Vista previa parcial del texto
¡Descarga On Dialogue y más Apuntes en PDF de Relaciones Internacionales solo en Docsity!
On Dialogue On Dialogue by David Bolun Perhaps we could begin by talking about what ] mean by dialogue, We will begin with that rather than with trying actually to huve a dialogue, since if yow try lo begin that way, everybody will wonder what is a dialogue and whether we are having one actually. Therefore we will be going off the poínt. So we will discuss dialogue for a while - what is its nature? Egive a meaning to the word “dialogue' that js somewhat different from what js common! Ey used, The derivations af words often help to suggest a deeper meaning. Dialogue' comes fiom the Greck word dialogos. Logos means he word! or ín our case we would think of he ineaning of the word. And dia means through! - it doesr'É mean two. A. dialogue can be arong any number of people, not just two. Even one person can have a sense of dialogue within himself, if the spirit of the dialogue js present. The picture of image that this derivation suggesis is of a stream of meaning flowing among and through us and berween us. This will make possible a flow of meaning la the whole gronp, out of which will emerge some new nd standing. l's something new, which ray not have been ín the starting point al ati. les something creative. And thisshared meaning is the "glue' or 'cement' that holds people and societies together. Contrast this with the word 'discussion', which has the same root as 'percussion' an 'concussion!. Jt really imeans to break things up. lt emphasises the idea of analysis, vohere there may be many points of view. Discussion is almost fíkce a Ping-Pong game, where people are batting the ideas back and forth añd the object of the game is to win orto get polnts for yourself. Possibly you will take Up somebody else's ideas to back up your own - you may agree with some and disagres with others- but the basic point is to win the game. Thats very frequently the case ina discussion. ln a dialogue, however, nobody is trying to win, Everybody wins if anybody wins. There is a diferent sort of spirit to it. Tn a dialogue, there ¡s no attempt to gain points, or to make your particular view prevail. Rather, whenever any mistake is discovered on the part of anybody, everybody gains. ll's a situation called wia-win, ín which we are not playing a game against each other butiwi each other. ln a dialoguc, everybody wins, Clearly, a lot of what is called “dialogue' is not dialogue ín the way that lam using the word, For example, people al the United Nations have been having whal are often considered to be dialogues, but these are very limited. They are more like discussbns -or pezhaps trade «offs or negotiarlons- than dialogues. The people who take part are not really open to questioning their fundamental assumptions. They are trading off miner points, like negotiating whether we have more or less nuclear weapons. But the whole question of two different systems is not being seriously discussed. J£s taken for granted that yon can't talk about dat - thar nothing will ever change that, Consequently their discussions are nor serious, nor deeply serious. A great deal of whal we call 'discussion' js not desply serious, in the sense that (here are all sorts of things which are held to be not-negotlable and not touchable, and people don't even want to talk about them, That is part of out trouble. Now, why do we need dialogue? People have difficuly communicaine even in small groups. But fñi a group :e this of hirty or forty, many may find ie very hard to comunicate unless there is a set purpose, or unless somebody is leading it. Why is that? For one thing, everybody has different assumptions and opinions, They are basic assumprions. not merely superticial assumplions - such as assumpiions about the meaning of ¡ife; about your 01m self interest, your country's interest, or your religious interest; about what you really think ¡simportant. And these assumptions arc defended when they are challenged. People frequently car? resist deénding them, and they tend to defend them with an emotional charge, We'll discuss that ín more detail Jater, but PI give you an example now. We organised a diatogue in Israel a number of: years ago. Át one stage the people were discussing politics, and somebody said, just in passing, “Zinonism is creating a great dificully in good relations berween Jews and Arabs. 11 is the principal barrier that's in the way." He said it very quietly. Then suddenly somebody elss coulda't contain himself and juieped up. He was full of emotion. His blood pressure was high and his eyes were popping aut. He said, "Without Zionism the country would fall to pieces.” “That Fellow had one basio assuruption, and the other person had another one. And those two ASSUMPliDIS Were really ja coníftict. Then the question is, “What can ycudo? You see, those are fhe kind of assumptions thal are causing all the trouble politically al! over the world. And the case 1 Just described is relatively casier than some of the assamptions O Schouten 8, Nelissen 2 On Dialogue that we have to handle in política. The point is that we have all sorts of. assumptions, not only about politics or economics or religion, but also about what we think an individual should do, or wirat life is all ahont, and so fort. We could also call these assumptions "opinions. Án opinión ís an assumption. The word 'opinion' js used in several senses. When a doctor has an Opinion, that's the best assumplion that he can make based on the evidence. He may then say, "Okay, Tm not quite sure, so Jets get a second opinion.” ln that case, if he is a good doctor he does not react to deferd his assumption. If the second opinion turns out to be diflerent from his, he doesatt jump up with an emotional charge, such as the fellow did on the question of Zionism, and say, "How can you say such (hings?" That doctors opinion would be an example of a rational sort of opinion. But most are not of that nature - mostly they are defended with astrong reaction. In other words, a person identifjes himsclfwih them. They are tied up with his investment in self. Iterest, and all that. lis importantto see thar the difíerent opinions that you have are the result of, past thought: all your experiences, what other people have said, and whatnot. That is all programmed into your memory, You may then identify with dose opinions and react to-defend them. But it doesn't make sense lo do this. Y the opinion is right, it doesn't need such a reaction. And ¡£ it is wrong, why should you defend ¡42 lt is as if you yourself are under attack when your opinion is challenged, Opinions thus tend to be experienced as 'truths, even though they may only he your own assumptions and your own background. You got them from your teacher, your family, or by reading, or in yet some other way. Ten for ona reason or another you are identified with thera, and you defend hem. Different people coming from different backgrounds typically have different baste assumptions and opinions. In this group here you will probabiy find a great many different assumptions and opinions of which we are not aware at the moment. That is generally so in any group. lt is a roatter of culture. Ta the overali culture theré are vast numbers of opinions and assumplions which help make up tbal culture, And there are also sub-cultures that are somewhat different from one another according to ethic group or to economic situation, or lo race, religion, ot thousands of other things. People