PUBLICATIONS:
"Quantum Theory," New York, 1951
"Causality and Change in Modern Physics," London, 1957
"The Special Theory of Relativity," New York 1966
"Wholeness and the Implicate Order," London, 1980
"Unfolding Meaning," (record of a dialogue with David Bohm), London, 1985
"Science, Order and Creativity," New York, 1987
"Thought as a System," London, 1994
"On Dialogue," London, 1996
"Changing Consciousness," San Francisco, 1991
and in dialogue with J. Krishnamurti:
"Truth and Actuality"; "The wholeness of Life"; "The Ending of Time"; "The Future of Mankind"; and others.
This page is also under construction (as Krishnaji's page is). In the future, I would like to include here some of the insights and observations derived from my dialogue with Doctor Bohm, and to describe the way those insights have been incorporated into the work that I do now.For the time being, I am providing links to his pages, an also an article Dr. Bohm wrote as an introduction to Krishnamurti's teachings, and a copy free statement (Dialogue - A Proposal)
My first acquaintance with Krishnamurti's work was in 1959 when I read his book First and Last Freedom. What particularly aroused my interest was his deep insight into the question of the observer and the observed. This question had long been close to the center of my own work, as a theoretical physicist, who was primarily interested in the meaning of the quantum theory. In this theory, for the first time in the development of physics, the notion that these two cannot be separated has been put forth as necessary for the understanding of the fundamental laws of matter in general. Because of this, as well as because the book contained many other deep insights I felt that it was urgent for me to talk with Krishnamurti directly and personally as soon as possible. And when I first met him on one of his visits to London, I was struck by the great ease of communication with him, which was made possible by the intense energy with which he listened and by the freedom from self-protective reservations and barriers with which he responded to what I had to say. As a person who works in science I felt completely at home with this sort of response, because it was in essence of the same quality as that which I had met in these contacts with other scientists with whom there had been a very close meeting of minds. And here, I think especially of Einstein who showed a similar intensity and absence of barrier in a number of discussions that took place between him and me.
After this, I began to meet Krishnamurti regularly and to discuss with him whenever he came to London. We began an association which has since then become closer as I became interested in the schools, such as Brockwood Park in England, which were set up through his initiative. In these discussions, we went quite deeply into many questions which concerned me in my scientific work. We probed into the nature of space and time, and of the universal, both with regard to external nature and with regard to mind. But then, we went on to consider the general disorder and confusion that pervades the consciousness of mankind. It is here that I encountered what I feel to be Krishnamurti's major discovery. What he was seriously proposing is that all this disorder, which is the root cause of such widespread sorrow and misery, and which prevents human beings from properly working together, has its root in the fact that we are ignorant of the general nature of our own processes of thought. Or to put it differently it may be said that we do not see what is actually happening, when we are engaged in the activity of thinking. Through close attention to and observation of this activity of thought, Krishnamurti feels that he directly perceives that thought is a material process, which is going on inside of the human being in the brain and nervous system as a whole.
Ordinarily, we tend to be aware mainly of the content of this thought rather than of how it actually takes place. One can illustrate this point by considering what happens when one is reading a book. Usually, one is attentive almost entirely to the meaning of what is being read. However, one can also be aware of the book itself, of its constitution as made up out of pages that can be turned, of the printed words and of the ink, of the fabric of the paper, etc. Similarly, we may be aware of the actual structure and function of the process of thought, and not merely of its content.
How can such an awareness come about? Krishnamurti proposes that this requires what he calls meditation. Now the word meditation has been given a wide range of different and even contradictory meanings, many of them involving rather superficial kinds of mysticism. Krishnamurti has in mind a definite and clear notion when he uses this word. One can obtain a valuable indication of this meaning by considering the derivation of the word. (The roots of words, in conjunction with their present generally accepted meanings often yield surprising insight into their deeper meanings.) The English word meditation is based on the Latin root "med" which is, "to measure". The present meaning of this word is "to reflect", "to ponder" (i.e. to weigh or measure), and "to give close attention". Similarly the Sanskrit word for meditation, which is dhyana, is closely related to "dhyati", meaning "to reflect". So, at this rate, to meditate would be, "to ponder, to reflect, while giving close attention to what is actually going on as one does so".
This is perhaps what Krishnamurti means by the beginning of meditation. That is to say, one gives close attention to all that is happening in conjunction with the actual activity of thought, which is the underlying source of the general disorder. One does this without choice, without criticism, without acceptance or rejection of what is going on. And all of this takes place along with reflections on the meaning of what one is learning about the activity of thought (It is perhaps rather like reading a book in which the pages have been scrambled up, and being intensely aware of this disorder, rather than just "trying to make sense" of the confused content that arises when one just accepts the pages as they happen to come.)
