12:20:17	 From  John Varney : simplifying is not the same as integrating
12:20:23	 From  Brenden Meagher : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmDcjO4RJJI
12:20:53	 From  Brenden Meagher : ^ This is the youtube link for anyone that wants another way to watch
12:20:58	 From  Bernard Scott : George Miller The magic number seven plus or minus two https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_or_Minus_Two
12:33:00	 From  Pille Bunnell : the what, where and who seem to be the context for the questions of how and why, so not to ignored either!
12:34:27	 From  Pille Bunnell : I have also thought of re-spect as the willingness to “look again” and see the other in the present moment, not in my “idea” of who they are
12:38:57	 From  Robert Johannson : I believe in the dialectic, but synthesis is not what people have in common, but an idea that transcends the differences.
12:40:15	 From  Paul Pangaro : Q: What is the assurance that the process achieves requisite variety? It sounded as if it’s a ‘given’ to get there.
12:41:23	 From  Laura Ehmann : I wonder if we might need to embrace the willingness to craft a shared understanding minus sharing an identical reality...and even minus what we think sharing is. Aye, it's complex.
12:42:48	 From  Pille Bunnell : thank you to you
12:44:08	 From  Bernard Scott : Gordon Pask: if we understand each other, we can agree or agree to disagree.
12:45:57	 From  Larry Richards : Great presentation, Michael. There are other methods of dialogic facilitation, like Stafford Beer's Syntegrity. Is there a way to compare methods, other than personal experience?
12:49:18	 From  ben sweeting : Laura M just posted accidently just to me: "A deep bow to you for your wonderful film Michael--off to another zoom meeting-darn!"
12:49:19	 From  jude : I prerfer conversations (pask) nested in peace as a need (Brun) generosity (Forsyth) and the biology of love (Maturana).
12:50:41	 From  Paul Pangaro : Larry: ‘could be’ or ‘should be’ — the latter is the focus of design
12:51:28	 From  jude : Hope is in the imaginieg
12:52:01	 From  jude : More than both.
12:53:10	 From  Robert Johannson : We have a materialist model of the world. Talking is considered a force that we use to drive change.  A model of harmonic communication is necessary. Most people like our car drivers want harmony.
12:53:48	 From  jude : Agreement is problematic
12:54:39	 From  Robert Martin : constraints provides opportunity…
12:54:46	 From  Robert Martin : constraints change the situation
12:55:02	 From  jude : Constraints are a starting point for living in the art of cybernetics
12:55:02	 From  Ricardo De Geroni : By aiming an accommodation from a 'common ground,' it would not imply simplifying a discussion to dialectics in a context of extremely asymmetric 'relative/dependent autonomy'? Does argumentative asymmetry not establish (and maybe institutionalize) the strongest or most politicized arguments in the narrative (and maybe not the best)? In a context of lacking autonomy, recognizing the ambivalences of love/hatred beyond reflective solitude is possible? 
12:57:35	 From  Bernard Scott : I once suggested to Pask that cybernetics could be defined as the art and science of fostering goodwill. He indicated that I had said something worthwhile.
12:58:14	 From  jude : I think it depends on people’s interests and orientation for knowing anything. Look who we are? Not very diverse and what does that say about us?
12:58:57	 From  Art Collings : I have comment on seeking stable states versus perturbing.
12:58:59	 From  jude : Larry has pointed at using constraints as possible for provoking differences as well.
13:01:45	 From  Robert Martin : We need to chhange the focus within ourselves so that we can listen to others in the  present situation…
13:02:00	 From  Alan Lewis : What is real is what is inter-subjective agreeable.
13:03:05	 From  Robert Johannson : The reason people are "not listening" or are "stupid" is because you are not speaking their language. Learning someone else's language is a primary skill.
13:03:37	 From  David Tait : range of opportunity for creating co-evolution
13:03:39	 From  Pille Bunnell : I see how my hearing of “provoke” is triggered - it feels like and “I -it” relationship whereas “evoke” comes in an I/thou conversation.
13:05:22	 From  Deborah Forster : What is Trump followers see him as REVEALING reality - and they experience liberal speak false and inauthentic
13:06:24	 From  Robert Martin : There is also the problem of reframing ourselves so that we can listen and be in a conversation with others whose views are totally different than our own…
13:07:33	 From  Babu George : We are both the sculpture and the sculptor. We make good sculptures by "eliminating" the "constraints" within us. Attaining success by eliminating constraints this way is more desirable than achieving it by accumulating external resources - primarily because, constraints are within us, the skills to eliminate them are also within us. My unschooled view of cybernetics is informed by this. Cybernetics is the enabler of success by minimalism.
