“Per ardua ad astra”…
Some of us are left bored, let down, uninspired, hurt, confused or utterly frustrated by dialogue. Are you wondering why sometimes it doesn’t go too well or that it could go better? Do dialogue groups at times stay on the surface and spin their wheels with no apparent purpose?
Didn’t Krishnamurti encourage folk to think together, learn the art of listening and inquire seriously into indispensable change? Hasn’t David Bohm said “the ability to dialogue, the ability to participate in communication, is crucial”?
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?
What is the culture of dialogue that has emerged and developed since Krishnamurti’s death? Since K reminds us that “We have created society and that society has conditioned us”; have we created a “dialogue culture” in our retreats, gatherings and online events?
A culture by its very nature usually hides a shared agenda built up over time, history and circumstance. Some traditional cultures view for instance an extravert behaviour as over emotional, lacking in hesitancy and even suspiciously “unstable”. Other cultures view a more logical or articulate expression as merely “intellectual” bypassing reality and a little cold. In both these very obvious examples of cultural identity, is there a more inconspicuous habit of mind hiding in plain sight?
Has listening, careful observation and care for the views of others been usurped by a series of possibly unconscious yet firmly embedded, cultural expectations? More generally speaking, as a participant or facilitator in dialogue, do I have underlying suppositions of people that inform me how they, (or I), should be behaving? When others do not live up to what I deem necessary for “good” dialogue, do I get disappointed? In other words, is dialogue disappointing or am I just unaware of my expectations?Just as outer cultural conditioning creates obvious division between people, is there a latent “tradition” in the inner environment of the human mind, affecting our mutual participation and communication in dialogue? Is dialogue to blame or is our conditioned response, cultivated over time, just not being seen? Am I incapable of looking at my reactions or do I just not realise the impact of not looking at them?
When I am not aware that I am growing irritated with you, a fellow inquirer – that very irritation will colour my impression of you. That impression builds a construct of opinion about you and anything you say will be resisted by the wall that is getting erected. The irritation is attributed to you, when in fact it is being fashioned by inattention to the edifice of conflict building between us.
Without realising the seriousness and significance of these assumptions, that are being generated by me and you in group interactions – dialogue and inquiry will unfortunately hide a culture of perpetually unseen projections.Without uncovering what is covered over by habitual thought and conditioning, the metaphorical “atoms” of group communication will divide and blow apart any presence of natural unity, friendliness and affection. However much we seek to cultivate a “spirit of friendship” in a group, we need to look closely at what is producing its opposite.
Sitting and interacting with others in a dialogue, the workings of thought as perception is relentlessly adding content to a reality taking form; yet it is oblivious to the fact that it is doing this. Reality is perceived as separate from me. We think we are observing the way things actually are, when in fact we are observing the way it is built to appear. Can one be aware that the irritation “you” are causing “me” at this very moment in the group, is a reaction presenting itself to mind; in a sense making itself present both within me and within the group? I may not be aware that I am actively partaking in an environment of interconnection in a group: a culture that seems disconnected from me, but that “I” am directly responsible for creating.
Seeing the misleading nature of thought, it is very understandable that we get the wrong end of the stick in dialogue! We might need more understanding of the difficulty involved: the very tools we use to inquire and communicate are themselves deceptive! A mind – so conditioned by a system of thought that resists any threat to its endless sense of continuity, heritage and security – is tricky to question and interrupt!All this needs to be presented clearly and made explicit throughout the investigation: made clear that amongst each other, we might need to bring this to light. This is what we are giving our attention to, as well as to the topic of inquiry. It is essential I feel, to bring this out at the start of a dialogue, since we – as conditioned participants – are a living, active part of whatever is being investigated. Dialogue of course is only for those who are interested in all this: no influence, coercion or persuasion can cultivate this kind of interest and energy to engage in it.
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 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 hidden agenda that desires more for my already limited little self: we would go and give absolutely everything we have, to partake in the uncovering of it all.
“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
London, September 2024
