The Hong Kong Philosophy Café – Kowloon Branch Meeting

June 18, 2003

Toward a Culture of Inquiry: David Bohm's model of Dialogue

Introduced by Tavis du Preez

tdupreez@ucalgary.ca

“We are proposing a kind of collective inquiry not only into the content of what each of us says, thinks and feels but also into the also into the underlying motivations, assumptions and beliefs that lead us to do so.”

-David Bohm, Donald Factor, and Peter Garrett

In synchrony with tonight’s topic, HKBU’s quote of the week, as found on their web site’s main page, currently reads:

“A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.”

Why Dialogue?

During the final portion of the last Philosophy Café the moderator, Steve Palmquist, pointed out that some members of that and previous cafés have commented on their own perceptions of cafés as sometimes being rather ‘testosterone’ charged and he wondered aloud how ‘humbleness’ might help to ameliorate the quality of such occasions. Having come from a background of involvement in several self-reflective types of group process[1] I was moved to suggest this topic in hopes of contributing usefully to dialogue suggested by his question.

Who was David Bohm and what where his concerns?

David Bohm was a notable Quantum Physicist (1917-1992) who was particularly known for his book Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Within it he draws upon his knowledge and discoveries within the field of quantum mechanics to postulate a worldview characterized by “undivided wholeness in flowing movement.” The root of ecological, social and all forms of violence, he argues, is that we have forgotten this underlying holistic ontology in favour of an atomistic cultural/thinking pattern, which has resulted in systemic fragmentation of human activity. He noted that many well meaning efforts to heal this fragmentation such as the ecumenical movement and the United Nations have not been fundamentally successful. Such negotiations, at best, may result in some agreement or compromise but they are seldom truly creative. Why? Bohm asserted that reason for this failure is to be found within the nature of thought itself. Not only are the products of thought characterized by fragmentation but so is thought itself. We must realize that thought does not innocently represent the world as it is, but rather that it occurs in and through a multitudinous web of prejudices/assumptions/opinions that deeply bound within culture and language. Transcending the fragmentation brought about through thought was Bohm’s fundamental preoccupation and resulted, after years of group seminar experimentation in the dialogue process, which is concerned not only with examining not only the products of thought (ideas), but with the process of thought itself. A good friend of Einstein and also of the spiritual educator Jidhu Krishnamurti, Bohm’s interests spanned the scientific to the spiritual and reflected his questioning of the fragmentation that he perceived to be the hallmark and challenge of our times.

What is the Dialogue Process?

** Please feel free to take a copy of “Dialogue – A Proposal” by Bohm et al. It provides a useful exposition of the theory and practice of Bohmian dialogue group process **

A useful starting point is to distinguish dialogue from the more familiar medium of interaction – argument. In the most extreme examples of argument, participants interact from respective positions of 'knowing.' Wishful that their own ideas will prevail, they compete with one another without truly listening to the other and in a manner that remains mindless of the possibility that neither of their solutions may be correct. In a sense they are 'full' - they each have the answers. This fullness makes it difficult for the emergence of newness – for a creative thought process to unfold through the interactions of those who are arguing. The energy of the argumentative exchange builds up within the created/false or egoic natures of the arguers. In dialogue (inquiry) participants come together sharing a common question, realizing that whatever 'knowing' they have in its regard is, at best, incomplete. They don't have the answers. This emptiness allows space for newness and creative insight to enter into the inquiry and the growing energy of the dialogue flows through the unfolding questioning rather than being dammed up within the participants own constructed egos.

• Participants (ideally 20-50) sit together in a circle and dialogue with no set agenda. A facilitator may aid in holding the context in the beginning. The facilitator’s role being to aid the group in becoming more self-aware of their own processes and not to direct or control the dialogue. The facilitator should work herself out of a job.

• The cause of much of the uncreative conflict of argument is that participants identify themselves with the ideas (assumptions), which they espouse and they therefore defend these assumptions as if they are defending themselves. But disentanglement of this situation is necessary in order for a truly creative inquiry to unfold. This may occur through a process referred to as suspension. Suspension or self-observation, both within the consciousness of individuals observing their own patterns of reactivity (both positive and negative), and by the group of its own larger patterns of reactivity, alliance formation, topic avoidance, etc. etc. provides an opportunity to come to understand those psychological and cultural influences that are actively altering and affecting the process of inquiry. When these assumptions are thus raised to light and non-judgmentally observed, the inquiry may be released from their limiting influence and resume a more free flowing creativity. Suspension is what creates the “space for newness and creative insight to enter into the inquiry” (above)

• The capacity to sustain suspension in an ongoing manner develops a faculty that Bohm calls proprioception. This term refers to the manner with which a person is normally self-aware of the position and movement of her own limbs. Bohm applies this term to a potential self-awareness that he feels anyone/anygroup may cultivate of the movement and perspective of her own process of thought.
• A sort of impersonal fellowship referred to by the Greek term koinonia (communion, fellowship, intercourse) is necessary amongst participants within a healthy dialogue. When participants release themselves from self-identification with the assumptions that they have been defending, then dialogue may occur as participants come to appreciate themselves as being involved in a “mutual quest for understanding and meaning.” (Bohm et al. 1991)

Suggested Reading:

http://www.david-bohm.net/dialogue/

Bohm, David. On Dialogue ed. by Lee Nichol (London: Routledge, 1996)

Bohm, David. Wholeness and the Implicate Order (London: Routledge, 1995)

Bohm, David., & Peat, David., Science, Order and Creativity (New York: Bantam, 1987)

de Mare, Patrick et al., Koinonia: From Hate, through Dialogue, to Culture in the Large Group (London: Karnac, 1991)

Krishnamurti, J, & Bohm, David., The Limits of Thought (London: Routledge, 1999)

Note re: possible upcoming Dialogue Group meeting:

If you have interest in being informed of such an event, please contact me at tdupreez@ucalgary.ca . I will also try to get the word out at future Philosophy Café meetings and/or through a website announcement.

---

[1] Especially, Community Building groups as developed by Scott Peck ( http://www.fce-community.org/ )and Dialogue groups as described in this presentation.