1. DIALOGUE: THROUGH LOGIC

 

The coexistence of different visions, values, interests and needs is present in any human society. The more diversity of lifestyles, the more opportunities to choose how we want to be. The threshold of coexistence of differences is when one life puts the existence of another at risk. As we are members of such a vast population, which produces so many things that require natural resources and the occupation of preserved spaces, we have the great challenge of making this coexistence possible, so that we can all flourish together, and each one according to their own singularities. 

​

Physicist David Bohm delved deeper into this issue when he discovered that science committed serious errors of perception due to the inability of mutual understanding between truths that coexisted: the fragmenting vision of rationalist thinking prevented them from understanding the complexity of the phenomena they were researching. Bohm dedicated many years of his life to promoting conversation circles between people who had different knowledge and knowledge, and sought to create ways for these meetings to generate in their participants an expanded capacity to understand some phenomena in life.

​

His greatest quest was to find meanings that could be more relevant than our particular beliefs and assumptions. One of his conclusions was that, within the scope of our thinking, it is possible to change the meanings that prevent us from coexisting harmoniously in diversity. For him, the system of thought does not only include thoughts and feelings, but also the state of the body: “thought is passing back and forth between people, in a process by which it has evolved since ancient times”, he argues.

And how can we change our thinking and make it better suited to understanding the world? Bohm's great banner in life was that this “something beyond'' capable of crossing our barriers can be found through dialogue.

​

For many years I thought that in the word dialogue, “day” referred to “two”, therefore “two logics”. Thus, it was a synonym for “conversation” or “debate”. But, when a friend returned from a course at the School of Dialogue, he told me about this other concept, inspired by Bohm:

 

Etymologically, the term “Dialogue” results from the fusion of the Greek words dia and logos. Dia means “through”. Logos was translated into Latin as ratio (reason). But it has several other meanings, such as “word”, “expression”, “speech”, “verb” and, mainly, “meaning” itself. In the oldest sense of the word, logos means “relationship”, “relationship”.

​

In this way, Dialogue is a way of circulating meanings and meanings. This means that when we practice the word ligainstead of separating. Brings together instead of dividing. Thus, Dialogue is not an instrument that seeks to get people to defend and maintain their positions, as happens in discussion and debate. [...]

​

Dialogue is, par excellence, the process through which we identify and question crystallized ideas and positions — the assumptions on which our judgments, choices, preferences, actions are based. Dialogue is more than a technique: it is a way of conducting conversations that brings a new view of the world, relationships and processes. At the same time, it resumes ancestral practices of contact and group integration.

 

Bohm was a pioneer in the formation of a field of knowledge aimed at qualifying our conversations so that we can transform ourselves and the world. Nowadays, there are countless innovative dialogic practices in the field of education, science and in the area of ​​organizational management. A common point between these practices is the understanding that through dialogue we create new meanings for our existence and can transform the way we think, feel and act in the world.

We can then meditate a little on this question from David Bohm: “Suppose we could share meanings freely, without a compulsive impulse to impose our vision or to conform to others and without distortion and self-deception. Will this not constitute a true revolution in culture?”