On Dialogue

by David Bohm

As conceived by Bohm, dialogue is a multi-faceted process, looking well beyond typical notions of conversational parlance and exchange. It is a process which explores an unusually wide range of human experience: our closely-held values; the nature and intensity of emotions; the patterns of our thought

experience. Perhaps most importantly, dialogue explores the manner in which thought—viewed by Bohm as an inherently limited medium, rather than an objective representation of reality—is generated and sustained at the collective level. Such an inquiry

Throughout his career as a theoretical physicist, Bohm made note of the fact that, in spite of claims to pursue "truth," scientific endeavor was often infected with personal ambition, a rigid defense of theory, and the weight of tradition—all at the expense of creative participation toward the common goals of science. Based

generic thought processes of humanity incline toward perceiving the world in a fragmentary way, "breaking things up which are not really separate." Such perception, says Bohm, necessarily results in a world of nations, economies, religions, value systems, and "selves" that are fundamentally at odds with one another, despite topically successful attempts to impose social order. One primary intent of Bohm's dialogue, then, is to shed light on the activity of this fragmentation—not only as theoretical analysis, but also as a concrete, experiential process.

means a guaranteed result. The movement of a dialogue group is rarely from point A to point B.Rather, the movement is more typically recursive, with unexpected dynamic shifts following periods of frustration, boredom, and agitation, in a perpetual cycle. Even then, the creative potential of the dialogue—its capacity to reveal the deeper structures of consciousness—depends upon sustained, serious application by the participants themselves. In the dialogue, a very

research this author

research this author

with. In other words, suspending an assumption or reaction means neither repressing it nor following through on it, but fully attending to it.

the perspective of participatory thought is not unlike his own vision of the implicate order, in which the phenomena of the manifest world are understood as temporary aspects of the movement of a deeper natural order, in a process of perpetual "enfolding" and "unfolding." The

excellent description of dialogue process

common to both participants. Thus, in a dialogue, each person does not attempt to make common certain ideas or items of information that are already known to him. Rather, it may be said that the two people are making something in common, i.e., creating something new together. But of course such communication can lead to the creation ofsomething new only

if people are able freely to listen to each other, without prejudice, and without trying to influence each other. Each has to be interested primarily in truth and coherence, so that he is ready to drop his old ideas and intentions, and be ready to go on to something different, when this is called for. If, however, two people merely want to convey certain ideas or points of view to each other, as if these were items of information, then they must inevitably fail to meet. For each will hear the other through

The scientist is engaged in a similar "dialogue" with nature (as well as with his fellow human beings). Thus, when a scientist has an idea, this is tested by observation. When it is found (as generally happens) that what is observed is only similar to what he had in mind and not identical, then from a consideration of the similarities and the differences he gets a new idea which isin turn tested. And so it goes,

own "blocks." If one is alert and attentive, he can see for example that whenever certain questions arise, there are fleeting sensations of fear, which push him away from consideration of these questions, and of pleasure, which attract his thoughts and cause them to be occupied with other questions. So one is able to keep away from whatever it is that he thinks may disturb him. And as a result, he can be subtly defending his own ideas, when he supposes that he is really listening to what other people have to say. When we come together to talk, or otherwise to act in common, can each one

of us be aware of the subtle fear and pleasure sensations that "block" his ability to listen freely? Without this awareness, the

dialogue is present. The picture or 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 may 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" and "concussion." It really means to

breakthings up. It emphasizes the idea of analysis, where there may be many points of view, and where everybody is presenting a different one—analyzing and breaking up. That obviously has its value, but it is limited, and it will not get us very far beyond our various points of view. Discussion

difficulty in thinking, in thought. One of these difficulties is fragmentation, which originates in thought—it is thought which divides everything up. Every division we make is a result of how we think. In actuality, the whole world is shades merging into one. But we select certain things

issue, and so on. Thought defends its basic assumptions against evidence that they may be wrong.

People will come to such a gathering from

somewhat different cultures or sub-cultures, with different assumptions and opinions. And they may not realize it, but they have some tendency to defend their assumptions and opinions reactively against evidence that they are not right, or simply a similar tendency to defend them against somebody who has another opinion. If we defend opinions in this way, we are not going to be able to have a dialogue. And

Yet if you think of it, we can't really organize a good society if we go on that basis. That's the way democracy is supposed to work, but it hasn't. If everybody has a different opinion, it will be merely a struggle of opinions. And the one who is the strongest will win. It may not necessarily be the right one; it may be that none of them are right. Therefore, we won't be doing the right thing when we try to get together.

Science is supposed to be dedicated to truth and fact, and religion is supposed to be dedicated to another kind of truth, and to love. But people's self-interest and assumptions take over. Now, we're not trying to judge these people. Something is happening, which is that assumptions or opinions are like computer programs in people's minds. Those programs take over against the best of intentions—they produce their own intentions.

