David Bohm-Dialogue (Part 1 of 2)
http://www.ghandchi.com/iranscope/Anthology/Bohm-Dialogue1.htm
David Bohm-Dialogue (Part 2 of 2)
http://www.ghandchi.com/iranscope/Anthology/Bohm-Dialogue2.htm
Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian
From: Sam Ghandchi
Subject: David Bohm on Dialogue
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 01:40:04 GMT
BOHM ON DIALOGUE
[By the Late Quantum Physicist/Thinker David Bohm]
[D. Bohm/D. Peat, Science, Order, and Creativity, 1987]
[excerpts from PP240-271 and PP84-87]
This book actually examines some basic philosophical
Differences in the philosophy of science, such as the Karl
Popper and Thomas Kuhn theories of knowledge, and comes up
with a very interesting philosophical perspective.
But below my excerpts are from the books' notes on
*dialogue*.
David Bohm extensively reviews the Bohr-Einstein
communications breakdown in physics (Niel Bohr's Quantum
Theory versus Albert Einstein's Relativity ) and makes the
following notes about dialogue:
One way of helping to free these serious blocks in
communication would be to carry out discussions in a spirit
of free dialogue. Key features of such a dialogue is for
each person to be able to hold several points of view, in
a sort of active suspension, while treating the ideas of
others with something of the care and attention that are
given to his or her own. Each participant is not called on
to accept or reject particular points of view; rather he or
she should attempt to come to understanding of what they
mean.
In this way, it may be possible to hold a number of
different approaches together in the mind with almost equal
energy and interest. In this way an internal free
dialogue is begun which can lead on to a more open external
dialogue. At this stage the mind is able to engage in free
play, unimpeded by rigid attachments to particular points
of view. It is our suggestion that out of this freely
moving dialogue can emerge something that is creatively
new, for example, the perception of a new link or metaphor
between very different points of view.
A form of free dialogue may well be one of the most
effective ways of investigating the crisis which faces
society, indeed the whole of human nature and consciousness
today. Moreover, it may turn out that such a form of
exchange of ideas and information is of fundamental
relevance for transforming culture and freeing it of
destructive misinformation, so that creativity can be
liberated.
However, it must be stressed that what follows is not given
in the spirit of a prescription that society can is
supposed to follow. Rather it is an invitation to the
reader to begin to investigate and explore in the spirit of
free play of ideas and without the restriction of the
absolute necessity of any final goal or aim. For once
necessity and absolute requirements or directions enter
into the spirit of this exploration, then creativity is
limited and all the problems that have plagued human
civilization will surface yet again to overwhelm the
investigation.
[A history of the ideas presented here is then detailed]
...wherever fragmentation and failures in communication
arise, this clearly indicates that a kind of dialogue
should be established.
The term dialogue is derived from a Greek work, with dia
meaning "through" and logos signifying "the word". Here
"the word" does not refer to mere sounds but to their
meaning. So dialogue can be considered as a free flow of
meaning between people in communication, in the sense of a
stream that flows between banks.
A key difference between a dialogue and an ordinary
discussion is that, within the latter, people usually hold
relatively fixed positions and argue in favor of their
views as they try to convince others to change. At best,
this may produce agreement or compromise, but it does not
give rise to anything creative. Moreover, whenever
anything of fundamental significance is involved, then
positions tend to be rigidly nonnegotiable and talk
generates either into a confrontation in which there is no
solution or into a polite avoidance of the issues. Both
these outcomes are extremely harmful, for they prevent the
free play of thought in communication and therefore impede
creativity.
In dialogue, however, a person may prefer a certain
position but does not hold to it nonnegotiably. He or she
is ready to listen to others with sufficient sympathy and
interest to understand the meaning of the other's position
properly and is also ready to change his or her point of
view if there is good reason to do so. Clearly a spirit of
goodwill or friendship is necessary for this to take
place. It is not compatible with a spirit that is
competitive, contentious, or aggressive. In the case of
Einstien and Bohr, these requirements were evidently met,
at least initially. However, because each felt that a
different notion of truth and reality was involved, which
was not negotiable in any way at all, a real dialogue could
never take place.
This brings us to an important root feature of science,
which is also present in dialogue: to be ready to
acknowledge any fact and any point of view as it actually
is, whether one likes it or not. In many areas of life,
people are, on the contrary, disposed to collude in order
to avoid acknowledging facts and points of view that they
find unpleasant or unduly disturbing. Science is,
however, at least in principle, dedicated to seeing any
fact as it is, and to bring open to free communication
with regard not to the fact itself, but also to the point
of view from which it is interpreted. Nevertheless, in
practice, this is not often achieved. What happens in
many cases is that there is a blockage of communication.
For example, a person does not acknowledge the point of
view of the other as being a reasonable one to hold,
although, perhaps not correct. Generally this failure
arises when the other's point of view poses a serious
threat to all that a person holds dear and precious in life
as a whole.
In dialogue, it is necessary that people be able to face
their disagreements without confrontation and be willing
to explore points of view to which they do not personally
subscribe. If they are able to engage in such a dialogue
without evasion or anger, they will find that no fixed
position is so important that it is worth holding at the
expense of destroying the dialogue itself. This tends to
give rise to a unity in plurality of the kind discussed in
Chapter 3 [entitled What is Order?]. This is, of course
quite different from introducing a large number of
compartmentalized positions that never dialogue with each
other. Rather, a plurality of points of view corresponds
to the earlier suggestion that science and society should
consist not of monolithic structures but rather of a
dynamic unity within plurality.