will come to a gathering Bike this from sornewhat different cultures or sub-cultures, with different assumptions and opinions, Aud they may not redlise il, but they have sore tendeney to defend thcir assumptions and opinions reactively against evidence that they are not sight, or simply a similar tencency to defend them agains! somebody who has another opinion. H we defend opinions in this way, we are not going to be able to have a dialogue. And we arc ofien snconsciousty defending our opinions. We don't usually do lt on purpose. At times we may be conscious that we are defending thera, but mostiy we are not. We Just feel tbar something is so true that we can't avoid trying to convinee this stupid person how wrong he is to disagres with us. Now, that seems the most natural thing in the World. lt seems lat thats inevitable, Yet if you think of it, we can't really organise a good society if we go on that basis, 1 mean, thats the way democracy is supposed to work, but it hasn't. feverybody has a different opinion, it will ke mere ly a struggle oFopinions. And the one who is the strongest will vin. Itmay not necessarily be dhe right one; ¡tmay be that none o fiero are right, Therefore, we won be dolog the right thing when we uy lo get together, This problem arises wheiher we meet here, or legislators Ery to gel together, or businessmen try to get togelher, or whatever. Jfwe all had to do a job together, we would likely find that each one of us would have different opinions and assumptions, and thus we would find it hard to do the job. The temperature could go way up. ln fact, there are people facing Ihis probiem in large corporatións. The top executives may all have different opinions, hence they cant get together. So the company doesn't work efficiently, it starts to lose money and goes under. There are some neople who are ying to form groups where top business executives can talk together. 1 politicians would do that, it would be very gond, Rel igious people would be the hardest to get togerher. The assumplions of the different religions are so firmly embedded that 1 don't know of any case of two relígions, or even sub-groups of any given religion, where they ever got together once they had split. The Christian church, for instance, has been talking about trying to get together far ages and it stays about the same al! the time. They talk and they appear to get a little bit closer, and then it neverhappens. They talk about unity and orteness and Jove, and all that, but the other assumptions are more powerful; they are programmed into us. Some religious people are trying to get together: they are really sincere - 1hey are as serious as hey can be- but it seems lhat they cannot do it. 9 Schouten R Nelissen 3 On Dialogue coherent movement of communication. T£ would be cohierent not only al he level we recognise, but at the tacit level, es the level for which we have only a vague feeling, That would be more buportant 'Taci? means that which is unspoken, which cannot be described - fike the tacit knowiedge required to ide a bicyole. lt is the actual knowledge, and it may be coherent or not, J ara proposing that Shought «10 think - is actually a subtle tacil process, The concrete process of thinking is very tacit, The meaning is basically tacit. And whet we can say explicitlvis oniy a very sroall part ofit. think we all reajíss that we do almost everylhing by this sort of tacit knowledge. Thought is emerging from the tacit ground, and any fundamental change in thought will come from the tacít ground. So wc are Sommunicating ai the tacit level, then maybe thought is changing. The tacit process is comunon. lt is shared, The sharing is not merely the explicit communication and the body language and alt that, witich are part ofi, but there is also a deeper tacit process which is common. [think the whole human race knew this for a million years; and then in five thousand years of civilisation we have lost it, because cur societies gol too big to Carry it out, But now we have to £et started again, because it has become urgent that we communicate, We hayc to share our consciousness and to be able to think together, on order to do intelligently whatever ls necessary, . 1 we begin to contront what's going on in a group like this, we sortof have the nucleus ofwhafs going on in all society, When you are by yourself you miss quite a bitof that, Or even one-orrone you don really get it. You could say thar generally our culture goes in for large groups of people for two reasons. One is for entertainment and fun, The other is to get a useful job done. Now, Tm. going to propose thal in a dialogue we are not going to hayo any agenda, we are not going to try to accomplish any useful thing. Ás soon as we try to accomplish a Useful purpose or goal, we will have an assumprion behind ¿Las to what is useñul, and thar assumption is going to límit us, Different people w¡H think different things are useful, And thats going to cause trouble, We may 3ay, "Do we want to save the world?" or “Do we wantto run a schoo)?" or "Do we want to make money?" Whatever lUimay be. That's also going to be one of the problems in corporate dialogues, Will they ever give up the notior that they are there primarily 10 make a profit? If they could, this would be a rea! transformation of mankina, 1 thiok thar teuny business executives in certain companies are feeling unhappy and really want to do something - nl merely to save the company. ls nor thatall ofihem are money-rubbing or exchusively profit-oriented, What 1 ar suggesting is that in dialogue we do not have an agenda and we are not trving to accomplish anything useful. Nor are we g0íng to have a leader, Now, that's a harder probler. People wit] tend to say, “Okay, we have no agenda. We're not solving a problem. At least somebody will tell us what lo do.” The whole society has been organised tat way - to believe that we cante function without these lezders, But maybe we can. The idea behínd dialogue has been developed by a number of people, It is becoming quite a common thing, or at Jcast more cormnon than itwas. This ¡dea seems to be growing in society. We could say tha! the time Ís ripe for it. and people are begirming to take e up. . Now, lhe way we startía dialogue group js usually by talking about dialogue - talking it over, discussing why we're doing it, what itmeans, and so forth. 1 don't think iLis wise to starta group before people have gone into all 1har, at least somewhat. You can, but Eien you']l have to trust that the group Wili continue, and that these questions will come out later. So if you are thinking of meeting ia a group. one way which I suggest is to have a discussion or a seminar abomr dialoguz for awhile, and those who are interested can then go on to have the dialogue. And you musto'? worry t00 ¡nuch whether you are or are not having dialogue - thats one of the blocks. Je may be mixed, A basic notion for a dialogue would be for people to sit in a circle. Such a geometric arrangement doesn't favour anybody: it allows for direct communication. In principle, the dialogue should work without any leader and without any agenda, Of course, we are used to Ieaders and agendas, so if we were to start a meeting here without a leader - start talking and have no agenda, no purpose - 1 think we would find a great dea] of anxiety h not knowing what to do, Thus bne of the things would be to work through that arxicty, to face it, In fact, we know by cxperience that if. people do this for an hour or two they do gerthrough ¡tand start