Krishnamurti has observed that the very act of meditation will, in itself, bring order to the activity of thought without the intervention of will, choice, decision, or any other action of the "thinker". As such order comes, the noise and chaos which are the usual background of our consciousness die out, and the mind becomes generally silent. (Thought arises only when needed for some genuinely valid purpose, and then stops, until needed again.)
In this silence, Krishnamurti says that something new and creative happens, something that cannot be conveyed in words, but that is of extraordinary significance for the whole of life. So he does not attempt to communicate this verbally, but rather, he asks of those who are interested that they explore the question of meditation directly for themselves, through actual attention to the nature of thought.
Without attempting to probe into this deeper meaning of meditation, one can however say that meditation, in Krishnamurti's sense of the word, can bring order to our overall mental activity, and this may be a key factor in bringing about an end to the sorrow, the misery, the chaos and confusion, that have, over the ages, been the lot of mankind, and that are still generally continuing, without visible prospect of fundamental change, for the foreseeable future.
Krishnamurti's work is permeated by what may be called the essence of the scientific approach,when this is considered in its very highest and purest form. Thus, he begins from a fact, this fact about the nature of our thought processes. This fact is established through close attention, involving careful listening to the process of consciousness, and observing it assiduously. In this, one is constantly learning, and out of this learning comes insight, into the over-all or general nature of the process of thought. This insight is then tested. First, one sees whether it holds together in a rational order. And then one sees whether it leads to order and coherence, on what flows out of it in life as a whole.
Krishnamurti constantly emphasizes that he is in no sense an authority. He has made certain discoveries, and he is simply doing his best to make these discoveries accessible to all those who are able to listen. His work does not contain a body of doctrine, nor does he offer techniques or methods, for obtaining a silent mind. He is not aiming to set up any new system of religious belief. Rather, it is up to each human being to see if he can discover for himself that to which Krishnamurti is calling attention, and to go on from there to make new discoveries on his own.
It is clear then that an introduction, such as this can at best show how Krishnamurti's work has been seen by a particular person, a scientist, such as myself. To see in full what Krishnamurti means, it is necessary, of course, to go on and to read what he actually says, with that quality of attention to the totality of one's responses, inward and outward, which we have been discussing here.
[*] Dialogue - A Proposal
[*] Why Dialogue
[*] Purpose and Meaning
[*] What Dialogue is not
[*] How to start a Dialogue
[*] What Dialogue is not
[*] Dialogue in existing Organizations
[*] Epilog
by David Bohm, Donald Factor, Peter Garrett
Copyright 1991 by David Bohm, Donald Factor and Peter Garrett.
The copyright holders hereby give permission to copy this material and to
distribute it to others for non-commercial purposes including discussion,
inquiry, criticism and as an aid to setting up Dialogue groups. All other
rights are reserved.
Please address any correspondence to:
Dialogue
Hawthorn Cottage
Broad Marston Lane
Mickleton
Glos. GL55 6SF
England
We are proposing a kind of collective inquiry not only into the content of
what each of us says, thinks and feels but also into the underlying
motivations, assumptions and beliefs that lead us to do so.
Dialogue - A Proposal
Dialogue, as we are choosing to use the word, is a way of exploring the
roots of the many crises that face humanity today. It enables inquiry into,
and understanding of, the sorts of processes that fragment and interfere
with real communication between individuals, nations and even different
parts of the same organization. In our modern culture men and women are able to interact with one another in many ways: they can sing, dance or play together with little difficulty but their ability to talk together about
subjects that matter deeply to them seems invariably to lead to dispute,
division and often to violence. In our view this condition points to a deep
and pervasive defect in the process of human thought.
In Dialogue a group of people can explore the individual and collective
presuppositions, ideas, beliefs and feelings that subtly control their
interactions. It provides an opportunity for them to participate in a
process that displays their successes and failures of communication and it can reveal the often puzzling patterns of incoherence that often leads them to avoid certain issues or, on the other hand, to insist, against all
reason, on standing and defending their opinions about them.
Dialogue is a way of observing how hidden values and intentions can control our behaviour, and how unnoticed differences in culture or gender can clash without our realizing what is occurring. It can therefore be seen as an arena in which collective learning takes place, and out of which a sense of increased harmony, fellowship and creativity can arise.
