When was the last time you held a dialogue on the topic of dialogue?
an inquiry into shared inquiry
I've been pondering the question ... What is dialogue? It's not enough simply to know widely accepted definitions in my inquiry, as my inquiry, in a very particular sense — a philosophical sense — is an inquiry into the basic nature of inquiry itself. It's an inquiry which includes the inquiry ... What is inquiry? That is, it's purpose does not end in finding an acceptable definition. Rather, the aim of such inquiry is what is sometimes called "understanding" and at other times is called "insight".
When I typed those last ten words or so something happened. I felt a shimmering sensation in my legs and left shoulder, and also down in the area just above my left hip and lower left abdomen. Most often, these sort of tingly, shimmering sensations (which are quite distinct and not terribly subtle, really) appear when I'm in a certain kind of "groove"... the sort of "groove" I imagine jazz musicians have spoken about when they are really letting go into the majesty of allowing music to course through them, vis-a-vis their instrument.
Sometimes I imagine these shimmering sensations are the 'melting' of what Wilhelm Reich called "armor" -- or something roughly akin to this.
“Armoring is the condition that results when energy is bound by muscular contraction and does not flow through the body” (Reich:1936) . He saw that there existed character armouring which he defined as “the sum total of typical character attitudes, which an individual develops as a blocking against their emotional excitations, resulting in rigidity in the body, and lack of emotional contact ”. He defined muscular armouring as “the sum total of muscular (chronic muscular spasms) which an individual develops as a block against the breakthrough of emotions and organ sensations, particularly anxiety, rage and sexual excitation” (Reich:1936).
from - Reichian Segmental Armouring Theory | Muscular Body Armour (energeticsinstitute.com.au)
... but the mode of my inquiry is such that I do not place theories before direct, immediate experience, in the sense of letting the theory direct the experience, or determine it. My trust -- my faith, if you will -- is in the sensations themselves. And my faith was just now abundantly confirmed when I said so just now and those sensations moved up several notches of intensity and expanded to include much more of my embodied life in this moment. A life I treat as fundamentally mysterious -- and this attitude of welcoming to mystery is an essential aspect of my practice of this somatic, embodied, enworlded faith. (See Notes below for a definition of 'enworlded,' a neologism which I believe I may be the coiner of.)
Philosophically, I'm utterly convinced that we humans know a great deal more than we know that we know in explicit terms, and which is readily expressible in words. Indeed, I am an apprentice to the tacit knowing of the soma (this very lived body as it is experienced from within). Perhaps, then, I'm an apprentice to what is sometimes called intuition. What is intuition, if not tacit knowing seeking its rightful form or mode of expression in any given moment? Is intuition a form of Jazz? Something we let go into and which emerges more strongly when we get out of its way and just let it happen?
Perhaps this is also true of dialogues -- or can be? A dialogue has a life bigger than the sum of its participants ('parts'). It's just exactly like jazz, then, isn't it?
It seems to me we're living at the end of an age. The age we're living through the ending of is sometimes called 'modernity' -- by folks like Vanessa Machado de Oliveira and Dougald Hine.
I can feel it in my bones and breath--and shimmering in my torso--that our best service to this time of letting go of one age, and welcoming another, must have dialogue as part of it's core praxis.
Curiously, this means we must have dialogues which are -- at times -- focusing on inquiry into the very nature of dialogue itself --, in which we ask (inquire): What is dialogue? Not to provide an answer, but to deepen our insight and understanding. These dialogues are ideally held face-to-face in small groups -- body-to-body. They can be held by Zoom and other virtual interfaces, but the soma wants better than that, I know.
It's strange to consult an AI device in sincere inquiry, as I did today. But I did -- this morning. And ChatGPT was actually helpful. I wanted clarity on what distinguishes dialogue and debate. And this machine, which never felt an insight in its 'body' (soma), said this.:
James: What do dialogue and debate have in common? In what specific and particular ways are they different and distinct?
Robot: Dialogue and debate are both forms of communication where individuals exchange ideas and perspectives. However, there are some key differences between the two.
In a dialogue, the goal is to understand and learn from one another. The focus is on building mutual respect and trust, and the conversation is characterized by active listening, asking questions, and sharing perspectives in a non-judgmental way. The aim is to achieve a shared understanding and to identify common ground, even if the parties involved have different opinions or beliefs.