One of the major barriers to this sort of dialogue is the
rigidity in the tacit infrastructure of the individual and
society, which has been discussed throughout this book.
The tacit infrastructure of society at large is contained
in what is generally called culture. Within each society,
however, there are many subcultures, which are all somewhat
different, and which are either in conflict with each
other, or more or less ignore each other as having mutually
irrelevant aims and values. Such subcultures, along with
the overall culture, are generally rigidly restricted by
their basic assumptions, most of which are tacit and not
open to awareness and attention. Creativity is therefore,
at best, an occasional occurrence, the results of which
are quickly absorbed in a fairly mechanical way into the
general tacit infrastructure.
At present, a truly creative dialogue, in the sense that
has been indicated, is not at all common, even in science.
Rather the struggle of each idea to dominate is commonly
emphasized in most activities in society. In this
struggle, the success of a person's point of view may have
important consequences for status, prestige, social
position, and monetary reward. In such a conditioned
exchange, the tacit infrastructure, both individually and
culturally, responds very actively to block the free play
that is needed for creativity.
The importance of the principle of dialogue should now be
clear. It implies a very deep change in how the mind
works. What is essential is that each participant is, as
it were, suspending his or her point of view, while also
holding other point of view in a suspended form and giving
full attention to what they mean. In doing this, each
participant has also to suspend the corresponding
activity, not only of his or her own tacit infrastructure
of ideas, but also of those of the others who are
participating in the dialogue. Such a thoroughgoing
suspension of tacit individual and cultural
infrastructures, in the context of full attention to their
contents, frees the mind to move in quite new ways. The
tendency toward false play that is characteristic of the
rigid infrastructures begins to die away. The mind is then
able to respond to creative new perceptions going beyond
the particular points of view that have been suspended.
In this way, something can happen in dialogue that is
analogous to the dissolution of barriers in the "stream"
of the generative order that was discussed in the Chapter 5
entitled Generative Order in Science, and Consciousness.
In the dialogue, these blockages, in the form of rigid but
largely tacit cultural assumptions, can be brought out and
examined by all who take part. Because each person will
generally have a different individual background, and will
perhaps come from a different subculture, assumptions that
are part of a given participant's "unconscious"
infrastructure may be quite obvious to another participant,
who has no resistance to seeing them.
In this way the participants can turn their attention more
generally to becoming aware, as broadly as possible, of
the overall tacit infrastructure of rigid cultural and
subcultural assumptions and bringing it to light. As a
result, it becomes possible for the dialogue to begin to
play a part that is analogous to that played by the immune
system of the body, in "recognizing" destructive
misinformation and in clearing it up. This clearly
constitutes a very important change in how the mind
works.
[He explains the overcoming of individual and social
consciousness as a result of such a dialogue]. Only a
dialogue that can, at the same time, meet the challenge
both of uncovering the intellectual content of a rigidly
held basic assumption and of "defusing" the emotional
charge that goes with it will make possible the proper
exploration of the new order of mental operation that is
being discussed here.
It is possible to have such dialogues in all sorts of
circumstances, with many or just a few people involved.
Indeed even an individual may have a kind of internal
dialogue with himself or herself. What is essential here
is the presence of the spirit of dialogue, which is, in
short, the ability to hold many points of view in
suspension, along with a primary interest in the creation
of a common meaning. It is particularly important,
however, to explore the possibilities of dialogue in the
context of a group that is large enough to have within it a
wide range of points of view, and to sustain a strong flow
of meaning. This latter can come about because such a
dialogue is capable of having the powerful nonverbal effect
of consensus.
In the ordinary situation, consensus can lead to collusion
and to playing false, but in a true dialogue there is the
possibility that a new form of consensual mind, which
involves a rich creative order between the individual and
the social, may be a more powerful instrument than is the
individual and the social, may be a more powerful
instrument than is the individual mind. Such consensus
does not involve the pressure of authority or conformity,
for it arises out of a spirit of friendship dedicated to
clarity and the ultimate perception of what is true. In
this way the tacit infrastructure of society and that of
its subcultures are not opposed, nor is there any attempt
to alter them or to destroy them. Rather, fixed and rigid
frames dissolve in the creative free flow of dialogue as a
new kind of microculture emerges.
People who take part in such a dialogue will be able to
carry its spirit beyond the particular group into all
their activities and relationships and ultimately into the
general society. In this way, they can begin to explore
the possibility of extending the transformation of the mind
that has been discussed earlier to a broader sociocultural
context. Such an exploration would clearly be relevant
for helping to bring about a creative and harmonious order
in the world. It should be clear by now that the major
barriers to such an order are not technical; rather they
lie in the rigid and fragmentary nature of our basic
assumptions. These keep us from changing in response to
the actual situations and from being able to move together
from commonly shared meanings.
Dialogue, in the sense that has been discussed here, may be
able to contribute in a very significant way to clearing
up the "pollution" or "misinformation" in social and
cultural spheres. But humanity does not live only in
these spheres. Broadly speaking it has three principal
dimensions-the individual, the social, and the cosmic-and
each of which of these must receive appropriate
attention. [Finally the book discusses each of the above
spheres and the significance of dialogue between
religions, schools of science and schools of
psychology.]