to talk more freely. H may be useful to have a facilitetor to get the group going, who keeps a watch an it for a while and sort of explains whats happening from time to time, and thar Kind of tine. But his function 18 to work himself out of a job. Now, that may take time, Et may be that people ¡must meet regular and sustaio the dialogue. That forp might be to meet week after week, or bi-weekly or whatever, and sustain ita. long time - a year ol two or more. ln that period, al] those E Schouten 8. Nelissen 5 On Dialoque o mon i things we mentioned would come out. And people would begin to leam: really to depend less and less on the facifitator - at jeast that's the idea behind ir. tha?s the suggestion. Of course, 's an experiment, We can't guarantes that it is going to happen. But that is what takes place in any new venture; you consider all the evidenos, yot consider what's the best idea, what to say about it, what your theories about it are, and then you go ahead and try it, Some time ago there was an antrropologist who lived for a long while with a North American tribe, lt was a small group of about this size, The hunter-gatherers have typically lived in groups of twenty to forty. Agricultural group units are much targer, Now, from time to time that tribe raet Jike this in a circle. They just talked and talked and talked, apperently to po purpose. They made no decisions. There was no leader, And everybody could participate. There may have been wise men or wise women who were Histened to a bit more - the older ones - but everybody could talk. The meeting went on, until ít finally seemed to stop Tor no reason at all and the group dispersed. Yet añer that, everybody seemed to know what to do, because they understod each other so well. Then they could get together in smaller groups and do something or decido things. In this large group we are not going to decide what to do about anything. "his is crucial. Ofherwise we are not free. We must have an empty space where we are not obliged to do anything, nor io come to any conclusions, nor to say anything or not say anything. T€s open and free. 15 an empty space, “Qocupied' is the opposite of leisure; ¡fs full. So we have here a Xjad of empty space where anythina may come in» and after we Iinish, we just empty it. We are nol trying to accumulate anything. Thats one of the points about a dislogue. As a friend of mine usod to say, “The cup has to be empty to hold something.” When a group is new, in general people tefí around tks point for a vilo. la all human relations nowadays, people generally have a wey of not directly facing anyihing. They talk around things, avoiding the difficulties. This practice will probably continue within any group such as this, TÉ you keep the group going Tor u while though, that tencency begios to break down. At a dialogue one evening a fellow spoke up, saying, "Okay, we're al talking about philosophy. Can I read (his nice bit of philosophy T brought?" And some psopie said, "No." So he didn't read il. lt seemed abitofa shock, but it worked out. h all bas to be worked out, People wil] come to a group with different interests and assumptions. la tbe inning they may have negotiation, which is a very prelimirary stage of dialogue. Ín other words, if people have t approaches, they have to negotiste somehow. However, that is not the end of dialogue; it is the beginning. Negotiarion invoives finding a common way of proceeding. Now, ¡fyou only negotiate, you dorrt get very far - although some questions do haveto be negotíated. A greai deal of what nowadays is iypically considered to be dialogue ¿ends to focus on negotiation; but as we said, that is a preliminary stage. People are generally not ready to po into the dceper issues when they first have what they consider lo be a dialogue. They negotiate, and tha?s about as far as they get, When Bush and Gorbachev meet, or example, negotiation should really be onty a beginning to what they ought to be doing. Negotiation is trading off, adjusting to cach other and saying, "Okay, I see your point. | see thaf that is important to you, Let's find a way that would satisfy both oPus. 1 will give in a 3itile op this, and you give in e Bite on that, And then we will work something out" Now, that's not reaily a close relationship, but it begins to make it possible to ger golag. We have been saying that people in any group wil) bring to it their assumprions, and as the group continues meeting, those assumptions will come up. Then what is called tor is 10 susperd those assumplions, so that you neither cary thern out nor suppress them. You dont believe them, nor do you disbelieve them; you don't judge them as good or bad, You simply see what they mean - not only your own, but the other people's as well. We ase not trying to change anybody's opinion, When this meeting is ever, somebody may or may not change his opinion, This is part of what 1 consider dialogue - for people to realise what is on each others minds without coming to any conclusions or judgements, In a dialogue we have to sort of weígh the question a little, ponder it a Bittle, feel ¡tout Fra going to suggest the way li ought to work, Assuraptions will come up. And ¡f you hear somebody else who has an assumption that seeras utrageous ta you, the natural response might be to get angry, or ger excited, or to react in some other way. Bul suppose you suspend that activity. That means thet il is sort af there la front of you. You are not Suppressing it, not carrying Hi out, not believing lt or disbelieving it, you are simply sesing the meaning of your assumption along wilh the other person's. You may not even have Joown ibat you had an assumption. lt was only 18 Schouiten 8, Melissen . 6 On Dialogue that they defena, there is something thal interferes with ercativity. 1f you are defending an assumption, you are pushing out whatever is new. Thus everybody is quite free. 's not like a mob where the collective mind takes over- notatalí, ltis something between the individual and the collective. It can move between thern. Jts a harmony of the individual and the collective, in which the whole constanty moves toward coherence. $0 there s both a collective mind and an individual mind, and like a sircam, the flow motes between them. The opinions, therefore, don't matter so much, Eventually we may be somewhere between all these opiriions, and we start ta move beyond them in another direction - a tangential direction: - into something new andcreative, Now, that would be the ideal situation. l've painted the ideal pictare. But as we start, you'll find, of course, that kt doesn't happen. That's often the case in dislog ue - the thing that seems to make sense, which looks coherent and right, dorsnt work when we try it, Th: thing thal docsr't make sensa is what does seem to work. You can notice the similarity of the difíicultics within a group to what we've talked about in the past relative to the conflicts and incoherent thouglks within an individual. The individual would have to suspend his assumplions, and so does the group. “There ís another factor in a group, though, because collective cultural assumprions come in to a much grealer extent. And in a large group like this, many sub-cultures also coma in. A, society is a link of relationships that are set by people in order 10 work and live together: rules, laws, institutions, and various things. lt is done by frinking ard agrecing thal we are gojg to have them, and then we do it. And bebind that is a culture, which is shared meaning, Even to say (hal we want to set up a government, people must agrez to a common meaning of what kind of government they want, whafs good government, wbafs right, and so 01. Different cultures will produce different functions of government. And if some people don't agrec, then we have political struggle. When it goes further, it breaks dow; Eam saying society is based on shared meanings, which constitute the culture, 1f we dont share coberent meaning. we do not make much ofa society. And at present, the sociesy at large has a very incoherent ser of meanings. In fact, this set of "shared meanings" is so incoherent that it js har to say that they have any real meaning al ail, There is a certain amount of significance, but át is very límited. The culture in general is incoherent. And we will thus bring with us into the group- or miorocosm or microculture - a corresponding incoherence. fall the meanings can come in together, however, we may be able to work toward coherence, As a result of “his provess, we may naturally and easily drop al lot of our meanings. But we don't have to begin by accepting or rejecting them. The imp ortant tiing is that we will never come to truth unless the overal) meaning is rent. All the meanings of the past and the present are together. We first have to apprelend them, and just let them be; and this will bring about a certain order. 1f we can work this through, we will then have a coherent meaning in the group, and hence the beginsing ofa new kind of culture - a culture ofa kind which, as far as 1 can tell, has never really existed. Pit ever día, it must have been very long-ago - maybe in some groups in the primitive Stone Age conditions, ] am saying thal a genuine cuiture could arise in which opinions and assamptions are not defended incoherentiy. And that kiad of culture is necessary Tor the society to work, and ultimately for the society to survive. Such a group might be the germ of the microcosm of the larger culture, which would then spread in many ways - not only by creating new groups, but also by peaple communicating the notion of what it means. Also, one can see that jt is possible that this spívit of the dialogue can work even in smaller groups, or one-an- one, of within the individual. If the individual can hold al of the meanings together in his own mind, he has the attitude of the distogue. He could carry that out and perhapscommunicate it, both verbally and non-verbally, to other peopie, In principle, this could spread. Many peopie are interested ín dilogue now. We find lt growing, The time scers 1o beripe fortnis notion, and it could perbaps spread in many different areas. 1 think that something Bike this is neccssary for society to function properly and for sociery to survive, Otherwise it witl al! fall apart. This shared meaning is reaJly the cement that holds society together, and you could say that the present societ y has some very pour quality coment. 1f yor make a buliding with very low quality cement, it cracks and falls apart, We really need right cement, the right glue. And that is shared meaning, $o we have talked about the posilive side of dialogue. However, this attempt at dialogue can be very fustrating. E say this not only theoretically, but also from experience. We've mentioned some af the difficulties; ¡Us frustrafing to 9 Schouten € Nelissen 8 On Dialogue have alhihese opinions; ¡Us frustrating to have some people more dominant, or others who find it hard 10 talk; people may fall into role-playing; there may be anxiety. Now, how are you going to deal with the frustrations within tbe group? As we said before, things may máke you angry or frustrated or may frightea you. Your assumptions may be revealed and challenged, and you may find the opinions. of others to be outrageous. Also, peopié may be Sightened and anxious ¡fthere is no leader and to topic and nothing 'to do'. So you have to get through all ofthat. These are the problems that are going to arise - that'have avisen in all the groups that Pve seen, And you can expect that they are almost inevitable, and may ask, 'Then what is the point in going on with all of this? So we must explore that. Tam saying that there is a reason for dialogue. We reelly so need to have jt, This reason should be strong enough 10 get us through all the frustration we talked about. People generally seem ready to accept frustration wi anyibing that they regard as important. Dojag yowr job or making money, for example, is often frustrating; it produces jery. Yet people will say, "That is important! We have to stick with it." They feel that way about all sorts of things. that if we regard dialogue as importent, as necessary, we will say about it as well, 'We will stick to 4" But í we dont think its necessary, we might say, "Okay, what's the pojnt? This it too much trouble, Let's give it up. Tts not producing ariyihing." You see, you have to explore anything ncw for a while. la science, or anywhere, you usually have to go through a period where you are not getting anywhere while you are exploring, lt can. nevertheless, be very discouraging. Tf we can all suspend carying out our impulses, suspend our assumptions, and look at them all, then we are al in the same state of conscionsness - the content is the same. Aud therefore we have establishod the thing (hat many people say they want- a common consciousness. lt may not be very pleasant, but we have got it. Peopte tend to think of common conscionsness as "shared bliss. Phat may come; but ¡fi does, Tm saying, that the road to it is through this. We have to share the consciousness that we actually have, We can just impose another one, But if people can share the frustration and share their different contradictory assumptiors and share their mutual anger and stay with it - if everybody is angry together, and looking at ittogether - Ihen you have a common conscioustess, Even hate is a very powerful bond, 1 remember that many years ago Í visited some people in Ireland wen 1 gave a talk there, They bad come from Germany, where they had been anteNazi fighters. They fought the Nazis for a while, but left while they still could, They said that they actual missed the Nazis, They missedthat hate, because it gave them energy and meaning to life, There was sort of an antictimax. The point is thal this hate itself is a very powerful bond. And if people can stay with it together, then they are really sharing - then that can change into something else, 1£ people could stay with power, violenor, hate, or whatever. its, all the way lo the end, then it weonld sort of collapse - because ultimately they would see that we are all he samc. And consequently they would have participation and Eltowshp. People who have gone through that can beoome pood friends, The whole thing goes differendy. They become more open and wusting to each other, They have already gone through the tbing that they are afraid of, so the intelligeros can then work, . There's another story 1 would like to relate. 