds—voices calling to us “friend,” “enemy,” “global warming,” “liberal crap,” “you can’t fight that, it’s human nature.” Sometimes far from subtle, the politicians and advertisers scream at us. All of these are meta-conversation. Rather pseudo meta-conversation, for the words travel one direction only, or we are not allowed to see any other possibility. Then there is the Internet where we do join with others in meta-conversation, but usually about inconsequentials—the price of gasoline, how to wash vinyl siding, the latest urban legend or truth. Above and through all this a buzz, a hum. Herein the promise, the whisper of meta-conversation.

:- Doug.

Can conversations even converse with one another? Do they have an existence of their own? If we examine the betweens, then it is possible that without any intention betweens do pass, cross, and touch, becoming cause of other betweens. If we see conversations as betweens then of course there would be betweens of conversations. The boundary of water and oil. The aisle in the Senate and the one in the House of Representatives. The news media.

:- Doug.

How to describe, to understand, meta-conversing? How do we meta-converse? How do we invite our conversations to converse?

For instance, the liberal camp and the conservative camp each converse within themselves and complain about the other, and occasionally stop to hurl verbal IEDs at the other camp. It is camp against camp, not so much with a particular person (unless that person exemplifies the camp). But there is no engagement.

So one question is how to get conversations to take one another in. This does not necessarily require individuals to even hear other individuals. When the two flows find a common stream, then they intermix. Perhaps. Oil and water do occupy the same stream banks. They do not have to like each other.

:- Doug.