The Culture of Dialogue

 

 

What does group dialogue look like since Krishnamurti’s absence? How has dialogue developed? Is there a form of “dialogue culture” showing up and if so, what is the nature of that culture? Is dialogue an environment that can foster real inquiry that might lead to fundamental change? Or does group dialogue incubate and even possibly reinforce existing conditioning and psychological limitation? An important question to ask, surely?

 

 

Culture by its very nature usually hides a collective mental programming built up over time, history and circumstance. Culture shapes thoughts, perceptions and behaviours without our explicit awareness. Our cultural lens subconsciously influences how we interpret events, behaviours and even our own emotional reactions. By extension in dialogue groups, are there shared yet concealed inner agendas, generating a whole dialogue conduct? Just as we may be unaware of cultural habits influencing our collective attitudes and actions; similarly are we unaware of our perspectives in dialogue groups affecting our inquiry?

 

 

So, what hidden manners of mind might be affecting dialogue itself? As a participant in dialogue, I probably have underlying desires about how I want the world, myself, or others to be. Do these unacknowledged wishes and intentions determine my level of enthusiasm or disappointment in the dialogue forum? When the outcome does not measure up to an anticipated fulfilment, is there then frustration or disturbance of some kind? In other words: is dialogue disappointing, or are we unaware of our own mind’s thwarted expectations? 

 

 

During the exchanges and interactions, I might be irritated by a fellow participant in the group; yet I may be completely ignorant of myself. The irritation that is attributed to you as the cause, might in fact be inattention to irritation already formed in me. I never discover the real nature of irritation and anger because I am always denying its existence as fact, in myself. Another example is that you may challenge what I am saying. Instead of listening to the challenge with interest, I may get offended or hurt and demand you acknowledge my insights appropriately. You are interested in the topic being examined; I am interested in my own opinion of that topic.

 

 

Do I give attention to these reactions as they set in motion, or do I not realise the impact of not giving attention? Lack of self awareness in dialogue (and the false assumptions that ensue) may be cultivating a whole cloud of antagonism I do not see that I am creating. Not only do I attend dialogue with my physical presence; I also directly partake in its unspoken realisation. Does my lack of attention produce a reality I then blame others for?

 

 

On the other hand, one may react to this felt sense of disappointment and frustration in dialogue, by erecting an ideal version in its place. Do I architect another kind of group forum where spiritual ideals of love and positivity are cultivated for a more fulfilling, even “sacred” experience? Does this version of dialogue propose itself as an enlightened guidance to a better, more advised existence? Must dialogue promise a condition of higher value than in ordinary life? Can a higher condition fundamentally change psychological conditioning? Whilst I am elevating into a rather more virtuous version of myself, I might continue to miss the facts of my everyday, ordinary living.

 

 

We could say that we are all like actors performing a script, written and conditioned by the history of all humanity. Conditioning by its very nature is not conspicuous. Even when we understand that we are conditioned, it might still be concealing itself from our immediate awareness. Is it inevitable that this highly divisive, collective conditioning be always present in our dialogue groups? And if so, can dialogue attempt to uncover this insidious programming?

 

 

Alternatively, are we doomed to continually fall prey to our shared programming? Clearly, without realising the significance of these hidden psychological “scriptures” operating within us – dialogue and inquiry will conceal a culture of perpetually unseen projections. Projection must divide and what remains divided, must bring conflict and lack of communication between us. A space where the very atoms of group relationship, split and splinter; blowing apart any potential unity or real inquiry. 

 

 

In my view, the difficulty and the beauty of dialogue, is its direct mirroring of our shared human ignorance. Some will see the intrinsic value in looking at that which seeks to remain hidden. Others will seek beyond and ignore that which remains hidden.

 

 

If I want something out of inquiry, is that an active distraction from what I actually am? Should dialogue be a “temple” where we celebrate the change we wish to be; or is dialogue a “template” that presents, portrays and explores the program of what we actually are?

 

 

If there were a more sustained interest in the process of dialogue: relaxing and listening directly to the assumptions enacting inside each one of us – we wouldn’t need dialogue to be a safe, entertaining or spiritually rewarding place. We would dare to discover the limitations we share, rather than disengage and be divided by the expectations we hold so dear.

 

 

I would not participate in dialogue with a fixed agenda that desires more for my already limited self: I would go and give absolutely everything I have, to partake in the uncovering of it all.

 

Per ardua ad astra.

 

 David Bohm – Interview on the dialogue process.

 

 

 

Jackie Mc Inley

Revised London September 2026