Chapter 2: On Dialogue
“Dialogue”
- Greek word dialogos. Dia (through), logos (the word)
- “The picture or image that this derivation suggest is of a stream of meaning flowing among and through us and between us. This will make possible a flow of meaning in the whole group, out of which may emerge some new understanding. It’s something new, which may not have been in the starting point at all. It’s something creative.”
- Discussion (win-lose) vs. Dialogue (everybody wins)
- Everything has different assumptions and opinions and these are defended when they are challenged.
- It goes into the process of thought behind assumptions, not just the assumptions themselves.
Dialogue and Thought
Opinions are taken as “truths”. “Dialogue is really aimed at going into the whole thought process and changing the way the thought process occurs collectively.”
One difficulty in thinking, fragmentation. This means that we separate things which are not really independent. It divides everything up.
The source of the problem is the process of thought itself, which is constantly producing the problem, but says it is not making it. Thought defends its basic assumptions against evidence that they may be wrong, that’s the main problem we are facing. The worst of all is that we often do this unconsciously. Culture has a big part in this problem.
People tend to avoid the issues that may cause trouble. This is called “cozy adjustment”
A nice size of group to form a “microculture” is from 20 to 40 people. “Individual thought is mostly the result of collective thought and of interaction with other people.” Culture has a big take on the way we think.
“Now, you could say that our ordinary thought in society is incoherent – it is going in all sorts of directions, with thoughts conflicting and canceling each other out. But if people were to think together in a coherent way, it would have tremendous power. That’s the suggestion. If we have a dialogue situation – a group which has sustained dialogue for quite a while in which people get to know each other, and so on – then we might have such a coherent movement of thought, a coherent movement of communication. It would be coherent not only at the level we recognize, but at the tacit level (actual knowledge), at the level for which we have only a vague feeling. That would be more important.”
“We have to share our consciousness and to be able to think together, in order to do intelligently whatever is necessary.”
Engaging In Dialogue
- Form a circle (allows direct communication)
- No leaders but facilitators
- The group is not mainly for the sake of personal problems.
- Talk directly to one another and to the group.
- We are not going to decide what to do about anything in order to be truly free.
- Purpose: to communicate coherently in truth.
- It’s the whole process that counts.
- “I’m saying that it is necessary to share meaning. A society is a link of relationships among people and institutions, so that we can live together. But it only works if we have a culture – which implies that we share meaning; i.e. significance, purpose, and value. Otherwise it falls apart. Our society is incoherent, and doesn’t do that very well; it hasn’t for a long time, if it ever did. The different assumptions that people have are tacitly affecting the whole meaning of what we are doing.”
“If you sustain it, all these problems will arise; it cannot avoid bringing out the deep assumptions of the people who are participating. The frustration will arise, the sense of chaos, the sense that it’s not worth it. the emotional charge will come… But if you understand that you do nevertheless have to stick with it, then something new will come.”
Suspending Assumptions
Suspend Assumptions: “you neither carry them out nor suppress them. You don’t believe them, nor do you disbelieve them; you don’t judge them as good or bad.”
Notice the connection between the thought, feelings, and emotions going on in the dialogue. “The point is to keep it at a level where the opinions come out, but where you can look at them.” It’s somehow about being metacognitive about your thoughts and assumptions.
The Impulse of Necessity
Thought of necessity: Latin root, necesse (don’t yield), meaning “what cannot be turned aside”. You enter in a state of conflict. If it’s not “absolute necessary”, it’s negotiable.
When two “absolute necessities” clash, there is an emotional charge and you build powerful feelings.
“Freedom makes possible a creative perception of new orders of necessity.”
Proprioception of Thought
Proprioception means “selfperception”. You have to be metacognitive of the thought, otherwise you’ll keep on producing the problem.
*Example of a woman who had a stoke and her sensory nerves stopped working, so she started to hit herself, and the more she defended, the worse the attack got. The same happens with our thought.