Because the nature of Dialogue is exploratory its meaning and its methods
continue to unfold. No firm rules can be laid down for conducting a Dialogue because its essence is learning - not as the result of consuming a body of information or doctrine imparted by an authority, nor as a means of examining or criticizing a particular theory or programme, but rather as part of an unfolding process of creative participation between peers.
However, we feel that it is important that its meaning and background be
understood.
Our approach to this form of Dialogue arose out of a series of conversations begun in 1983 in which we inquired into David Bohm's suggestion that a pervasive incoherence in the process of human thought is the essential cause of the endless crises affecting mankind. This led us, in succeeding years, to initiate a number of larger conversations and seminars held in different countries with various groups of people which in turn began to take the form of Dialogues.
As we proceeded it became increasingly clear to us that this process of
Dialogue is a powerful means of understanding how thought functions. We
became aware that we live in a world produced almost entirely by human
enterprise and thus by human thought. The room in which we sit, the language in which these words are written, our national boundaries, our systems of value and even that which we take to be our direct perceptions of reality are essentially manifestations of the way we human beings think and have thought. We realized that without a willingness to explore this situation and to gain a deep insight into it the real crisis of our time cannot be confronted, nor can anything more than temporary solutions to the vast array of human problems that now confronts us ever be found.
We are using the word "thought" here to signify not only the products of our conscious intellect but also our feelings, emotions, intentions and desires.
It also includes such subtle, conditioned manifestations of learning as
those that allow us to make sense of a succession of separate scenes within a cinema film or to translate the abstract symbols on road signs along with the tacit, non-verbal processes used in developing basic, mechanical skills such as riding a bicycle. In essence thought, in this sense of the word, is the active response of memory in every phase of life and virtually all of our knowledge is produced, displayed, communicated, transformed and applied in thought.
To further clarify this approach we propose that, with the aid of a little
close attention, even that which we call rational thinking can be seen to
consist largely of responses conditioned and biased by previous thought. If
we look carefully at what we generally take to be reality we begin to see
that it includes a collection of concepts, memories and reflexes coloured by our personal needs, fears and desires all of which are limited and distorted by the boundaries of our language and the habits of our history, sex and culture. It is extremely difficult to disassemble this mixture or to ever be certain whether what we are perceiving - or what we may think about those perceptions - is at all accurate.
What makes this situation so serious is that thought generally conceals this problem from our immediate awareness and succeeds in generating a sense that the way each of us interprets the world is the only sensible way in which it can be interpreted. What is needed is a means by which we can slow down the process of thought in order to be able to observe it while it is actually occurring.
Our physical bodies have this capacity but thought seems to lack it. If you
raise your arm you know that you are willing the act, that somebody else is not doing it for or to you. This is called proprioception. We can be aware of our body's actions while they are actually occurring but we generally lack this sort of skill in the realm of thought. For example, we do not notice that our attitude toward another person may be profoundly affected by the way we think and feel about someone else who might share certain aspects of his behaviour or even of his appearance. Instead, we assume that our attitude toward him arises directly from his actual conduct. The problem of thought is that the kind of attention required to notice this incoherence seems seldom to be available when it is most needed.
Why Dialogue?
Dialogue is concerned with providing a space within which such attention can be given. It allows a display of thought and meaning that makes possible a kind of collective proprioception or immediate mirroring back of both the content of thought and the less apparent, dynamic structures that govern it.
In Dialogue this can be experienced both individually and collectively. Each
listener is able to reflect back to each speaker, and to the rest of the
group, a view of some of the assumptions and unspoken implications of what is being expressed along with that which is being avoided. It creates an opportunity for each participant to examine the preconceptions, prejudices and the characteristic patterns that lie behind his or her thoughts, opinions, beliefs and feelings, along with the roles he or she tends habitually to play. And it offers an opportunity to share these insights.
The word "dialogue" derives from two roots: "dia" which means "through" and "logos" which means "the word", or more particularly, "the meaning of the word". The image it gives is of a river of meaning flowing around and
through the participants. Any number of people can engage in Dialogue - one can even have a dialogue with oneself - but the sort of Dialogue that we are suggesting involves a group of between twenty and forty people seated in a circle talking together.
Some notion of the significance of such a Dialogue can be found in reports
of hunter-gatherer bands of about this size who, when they met to talk
together, had no apparent agenda nor any predetermined purpose.
Nevertheless, such gatherings seemed to provide and reinforce a kind of
cohesive bond or fellowship that allowed its participants to know what was required of them without the need for instruction or much further verbal interchange. In other words, what might be called a coherent culture of shared meaning emerged within the group.
