Dialogue on Dialogue

Sunfire Langer has been organizing a series of dialogues in Second Life based on Bohm Dialogue - a style of communication popularized by David Bohm and later followers, and I think, with some of his own innovation.  He invited me to a 1-on-1 dialogue on the notion of "ethical judgments".  At the time of the invitation my understanding was that other topics could also be discussed and I sort of repositioned to the question of "How can people learn or be taught to make this style of dialogue part of what they do with their peers?"  In my view being able to do so would be a good support for the ability to have conversations that involve thinking out ethical issues.

Sunfire Langer:
nice hat

Calvino Rabeni:
TY

Sunfire Langer:
ok, theres a few little things to go through first. Tthis dialogue runs for 45 minutes, is that ok?

Calvino Rabeni:
yes

Sunfire Langer:
do you have any problem with me taking screenshots and using them in a portfolio for further use?

Calvino Rabeni:
NP with that

Sunfire Langer:
excellent. Ok, well we'll start with our notion 'making ethical judgements' and continue on how it progresses. What do you think of when you hear 'making ethical judgements'?

Calvino Rabeni:
Firstly is it possible to turn off the rotating rings, which I find distracting?

Sunfire Langer:
yes
is the rest of it ok?

Calvino Rabeni:
Thanks.  I will get accustomed :)
An next, are you able to give me some background on your process, and the scope of topics you'd be open to, today?
We could start anywhere, but the process might have some "expectations" about how closely to hew to a designated topic ? Or not ?

Sunfire Langer:
ok, what I'm doing here is dialogue, most like bohmian dialogue as the info in the wiki link gives an exposition to. It is about broaching a subject and allowing conversation to flow between participants without denying the statements of another and suspending ones own judgement on the issue to better reach mutual understanding. In trying bohmian dialogue it interests me because discussing in this way brings about, I find, very insightful views

Calvino Rabeni:
I understand that aspect

Sunfire Langer:
the topic is mereley the same notion, and the content is as much you and I as it is about that notion. So whatever your contribution in views to this notion is correct to the project as the dialogue project is about the two people conversing
rather than a strict subject

Calvino Rabeni:
So the notion is negotiated in advance?
And loosely held to, it sounds like?

Sunfire Langer:
loosely held, yes, and I offered the dialogue with that notion already attached to it.

Calvino Rabeni:
I was not clear on that from previous conversations with you

Sunfire Langer:
I'm sorry if theres been misunderstanding, I did make that clear in the first invite to participate

Calvino Rabeni:
We can go with that - how might you put ethical judgments in some context?
And as a note for future - there are other topics I'd like to explore with you

Sunfire Langer:
Ah, now how I would approach understanding that is that the context of the ethical judgement is in the situation where the ethical dilemma presents itself

Calvino Rabeni:
But this one is fine with me for now
I don't much do speculative philosophy in the abstract, and would prefer to choose a context familiar to myself and other people's daily lives

Sunfire Langer:
is there one at the front of your mind, we could discuss that?
If not, I think I have an example I could offer

Calvino Rabeni:
How about - the potential of adapting dialogue practices to one-on-one relationships beween "average" people
With an ethical element of course :)

Sunfire Langer:
that sounds really fascinating, very much a lot of scope in that. I might ask what an "average" person means?

Calvino Rabeni:
The questions are somewhat pragmatic
I mean by that, a wide variety of people ...

Sunfire Langer:
a similar term to 'general public', I see

Calvino Rabeni:
Yes
so not assuming specific characteristics such as being intellectual or philosophically inclined or articulate
So as to facilitate a wide applicability and not require many special orientations or styles
Because I think, actually, this is the key to getting ethical judgments to be functional in people's daily lives

Sunfire Langer:
how would dialoging practices facilitate ethical judgements?

Calvino Rabeni:
Because it could facilitate "deeper" talk, a kind of conversation in which ethical values and thinking can be shared in a more effective way
It would get around many ways such talk is "stuck", in my view

Sunfire Langer:
I think too it would encourage a culture of listening in relating to each other, it is an active thing and if its missing, people cant communicate

Calvino Rabeni:
Yes certainly
Listening and relating is the background in which the intelligence of communication - about ethics or anything else - occurs
We do this in a "conversation cafe" format
But my additional interest is how to do it 1 on 1, because those relatioships are a lot more available
than a special group set-up
Thus my interest in how it could be brought to informal peer relationships

Sunfire Langer:
definitely, I think it is an approach underappreciated

Calvino Rabeni:
Agree
In 1-on-1 there are habits that get in the way
In the group, the group context can keep things "open"
But, I think people can learn to hold their own "openness" in the 1-on-1 setting, same as provided by the group setting
It is partly an educational issue, in my opinion
by which I mean, framing and naming the idea

Sunfire Langer:
the key to good dialogue, it seems to me, is like in theatre improvisation games. If somebody denies what another person brings into the space (either by ignoring it or by saying it is something other than what it is) then the space breaks down. So there would need a way that sharing opinions would ALWAYS be done to space that will not threaten that opinion

Calvino Rabeni:
Yes, I've done those games, you want to create a "yes, and" response, and to make the other person look good in what is emerging
I'm thinking, if one wanted to teach this, then some of the techniques from "flirting" could be applied to this end, without the sexual intent

Sunfire Langer:
if we encounter a 'no' response, there's competition for defining the conversation, but with a 'yes, and' response there isn't.

