As mentioned, we
will make references to Dialogue Schools or Studies, as in the context of the
"The School of Ignorance ?" dialogue group. Using Bohm's framing concepts we want to
explore how certain procedures and principles might help us achieve the state required to
opening oneself to a group and allow other ideas to be viewed without fences, without filters
and without screens.
When looking at
Dialogue and David Bohm’s work that discusses going beyond assumptions,
isolation and interest, and towards an open sharing of ideas, we learn that people increasingly
get together only to present their own ideas and to defend their views or projects. Bohm was
very aware of the need -- even in open and free (no format) meetings -- to find procedures or
principles that will literally give people the "space" to talk and especially to overcome
ingrained
habits and convictions which tend to bias and hamper speakers (for more see: On Dialogue p
30). He was very aware of how ‘talkers’ use words, protecting themselves by building walls
of
words therefore mis-intentionally hindering the free flow of ideas that could otherwise reinforce
and encourage a participatory mode and mood.
His observations
are even more true today, since we are well versed in literal and competitive
systems which makes us 'defend and attack' rather than seek common ground and compassion.
But attitudes towards groups and the position or ’rank‘ of individual rights and responsibilities
versus groups or society is rapidly changing.
Bohm clearly outlined
that a certain receptiveness and interest in dialogue and in the sharing of
other ideas is needed. He explicitly stated that "ego" might be the reason for conflict, and,
people might not be ready or interested as the time arises, to share and so move from literal to
participatory thought or culture. He was aware that 'schools of thought' tend to clash, putting
more effort into staying apart and intentionally avoiding constructive exchange. His experience
was that scientists in particular, brought up in a mode of "challenge/defend" -- the constant
testing of rules, axioms and hypotheses -- have difficulty listening, reflecting on, or even
questioning their cherished hard won assumptions, in order to mature their overall perceptions,
and transcend any conceptual barriers.
David Bohm has
outlined an incredible and important path for going from literal to participatory
modes of thought and action. More than developing personal and mutual awarenesses for
others, it is important to foster the ability to reflect, to step back and think many times, to
reconsider and feel the group, rather than single- mindedly fight for one’s solitary path or view.
We all know that
a body or group is a subject sorely needing more study and exercise,
especially when conversation is becoming more and more de-materialized and dis-embodied in
the global neural system called cyberspace. We feel that the literal embodiment of time and
attention and conceptual positions can be of great assistance. If people are open to working at
dialogue, being less intransigent and more willing to see things with new and shared eyes... the
outcome could be mutual and shared theories. An achievement of perception and
contemplation ...
Dialogue is about a shared inquiry, a way of thinking and reflecting together.
It is a living experience
of inquiry within and between people.
The most important parts of any conversation are those that neither party could have imagined
before starting.
It seeks to harness the “collective intelligence” of the people around us.
You must develop it within yourself and model it for others before you seek to apply it.
It is a conversation with a center, not sides.
It is a flow of meaning.
It is a conversation in which people think together in relationship.
It attempts to bring about change at the source of our thoughts and feelings, rather than results
that our thinking produces.
The intention of dialogue is to reach new understanding—in doing so we form a totally new
basis from which to think and act.
Dialogue is a mode of exchange among human beings in which there is a true turning
to one
another and a full appreciation of another person, not as an object in a social function, but as a
genuine being. (Martin Buber, 1914).