Dr. Patrick de Mare a psychiatrist working in London has conducted
pioneering work along similar lines under modern conditions. He set up
groups of about the same size the purpose of which he described in terms of sociotherapy. His view is that the primary cause of the deep and pervasive sickness in our society can be found at the socio-cultural level and that such groups can serve as micro cultures from which the source of the infirmity of our larger civilization can be exposed. Our experience has led us to extend this notion of Dialogue by emphasizing and giving special
attention to the fundamental role of the activity of thought in the
origination and maintenance of this condition.
As a microcosm of the larger culture Dialogue allows a wide spectrum of
possible relationships to be revealed. It can disclose the impact of society
on the individual and the individual's impact on society. It can display how
power is assumed or given away and how pervasive are the generally unnoticed rules of the system that constitutes our culture. But it is most deeply concerned with understanding the dynamics of how thought conceives such connections.
It is not concerned with deliberately trying to alter or change behaviour
nor to get the participants to move toward a predetermined goal. Any such
attempt would distort and obscure the processes that the Dialogue has set
out to explore. Nevertheless, changes do occur because observed thought
behaves differently from unobserved thought. Dialogue can thus become an
opportunity for thought and feeling to play freely in a continuously
engaging movement. Topics of a specific or personal nature will become
entwined with areas of deeper or more general meaning. Any subject can be included and no content is excluded. Such an activity is very rare in our
culture.
Purpose and Meaning
Usually people gather either to accomplish a task or to be entertained, both of which can be described as predetermined purposes. But by its very nature Dialogue is not consistent with any such purposes beyond the interest of its participants in the unfoldment and revelation of the deeper collective meanings that may be revealed. These may on occasion be entertaining, enlightening, lead to new insights or address existing problems. But surprisingly, in its early stages, the Dialogue will often lead to the experience of frustration.
A group of people invited to give their time and serious attention to a task
that has no apparent goal and is not being led in any detectable direction
may quickly find itself experiencing a great deal of anxiety or annoyance.
This can lead to the desire on the part of some either to break up the group
or to attempt to take control and give it a direction. Previously
unacknowledged purposes will reveal themselves. Strong feelings will be
exposed, along with the thoughts that underlie them. Fixed positions may be taken and polarization will often result. This is all part of the process.
It is what sustains the Dialogue and keeps it constantly extending
creatively into new domains.
In an assembly of between twenty and forty people extremes of frustration, anger, conflict or other difficulties may occur, but in a group of this size such problems can be contained with relative ease. In fact they can become the central focus of the exploration in what might be understood as a kind of "meta-dialogue" aimed at clarifying the process of Dialogue itself.
As sensitivity and experience increase, a perception of shared meaning
emerges in which people find that they are neither opposing one another, nor are they simply interacting. Increasing trust between members of the group -and in the process itself - leads to the expression of the sorts of thoughts and feelings that are usually kept hidden. There is no imposed consensus, nor is there any attempt to avoid conflict. No single individual or sub-group is able to achieve dominance because every subject, including domination and submission, is always available to be considered.
Participants find that they are involved in an ever changing and developing
pool of common meaning. A shared content of consciousness emerges which allows a level of creativity and insight that is not generally available to individuals or to groups that interact in more familiar ways. This reveals an aspect of Dialogue that Patrick de Mare has called koinonia, a word meaning "impersonal fellowship", which was originally used to describe the early form of Athenian democracy in which all the free men of the city gathered to govern themselves.
As this fellowship is experienced it begins to take precedence over the more overt content of the conversation. It is an important stage in the Dialogue, a moment of increased coherence, where the group is able to move beyond its perceived blocks or limitations and on into new territory. But it is also a point at which a group may begin to relax and bask in the "high" that accompanies the experience. This is the point that sometimes causes confusion between Dialogue and some forms of psychotherapy. Participants may want to hold the group together in order to preserve the pleasurable feeling of security and belonging that accompanies the state. This is similar to that sense of community often reached in therapy groups or in team building workshops where it is taken to be the evidence of the success of the method used. Beyond such a point, however, lie even more significant and subtle realms of creativity, intelligence and understanding that can be approached only by persisting in the process of inquiry and risking reentry into areas of potentially chaotic or frustrating uncertainty.
