- Hanna Still
- Rick Saries
- John Mowat
- David Shetzline
- Michael Mooney
- Nick Marin
- Joan Saries
- Bill Faust
- Linda Mears
- Nick Consoletti
My Insight into Bohm Dialogue
by Hanna StillAmong my very deepest yearnings has been a longing to meet someone who would go on and pursue a conversation—until I felt the subject has been exhausted. And then be willing to resume whenever new thoughts arise. In either person's mind.
In actuality, I observe most conversations to depict quite contrary styles to my fantasy. Some examples of styles of conversations I frequently observe are:
- A person describes their perspective while the listener seeks to discern "where the other is coming from" and therefore what BOX to assign to that person.
- Much talk is accepted when it appears to me to be on automatic. Participants do not appear to me to be mindful in examining contents, nor delivery. How valid are contributions offered? Do they lead to insight? Do they stem from the speaker's sense of power, lack of power, emotions, feelings, heredity, environment, self perception of inferiority or superiority, assumptions, paradigms of accepted beliefs? And through what filters is the contribution received by the listener?
- Society typically considers it to be inappropriate to question others' prejudices, psychological mindsets, belief attachments. Such conversation often is repetitive, unchallenged, and feels like a waste of time.
Bohm Dialogue is a gift of the gods to me. It is diametrically opposite of the above: It is thought examined by each of the participants, equally by the spoken word and the listening self. A group of people come together with the sole intent to unravel all aspects of that which has validity in verbal interactions. There is no system, no leader, no authority, no rule, no theory, no formula. Bohm dialogue is a group of people committed to learn together; an unfolding process of creative participation among equals. All ideas, subject matter, all explorations, including feelings, emotions, and thoughts, are appropriately included. There is no task to be solved, no predetermined goal to be achieved. Nothing is off limits. As silence permits reflection and insight, the Dialogue runs its own unique, unraveling show. Breakthroughs at times bring liberation and euphoria. Freed from assumptions of Given Truth, new paradigms are possible.
Bohm Dialogue is not discussion or debate. It is a group of people exploring where a thought originated, pursuing it to its purity, freeing it from baggage society may have attached to it.
Because Bohm Dialogue allows a participant's whole being to be alive—mind, feelings, psyche, and emotions—the participant has the rare experience of being deeply aware, the rare moment of fulfillment.
It became clear to Bohm that such pure, ego-detached examination of entrenched camps of thought through Dialogue style, is the tool of courage, giving hope to the world's conflicts.
The Practice of Dialogue
by Rick SariesThe practice of dialogue, for me, is the opportunity to identify unspoken assumptions and to explore how we come to hold certain beliefs—bringing these assumptions and beliefs to a more complete consciousness.
The challenge for me is to be willing to be tentative about what I believe and to hear and be open to divergent view.
The art of dialogue transcends the limits of our thought boundaries, to move beyond. It is a dance between the individual and the collective emerging into oneness. At its best, dialogue transforms fragmented thought into wholeness.
Continuing Exploration: To Deepen, to Improve, and to Simplify Dialogue
by John MowatWe are trying to have a deeper kind of dialogue and give it the name Bohm dialogue because the late David Bohm, a theoretical quantum physicist and creative thinker, came up with and developed some basic ideas about how one might have such a dialogue and what it might accomplish for its participants and for society at large.
The obvious questions are: "What do we mean by a deeper kind of dialogue?" And, secondly, "What is the point of a deeper dialogue?"
To try to answer the first question let's refine it by asking, "In what ways are ordinary kinds of dialogue likely to be shallow?" And, "How could we get around or through the obstacles which keep us contained in shallow forms of dialogue?"
In my opinion, shallow dialogue arises because of etiquette and habit. Etiquette is defined in the dictionary as "the practices and forms prescribed by social convention or by authority." When we are getting to know our new neighbors, we ordinarily don't begin by asking them to expound on the deepest meaning of their life or how satisfying they find their sex lives. Instead, we ask "acceptable" questions about their work or "what they do," where they moved from, where they came from originally, maybe about some of their interests. We have to be careful because we don't want the new neighbor to think we are prying or that they are dealing with a "crank" or a "bore" who is going to come crashing into their life. The idea is to "put each other into a box" and only later possibly try to connect on a deeper level. Too often both parties mistakenly conclude that they have nothing in common. Relations remain on a polite but unnecessarily shallow level.
