Some of us are left bored, let down, uninspired, hurt, confused or utterly frustrated by dialogue.
In the spirit of investigation I ask: why is dialogue and group inquiry sometimes viewed as “disappointing” or “not that important” when K and Bohm saw it as potentially significant in the whole field of self-knowledge?
So, what does group dialogue look like since Krishnamurti’s death? 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 fosters real inquiry and leads to fundamental change, or does it incubate and reinforce existing conditioning and constraints?
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 influences how we interpret events, behaviours and even our own emotional reactions. By extension in dialogue groups, are there shared inner agendas “hiding in plain sight” and implicit in the whole process?
Is careful listening, affection and clear observation being usurped in groups by a dissatisfied culture of unresolved and unmet requirements? 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 motivations, determine my level of enthusiasm or disappointment in the dialogue itself? When the outcome does not measure up to an anticipated fulfilment of some kind, is there frustration or disturbance? In other words: is dialogue disappointing, or are we unaware of the mind’s unseen or unresolved expectations, and the implications that this generates?
Outward cultural conditioning creates obvious division between people. Is there a psychological ecosystem of thinking that is affecting both our lives and the lives of others we engage with? Is our “culture of dialogue” presenting a landscape of disorder, conflict and confusion; or rather one of insight, clarity and deeper understanding? This surely is an important question to ask ourselves as we continue to propose or attend Krishnamurti or Bohm inspired dialogues throughout the world.
Conditioned responses structure the nature of culture and mind, both individually and across our communities. These dialogues are concerned with questioning and inquiring into this conditioning to see if there can be a liberation from these perpetual patterns of existence and relationship. Is dialogue a place to discuss these patterns conceptually, or a space to actually bring them to light?
For instance during the exchanges and interactions, I might be irritated by a fellow participant in the group, yet completely ignorant of the severance in the space between us. The irritation that is attributed to you, is in fact inattention to a sense of conflict generating within me. Do I give attention to these reactions being set in motion, or do I not realise the impact of not giving attention? Lack of awareness and the false assumptions that ensue, may be cultivating a whole field of conflict, I do not see that I am participating in.Without realising the seriousness and significance of these assumptions operating within us, dialogue and inquiry will unfortunately hide a culture of perpetually unseen projections. A space where the very “atoms” of relationship divide and blow apart any potential unity or real inquiry.
Many may determine that merely cultivating the conditions of friendship, affection and togetherness in a group, is the blueprint for “good dialogue”. But can deliberate conditions expose and dispel conditioning? Or does the persuasion of particular conditions, however well-meaning, create the very culture in which division thrives?Sitting and interacting with others in a dialogue, the workings of thought as perception is relentlessly adding content to a reality taking form. Although everyday consciousness is usually oblivious to the fact that it is doing this. Reality is perceived as separate from me. We think we are observing the way things are, when in fact we are observing the way things are conditioned to appear. Am I aware in dialogue that I am part of a culture that seems disconnected from me, but that I might be directly responsible for creating?
We as participants of dialogue groups, might need to be alerted to the possibly deceptive nature of thought: the reactions we can project onto others, simply by being inattentive. We must give our attention to the mind – as well as to the topic of inquiry itself. It makes sense to bring this out at the start of a dialogue. We as conditioned participants, are the embodiment of whatever is being looked into; as well as the active ingredient of resistance to that looking.
In my view, the difficulty and the beauty of dialogue is its direct mirroring of our shared, collective ignorance. Some will see the intrinsic value in looking at that which seeks to remain hidden. Others will always seek elsewhere, and ignore that which remains hidden. We are probably all a strange mixture of both and definitely all actors of a conditioned script written by the history of all humanity.
If there were more sustained interest in the process of dialogue – meaning taking the trouble to learn the art of listening – to directly realise the limitations of the mind 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 assumptions we hold dear.
We would not go to dialogue with a stubborn agenda that desires more for my already limited self: we would go and give absolutely everything we have, to partake in the uncovering of it all.
“Per ardua ad astra”…?
“Why are they in dialogue? Because they see the significance, they see the value of it. Therefore they form the purpose. It’s not to impose a purpose. If these people can see the significance and value, they will have the purpose and they will stick with it. Anybody who wants to do anything difficult has to go through difficulties and stick with it. Right?”
David Bohm – Interview on the dialogue process.
Jackie Mc Inley
Revised London July 2025
