In a message dated 12/23/01 1:36:24 PM, avn...@inter.net.il writes: << So what happens Peggy if one like you (who beleives in dialogue with
oponents) is dependent with his life on one like Paul (Who does not beleive in dialogue between people who disagree) and you deeply disagree on many levels? >> Avner, Whoops!! Please don't attribute to me a dislike of dialogue with people with whom I don't agree. Not true. I most certainly do enjoy it, in fact, use it in my consulting practice quite extensively, on tough issues. What I was objecting to was the perceived set up by Kenoli wherein he would hold forth without "polarization", that is, dissenting or other opinions. Which we had probably better explore the meaning of before we go much further (polarization, I mean). Anyway, just wanted to set that straight. I'm not up for a big discussion tonight. Except for one point, which is that I separate the two words "Agree" and "Accept". Accept means to take in and consider. Agree means consent to do or act on. To be in dialogue, we must stay in an accepting state or all is lost. Just a small point. btw, the Winter issue of "YES" magazine has some very powerful articles in it on peace, war and other issues of the commonweal. Recommend it. Very challenging. Are we ready to die for peace? To be killed by the violent other in order that we ourselves not be violent? Wendell Berry ("The Failure of War"), Walter Wink ("Pacifism With Teeth"), Yael Lachman ("Choose Love") all write in a paradigm-stretching way. Not directly to do with OST, though. Peace, Paul * * ========================================================== osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu, Visit: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html