Attended first phone meeting for Austin conference.

 

Lots of political interest.  Politics resonates less for me than other dialogue opportunities but looks to loom large on the landscape for the 2008 Austin conference.

 

During the phone conversation I resonated with an interest in strings of conversastions, am curious about what this group's connection ability might be between a diverse set of knowledge networks, and what efforts exist at combining the process (context) of conducting dialogue with content -- what is being delivered and why it matters.

 

I understand the political emphasis is due to the calender year but am hoping the group does not mire down in established messaging that repeats agendas.  There was talk of political lines and I pefer item inquiry so that a particular slate does not hide individual differences.

 

Curious to see how group members address the current trend of honing a message such that the intent behind the message becomes an afterthought to the message.  Would like to see the message removed and the intent of the message explored.  This is the process of Socratic dialogue and wonder if politics would benefit more from it, as opposed to rhetoric, grand standing, and 15 second instant messaging. 

 

Does dialogue produce results?   Are the different dialogue formats rankable in terms of intent and effect?

 

Could we map dialogue like weather and demonstrate patterns based on conditions of goal, mood and meaning just like the weather report address pressure, wind and water?

 

I look forward to the discourse.