This annual Socratic dialogue in Kaliwoods continued last years exploration of truth, in this case true to myself. This raised questions about identity and authenticity.
Kevin, Pippa, Rupert, Armin, Mahmood, Francois, (later Gill and Yuka) came to the woods.
We spent a good time on the definitions of words: True / Myself / To be, with some surprising international language for the verb ‘to be’, (some more active, some passive). All of this was fruitful and gave a good scaffold for words and ideas throughout the two days.
The concrete examples from our lives were both negative and positive, with the choice a final battle between a negative and a positive. The positive won (and at the end, we questioned if the negative was in effect positive). Kill the Queen was the dramatic title: based on a play about the Sex Pistols, in which P refused to say and act the lines “Kill the Queen and her babies”, and felt herself true to herself at that time. It was a rich example, and we enjoyed the the double play on the acting and being states.
As you see from the photographs, although close to mid summer, the cold got to us, and despite the sheep skin wraps we retreated to the snug warmth of the cabin for the interrogation of the question. We almost reached our core statement at the end of the first day, enough to feel satisfied with our work:
In this example, P was true to her self: she refused to allow her character to advocate the murder of the queen and her babies because it seemed right at the time; she found the importance of acting according to her beliefs rather than act according to her professional obligations.
The evening we were entertained in Halesworth’s beer festival complete with bouncers (a novelty in Halesworth)
The next morning, after a warm up game of table tennis with dog partaking, we resumed to hone our core statement, debating the words professionalism and overcame.
A further hour, using our diverse previous examples as hocks, gave us a broad brush stroke attempt at some more universal principles:
Some moments:
R: I did not like the person I was being. I was not happy with who I was. (I came to Socratic Dialogue and so cured my aversion to philosophy)The Wolheim paradox: important in democracy, if you are in a democracy, you both want the person who has the most votes to win the election but equally if you in favour of one party in paricular you want that person to win.
M: It was not a true reflection of me. If I had been true to myself I would have been honest.
F: I said no. I felt connected to that moment
P: I only knew how to act by being
Meta Dialogue at the end of the day and a half
The extra half day was very useful. Lots of productive thinking in the night
Frustration around time, to ask open questions needed more time
One of the best SD’s. Self reflective. I was pleased with our core statement and how we arrived at it
Pleased with our progress today when we synthesised yesterdays core
Liked the applying of the core to our personal examples, finding the simularities and differences
Enjoyed F’s contribution, which came from a different place, culturally refreshing
The subject is so important. We made good progress. Liked the example with Acting and Being
The one and half days worked well. We were well directed by the facilitator, who was sometimes directive and sometimes allowed us to find our own way. Sometimes visible and sometimes invisible.
An inspiring location, great food
Facilitation: two times asked participants to write down sentences worked well to hone.
If it was a shakespeare play it would be ‘As you like it’.
Kaliwood 