1 knew a ma in London who bad been a child psychologist. He told me that somebody once broughx to him a girl about seven years old who was very disturbed. She refused to talk to anybody. They brought ber hoping that he would heip io get her talking. So he wied for abont an hour and got nowhere, Finally, getting exasperated, he said, "Why don't you talk to me?" She answered, "Because ] hate you.” He thought thar he had to bring time into this somewhere to defuse it, So he said, “How long vil you hate me?" She said, “Ill hate you forever." He was then a bit worried, so he brought time in again, He asked, "How long will you hate me forever?" Then she burst out Jaughing 'and the whole thing was broken, The energy wiich had heen there was now available, The absurdity of the thing was shown to her - that the thing was incoherent, She was saying that she was going to hat him forever, and she could see that that wouldnt really be so; and ¡ftbat's not so, then the idea that she bas got to go on with the hatred is not necessary either. — Just as hatred is a very powerfal emotion, so panic is another one, And some dialogue growps could go into panic. | don't think this one will, although F've heard of people saying that k: can happen - at least, a moment of panio, even though it's not sustained. But then you may get such panic from many things. Hyou are trying to climb a. mountain, you could get a moment of panic. Or you might be panicky about your money, about your job, about anything, Nevertheless, people do stick with such things because they think it is important lo get through (O Schouten £: Nelissen 9 On Dialogue cokerent if we are goíng to percelve truth, or to take part da touth, Thel is why I say the dialogue is so important, 1É meanings ate incoherenl, how ware we going to participate in trutk? There is no'road'to truth. What we are tryiñg to say ls tal in this dialogue we share all the roads and we finally sec that none of them manters, We see the meaning of all the roads, and therefore we come to the no 10ad', Underneath, all the roads are the same because ofthe very factibat they are 'ruads'- they are ri think this new thing will open the way to changing the whole sitwarion ecologically and in other ways. For instance, the ecological movernent, the 'green movement, js now in danger of Sagmenting and splitting, because many ofthose groups have diferent opinions about how to deal with thz problems. Se they can wind up fighting zach other as much as they fight for the ecolog: Consequently, it seems particularly urgent that the green movement get into diatogue. People concerned widh the ecology are cleerly aware of some of our planetary problems, but [ think ie is important to cali attention to this explicitly án a clear way, so that it becomes clear what the basic problem is. These kinds of activities go together. Cleaning up the rivers and planting trees and saving the whales should -go togéther with disiogue and with seeing the general problem of thought. They all belong together, because any one of thiose activities by ltselfiis not enough. If we al] just talk about thought and think about thought for a long while, the whole plant may he destroyed in the mezotime. But 1 think that dialogue wili work in this tacit level of mental process, where he most significant rings take place. There are situations where people have différing assumptions and opinions, where one faction is interested and the other isn't. Still, somehow, we have got to gave a dialogue. Even if one faction won't participate, we who are willing can participate in a dialogue between our thought and their thought, We can at feast dialogue among ourselves as far as Wwe can, or you may by yourself. That is the attitude of dialogue, And the further this attitude could spread, the more 1 think itwould help to bring.order. K£ were ally could da something creative, it might still affect the other person on a tacit level, E would really communicate at the tacit level, both with: words and beyond words, But if we keep on repeating the same old story, then it won't. Thought is all one, manifesting in alí sorts of places and with all sorts of specific contents. So this spiritofa dialogue is important in facing this question, evén though we realise that we are going ina direction which another very large part of the culture doesn't agree with at all The point is that this notior: of dialogue and comen consciousness suggests that there is some way out of our collective difficuities..And we have to hegin here at the grass ruots, as it were, notto begin at the top ofihe heap with the United Nations or with the President - although even the President and Gorbachev are now going to have a talk in whieh they have no agenda and are coming to no conclusions, so the des must have percolatéd to that level, too; ] don't think that they have thought it out for themselves. The idea of no agenda and no conclusión has protably been circulating among the lower eckelon - which shows how these ideas do percolate and may even reach the highest levels. That they are meeting is u very heahhy development. lt is a really good sign ftbey are going to do if. I know hal there are people in the State Department who are familiar with this idea. of dialogue «it could haye reached them Ural way. This indicates that things can communicate very fast in this mo der world - though that may look very insignificant at first, in three to five steps it might reach all soris of levels. Just as the destructivo things communicate, so this idea of dialogue could communicate, to0. As we ourselves stay with the frustrations of dialogue, the meaning of whal we arc doing may be much more than will appear at first sight, In fact, we could say that instead of being part of the problem, we becorae part of the solution. in other words, our very movement has the quality of the solution; ¡t is part of it. However smail it is, irhas the guality ofthe solution and not the quality ofthe problem. However big the other one is, it has the quality ofthe problem, not of the solution. Accordingly, the major point is to start something which has the quality of the solution, As 1 have said, we don't know how fast or slowly it would spread. We das know how fast a movement in the mind, in the thought process and beyond the thought process» this sharing together will spread, People soractimes say. "A! we realiy need is Inve.” Of course, thats true. Iihere were universal love, all would go well, But we don't appear to have it, lt seems people can't just say, "Well, now there is golng to be love berween Bush and Gorbachev," or whomever, So we have to find a way that works, Ever though there may be frustration and anger and rage and hate and fear - we talked about that cccurring in a dialogue - we have to find sornothing which can take all ofthatin. ur O Schouten e Nelissen 4 On Dialogue . Y To ¡Ilustrate the point, here is a sbry about (he two leadiag physicists of this century. Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr, Einstein remembered that when he first met Bohr, he felt close to him. He verte oa feeling of love for him. They talked physics in a very animated way, and so on. But they firaily came upon a point where they had (wo difitrent assumptions, or opinions, about what was the way to truth. Bobr's judgements were based on bis view of quantum theory, and Einsicin's on his vicw of relanivity. They talked it over agaín and again in a very patient way, with all goodwill. k weyt on for years, and neither of them yielded. Esch one just repeated what he had been say Ing before. So finally they found fhal they veran getting anywhere, and they gradually drificd apart. They didn't sce cach other fora long time after that. “ Then one year, both of them were at the Institute for Advancod Study at Princeron, but they still didn't meet each other. Á mathematician name Herman Wey] said, "1 would be nice if ihey got vogether. Us a pity that they don” So he arranged a party to which Einstejn and Bobr and thejr respective students were invited. Einsicin and his associales stayed at one end of the room, and