Perhaps we could begin by talking about what I mean by dialogue. We will begin with that rather than with trying actually to have a dialogue, since if you try to begin that way, everybody will wonder what is a dialogue and whether we are having one actually. Therefore we will be going off the point. So we will discuss dialogue for a while what is its nature?
I give a meaning to the word 'dialogue' that is somewhat different from what is commonly used. The derivations of words often help to suggest a deeper meaning. 'Dialogue' comes from the Greek word dialogos. Logos means 'the word' or in our case we would think of the 'meaning of the word'. And dia means 'through' - it doesn't mean two. A dialogue can be among any number of people, not just two. Even one person can have a sense of dialogue within himself, if the spirit of the dialogue is present. The picture of image that this derivation suggests 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 will emerge some new understanding. It's something new, which may not have been in the starting point at all. It's something creative. And this shared 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'. It really means to break things up. It emphasises the idea of analysis, where there may be many points of view. Discussion is almost like a Ping-Pong game, where people are batting the ideas back and forth and the object of the game is to win or to get points for yourself. Possibly you will take up somebody else's ideas to back up your own - you may agree with some and disagree with others - but the basic point is to win the game. That's very frequently the case in a discussion.
In a dialogue, however, nobody is trying to win. Everybody wins if anybody wins. There is a different sort of spirit to it. In a dialogue, there is 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. It's a situation called win-win, in which we are not playing a game against each other but with each other. In a dialogue, everybody wins.
Clearly, a lot of what is called 'dialogue' is not dialogue in the way that I am using the word. For example, people at the United Nations have been having what are often considered to be dialogues, but these are very limited. They are more like discussbns -or perhaps trade -offs or negotiations - than dialogues. The people who take part are not really open to questioning their fundamental assumptions.
They are trading off minor points, like negotiating whether we have more or less nuclear weapons. But the whole question of two different systems is not being seriously discussed. It's taken for granted that you can't talk about that - that nothing will ever change that. Consequently their discussions are not serious, not deeply serious. A great deal of what we call 'discussion' is not deeply serious, in the sense that there are all sorts of things which are held to be non-negotiable 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 difficulty communicating even in small groups. But in a group like this of thirty or forty, many may find it very hard to communicate 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 assumptions, not merely superficial assumptions - such as assumptions about the meaning of life; about your own self-interest, your country's interest, or your religious interest; about what you really think is important.
Infinite Potential: The Life & Ideas of David Bohm is an Irish documentary film directed by Paul Howard, first released in June 2020.
An interesting introduction to David Bohm. Although it holds few surprises for those already familiar with the many interviews with Bohm, it serves well as a single repository for that information, and traces the effect of his work past his lifetime. Basil Hiley, Bohm’s successor, or perhaps inheritor, features in the film also, providing a nice link to the present continued interest in the ideas Bohm introduced to quantum physics.
The film is lighter on Bohm’s work outside of physics, touching upon his relationship with Jidu Krishnamurti, and the Dali Lama, but chiefly as a way of further examining Bohm as a nexus point for the metaphysical aspects now more prevalent within modern physics.
Places to watch Infinite Potential: The Life & Ideas of David Bohm
Welcome to the Mag. Help us grow by posting videos, podcasts, places to get books by, of, and about David Bohm.
David Bohm (20 December 1917- 27 October 1992) was an American-Brazilian-British scientist, quantum physicist, and a contemporary of Jidu Krishnamurti.
David Bohm wrote the first text book on Quantum Physics, and obtained his Ph.D. Under J. Robert Oppenheimer.