What Dialogue is not
Dialogue is not discussion, a word that shares its root meaning with
"percussion" and "concussion" both of which involve breaking things up. Nor
is it debate. These forms of conversation contain an implicit tendency to
point toward a goal, to hammer out an agreement, to try to solve a problem or have one's opinion prevail. It is also not a "salon", which is a kind of gathering that is both informal and most often characterized by an intention to entertain, exchange friendship, gossip and other information. Although the word "dialogue" has often been used in similar ways, its deeper, root meaning implies that it is not primarily interested in any of this.
Dialogue is not a new name for T groups or sensitivity training, although it is superficially similar to these and other related forms of group work. Its consequences may be psychotherapeutic but it does not attempt to focus on removing the emotional blocks of any one participant nor to teach, train or analyze. Nevertheless, it is an arena in which learning and the dissolution of blocks can and often do take place. It is not a technique for problem solving or conflict resolution, although problems may well be resolved during the course of a Dialogue or, perhaps later, as a result of the increased understanding and fellowship that occurs among the participants. It is, as we have emphasized, primarily a means of exploring the field of thought.
Dialogue resembles a number of other forms of group activity and may at
times include aspects of them but in fact it is something new to our
culture. We believe that it is an activity that might well prove vital to
its future health.
How to start a Dialogue
Suspension of thoughts, impulses, judgments, etc., lies at the very heart of Dialogue. It is one of its most important new aspects. It is not easily
grasped because the activity is both unfamiliar and subtle. Suspension
involves attention, listening and looking and is essential to exploration.
Speaking is necessary, of course, for without it there would be little in
the Dialogue to explore. But the actual process of exploration takes place
during listening - not only to others but to oneself. Suspension involves
exposing your reactions, impulses, feelings and opinions in such a way that they can be seen and felt within your own psyche and also be reflected back by others in the group. It does not mean repressing or suppressing or, even, postponing them. It means, simply, giving them your serious attention so that their structures can be noticed while they are actually taking place.
If you are able to give attention to, say, the strong feelings that might
accompany the expression of a particular thought - either your own or
another's - and to sustain that attention, the activity of the thought
process will tend to slow down. This may permit you to begin to see the
deeper meanings underlying your thought process and to sense the often
incoherent structure of any action that you might otherwise carry out
automatically. Similarly, if a group is able to suspend such feelings and
give its attention to them then the overall process that flows from thought to feeling to acting-out within the group can also slow down and reveal its deeper, more subtle meanings along with any of its implicit distortions, leading to what might be described as a new kind of coherent, collective intelligence.
To suspend thought, impulse, judgment, etc., requires serious attention to
the overall process we have been considering - both on one's own and within a group. This involves what may at first appear to be an arduous kind of work. But if this work is sustained, one's ability to give such attention constantly develops so that less and less effort is required.
Numbers: A Dialogue works best with between twenty and forty people seated facing one another in a single circle. A group of this size allows for the emergence and observation of different subgroups or subcultures that can help to reveal some of the ways in which thought operates collectively. This is important because the differences between such subcultures are often an unrecognized cause of failed communication and conflict. Smaller groups, on the other hand, lack the requisite diversity needed to reveal these tendencies and will generally emphasize more familiar personal and family roles and relationships.
With a few groups we have had as many as sixty participants, but with that large a number the process becomes unwieldy. Two concentric circles are required to seat everybody so that they can see and hear one another. This places those in the back row at a disadvantage, and fewer participants have an opportunity to speak. We might mention here that some participants tend to talk a great deal while others find difficulty in speaking up in groups.
It is worth remembering, though, that the word "participation" has two
meanings: "to partake of", and "to take part in". Listening is at least as
important as speaking. Often, the quieter participants will begin to speak
up more as they become familiar with the Dialogue experience while the more dominant individuals will find themselves tending to speak less and listen more.
Duration: A Dialogue needs some time to get going. It is an unusual way of
participating with others and some sort of introduction is required in which the meaning of the whole activity can be communicated. But even with a clear introduction, when the group begins to talk together it will often experience confusion, frustration and a self-conscious concern as to whether or not it is actually engaging in Dialogue. It would be very optimistic to assume that a Dialogue would begin to flow or move toward any great depth during its first meeting. It is important to point out that perseverance is required.
In setting up Dialogues it is useful at the start to agree the length of the
session and for someone to take responsibility for calling time at the end.
