Page 109 - Mike Ratner CC - WISR Complete Dissertation - v6

A dialogue in this context has no predefined purpose, no agenda, other than that of inquiring into

the movement of thought and exploring the process of "thinking together" collectively. This

activity can allow group participants to examine their preconceptions and prejudices, as well as to

explore the more general movement of thought. Bohm's intention regarding the suggested

minimum number of participants was to replicate a social/cultural dynamic (rather than a family

dynamic). Bohm’s form of dialogue seeks to enable an awareness of why communicating in the

verbal sphere is so much more difficult and conflict-ridden than in all other areas of human activity

and endeavor. Dialogue should not be confused with discussion or debate, both of which, says

Bohm, suggest working towards a goal or reaching a decision, rather than simply exploring and

learning. Meeting without agenda or fixed objective is to create a "free space" for something new.

Martin Buber came to understand dialogue from his perspective as a scholar of Hebrew

mysticism. His conception of the full dignity of the I-Thou relationship between individuals draws

its inspiration from the dialogic relationship of people to God. Buber identifies three spheres of

dialogue, or “I Thou” relations, which correspond to three types of otherness. We exchange in

language, broadly conceived, with man, transmit below language with nature, and receive above

language with spirit. Socrates is offered as the paradigmatic figure of dialogue with man, Goethe,

of dialogue with nature, and Jesus, of dialogue with spirit. That we enter into dialogue with man

is easily seen; that we also enter into dialogue with nature and spirit is less obvious and the most

controversial and misunderstood aspect of I and Thou. (https://www.iep.utm.edu/buber)

Peter Senge and William Isaacs have discovered the distinctive contribution that dialogue

makes to the success of business teams. Harold Saunders was a professional diplomat before he

began to devote himself full-time to dialogue. Through personal experience, Saunders has seen

dialogue succeed where diplomacy failed in finding common ground among longtime enemies

90