ellauri064.html on line 343: Tom Erik Arnkil, the Finish research professor emeritus, discusses Open Dialogues and Anticipation Dialogues in order to find core elements of dialogical practices in general and arrived at the concept of Dialogical Space.
ellauri064.html on line 345: He also discusses some challenges faced when developing dialogical practices. He looked at Open Dialogues as used in psychiatry and Anticipation Dialogues as used in the no-mans-land between health, social, education and other services around common clients. By seeking to “benchmark” OD and AD, his hope is to gain insight not only into these two approaches, but also into the conditions for generating dialogicity in general.
ellauri064.html on line 358: The Network for Dialogical Practices is an open platform for researchers, students and practitioners who want to help people in distress by full presence, responsiveness and human connection. The European Network for open dialogical practices started in 2008 to care for the legacy of Tom Andersen, Gianfranco Cecchin and Michael White who all passed away shortly one after another and to preserve their voices for the future generations.
ellauri110.html on line 1079: The blog is intended to develop in a dialogical fashion and I hope that readers will contact me with any critical comments, whether these relate to style or content. Despite what I have just said about fiction, it is my wish that the eventual book will present an interpretation of Dostoevsky’s thought discussed that is fully defensible with regard to the available sources and I welcome any comments drawing attention to actual errors or significant misrepresentations. In this way, the blog itself will, I hope, set in motion a kind of conversation, alongside all the other amazing conversations about Dostoevsky that are happening in reality, in print, and online. This is work in progress and I hope not only to entertain and instruct but also to learn.
ellauri153.html on line 554: Now that the problem of evil has been exposed as a conceptual confusion, the way is clear for a Jamesian science of religions and worldviews. The methods of grammatical description can be extended to the practices and ways of sense-making in different worldviews: how they give meaning to moral practices and how do they approach the intelligibility of the world? What practical responses do they have for coping with evil? For example, the grammar of seeing-as for models and metaphors can be applied to the metaphors in the Hebrew Bible for God’s activity to understand what it is to see the world as God’s creation. The grammar of virtues can be used to describe Buddhist practices and explore, how these approaches contribute to the human good. Similar approaches can be taken to secular worldviews as well. These descriptions can then be used to assess the worldviews through dialogical encounters between them. However, one thing should be clear. There is no point in devaluing the world by arguing for the meaninglessness of life or atheism on the basis of evil, or in giving justifications for evils that can stand in the way of divine or human meliorist projects of fighting for justice. To paraphrase the judgment of the Divine Judge in the Book of Job, such approaches are not even wrong. They are as meaningless as life itself.