Bohm on Dialogue

David Bohm on Dialogue 

Dialogue is always testing ground for the limits of assumed knowledge - offers the possibility of entirely new order of communication and relathionship with ourselves, our fellows and the world we inhibit.  

Bohm's work on dialogue is deep and thought provoking. It provides a freely-flowing space for conversation and dialogue where  participants attempt to reach a common understanding, experiencing everyone's point of view fully, equally in a non judgemental way. He advocates full inclusivity to bring collective meaning to the sense of discourse. He advocates not to judge assumptions and opinions of self and others but to leave it or suspend it. He doesn't consider "thoughts" are ultimate or the whole truth, however, he thinks they  (thoughts) are there in our consciousness because they are the product of our past actions and thinking. Bohm takes us to a safe and freely-flowing space for critical and honest dialogue to bring relative coherence and meaning to society.

I like Bohm's argument of 'tacit' thinking and the  "suspension"  of "assumption, opinion and position" in dialogue(s)  and thus provide space for building trust, relationship and friendship  that can lead us to the transformation of violent conflicts and build a coherent society.

I like his example of geometric circle, laser, spectrum, mater, atom, neuro-chemical  reaction, truth etc that he applies to human mind, body, soul, culture, religion  and society. I love his terms and analogies of literal vs. participatory thoughts, partaking ["of" "in"], proprioception, reflexes etc.

I liked his story of Albert Einstein - the creator of theory of relativity who was also a good friend to Niels Bohr - one of the creators of Quantum Physics. Both were passing good amount of time together enjoying each others' company. However, when they came to the conclusion that their "theories, assumptions and opinions" were the ultimate truth, they parted ways and didn't meet each other again. They did not meet in  the same conferences they attended . They even did not meet in a dinner that was especially  arranged by one of their common friends. They failed to create a safe and trusted space of dialogue and thus failed to create a common thinking or new theory.

I wish we come to a clear understanding of the academic rational of dialogue, its application in both local and global context and to measure its  impact. I hope to contribute more by reading  "the world cafe" and "sustainable dialogue in conflicts" books that will provide  practical and applied insight. 

Any challenging questions that may arise from this discussion or elsewhere?