FootprintsintheWind.com

I want to explore whether indeed depth is met by complexity. There is complexity in emotion: probably no emotion occurs in pure form, alone from some other. There is complexity in spirit, swirling, mystery, mysticism. There is complexity in intellect, in text context and subtext, in the forest under-lands. Is all this complexity what we mean by depth? We often want to sound out the depths, find the floor, and yet we do not know if one exists, or if there is a bottom, whether it must of necessity be single or tangled. The bottom may often be a complex I do not know.

:- Doug.

Changing our conscious awareness of conversation changes the possible expectations we have of conversation. That is, it changes our relationship to the relationship that is conversation.

:- Doug.

When Gregory Bateson writes of somatic and genetic levels, that may be parallel to what transpires in a particular conversation and cultural understandings of what can and ought to transpire in conversations. There exist upper and lower limits in what is possible and permissible. It is a cultural level bias or setting.

:- Doug.

Perhaps by depth in conversation I mean, we mean, complex. Complexity gets to implications (in-foldings) and nuances and tangles not noticed in common hours. Just there (then?) we are liable to grow.

:- Doug.

Do we need to communicate love? What is communicating when we speak of love?

:- Doug.