“The point of suspension is to help make proprioception possible, to create a mirror so that you can see the results of your thought.”
Collective Participation
“At some stage we would share our opinions without hostility, and we would then be able to think together; whereas when we defend an opinion we can’t.”
Sharing a common content: when we can see what all of our opinions mean. It happens after we suspend our opinions, look at them, look at everybody’s opinions, and see what all that means.
Participatory consciousness: “Everything can move between us. Each person is participating, is partaking of the whole meaning of the group and also taking part in it. We can call that a true dialogue.”
“If something is right, you don’t need to be persuaded… Conviction and persuasion are not called for in a dialogue.”
“It’s a harmony of the individual and the collective, in which the whole constantly moves toward coherence. So there is both a collective mind and an individual mind, and like a stream, the flow moves between them.”
A New Culture
Society (link of relationships that are set by people in order to work and live together)… behind that is a culture (shared meaning).
Societies now a day don’t share coherent meaning. A new culture, a genuine culture, could arise if opinions and assumptions are not defended incoherently. This is necessary for society to survive.
“If the individual can hold all of the meaning together in his own mind, he has the attitude of the dialogue.”
Difficulties in Dialogue
- People adopting different roles, especially the dominant and weak roles. This is partly due to the assumptions we hold about ourselves, and that mirrors in how the rest of the group see us, and then that affects how we see ourselves again.
- Impulse or pressure to get your point of view across. You don’t allow people to absorb what has been said.
- Someone may want to accomplish a purpose, generating a conflict.
- Your assumptions may be revealed.
The Vision of Dialogue
Since everybody has assumptions and everybody may stick to that assumption, everybody can be disturbed neurochemically. This can form an extremely close bond between one another (like love or hate). The group starts to form “one body” and “one mind” because of having the same content.
Other type of bond is impersonal fellowship; close connection, fellowship, and mutual participation.
“If we can all suspend carrying out our impulses, suspend our assumptions, and look at them all, then we are all in the same state of consciousness. And therefore we have established the thing that many people say they want – a common consciousness.”
Creativity as an energy without a reason.
“Intelligence requires that you don’t defend an assumption.”
“Truth does not emerge from opinions; it must emerge from something else – perhaps from a more free movement of the tacit mind.”
“How can you share if you are sure you have truth and the other fellow is sure he has truth, and the truths don’t agree? How can you share?... Dialogue may not be concerned directly with truth – it may arrive at truth, but it is concerned with meaning.”
Vision of dialogue: it’s about thinking together, when one thought is being formed together. If an assumption is brought up in a dialogue, everybody listen to it and share its meaning.
Sensitivity in Dialogue
Sensitivity: being able to sense that something is happening, to sense the way you respond, the way other people respond, to sense the subtle differences and similarities. To sense all this is the foundation of perception.
Screen of though (you see but you are not aware) is not sensitivity.
“So this group (dialogue group) is not going to judge or condemn. It is simply going to look at all the opinions and assumptions and let them surface. And I think that there could then be a change.”
“A great deal of our whole life is not serious. And society teaches you that. It teaches you not to be very serious – that there are all sorts of incoherent things, and there is nothing that can be done about it, and that you will only stir yourself up uselessly by being serious.”
Limited Dialogue
Dialogue is not about hierarchies or authorities; it’s about getting free of that. It’s also about not having a defined purpose, but to have shared meaning.
A facilitator may be useful in a dialogue group, although he should eventually be able to be just one more participant.
“Dialogue is the collective way of opening up judgments and assumptions.”
Beyond Dialogue
“I’m suggesting that there is the possibility for a transformation of the nature of consciousness, both individually and collectively, and that whether this can be solved culturally and socially depends on dialogue.”
“Love will go away if we can’t communicate and share meaning… if we can really communicate, then we will have fellowship, participation, friendship, and love, growing and growing.”
High energy of coherence (“communion”): Greek word, koinonia, “to participate”.