Bohr and his associates stayed at the other end, They coulda't get together because they had nothing to talk about. They coutdntt share any meaning, because cach one felt his meaning was true. How can you share if you are sure you have iruth and the olher fellow is sure he has truth, and the truths don't agree? How can you share? Therefore, you have to watch for the notion of truth. Dialogue may not bé concemed directiy with ruth» it may arrive at truth, but it is concened with meaning. lincaning is incoherent you will never arrive at truth. You may think, “My meaning is coherent and somebody else'y ist, 'But then well never have meaning shared. And ¡f some ofus come to the trutb', so-called, while a Jot of people are Jeft out, lts mot going to solve the problem, Yóu will have the truth" for yourself or for your own group, whatever consolarion that is, But we wit] contigue to have contlic: If it is necessary to share meaning and share truth, then we have to do something cifierent. Bobr and Einsteja probably should have had a dialogue. Em not saying lhat they could have had one, but in a dialogue they might have listened properly ta each other's opinion. And perhaps they both would have suspended their opinions, and moved aut beyond relativity and beyond quantum theory into something new. They might have done that in principle, but T- don't ink that his notion of dialogus had occurred ro scientists then. Science is predicated on the concept that science is arriving at truth - at a unique truth. The idea of dialogue ís thereby in some way foreign to the current structure of science, as it is with religion. In a way, science has bucome the religion of the reodern age, 1 plays the role which religion used to play of giving us truth; hence different scientists cannot come together any more than different religions can, once they have different notions of truth, As one scientist, Max Planck, said, "New ideas don'twin really. What happens is that the old scientists die and new ones come along with new ideas." But clearly that's nol the rigik way to do il. This is notto say that s cience couldn't work another way. If scientists could engage in a cialogue, thar would be a radical revolution En science - in the very mature of science. Actually, scientists are in principle committed to the concepts involved in dialogue. They say, "We must listen. We shouldn't exclude anything." However, they find that they can't do that. This is not only becatse scientists share what everybody else shares - essumptions and opinions - but also because the very votion which has been defining science today is thal we are going to ger truth. Few scientists question the assumption that thought is capable of coming to know "everything. But that may not be a valid assumption, because thought is abstraction, which inherently implies limitaion. The whole is too much. There is no way by which thought can get hold of the whole, because thought only absiracts; t limits and defines. And the past frorn which thought draws contains only a certain limited amount. The present is nof contained ia thought; thus, ysis carmot actually cover the moment of analysis, There ate also the relativists, who say that we are never going to get at an absolute wuthi, But they are caught in a paradox of their own, They are assuring that relativism istbe absolute truth. So it is ciear that people who believe that (hey are arriving at any kind of absolute teuth cart make a dialogue, not even among themselves. Even different relativists don'tagree. We've saíd that in a dialogue there will be trustrations, but you might become belter friends if you can get through all that. Not that we demand affection. We dont demand friendship; we don't demand anything. Friendskip may come. lí you see other peopte's hought, itbecomes your avn thought and you treat tas your own thought, And when an ereotional charge comes up, you share all the emotional charges, too, if they afltet you: you hold them topether with all 9 Schouten 8. Nalissen 12 On Dialogue subtle cues and the senses and your response to thera, and what's happening inside of you, whar's happening in the group. People may show what is happening to them in the stanos of fheir body - by their 'body language' - as well as by what they say. They are notwrying to do this purposefully, but you will find that ¡t devetops. Thats part of the communication. It will be nonverbal as well'as verba). Youre not. trying to do itat ali; you may not even be aware that itís Sensitivity is to be able'to sense that something is Rhappening, to sense the subtle differences and similarities sense all this 3s the foundation of perception, The senses provide you with: information, but you have to be sensitive to it or you won't ses lt, lf you know a person very well, you may pass him on (he strect and say, "l saw him." Ef you are asked what the person was wearjl ng, however, you may not know, because you dido't really look. You were nol sensitivo to all that, because you saw that person through the screen of thought. And thatwas not sensitivity. $o sensitivity invulves the senses, and also somethíng beyond. The senses are sensitive to certain things to which they respond, but ihatis not enough. The senses will tell you what is happening, and then the consciousness must build a form, or create some sense of what itenéans, which holds e together, Therefore, meaning is part of it. Yow are sensitivo to the meaning, orto the lack of meaning. Its perception of meaning, if you want to put lt that way. In other words, il is a more subile perception.-The meening is what holds it together. As 1 said, ¡Lis the "cement. Meaning is not static; it is flowíng. And if wa have the meaniag being shared, then it is fowing among us; it holds the group together, Then everybody is sensitive to all the nuances going around, and not merely to what is happening in his own mind. Prom that forms a ancaning which is shared. And that way we can talk together coherently and think together. Whereas generally people hold to iheir assumprioas, so they are not thinking together. Each one is on his own. What blocks sensitivity is he defence of your assumptions and opinions. Regardless of the size of the group, the thing that mosuy gets ín the way 0f a dialogue is holding to assumptions or opinions, and defending them, If you are identified personaly with an opinion, Ut would get in the way. And if you are identified collectively with an opinion, that alsa gets in the way, The main difficulty is that we cannot listen properly to somebody else's opinion because we are resisting it -we don't really hear tr Butif you are defending your opinions, you don't judge yourself and say: "l shouldn't be defending.” Rarher, the fact is that youare defending, and you then need to be sensitive to that that conderans and judges, and so forth. We can all realise that Unt would getin the way. So this group is not going to judge or condemn. Et ls simply going to look at all the opínions and assumptions and let them surface. And 1 think that there could £hen he a change. 