In an influential essay, the distinguished physicist David Bohm (with Donald Factor & Peter Garrett) said this of dialogue (read the full reprinted essay here):
Because the nature of Dialogue is exploratory, its meaning and its methods continue to unfold. No firm rules can be laid down for conducting a Dialogue because its essence is learning – not as the result of consuming a body of information or doctrine imparted by an authority, nor as a means of examining or criticizing a particular theory or programme, but rather as part of an unfolding process of creative participation between peers.
Bohm et al. suggest that in the beginning, the group may temporarily flounder as it engages in metacognitive analysis of whether or not it is actually performing the activity of dialogue or of some other kind of communication (conversation? discussion? debate?):
A Dialogue needs some time to get going. It is an unusual way of participating with others and some sort of introduction is required in which the meaning of the whole activity can be communicated. But even with a clear introduction, when the group begins to talk together it will often experience confusion, frustration, and a self-conscious concern as to whether or not it is actually engaging in Dialogue.
Bohm suggests that we enter into dialogue when we suspend our assumptions, leaving them open to examination, view each other as equals, and arrive at shared meaning (rather than conversion to the point of view of one or more of the participants).
One of the many enticing challenges of this course is to come to an experiential, inherent, and authentic instinct which knows self-assuredly when dialogue is occurring and when it is being re-calibrated or turning into something else.
This is very nice and informative post. I have bookmarked your site in order to find out your post in the future.