13:07:57	 From  jude : Pille, I don’t use “provoke” in that manner, that is the current way of thinking about provocation. For me as illustrated in some of my video work “provoactive perturbations” are always nested in love.
13:09:13	 From  Pille Bunnell : Yes,  Jude, through knowing you I know to hear your use that way … but my general distaste of the word is in the current usage which does get spoken here and there
13:09:53	 From  jude : Yes! I want to change that into a language that might generate a new way of thinking — an accommodation — if you like.
13:10:32	 From  Jan : How systematic and effective have we as cyberneticians  been in measuring the positive applications of our cybernetic principles and priorities via current (or “dated” as the case may be)”dialogue” formats?  To reiterate the example of Trump, his methods have accrued him 70 million fans to date….
13:10:41	 From  Robert Johannson : In order to generate a decision you have to have difference. The politician is trying to present a difference that should determine your decision. The more radical the difference the more emotion behind the decision. Basic story telling begins with conflict.
13:11:03	 From  jude : Yes I want a new language that crosses boundaries between “us and them” that generates no us from them.
13:11:20	 From  Howard Silverman : The design of the Buberian Dialogue requires an initial framing, no?
There are group process designs in which the framing emerges in the process.
13:11:24	 From  Peter Cariani : There was an interesting segment of “On the Media” that discusses the connections between present day conspiracy theories and gnosticism. There is a fundamental problem that anyone who tries to talk with them will be seen as a part of the conspiracy. This is the problem of how to go about deprogramming cultists. One wants to treat them as potentially free thinking agents, I.e. as epistemological equals, but difficult to enter into a conversation from that point of view. We should think about how we react when some evangelical tries to “save” us. [Sorry I came in late.]
13:11:54	 From  jude : They think we are the cultist!
13:12:17	 From  Alan Lewis : I was just going to say that there is no common ground between truth and delusion.  
13:12:43	 From  jude : Whose delusions????
13:13:58	 From  Alan Lewis : e.g. White supremacism is false no common ground with the opposite view.
13:14:03	 From  Bernard Scott : As an Evangekical I was taught that I could not 'convert' anyone, only God does that. 	 was advised just to bear witness to my own experiences.
13:15:19	 From  jude : White surprmacism is not false it is very real in our current world.
13:15:23	 From  ben sweeting : Can this work with more than 2 viewpoints?
13:15:24	 From  Peter Cariani : Well there is a difference between subcultures that demand that beliefs need to have some basis in evidence. We should be responsible for what we believe, and part of that is knowing what the basis is for what we believe. That is all one can ask — a critical attitude towards belief. Beliefs are viruses and we need to all follow some version of intellectual hygiene.
13:15:48	 From  jude : Believers make liars. — Brun
13:16:31	 From  Robert Martin   to   American Society for Cybernetics(Direct Message) : What proposals do you have for creating Buberian dialogues sponsored by the ASC?
13:16:37	 From  jude : Consensus model works with many
13:16:57	 From  Bernard Scott : That's a belief. One cannot not believer 
13:17:12	 From  Bernard Scott : believe something
13:17:13	 From  jude : I dsiagree it is a thought not a belief.
13:17:48	 From  jude : I rarely believe anything. One problem in our current language space is the overuse of the word belief.
13:17:58	 From  Bernard Scott : That's another belief
13:18:39	 From  Peter Cariani : Consensus has two sides: one is social solidarity, the other is social conformity. Consensus does not solve the problem of the grounding of belief in evidence.
13:19:59	 From  Bernard Scott : All evidence (facts) can be put into question
13:20:09	 From  Peter Cariani : We used consensus (following the Quakers and Movement For a New Society) models in the antinuclear movement of the 1970’s. It breaks down rather rapidly if there are subgroups that break consensus.
13:20:32	 From  Will : And the role of the moderator is to reframe the different perspectives’ context to identify the commonalities in order to set a larger, shared context? Perhaps another word for their role would be “Mediator.” Kind of analogous to couples therapy to me.
13:20:41	 From  Peter Cariani : Consensus only works if there are strong communal bonds in place already. Agree with Lissack.
13:21:51	 From  Howard Silverman : My experience is that each of these techniques relies on underlying assumptions about contextual application.
13:22:52	 From  Larry Richards : I observe two contradictory assumptions that are common (if not pervasive) in political and social discourse. I do not see a resolution. The first assumption is that all humans have value, each with unique contributions to make to the world (Ashby). The other assumption is that there are certain individuals who are born elite, with more to contribute than others (Plato). Under the latter assumption, the only way the world can work is through the control of resources (including ideas) by the few (the elite). Any suggestions on how to resolve this contradiction?
13:25:21	 From  Robert Johannson : Both sides in the debate believe in the U.S.A. and want the best for it. Approaching the divide requires dealing at the meta-level of presuppositions. The ability to talk at that level is a developmental issue that Piaget talks about.