In contrast, in a debate, the goal is to persuade others that your point of view is correct. The focus is on presenting arguments and evidence to support your position, and the conversation is characterized by a more competitive and confrontational tone. The aim is to win the argument, often by convincing others that your perspective is the most valid or reasonable.
One way to distinguish between dialogue and debate is by the use of language. In a dialogue, individuals use language that is inclusive, open-ended, and invites participation, while in a debate, language may be more adversarial, confrontational, and aimed at scoring points.
Overall, while dialogue and debate both involve communication and exchanging ideas, they have different goals, approaches, and tones. Understanding the differences between these two forms of communication can help individuals choose the most appropriate approach for different situations and contexts.
* * * * *
When I really feel into this, I realize that dialogue is a form of mutual inquiry which has generosity and kindness at its heart. Or, at least, it ought to be, ideally.
As we let go of one age and enter another, let us enter into many nourishing dialogues. And perhaps we ought to begin by asking -- in open inquiry -- What is dialogue? What can it be? What does it want to become?
* * * * *
This article or essay (above) — or whatever it is — first appeared in Deep Transformation Network, where I and others are exploring what we are calling Reweaving Knowing, which is an emerging but still insipient and inchoate possible set of future contemplative practices which intends to very potently include dialogue as part of its repertoire of practices.
Reweaving Knowing (RK) intends to invite open inquiry, dialogue, sensory experiencing, phenomenological inquiry, embodied mindfulness, etc., into an ongoing collaborative dialogical inquiry into the question of how we may integrate the faculties of thinking, sensing, feeling, intuiting and imagining as a means of knowing (all verbs rather than nouns). The basic premise underlying this inquiry is that somehow the modern world has forgotten how to “know” in such an integrated way, and that the result is a lot of confusion about what we think or imagine ourselves to “know”. We’re also very interested in the distinction between the verb form of “knowing” as contrasted with the noun form: knowledge. How can treating knowing as a verb help us open our sensory imaginings and intuitions. We ask such questions as “How is knowing—the verb and process form—experientially different from the more common noun form, ‘knowledge’? And how does using the verb form open otherwise foreclosed possibilities for us in inquiry?
We’re basically exploring rather profound philosophical questions in playful, experimental, freshly enlivening ways. And my time and energy is becoming ever more intensively involved in this RK inquiry, so naturally I’ll be sharing more about it with you here.
___________________________________
Notes:
1. 'Enworldment' is offered as a complementary term in relation to 'embodiment' in somatic philosophy. The basic idea is that just as there is no mountain without a valley, no up without a down, no yes without a no (and a maybe), no day without a night ... there is no embodiment without enworldment. These two are aspects of one another rather similarly to how yin and yang are understood as mutually entangled in Classical Taoism. That is, we cannot truly understand what 'embodiment' is (in somatics and somatic philosophy and psychology) except in a context in which enworldment is a fundamentally necessary aspect of the whole of such an understanding. The soma, in other words, is always enworlded. If 'embodiment' practices are meant to awaken the fullness of embodied presence, enworldment practices are meant to awaken the fullness of insight into the worldedness of the body/soma.
Dearest James I don't have much to say, except that I feel very much alongside, with you in your journey. You express well and clearly, and help to articulate my own journey, in your expressiveness. You have lots of energy for output. I am truly grateful. Thank you, your brother, Andy
The poetic philosopher in myself -- and I think we all have such a thing in ourselves, which we will notice upon any genuine practice of serious philosophical inquiry -- loves words, language and thought ... but Just as much loves 'silence'. But what is silence? That's a profound question which we can meet both with words and without them.
During the crazy times of Covid, Don Hanlon Johnson, shared with us some words about 'silence' which come from a lifetime of inquiry about the dialogue between silence and words.
I want to say from the silence ... that words so much require silence ... if they are to emerge as worthy of words, and no less so now than ever.
But there is something awry -- I feel -- when we favor words over silence or silence over words. These are complementary for two-legged beings such as ourselves. A dance is nothing if not a continuous losing and regaining of our balance. To live on two legs attentively shows us why this is so.
To become 'found' we must first become "lost". To get lost, we invite becoming found. To topple over is nothing to be ashamed of.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViJca9jaS-w&t=528s
https://donhanlonjohnson.com/