Bohm Dialogue

Dialogue was originally invented by David Bohm, but our Peace Mind Dialogue group in the Palo Alto area evolved its own distinctive flavor. It is easiest to describe what it feels like when it is working well. There is a kind of harmony and synergy in a dialogue which doesn’t arise in ordinary conversation. Ideas flow and connections are made that no individual had beforehand. Afterwards each person feels refreshed, inspired, and heard. No one feels slighted, put down, or stupid. Dialogues are often very creative and humorous. Someone says something which inspires something in someone else, around and around in a virtuous circle. One regular participant says “After a dialogue I just feel good without even really understanding why”.

So what does it take to reach this magical state? Basically, the participants have to give up trying to direct or control the other participants. There is no leader, there is no set topic, and we stay away from arguing. Any thought is welcome, but not disparagement of other participants or their thoughts. In dialogue we are not trying to determine what is right and what is wrong. Rather, deeper truths emerge from a place of acceptance. Rumi writes:

Out beyond ideas of wrongoing and rightdoing,
there is a field.
I will meet you there.

Dialogue is not discussion. Discussions usually involve the presentation of different points of view in an attempt to convince the other participants. Each person considers his argument carefully and will often strategically avoid saying something that might give ammunition to an opposing viewpoint or that might make them look stupid. Because of this, there is often a kind of holding back that restricts the free flow of ideas. Dialogue, on the other hand, is not about reaching mutual agreement, it’s about reaching mutual inspiration.

Dialogue is related to several other forms of group interaction. Businesses often use brainstorming to find creative new solutions to problems. During this process, people suggest lots of ideas, the more outlandish the better. Criticism of ideas is not allowed. Even a ridiculous idea may trigger something more practical in someone else.

In theater improvisation a powerful principle is called “Yes, And”. If one actor offers a line like “Maam, you were going 60 in a 30 MPH zone”, and the other actor responds “You’re not a police officer”, then the scene dies. Instead, good improvisors accept all offers and build on them. They say “Yes” to whatever is offered and let it inspire their own offer.

Quaker congregations have processes where they mostly sit in silence until someone is moved to speak. Their criterion is that you should feel that what you have to share “is an improvement on the silence”. Members of the congregation let what others have said inspire them but do not directly respond to each other.

In a dialogue it is generally a bad idea to respond to someone’s share in a way that requires them to respond back as this can take them out of their own free experience. Saying that something is wrong or silly may make them feel the need to defend themselves and will break the free flow of ideas. Engaging in a two person back-and-forth dialog may cause disconnection from the rest of the circle.

Asking questions is tricky. Sometimes they just clarify something and keep the communication going. But sometimes a questioner is using questions to force a person or the group to go in a certain direction and that breaks the flow. Or questions can be a disguised form of argument asking about a perceived weakness in what a person has just said. Use your intuition when asking questions to ensure they aren’t attempts to direct the group or to convince somebody of something. Shares are most powerful when they are about personal experience or about something that touched you. It’s good to use “I statements” to own one’s experience. And short shares that quickly get to the point of what moves you will usually connect best with the others in the group. Long stories can act as a way to control the group.

Here’s a somewhat compressed example of a non-dialogue discussion gone bad:

Alice: I think the moon is made of jade.

Bob: No, you’re wrong. The moon is made of basalt lava. This was determined from the moon rocks brought back by the Apollo mission.

Alice: I don’t think they actually went to the moon.

Bob: What, are you loony? Of course they did, everyone’s seen the video footage.

Alice: Well I talked with a guy who saw the movie sets where they filmed it all and they certainly lied about the CIA and Allende in Chile. Do you believe everything the government tells you?

Bob: Well this country may not be perfect but if you don’t like it you should go back to your own country!

In the second line, Bob is trying to be helpful in correcting what he considers to be Alice’s factual mistake. But she hears it as an attack and fights back by questioning his basic conceptual framework. In the fourth line, Bob is getting upset and tries to shame Alice to his perspective. Alice then broadens the scope of her attack and Bob ends by getting really angry and attacking back. At the end of the discussion both Alice and Bob are angry and feeling disconnected. Neither has been enlightened or inspired by the other. Each feels that they tried to help the other but that their contributions were not honored or respected. How might Alice and Bob have interacted differently using dialogue?

Alice: I think the moon is made of jade.

Bob: I was just reading that the ancients thought of stars as jewels attached to the heavens.

Alice: Mmmm, I like that! I love to hike in the mountains and just look up at the stars. I feel so good to see the sparkling lights.

Bob: I was just hiking at the Stanford dish and I saw a huge spider web and there was a drop of dew at each intersection. They were sparkling so beautifully with the morning sun.

Alice: Hindu sacred texts tell the story of the goddess Indra’s pearls. Her domain is crisscrossed by silken threads and there is a beautiful pearl at each intersection. Each pearl reflects all of the other pearls. And each reflection also contains the reflection of all the others without end, capturing the infinite richness of the universe.

Bob: Wow, what a powerful image! It’s kind of like something I was reading about people’s mental models of other minds. Each person makes a model of other people and also of their models of other people, etc. I can sense that rich picture of infinite reflection even in our dialogue right here.

Now each person is just letting what the other person said inspire them. They aren’t focused on what is right or wrong but are riffing off the other’s thoughts. And they each get to a place of deeper awe and understanding. They both feel connected, heard, and excited.

From David Bohm’s book “On Dialogue”:

Some time ago there was an anthropologist who lived for a long while with a North American tribe, a small group of twenty to forty. Now, from time to time the tribe met in a circle. They just talked and talked, apparently to no purpose. They made no decisions. There was no leader. And everybody could participate. There may have been wise men or wise women who were listened to a bit more–the older ones–but everybody could talk. The meeting went on, until it finally seemed to stop for no reason at all and the group dispersed. Yet after that, everybody seemed to know what to do, because they understood each other so well. Then they could get together in smaller groups and do something or decide things.

There may be no pat political “answer” to the world’s problems. However, the important point is not the answer–just as in dialogue, the important point is not the particular opinions–but rather the softening up, the opening up, of the mind, and looking at all the opinions.

If we can all suspend our assumptions and look at them, then we are all in the same state of participatory consciousness. In dialogue the whole structure of defensiveness and opinions and division can collapse.

I think the whole human race knew this for a million years, and then in five thousand years of civilization we have lost it, because our societies got too big. But now we have to get started again, because it has become urgent that we communicate, to share our consciousness. We must be able to think together, in order to do intelligently whatever is necessary.