1 have said that in a large group you are beginning to touch the cultural assumptins more than you can in small groups or as an individual. The cultural assumpticas are very powerful and we are not usually aware of diem, just as you axe not normally aware of an accent in the way you talk, Other people can tell you that you've got one, or if you listen casefully you might find it. But the accent is partof your culture, Now, a great dea] of your assumptions are partof your Culture, too, and this comes out in relationship, A ftiend with: whom 1 used 1o discuss these issues, said that 'to be! ls to be related. But relationship can be very paínful. You have to tbink/fee! out all your mental processes and work them through, and then (hat may open the way to somelhing else, And ] think that js what can happen in the dizlogue group. Certain painful things can happen for some people; you have to work tall out, We once bad a dislogue in Sweden, in which the group seemed to divide itself into two Pactions. There were a lot of New Age" people, and from the beginning they began to talk about the virtues of love and the fact that the place was full of love all around, that it was all jove everywhere, Part of the group remained silent for a while, but in the nexL hout they started to talk. They intimated that the love talk was al] sentimental nonsense and dida'! mean anything. Then one fellow got so excited that he couldn't stand it, and he walked out. He eventually came back, and they finally got together again, Polarisation had taken place, wkich is a typical dificulty that can arise, Someone noticed the polarisation happening and said with a bit of good humour, "There are two groups here - the love group and the hate group." That broke the tension a little, and the two sides could thea. begin to talk. They didrit necessarily convince each other, but each was able to see the meaning of the other sides Position, and ths two polarised groups were able to talk to each other. Now, haaf was a more important point than whether they convinced each other, They eight find that they boíh have to give up their positions so (hat sorcething else can come about, Itwas not importan: whether one favoured Jove or one favoured hate or another favoured being suspicious and careful and somevhat eynical, or whatever. Realty. Underneath hey were similar, because they both had rigid positions. Loosening that position, then, was the key change. € Schoulen E Nelissen 14 On Dialogue > 7 Eihick that a group like this offers opportunity for a certain kind of relationship which involves the whole culture, that individuals or smaller groups dont generally have. With individuals and within families you wiki have a difítrent kind of problems in relationships, and that also has to be met. But a group of this size had a particular possibility that is not available in smaller groups. And if you make il much bigger than this, the circle gets too big. K gets too umwieldy and you can't communicate. Atthe beginning of a dialogue we would not cxpeot that personal problems or questions would enter kato il, 1£ people sustained the dialogue week after week, or month after month, then maybe they could. Everyihing can enter, but the people have 10 get to know each other and trust each other and esteblish that relationship of sharing, 11 would be too Tuuch to expect to start with that. And in fot, a personal problem may not be all that important anyway; although if someone has one, (hz group conid consider it. There is no reason why they couidn, however 1 dont think we would begin with thal, at least not otter. Fhe group is not mainly for the sake of personal probiems; it's mainly a culmral question. But the personal could come into the group, because personal problems and cuiture gol vaixed up. It is important to understand that a dialogue group is not a therapy group of some kind. We aro not trying to cure anybody here, though it may happen as a by «product, But that's not our purpose. A friend of mine who has gone into this calls it: Socio-therapy", Not individual therapy. The group is a microcosm of society. So if the group-or angone - is "oured), tt is the beginning of the larger curc. You can look ar jt tral way ¡f you like, Thats limited, but still is a way to Jook at it Nor is this a so-called 'encounter-group', which is aimed at a particular type of therapy where people's emotions, and so forth, can come up. We are not partículariy aíming for tha, but we are not saying thal emotions should never come op. because in certain cases, df people conftont each emotionally se will bring out their assumptions. An essential feature of the dialogue group is that kt is able to reveal assumptions, These assumplions are actually making us JE. And in that sense, it is therapy to reveal them. The content here, then, is more in that directian and eventually moving toward being free of dose asumptions, and exploting something new beyond the assumptions. So the suggestion is that people could start dialogue groups in various places. The point would not bo to identify with the group, but rather, what is important is this sohole process, You migha say, "This is a wonderful group,” but ¿fs actually the process that counts. think that when we are able to sustain a dialogue of this sort, you vould find that there will be a change in the people vibo were taking part. They themselves would hon bebuve differently, even outside the dialogue, Eventually they would spread it. 1í's bike he Biblical analogy of the seed - some are dropned in stony ground and some of them fal! in the right place and ihey produce tremendous fruit. The ting is that you cannot tell where or how jt can start, The idea bere, te communication here, the kind of thought we're having here, is a kind of seed which may help this to come about. But we mustrt be susprised ¡many of these groups are abortive and dont get going, That doesn't mean it can't happen. The point is not to establish a Axed 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 lt up fora while, or else dt won't work. lt may be valuable to kecp lhe dialogue going for a year or two, as we said, and it is important to sustaín dt regularky, Tf you sustaía ¡, all these problems will ari cannor avojd bringing out the desp assumptioos of the people who arc participating. The frustration will arise, the sense of chaos, the sense (hat ¡f's not worth it, The motional charge will come, The fellow with the assumptions about Zionist probably wanted to be very polite. But suddenly somebody seid something that outraged him, and he couldn't control himself. Es going to happen that the desp assumptions will come to the surface, ¡fwe stick with it, ten something new wilEcome, Now, dialogue is not going to be always entertaínicg, nor is lt doing anything visibly useful. So you may tend to drop it as soon as lt gets difficult. But | suggest that it is very important to go on with it - to stay with jt through the tustration. When you think something is important you will do that. For example, nobody wonid climb Mount Everest unless for some reason he thought lt was important, as that could also be very frustrating and not always entertaíning. And the same is true if you have to make money, or do all sorts of things. 