We have found that about two hours is optimum. Longer sessions risk a
fatigue factor which tends to diminish the quality of participation. Many T
Groups use extended "marathon" sessions which use this fatigue factor to
break down some of the inhibitions of the participants. Dialogue, on the
other hand, is more concerned with exploring the social constructs and
inhibitions that affect our communications rather than attempting to bypass them. The more regularly the group can meet, the deeper and more meaningful will be the territory explored. Weekends have often been used to allow a sequence of sessions, but if the Dialogue is to continue for an extended period of time we suggest that there be at least a one week interval between each succeeding session to allow time for individual reflection and further thinking. There is no limit to how long a Dialogue group may continue its exploration. But it would be contrary to the spirit of Dialogue for it to become fixed or institutionalized.
Leadership: A Dialogue is essentially a conversation between equals. Any
controlling authority, no matter how carefully or sensitively applied, will
tend to hinder and inhibit the free play of thought and the often delicate
and subtle feelings that would otherwise be shared. Dialogue is vulnerable
to being manipulated, but its spirit is not consistent with this. Hierarchy
has no place in Dialogue.
Nevertheless, in the early stages some guidance is required to help the
participants realize the subtle differences between Dialogue and other forms
of group process. At least one or, preferably two, experienced facilitators
are essential. Their role should be to occasionally point out situations
that might seem to be presenting sticking points for the group, in other
words, to aid the process of collective proprioception, but these
interventions should never be manipulative nor obtrusive. Leaders are
participants just like everybody else. Guidance, when it is felt to be
necessary, should take the form of "leading from behind" and preserve the
intention of making itself redundant as quickly as possible.
However, this proposal is not intended as a substitute for experienced
facilitators. We suggest, though, that its contents be reviewed with the
group during its initial meeting so that all the participants can be
satisfied that they are embarking upon the same adventure.
Subject matter: The Dialogue can begin with any topic of interest to the
participants. If some members of the group feel that certain exchanges or
subjects are disturbing or not fitting, it is important that they express
these thoughts within the Dialogue. No content should be excluded.
Often participants will gossip or express their dissatisfactions or
frustration after a session but it is exactly this sort of material that
offers the most fertile ground for moving the Dialogue into deeper realms of meaning and coherence beyond the superficiality of "groupthink", good
manners or dinner party conversation.
Dialogue in existing Organizations
So far we have been primarily discussing Dialogues that bring together
individuals from a variety of backgrounds rather than from existing
organizations. But its value may also be perceived by members of an
organization as a way of increasing and enriching their own corporate
creativity.
In this case the process of Dialogue will change considerably. Members of an existing organization will have already developed a number of different
sorts of relationship between one another and with their organization as a
whole. There may be a preexisting hierarchy or a felt need to protect one's
colleagues, team or department. There may be a fear of expressing thoughts that might be seen as critical of those who are higher in the organization or of norms within the organizational culture. Careers or the social acceptance of individual members might appear to be threatened by
participation in a process that emphasizes transparency, openness, honesty, spontaneity and the sort of deep interest in others that can draw out areas of vulnerability that may long have been kept hidden. In an existing organization the Dialogue will very probably have to begin with an exploration of all the doubts and fears that participation will certainly
raise. Members may have to begin with a fairly specific agenda from which
they eventually can be encouraged to diverge. This differs from the approach taken with one-time or self-selected groupings in which participants are free to begin with any subject matter. But as we have mentioned no content should be excluded because the impulse to exclude a subject is itself rich material for the inquiry.
Most organizations have inherent, predetermined purposes and goals that are seldom questioned. At first this might also seem to be inconsistent with the free and open play of thought that is so intrinsic to the Dialogue process.
However, this too can be overcome if the participants are helped from the
very beginning to realize that considerations of such subjects can prove
essential to the well-being of the organization and can in turn help to
increase the participant's self-esteem along with the regard in which he or she may be held by others.
The creative potential of Dialogue is great enough to allow a temporary
suspension of any of the structures and relationships that go to make up an organization.
Epilog
Finally, we would like to make clear that we are not proposing Dialogue as a panacea nor as a method or technique designed to succeed all other forms of social interaction. Not everyone will find it useful nor, certainly, will it be useful in all contexts. There is great value to be found in many group psychotherapeutic methods and there are many tasks that require firm leadership and a well- formed organizational structure.
Much of the sort of work we have described here can be accomplished
independently, and we would encourage this. Many of the ideas suggested in this proposal are still the subjects of our own continuing exploration. We do not advise that they be taken as fixed but rather that they be inquired into as part of your own Dialogue. The spirit of Dialogue is one of free play, a sort of collective dance of the mind that, nevertheless has immense power and reveals coherent purpose. Once begun it becomes a continuing adventure that can open the way to significant and creative change.