Another example of a conventional form is the argument we might get into with our friend or the members of a group concerning the merits or demerits of ballot measure X. We have formed our opinion and they have formed theirs. We say what our thoughts have been without rethinking them. We marshall arguments. The issues get attached to our egos and emotions and we want to win the argument in order to show the superiority of our thought and knowledge. Arguing is a convention and when engaged we fall into thoughtless habits of expression in which the same tired old phrases are repeated, so, knowing in advance what our opponent is saying, we can tune it out while trying to think up a devastating reply. The point is to win, not to gain enlightenment.
So how might we do things differently?
In Bohm dialogue we are trying to form some new kinds of conventions and learn some new techniques and habits for carrying out a dialogue. One technique when an argument arises, is to back away, leaving the argument hovering in the air; then come back at it looking not so much at the content but at the assumptions, emotions, and feelings behind the content. Another technique is deep listening, by which I mean trying not only to understand the content of what someone is saying, but to try to penetrate to that same deeper level of assumptions and emotions. Another technique is to slow the pace so that there is time for the reflection, which could lead to new insights. Another is to try catch oneself speaking out of deeply ingrained habits rather than from spontaneous, new ideas; then to admit out loud what has happened. Still another is to examine what has just gone on in the dialogue itself, trying to figure out what has happened. In general there should be a continuous attempt to identify assumptions, especially unconscious assumptions, which lie behind what anyone might be saying. In exposing such assumptions, the idea is not to criticize or reject, but to examine and understand, possibly to deepen some of one's own assumptions and gain new insights into one's self and the subject matter of the dialogue. What all of these techniques have in common is the attempt to break old—and form new—habit patterns.
It should be mentioned that Bohm dialogue is not easy, because we are trying to break deeply ingrained habits, to find new conventions, and to acquire new habits which are in accord with the new conventions. This is an ongoing process. Bohm himself stresses that his views on dialogue "are still the subject of...continuing exploration," and that much of what a dialogue group is trying to accomplish is to find and use the techniques briefly described above to deepen, to improve and to simplify dialogue itself. It might be said that Bohm dialogue doesn't exist yet and we among others are trying to find it. Those of us who have been attempting Bohm dialogue for the past two or three years are aware not only of the "good times" we have had, but of our many failures. We badly need fresh blood for the new ideas and discoveries which new members will bring to the group.
So what is good Bohm dialogue?
There is no question in my mind that Bohm dialogue is a form of spiritual discipline which leads to spiritual growth. Not that there are any specific beliefs which one has to accept or reject. Rather, questioning one's assumptions and occasionally having one's ego deflated, automatically leads one to become at the very least a more thoughtful person and more skillful in the dialogues which arise everywhere in life. However, dialogue is not simply personal self-indulgence or personal growth. Beyond the possibility of spiritual growth for the participants in Bohm dialogue lies the very real possibility that the dialogue could enable a creative depth to resolving critical issues in our—and the world—society.
Name any such issue and one typically finds polarized interest groups taking radically opposing views, each trying to promote their agenda by fair means and foul. In any such controversy there are usually genuine problems that need to be solved and it is generally the case that none of the opposing side has an optimum answer to these problems. One has the feeling that creative solutions exist which come closer to a win-win resolution not only for the different sides in the controversy but for society as a whole. Bohm dialogue, if it could be widely adopted, has the potential to help people draw back from rigid, fanatical positions and to create a "political climate" in which creative solutions could emerge leading to greater human happiness or even to improved changes for the survival of humanity.
The New Mind of Dialogue
by Michael MooneyThe essence and ideal of the Bohm dialogue, for me, is to approach discussion without preconceptions, biases, beliefs, opinions, personal programs or agendas, i.e., with a "Zen-like" "new-mind/beginner's mind" in order that a spontaneous exchange can happen in synergy transcending the individual egos of the participants.
The "purpose" is to transcend pre-conceived agendas and purposes and allow the emergence of a "trans-personal" consciousness, given birth in the present by the group as an organism open to the flow of universal consciousness into local time/place manifestation determined by "what's happening now" in the context of individuals coalescing into a group entity for each session of dialogue.
The Moving Center of Dialogue
by Nick Marin
(Editor's note: Nick says it's THERE. You just can't see it easily, or adequately capture it in prose.)
Shared Learning, Infinite Potential
by Joan SariesThrough the practice of dialogue, I continue learning how to more thoughtfully listen to myself and others; to participate in my own thinking; to notice my assumptions and beliefs and to recognize how my assumptions and beliefs impact my thought, my communication and my action. I learn how to inquire into the language and intention of others and how to expand my perception and understanding.
Dialogue is important to me because I see it as a mechanism for learning how to both individually and collectively move beyond what polarizes us the most—one right way of thinking.