1f you feel that they are necessary, you do then. En saying thar it is necessary to share meaning. A society ls a link of relations hips among people and institute Ohs, so that we can live together. But it only works if we have a culture - which implies that we share meaning; Le. significance, purpose and value, Otherwise it falls apart. Our society is incoherent, and doesn't do that very well; it hasn't 9 Schouten Et Nelissen 15 On Dialogue wanted other people to draw him out. He felrthat he couldr'tsay something unless other penple created the space for him Lo talk, and drew him out, The first fellow wouldn't do that, he did the opposite, So they couldn't meet. The whole Shing went on for a long time in confusion, with the one person waiting to be drawn out, and the other person not understanding that this was the case, Finally they go to talking, and cach one actually brought up childhood experiences which were behind these assumptions, Ánd then $ opened Up. : The fellow who was wosling as facilitator during this time did very linle. In fact, several of the people appealed to the fecilitator and sald, "Why don't you talk." The facilitator may come in fom time to time and comment on what is going on or what it all means. ln a more general group he shouid eventually be able to be just a participant. Probably nm. the company group this woulde't worlk, though; he couldn't become Justa participant - such a group has too limited as objective, This second example might be an illustration of when the personal may have to come into the general, because in certain cases there are blocks due to particular assumprions that the person got hold of in childhood, or ín some other way. And in this example, they were finally able to uncover those assump tions, They weren't uy ing to heal each oiher, or do do therapy; nevertheless, it had a therapencio effect, But that's a secondary thing. Some people feel that that type of corporate dialogue is only Furthering a comupt system. However, there ls a gesm of something different. 1 think that if you go into society, you will find that almost everything is involved ja this corrupt game, So ¡t doesn't accomplish anytixing to dismiss lt all. The executives have got to make the company work; and in fact, if alí these companies would work more efficiently we would ali be a fot better off. Yes partiy because they are ín such a mess that we are in trouble, that society is inefficient, thet the vrhole thing is falling apart, If the govermuent and the companies could all work efficiently, we wouldn't be so wasteful, ever: though that by itself wouldn'tsolve altthe problems. For the society to be working right, all those things have gotto work efficiently and coherentiy. If we look at what is going on in the world today, in this or in any cowtry, we can say that itis not working cohe rently. Most compa nies are not really working colerently. And siowiy the tbing is sinking, 1 think that if you can get this notion across in whatever situation - the germ of the notion dialogue-if you can get people to look at it, ¡fs a step. You can say that Bush “and Gorbachev are nor Hikeby to have the kiod of dialogue that we are talking about. But if they will have any sind at all, lf they'I) begin to accept This principle, its a step. It may make a change: for instance, the kind of waste of. encrey which ís going on in ernaments could be cut down, lí we could slop the tremendous amount being spent on armarrent thats being produced - lots say a vrillion dollars a year - lhat could be used for ecological tegeneration and all sorts of construetive things, And possibiy some of tha: might happen. Those political figuros who are more aware of the ecolo- gical problem wight make Bush more aware of il, ¿f lhey would really talk. Not that we can expect the politicians to solve the problems we face. But Y'ro saying that If there's a slight movement toward something more open, the rate of destruction will slow down. J'we go on atthis rate, we may have very little time to do anything. We can't do anything at the level af Bush or Gorbachev, They have their ova opinions. But the various ideas liltur, as we've said. Somehow the rotion af something a little bit like dialogue has filtered to that level, and may have an efect: tharis all Em saying. E think that in the govermnent lhere are some people who are mote this way, and some peopic who are more the other way. We dor't know how it is going to come out, but there is a cextala movement toward something more apen. [dont say that it is going to solve the whole thing; i sen saying that ¿Fit slows down the des truction, (hats important, because untess the destruction is slowed down to give time for some? ng new to emerge, it will be too late. There may be no pat political 'answer to the world's probleras. However, the important point is not the answer justas in a dialogue, the important point is not the particuar opinions - but rather (he sofiening up, the opening up, ofthe suind, and looking at all the opiniohs, Jf there is some sort of spread of that attitude, 1 think lt can siow down the destruction, So we've said that jt is crucial to be able to share our judgement, to share our assumptions and listen to each others assumptions, In the case of Einstein and Bohr k didnt lead to violence that they did not; but jn geveral, tf somebody doesn't lísten to your basic assumprions you feet it as an act of violence, and then you are inclined io be violent yowself. Therefore, this is crucial both individually and coltectively; and di alogue is the collective way of opening up judgements and assomprions. €) Schouten 8 Nelissen' 17 On Dialogue e We should keep in ind, nonelheless, that the dislogue - and in fact, all that welve been talking aboul - is not orly directed at solving the ills o society, although we do have to solve those ills; we would be much better off ifwe did! ave them. Tf we survive and we want to have a worthwhile life, we have to deal with (hose problemes. But ultimately thats not the entire story, That's only the heginning. Pm suegesting that there is the possibility for a transformation of the nature of conscionsness, both incividually and collectively, and that whether this can be solved oulturally and socially depends on distogue. That's what we're exploring. And íP's very importen! that it hanpen together, because if one individual changes it will have very little general effect. Butifit happens collectively, it means a lot more. lfsome of us come to the "tr tir, so-cailed, while a lot of people are left out, is not golng to solve the problem, We would have another conflict - just as there is conflict berween different parts ofthe Christian faith of the Moharnmedan faith or various others, even though they all believe in the same God, the same prophet or he same Saviour. Thus this whole «question of communication and the ability to diatogue, the abifity to participate in communication, is crucial. The collective dimension of the human being. where we have a considereble number of people, has a queditatively new feature: ithas erea power - potentially, or even actually. And in dialogue we discuss how ta bring that to some sort of coherence and order. The question is really: do you see the necessit of this process? That's the key question. If you see thatit is absolutely necessary, then you have to do sometyj ne The point is that love wil) go away if we cart communicate and share meaning. The love between Einstein and Bobr gradually evaporated because they coutd not corarmunicate. However, ¡f'we can really communicate, then we will have fellowship, participation, friendship, love, growing and growing. That would be the way. And perhaps in dialogue, when we have this very high enorgy of coherence, it might bring us beyond just being 4 group that could solve social problems. Possibly it could make a new change in the individual and a change in the relation to (he cosmic. Such an energy has been called "communication". Itis a kind of participation. The early Christians had a Greek word koínoria, the root of which means o participate - the idea of partaking of the whole and talcing part in jt; not merely the whole group, but the whole. Fhis, then, is more or less an outline of what ] mean by “dislogue!. O Schouten $: Nelíssen 18 