- Greek word dialogos. Dia (through), logos (the word)
- “The picture or image that this derivation suggest is of a stream of meaning flowing among and through us and between us. This will make possible a flow of meaning in the whole group, out of which may emerge some new understanding. It’s something new, which may not have been in the starting point at all. It’s something creative.”
- Discussion (win-lose) vs. Dialogue (everybody wins)
- Everything has different assumptions and opinions and these are defended when they are challenged.
- It goes into the process of thought behind assumptions, not just the assumptions themselves.
Dialogue and Thought
Opinions are taken as “truths”. “Dialogue is really aimed at going into the whole thought process and changing the way the thought process occurs collectively.”
One difficulty in thinking, fragmentation. This means that we separate things which are not really independent. It divides everything up.
The source of the problem is the process of thought itself, which is constantly producing the problem, but says it is not making it. Thought defends its basic assumptions against evidence that they may be wrong, that’s the main problem we are facing. The worst of all is that we often do this unconsciously. Culture has a big part in this problem.
People tend to avoid the issues that may cause trouble. This is called “cozy adjustment”
A nice size of group to form a “microculture” is from 20 to 40 people. “Individual thought is mostly the result of collective thought and of interaction with other people.” Culture has a big take on the way we think.
“Now, you could say that our ordinary thought in society is incoherent – it is going in all sorts of directions, with thoughts conflicting and canceling each other out. But if people were to think together in a coherent way, it would have tremendous power. That’s the suggestion. If we have a dialogue situation – a group which has sustained dialogue for quite a while in which people get to know each other, and so on – then we might have such a coherent movement of thought, a coherent movement of communication. It would be coherent not only at the level we recognize, but at the tacit level (actual knowledge), at the level for which we have only a vague feeling. That would be more important.”
“We have to share our consciousness and to be able to think together, in order to do intelligently whatever is necessary.”
Engaging In Dialogue
- Form a circle (allows direct communication)
- No leaders but facilitators
- The group is not mainly for the sake of personal problems.
- Talk directly to one another and to the group.
- We are not going to decide what to do about anything in order to be truly free.
- Purpose: to communicate coherently in truth.
- It’s the whole process that counts.
- “I’m saying that it is necessary to share meaning. A society is a link of relationships among people and institutions, so that we can live together. But it only works if we have a culture – which implies that we share meaning; i.e. significance, purpose, and value. Otherwise it falls apart. Our society is incoherent, and doesn’t do that very well; it hasn’t for a long time, if it ever did. The different assumptions that people have are tacitly affecting the whole meaning of what we are doing.”
“If you sustain it, all these problems will arise; it cannot avoid bringing out the deep assumptions of the people who are participating. The frustration will arise, the sense of chaos, the sense that it’s not worth it. the emotional charge will come… But if you understand that you do nevertheless have to stick with it, then something new will come.”
Suspending Assumptions
Suspend Assumptions: “you neither carry them out nor suppress them. You don’t believe them, nor do you disbelieve them; you don’t judge them as good or bad.”
Notice the connection between the thought, feelings, and emotions going on in the dialogue. “The point is to keep it at a level where the opinions come out, but where you can look at them.” It’s somehow about being metacognitive about your thoughts and assumptions.
The Impulse of Necessity
Thought of necessity: Latin root, necesse (don’t yield), meaning “what cannot be turned aside”. You enter in a state of conflict. If it’s not “absolute necessary”, it’s negotiable.
When two “absolute necessities” clash, there is an emotional charge and you build powerful feelings.
“Freedom makes possible a creative perception of new orders of necessity.”
Proprioception of Thought
Proprioception means “selfperception”. You have to be metacognitive of the thought, otherwise you’ll keep on producing the problem.
*Example of a woman who had a stoke and her sensory nerves stopped working, so she started to hit herself, and the more she defended, the worse the attack got. The same happens with our thought.