Calvino Rabeni:
true

Sunfire Langer:
I see that in flirting theres ways to draw attention and encourage the other to open up, or divulge themselves

Calvino Rabeni:
Also there's a certain school of thought about this that draws on the analogy between sexuality and creativity - the idea is to get a creative and kind of fun emotional climate
In flirting there's a sense of co-creating also
In that case, co-creating the potential of a new relationship
I think that gives people motivation
The motivations are nearly always tacit, and I think they work best that way
In practice that is, but when talking about how to promote the process, one could look at motivations

Sunfire Langer:
there is an emotional thrill to creating something with another, it invests you in it

Calvino Rabeni:
Yes, people like that, and it seems healthy and enlivening
I think it builds, rather than dissipating

Sunfire Langer:
so as well as you informing the creation, the creating it excites and teaches you about yourself

Calvino Rabeni:
surely :)

Sunfire Langer:
knowing how to promote it, I think is quickly found by reverse engineering it. What breaks a fun emotional climate, for instance?

Calvino Rabeni:
For me, it would be "ideology"
Or the fear of injury to sensitive emotional issues
Or hidden agendas that don't seem negotiable
Or a lack of motivating focus

Sunfire Langer:
I understand fear and manipulation interrupting that kind of climate, could you tell me more about how ideologies do?

Calvino Rabeni:
Yes, certainly. An ideology means that person A does not really care about who person B is and what they think / value, but only in whether they are orthodox to some preconceived system.
I see it as tacitly coercive, and also disconnecting from awareness of individuals
If there's a shared ideology it might be less coercive, but might limit things on other ways

Sunfire Langer:
in philosophical contexts this is being very presumptious, but in all interactions that dynamic stifles creativity and play. It doesnt leave space for ideas or opinions to develop and emerge naturally. It turns out like a prescription, but at any rate something that is an obstacle to be negotiated

Calvino Rabeni:
Well you're probably experienced in all the things that make a philosophical discussion not a shared exploration, but a sequence of competing monologues, or other ways to be stodgy

Sunfire Langer:
competing monologues is a brilliant phrase for that

Calvino Rabeni:
For instance, person A appears to have the attitude - how can I take you seriously if you don't know Kant", etc.

Sunfire Langer:
monologue, because its a failure to dialogue; a lack of engagement with the other person.

Calvino Rabeni:
Any kind of implicit manipulation and its consequent resistance, would lead to a breakdown of that engagement
Another one, I've noticed - is not engaging on different "levels"
For lack of a better word

Sunfire Langer:
levels of familiarity with the subject? levels of study?

Calvino Rabeni:
I was thinking, e.g. on a feeling level, on some kind of "spiritual" level - with non-analytical ways people relate and communicate
It seems often, philosophical conversations carry some emotional subtext that is negative - mocking, derisive, cold, whatever
And thus they create a double-bind for the participants

Sunfire Langer:
thats, I think, symptomatic of academic debates of philosophy - where the intention is to weaken the other's point. But the exercise in philosophy as exploration is very foreign to that
Intellectual openness - emotional negative charge combine to create a go / no go split motivation

Calvino Rabeni:
Yes, it kills true engagement in my opinion

Sunfire Langer:
you're dead right

Calvino Rabeni:
I saw a discussion in this island of "empathy" which had no empathy in it - to me, extremely ironic to discuss a topic intellectually while guaranteeing that it could not be present experientially
Nor even referenced, except in the abstract

Sunfire Langer:
but when we're not engaging with another, we are denying them an interaction with us. Denying their contribution to co-creating

Calvino Rabeni:
Yes true, and that gets demotivating, boring
not creative

Sunfire Langer:
it seems our obstacle is this mentality of competition, both in debating and relationships one-to-one informally with average people
but it emerges not as intellectual competition, but as emotional competition

Calvino Rabeni:
Competition seems part of it - but also a climate of fear to disclose, based on some sense of emotional vulnerability
I think that's a big one for people who don't consider themselves competitive - some women friends come to mind
and they see "male" conversation as competitive, and that means something negative to them
There are *many* aspects to that state of isolation, once you start to deconstruct it

Sunfire Langer:
yes, what strikes me with people with that high level of humility is that something in their lives has taught them to make themselves smaller (some men do it too)

Calvino Rabeni:
By isolation I mean, the climate of disengagement
That is a liberating skill

Sunfire Langer:
yes! and isolation is bad for the human being, so whilst not literal isolation, disengagement isolates a person in being unable to interact, unable to co-create, and over time will be damaging

Calvino Rabeni:
Yes, and then they get "hardened" in the sense that, an approach to engagment will bring an experience of the pain of long-term disconnection simply by contrast