13:26:42	 From  Peter Cariani : I think the US needs to find a way to have an amicable separation. I was looking into the history of abolitionism and people like Wm Loyd Garrison were advocating separation (by Constitutional means) back in the 1830’s.
13:27:45	 From  Flavio Mesquita Brazil : Conversational process designs should also consider approaching and honoring uncommon ground that are more likely to be managed in the long run. 
13:28:23	 From  jude : Yes Larry and contradiction requires a change OF the system not IN a system. So question might be how do we generate a new system without violence? One way, is to see violence as a message for breaking the loop of violecne.
13:31:19	 From  Peter Cariani : Bayesian is Bad! You don’t want a doctor treating you on the basis of a priori probabilities that you have a given disease. I had a bad doctor who refused to diagnose my gall bladder problem back in 1990 because I did not fit the age/sex profile.
13:31:45	 From  Robert Johannson : There are two levels at which the system has to change. At the institutional level the capitalist corporation has to be replaced by a democratic organization that recognizes the interests of all the stake holders. At the national and international level it requires redefining the core values of the nation form growth in gdp to a more holistic system that recognizes all human needs.
13:31:47	 From  jude : Actually when they start as thoughts rather than beliefs movement might emerge
13:32:20	 From  Peter Cariani : Half of us are at war with the virus.
13:32:32	 From  Peter Cariani : The other half are in denial.
13:32:48	 From  Deborah Forster : This winter, we will all be at war, or all be refugees of the virus
13:32:50	 From  ben sweeting : Are the common things identified supposed to be common ground to build on, or could these also be recognising things that need to be changed?13:32:54	 From  jude : I am not at war with the virus and I do think it is a pandemic.
13:33:00	 From  Alan Lewis : Report from iron Moutain - what to do in the event of peace agreed.
13:33:37	 From  Peter Cariani : It is possible that the red states would agree to a Constitutional amendment to separate red and blue.
13:33:46	 From  Peter Cariani : That would be a peaceful path.
13:35:09	 From  jude : DF That might generate CHANGE — accommodation.
13:35:18	 From  Flavio Mesquita Brazil : Thanks for the opportunity! Need to leave now.
13:35:20	 From  Peter Cariani : I don’t think that our present situation is anything like what ravages a civil war would bring. Things can get much, much worse than they are.
13:35:44	 From  jude : I agree with Peter!!!
13:36:30	 From  Hans Kaspar Hugentobler : @Peter Cariani: let them read Bruno Latour: Down to Earth. The concept is interesting to consider regarding attempts for achieving „progress“, starting in small groups or maybe universities. At last that wold be possible to do here ein Switzerland.
13:38:51	 From  Peter Cariani : Switzerland is much more of a face to face society than the US. I’m in favor of trying everything (that is reasonable), but I don’t have any hope that conversation will save us. Sure, but let’s try it.
13:41:24	 From  Robert Johannson : The past isn't dead. Hell, it's not even past.
13:43:59	 From  Peter Cariani : We certainly don’t want to act to make things worse on the theory that this will “sharpen internal contradictions” and lead to some sort of qualitative change.
13:44:55	 From  Peter Cariani : Oh god, Systems People!
13:47:31	 From  Alan Lewis : No polarisation on Brexit ?
13:47:45	 From  American Society for Cybernetics   to   ben sweeting(Direct Message) : will get you next
13:48:01	 From  sukanta SPA Bhopal : Polarization is going on in many countries
13:48:13	 From  Art Collings : Anyone (who is not already) wants to be added to the list for future notices for (possible) future conversations, please send me an email — treasurer@asc-cybernetics.org.   Art
13:48:13	 From  jude : Dissocial media
13:48:21	 From  Alan Lewis : Echo chambers 
13:49:09	 From  sukanta SPA Bhopal : is it beause of corporate sector?
13:51:35	 From  Peter Cariani : I think the threat of nationalist populism/authoritarianism/neo-fascism is global. We recognize here in the US because they were able to attain power here. The US has always been a fertile ground for fundamentalism and paranoid conspiracy theories, for whatever reasons.
13:52:16	 From  Peter Cariani : YWA
13:52:26	 From  Deborah Forster : To Peter - re the fascist turn - I think you’re absolutely right. It was striking how many colleagues from around the world were impacted
13:52:59	 From  Phil Cook : Thank you very much for the opportunity
13:53:01	 From  Alan Lewis : Thanks & goodnight !
13:53:15	 From  Peter Cariani : Put the website in the chat.
13:53:15	 From  Timothy Jachna : Thanks, Michael, Paul and All
13:53:19	 From  John Varney : Thank you very much for the opportunity to listen in