It is fun for me to be engaged in conversation that has no agenda and that moves from one thought to the next as people explore process and content, feelings and thoughts, theory and experience. I enjoy participating with others that are interested in seeking out life meaning.
What excites me about dialogue is the potential wholeness that emerges form diverse thought, the personal learning and insights as well as the movement beyond the boundaries of our thinking.
My hope is that, as people, we could share in endeavors such as this one and in the application of this learning we could transcend the limits of our thinking, inspire new solutions to our problems and embrace and move through conflict with grace and creativity. Underlying it all would be the intention of accessing our infinite potential as human beings.
This Practice Makes Impatient, Far From Perfect
by Linda Mears
Every word is a doorway
to a meeting, one often cancelled,
and that's when a word is true:
when it insists on the meeting.
—Yannis Ritsos
The Meaning of Simplicity
I have always been interested in cross-cultural communication, where meaning sometimes gets where it has to go—or fails to arrive safely—independent of the words we happen to wrap around it. I'm curious about how meaning is both constructed and shared, in any language.
I make a living editing texts and abusing communication for more base concerns like marketing and promotion. Some days I feel some fatigue about words and thought. But taking part in Bohm dialogue is an isometric discipline; I increase my tone, flexibility, and endurance by resisting my own lingual impulses. The longer I can sustain the hearing without giving in to the compulsion to edit someone's idea or categorize the thought, the closer I am to listening fully. The better I listen, more of the Other is available to me, to meet, and to know.
However, that's also the rub, how much of the Other is available. Invariably someone brings up THAT captivating idea, and so I want to know more. And immediately. Now. Wait, while I interrupt you to show my enthusiasm...
To See a New Meaning is to Change the World
by Nick ConsolettiSince I participated in the "David Bohm: The Implicate Order and Dialogue Seminar" at Schumacher College in 1992, I have been observant of the conundrum of ego as a static entity, and on occasion as process. Usually this occasion has been in dialogue meetings as Bohm and colleagues have it. Their are many views on dialogue and the statements below express my sentiments.
In an exchange between Bohm and Steven Rosen that addresses the need for a broader interpretation of language. For a year and a half Bohm and Rosen exchanged letters concerning the need for an artistic sensitivity to meaning. See Science, Paradox, and the Moebius Principle: The Evolution of a Transcultural Approach to Wholeness (SUNY, 1994). Bohm would write every letter by hand and Rosen would transcribe them and put his own response in brackets. On the whole they agreed on many points of contention, concurring that all forms of assertions take place in the implicate, and that poetic statements present the implicate forms directly. In their letter exchange they posit that creativity is an expression of new meaning. Bohm writes: "So to see a new meaning is actively to change the world." He goes on to talk about reality being independent of thought in society as a whole. In the Epilogue Steven Rosen makes this statement of intent:
What I have come to understand is that if I am to live wholeness (not just write about it), beyond expanding the scope of my subject matter to language in general, my own manner of writing needs to be less prosaic and more poetic, more meditative or "proprioceptive" (as Bohm would say) Whereas prose objectifies, leaving the subject entirely implicit and thus perpetuating the total splitting of object from subject, poetry allows the subject to reverberate. Amidst the objectification, a fully meditative or proprioceptive writing (one that surpasses traditional poetic forms) would integrate subject and object in a complete and direct way. (270)Rosen had pointed out in a very detailed manner that analogies which Bohm used to describe the implicate order were still mechanistic. Bohm agreed with Rosen and alluded to a fresh set of analogies from art forms that comprehend this totality. Rosen and Bohm asserted that part of the challenge is to make the unconscious conscious; this is a challenge for Transdisciplinarity. This would lead to an understanding of the implicate order that represents a more accurate model of what wholeness might be like for our time. In this correspondence they agreed that a holistic mode of expressing requires and invites reciprocation on the reader's part. Reflecting on their correspondence, I found the exchanging of personal letters by these scholars to be encouraging. Now that we have electronic letter writing perhaps this form will be enhanced?
Bohm also talks about his view on language in an interview with F. David Peat in Buckeley, Paul and Peat Glimpsing Reality: Ideas In Physics and the Link to Biology (University of Toronto Press, 1996.)
Peat: Is it possible, then to understand quantum mechanics or the world within the language we use at present?Bohm: I think we can, although we might also change it. Language is always used figuratively and poetically, I think; we never use it literally. The attempt to give unambiguous significance to language will never work. It is inherently ambiguous, it is flowing, the meanings are flowing. If we think differently, we will find ourselves using the words differently. Perhaps, ultimately, we will change the formal structure as well. (56)