Now, you could say that our ordinary thought in society is incoherent—it is going in all sorts of directions, with thoughts conflicting and canceling each other out. But if people were to think together in a coherent way, it would have tremendous power. That's the suggestion. If we have a dialogue situation—a group which has sustained dialogue for quite a while in which people get to know each other, and so on—then we might have such a coherent movement of thought, a coherent movement of communication. It would be coherent not only at the level we recognize, but at the tacit level, at the level for which we have only a vague feeling.

bring out their assumptions. In the dialogue people should talk directly to one another, one to one, across the circle. Then the time would come, if we got to know each other a bit and could trust each other, when you could speak very directly to the

whole group, or to anybody in it.

In the dialogue group we are not going to decide what to do about anything. This is crucial. Otherwise we are not free. We must have an empty space where we are not obliged to do anything, nor to come to any conclusions, nor to say anything or not say anything. It's open and free. It's an empty

We may set up relative purposes for investigation, but we are not wedded to a particular purpose, and are not saying that the whole group must conform to that purpose indefinitely. All of us might want the

thing. As soon as we try to accomplish a useful purpose or goal, we will have an assumption behind it as to what is useful, and that assumption is going to limit us. Different people will think different things are useful. And that's going to cause

trouble. We may say, "Do we want to save the world?" or "Do we want to run a school?" or "Do we want to make money?" Whatever

create a dialogue group. also start informal weekly gatherings at 1475

common way of proceeding. Now, if you only negotiate, you don't get very far—although some questions do have to be negotiated.

as far as they get. Negotiation is trading off, adjusting to each other and saying, "Okay, I see your point. I see that that is important to you. Let's find a way that would satisfy both of us. I will give in a little on this, and you give in a little on that. And then we will work something out." Now, that's not really a close relationship, but it begins to make it possible to get going.

whole process. You might say, "This is a wonderful group," but it's actually the process that counts.

The point is not to establish a fixed 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 it up for a while, or else it won't work. It may be valuable to keep the dialogue going for a year or two, as we said, and it is important to sustain it regularly. If you sustain

I'm saying that it is necessary to share meaning. A society is a link of relationships among people and

institutions, so that we can live together. But it only works if we have a culture—which implies that we share meaning; i.e., significance, purpose, and value. Otherwise it falls apart. Our society is

opposite sides. The group may even polarize so that two very powerful groups are against each other. But one of the things we're aiming for is that this should come out. We're not trying to suppress it. Therefore, you simply see what the assumptions and reactions mean—not only your own, but the other people's as well. We are not trying to change anybody's opinion. When this meeting is over, somebody may or may not change his opinion. This is part of what I consider dialogue

conclusions or judgments. Assumptions will come up. And if you hear somebody else who has an assumption that seems outrageous to you, the natural response might be to get angry, or get excited, or to react in some other way. But suppose you suspend that activity. You may not even have known that you had an assumption. It was only because he came up with the opposite one that you find out that you have one. You may uncover other assumptions, but we are all suspending them and looking at them all, seeing what they mean.

working properly, and so on. We are not trying to change anything, but just being aware of it. And you can notice the similarity of the difficulties within a group to the conflicts and incoherent thoughts within an individual.

start here too understand impact of necessity

necessity. All the serious arguments, whether in the family or in the dialogue, are about different views of what is absolutely necessary. Unless it takes that form, then you can always negotiate it and

Now if you can question it and say, "Is it absolutely necessary?" then at some point it may loosen up. People may say, "Well, maybe it's not absolutely necessary." Then the whole thing becomes easier, and it becomes possible to let that conflict go and to explore new notions of what is necessary, creatively. The dialogue can then enter a creative new area. I think this is crucial.

you stop creating that problem. The "problem" is insoluble as long as you keep on producing it all the time by your thought. Thought has to be in some sense aware

exchange opinions. Rather, it is to suspend your opinions and to look at the opinions—to listen to everybody's opinions, to suspend them, and to see what all that means. If we can see what all of our opinions mean, then we are sharing a common content, even if we don't agree entirely. It may turn out that the opinions are not really very important—they are all assumptions. And if we can see them all, we may then move more creatively in a different direction. We can just simply share the appreciation of the meanings; and out of this whole thing, truth emerges unannounced—not that we have chosen it.

not sure i buy his application to culture. seems to stretch the point. does not acknowledge many cultures in dialogue with each other.

society has been survivinng without this nirvana culture

things. I'm saying that if we regard dialogue as important, as necessary, we will say about it as well, "We will stick to it." But if we don't think it is necessary, we might say, "Okay, what's the point? This is too much trouble. Let's give it up. It's not producing anything." You see, you have to explore anything new for a while. In science, or anywhere, you usually have to go through a period where you are not getting anywhere while you are exploring.

that the road to it is through this. We have to share the consciousness that we actually have. We can't just impose another one. But if people can share the frustration and share their different contradictory

assumptions and share their mutual anger and stay with it—if everybody is angry together, and looking at it together—then you have a common consciousness. If people could stay with power, violence, hate, or whatever it is, all the way to the end, then it would sort of collapse—because ultimately they would see that we are all the same. And consequently they would have participation and fellowship. People who have gone through that can become good friends. The whole thing goes differently. They become more open and trusting to each other. They have already gone through the thing that they are afraid of, so the

because intelligence requires that you don't defend an assumption. There is no reason to hold to an assumption if there is evidence that it is not right. The proper structure of an assumption or of an opinion is that it is open to evidence that it may not be right.