Talk:Dialogue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.

The title of Lucian’s most famous collection was borrowed in the 17th century by two French writers of eminence, each of whom prepared Dialogues des snorts.

I am reasonably certain that Dialogues des morts was intended here, and will fix it on the main page. But this typo is too amusing not to preserve here. -- IHCOYC

This page seems to ignore dialogue in the sense David Bohm intended.

It also seems to ignore the descriptions of the meaning of the word; namely "Dia = flowing through" and "logos = meaning." Thus "dialogue = meaning flowing through." As I understand it, this points in the direction of the meaning given to the concept by Bohm and by Martin Buber before him. For me, the meaning of dialogue that I find most valuable is the flow of meaning for the purpose of *mutual understanding* without regard to agreement. Judgment is suspended along with whether or not one agrees or disagrees with others' views; the focus is exclusively on UNDERSTANDING. After mutual understanding, communication can then flow into "skillful discussion" [per William Isaacs in *The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook*] where differences are explored and resolved collaboratively [or agreement to disagree is reached]. By deferring the focus on "agreement," dialogue facilitates mutual understanding.

In my experience, dialogue (as per my understanding of the Buber-Bohm concept) is rare in our (U.S.) culture, since (again in my experience) people tend to be programmed to focus first on agreement and so, as soon as they disagree, their attention shifts from seeking to understand. The consequence is often argument or debate, rather than collaboration in seeking to identify "truth."

[edit] ==================

In the sense of "that which contrasts with writing", ie in the socratic sense, in the sense of Krisnamurti, dialogue is a process which moves step by step from a statement, to one of perhaps many questions, to an answer,... repeating the process till a 'mental structure' is sufficiently developed for further reflection alone. It is largely of indeterminant structure before it's completion of 'transfer', it has an infinite # of possible branches as it developes. For some topics the mind of the 'learner' is sufficiently predictable to know how to present, in writing, a monolothic block of statements, a written text, and expect some percentage of readers to 'get it', For many subjects however such predictability and/or statistical framing doesn't work. Dialogue is often the fastest, most reliable and perhaps only practical way to teach or learn.

In connection with this I feel I must note that Socrates was probably very sincere when he would say 'I don't know, PLEASE THINK ABOUT IT AND THE THINGS WE'VE SAID AND GET BACK TO ME". And that Aristotle attempts to overcome this problem of dialogue by a more systematic writing style, or at least that he partially acomplished that aim (though it is commonly said that his writings were course outlines). Still q&a sessions can impart many forms vastly more effectively than writing. WblakesxWblakesx 20:26, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)