On Dialogue

It has to be emphasized, however, that as long as a paradox is treated as a problem, it can never be dissolved. On the contrary, the “problem” can do nothing but grow and proliferate in everincreasing confusion. For it is an essential feature of thought that once the mind accepts a problem, then it is appropriate for the brain to keep on working un

The way we start a dialogue group is usually by talking about dialogue – talking it over, discussing why we’re doing it, what it means, and so forth.

This definition provides a foundation, a reference point if you will, for the key components of dialogue: shared meaning; the nature of collective thought; the pervasiveness of fragmentation; the function of awareness; the microcultural context; undirected inquiry; impersonal fellowship; and the paradox of the observer and the observed.

Our purpose is really to communicate coherently in truth, if you want to call that a purpose.

The point is to keep it at a level where the opinions come out, but where you can look at them.

Thought lacks proprioception, and we have got to learn, somehow, to observe thought. In the case of observing the body, you can tell that observation is somehow taking place – even when there is no sense of a distinct observer. Is it possible for thought similarly to observe itself, to see what it is doing, perhaps by awakening some other sense of

If I say I am going to look into my mind but I don’t consider my assumptions, then the picture is wrong because the assumptions are looking. That is a common problem of introspection. You say, “I am going to look at myself inwardly,” but the assumptions are not looked at – the assumptions are looking.

In a dialogue, everybody wins.

Normally we don’t see that our assumptions are affecting the nature of our