Comments on: Dialogue Defined

By: admin

admin — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 13:55:28 +0000

That is so well said; thank you for sharing that (and the encouraging words too). “Returning to the place of inquiry” sounds a lot like the practice of returning to the breath or the mantra in meditation, which is so effective–well, sometimes–in dealing with distractions. In this case, the “distraction” is the response one is formulating before the speaker has finished. I’ve never thought of this connection in quite this way, and I appreciate you making it!

By: budding buddhist

budding buddhist — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 21:35:27 +0000

First I’d like to express my gratitude for the thought, heart and work that has been shared in this blog. From what I have read thus far, the depth of understanding of both our human condition and some of our ways of shutting each other out of our awareness and our hearts is right on point.

My own challenge is to notice when I’m beginning to formulate my response to what is being said so that I can stop formulating and return to listening – return to the place of inquiry. Often, I lose that entirely and go straight to my reply. I am finding that to remain in “listening and inquiry” requires much practice and a strong commitment to authentic inquiry and deepening my connection with the speaker and the speaker’s perspective, whether I agree with it or not.

By: admin

admin — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:50:02 +0000

That’s a really interesting way to look at conversation. I think you’ve read my distinction correctly: dialogue is more, well, intentional (not formal, though). But conversation is wonderful, of course, and it can easily find its way into dialogue terrain in just the way you said: it meanders into the topics that are really important. Listening and empathy and compassion happen there too. Cool stuff.

By: Randy Siever

Randy Siever — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 21:50:57 +0000

I’m intrigued by your distinction between conversation and dialogue. In this light, dialogue seems fairly directed, even controlled. It would seem to need some kind of agenda, ground rules, a commitment of time, etc. (like a meeting). Am I reading too much into this?

Conversation does meander, but if it involves us listening more than talking, it usually settles in on what’s important to the one we’re listening to. We have no control (if we’re really listening and not manipulating, of course), but the outcome seems the same…understanding, connection, care. The problem is that conversations have been, in the realm of religion and politics anyway, mostly one-way monologues, with one person impatiently waiting for the other person to finish speaking so we can make our much more important point.