“The point of suspension is to help make proprioception possible, to create a mirror so that you can see the results of your thought.”
Collective Participation
“At some stage we would share our opinions without hostility, and we would then be able to think together; whereas when we defend an opinion we can’t.”
Sharing a common content: when we can see what all of our opinions mean. It happens after we suspend our opinions, look at them, look at everybody’s opinions, and see what all that means.
Participatory consciousness: “Everything can move between us. Each person is participating, is partaking of the whole meaning of the group and also taking part in it. We can call that a true dialogue.”
“If something is right, you don’t need to be persuaded… Conviction and persuasion are not called for in a dialogue.”
“It’s a harmony of the individual and the collective, in which the whole constantly moves toward coherence. So there is both a collective mind and an individual mind, and like a stream, the flow moves between them.”
A New Culture
Society (link of relationships that are set by people in order to work and live together)… behind that is a culture (shared meaning).
Societies now a day don’t share coherent meaning. A new culture, a genuine culture, could arise if opinions and assumptions are not defended incoherently. This is necessary for society to survive.
“If the individual can hold all of the meaning together in his own mind, he has the attitude of the dialogue.”
Difficulties in Dialogue
- People adopting different roles, especially the dominant and weak roles. This is partly due to the assumptions we hold about ourselves, and that mirrors in how the rest of the group see us, and then that affects how we see ourselves again.
- Impulse or pressure to get your point of view across. You don’t allow people to absorb what has been said.
- Someone may want to accomplish a purpose, generating a conflict.
- Your assumptions may be revealed.
The Vision of Dialogue
Since everybody has assumptions and everybody may stick to that assumption, everybody can be disturbed neurochemically. This can form an extremely close bond between one another (like love or hate). The group starts to form “one body” and “one mind” because of having the same content.
Other type of bond is impersonal fellowship; close connection, fellowship, and mutual participation.
“If we can all suspend carrying out our impulses, suspend our assumptions, and look at them all, then we are all in the same state of consciousness. And therefore we have established the thing that many people say they want – a common consciousness.”
Creativity as an energy without a reason.
“Intelligence requires that you don’t defend an assumption.”
“Truth does not emerge from opinions; it must emerge from something else – perhaps from a more free movement of the tacit mind.”
“How can you share if you are sure you have truth and the other fellow is sure he has truth, and the truths don’t agree? How can you share?... Dialogue may not be concerned directly with truth – it may arrive at truth, but it is concerned with meaning.”
Vision of dialogue: it’s about thinking together, when one thought is being formed together. If an assumption is brought up in a dialogue, everybody listen to it and share its meaning.
Sensitivity in Dialogue
Sensitivity: being able to sense that something is happening, to sense the way you respond, the way other people respond, to sense the subtle differences and similarities. To sense all this is the foundation of perception.
Screen of though (you see but you are not aware) is not sensitivity.
“So this group (dialogue group) is not going to judge or condemn. It is simply going to look at all the opinions and assumptions and let them surface. And I think that there could then be a change.”
“A great deal of our whole life is not serious. And society teaches you that. It teaches you not to be very serious – that there are all sorts of incoherent things, and there is nothing that can be done about it, and that you will only stir yourself up uselessly by being serious.”
Limited Dialogue
Dialogue is not about hierarchies or authorities; it’s about getting free of that. It’s also about not having a defined purpose, but to have shared meaning.
A facilitator may be useful in a dialogue group, although he should eventually be able to be just one more participant.
“Dialogue is the collective way of opening up judgments and assumptions.”
Beyond Dialogue
“I’m suggesting that there is the possibility for a transformation of the nature of consciousness, both individually and collectively, and that whether this can be solved culturally and socially depends on dialogue.”
“Love will go away if we can’t communicate and share meaning… if we can really communicate, then we will have fellowship, participation, friendship, and love, growing and growing.”
High energy of coherence (“communion”): Greek word, koinonia, “to participate”.