“On Dialogue”

by David Bohm

The following is taken from the portion of a book (p.18-20, “On Dialogue”) by David Bohm. When we know the relevance of the message, we may live by IT. In between these lines or when our conscious meet the unconscious, there may be something that strikes the “cord” --- called; “Life,” “Wisdom,” or whatever… Good day! - Kio (12/17/02)

--------------------------------------------------------------

When a dialogue group is new, in general people talk around the point for a while. In all human relations nowadays, people generally have a way of not directly facing anything. They talk around things, avoiding the difficulties. This practice will probably continue within a dialogue group. If you keep the group going for a while though, that tendency begins to break down. At a dialogue one evening a fellow spoke up, saying, 1 we’re all talking about philosophy. Can I read this nice bit of philosophy I brought?” And some people said, “No.” So he didn’t read it. It seemed a bit of a shock, but it worked out.

It all has to be worked out. People will come to a group with different interests and assumptions. In the beginning they may have negotiation, which is a very preliminary stage of dialogue. In other words, if people have different approaches, they have to negotiate somehow. However, that is not the end of dialogue; it is the beginning. Negotiation involves finding a common way of proceeding. Now, if you only negotiate, you don’t get very far - although some questions do have to be negotiated.

A great deal of what nowadays is typically considered to be dialogue tends to focus on negotiation; but as we said, that is a preliminary stage. People are generally not ready to go into the deeper issues when they first have what they consider to be a dialogue. They negotiate, and that’s about as far as they get. Negotiation is trading off, adjusting to each other and saying, “Okay, I see your point. I see that that is important to you. Let’s find a way that would satisfy both of us. I will give in a little on this, and you give in a little on that. And then we will work something out.” Now, that’s not really a close relationship, but it begins to make it possible to get going.

So the suggestion is that people could start dialogue groups in various places. The point would not be to identify with the group, but rather, what is important is this whole process. You might say, “This is a wonderful group,” but it’s actually the process that counts.

I think that when we are able to sustain a dialogue of this sort you will find that there will be a change in the people who are taking part. They themselves would then behave differently even outside the dialogue. Eventually they would spread it. It’s like the Biblical analogy of the seeds — some are dropped in stony ground and some of them fall in the right place and they produce tremendous fruit. The thing is that you cannot tell where or how it can start. The idea here, the communication here, the kind of thought we’re having here, is a kind of seed which may help this to come about. But we mustn’t be surprised if many of these groups are abortive and don’t get going. That doesn’t mean it can’t happen.

The point is not to establish a fixed dialogue group forever, but rather one that lasts long enough to make a change. If you keep holding it for too long it may become caught up in habits again. But you have to keep it up for a while, or else it won’t work. It may be valuable to keep the dialogue going for a year or two, as we said, and it is important to sustain it regularly, 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. The fellow with the assumptions about Zionism probably wanted to be

very polite. But suddenly somebody said something that outraged him, and he couldn’t control himself. It’s going to happen that the deep assumptions will come to the surface if

stick with it. But if you understand that you do nevertheless have to stick with it, then something new will come.

Now, dialogue is not going to be always entertaining, nor is doing anything visibly useful. So you may tend to drop it as soon as it gets difficult. But I suggest that it is very important to go on with it - to stay with it through the frustration. When you think something is important you will do that. For example, nobody would climb Mount Everest unless for some reason he thought it was important, as that could also be very frustrating not always entertaining. And the same is true if you have to make money, or do all sorts of things. If you feel that they are necessary, you do them.

I am saying that it is necessary to share meaning. A society is 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.

(Note)

n When I read the above paragraph, I thought of democracy, mini-company, meditation, insight generation and the way the progress/evolution happens as a nature’s way. David Bohm is a physicist with long friendship with Krishnamurti. All of our life’s activity may be viewed as a part of the dialogue (supposedly) which also goes on within our mind-body system. My management consulting process is tied to this as much as my life’s whole process is tied to this. Those who shared the process with me or those who read the book, “Results from the Heart,” may relate to this process as the principle way.

n If one asks further the question of “So what?,” the answer may be, “It is what it is. Just live by IT as much as the life is IT itself.”

* Back to my home page: http://www.oocities.org/suzakico/index.html