On Dialogue

Bohm suggests that while literal thought has been predominant since the inception of civilization, a more archaic form of perception, formed over the whole of human evolution, remains latent – and at times active – in the structure of our consciousness. This he refers to as “participatory thought,” a mode of thought in which discrete boundaries are

Sometimes people feel a sense of dialogue within their families. But a family is generally a hierarchy, organized on the principle of authority which is contrary to dialogue.

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 of something new only if people are able fre

CONTENTS

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

What is called for is not suppressing the awareness of anger, nor suppressing nor carrying out its manifestations, but rather, suspending them in the middle at sort of an unstable point – as on a knife-edge – so that you can look at the whole process. That is what is called for.

Therefore, you have to watch out for the notion of truth. Dialogue may not be concerned directly with truth – it may arrive at truth, but it is concerned with meaning. If the meaning is incoherent you will never arrive at truth.

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

two further aspects of dialogue – the notion of shared meaning within a group, and the absence of a preestablished purpose or agenda.