FootprintsintheWind.com

Conversation, that is, life, intrinsically implies meeting. (Or relation, gathering, family, . . . .)

:- Doug.

Body, situation, language, and persons are the minimum required elements for living. And so conversation.

:- Doug.

I am seeing Gendlin’s philosophical writing as leading me to a series of forks where the first fork is meeting People, the second is Intricacies, the third is Possibilities, and perhaps the fourth is the Crossings of Intricacies and Possibilities with other Intricacies and Possibilities: a whole mess of tangled roots! The result is that we ourselves and our acts stem from many roots, and might flower in many ways. Or we can shrivel up and not take nourishment from any others, humans, plants, humus, or fungi. This suggests that our human root system extends beyond ourselves to other living beings, and we can be in symbiotic relativity with all.

:- Doug.

People are choice agents, not so much in their lives, but in their situations with people, non-humans, and events. They meet one or some of these and choose responses.

:- Doug.

In conversation we seek words (phrases, ideas, slots, . . .) where we can play among the intricacies!

:- Doug.

How does Clean Language relate to looking for implicate intricate slots?

:- Doug.

“Intricacy is alive.” (Gendlin, E. T. (1991). Thinking beyond patterns: body, language and situations, p 30, in B. den Ouden & M. Moen (Eds.), The presence of feeling in thought, pp. 25-151.) To me, implicit in that is: Intricacy defines living, but does not limit it.

:- Doug.

Intricate: elaborate complex involve labyrinthine tangle plaited delicate inextricable myriad woven lace snare

:- Doug.

Conversation is how we involve one another, turning us, enveloping, surrounding, embracing, covering, whelming, . . . .

:- Doug.

You are more subtle and more nuanced and more intricate than you have been led to believe.

:- Doug.

Gendlin writes of words and slots, implicit intricacy, and the lot as if they were living, doing things, and so far he does not speak directly of people in the conversation.

Words can be employed so malleably (while yet presenting a hard edge), what does this say of the words’s employers?

:- Doug.

A word can curve when it comes into an unaccustomed slot. Say it curved or say it slant or say it clearly, but always put it in service of humans in conversation.

:- Doug.

My reader already believes conversation is everything and everywhere.

:- Doug.

Might saying, conversing, and thinking be related?

:- Doug.

There may be more to conversation than meets ear or imagination.

:- Doug.

You have a Life Detector. How have you used it today? When today have you experienced liveliness, life at a high intensity?

:- Doug.

I have been asking What can we learn of conversation from its non oral kin?

:- Doug.

What if we made our conversations to intensify life?

:- Doug.

We do not expect to be changed by our percepts, by what our ears or eyes take in, but we are sometimes changed by our conversations.

We might be changed by more of our conversations.

:- Doug.

In a conversation we have opportunity to make something neither of us could imagine. We have opportunity to make persons neither of us could imagine.

:- Doug.

Is conversation paradoxical? What do I like about paradox?

:- Doug.

Life does the unexpected
So must conversation
Life experiments

:- Doug.

What are the fruitful faces of conversation?

:- Doug.