Generative Dialogue (Bohmian dialogue)

[Baraka]

For some time now there have been conversations on the distinctions made concerning generative dialogue and all other forms (by title or purpose). I would like to engage that conversation once mopre to listen to other voices that might or might not see a uniqueness in generative dialogue or an intellectual contiguousness with deliberation.

For me purpose or intent is the instrument of distinction, and on that basis the two are different in both form and function althought there might be considerable similarity in their operational qualities.

Deliberation has an explicit goal to which everything is harnessed. It is a methodology of discernment and choice while dialogue is an effort to address unfolding or revelation, both collectively and individually. Inquiry is critical to both but dialogue makes the larger demand of self exploration. "What are my assumptions?' And in the revelation of the assumptions that support my reality, what can I contribute to the collective consciousness?

In some sense the purpose or goal of generative dialogue is a search for wisdom - nothing more and nothing less. Out of which choosing and acting can be done more humanely and spiritually.
_________________
Generative or Bohmian Dialogue -

[Michael Briand]

To begin with, I think the distinction between dialogue and deliberation is important. As the root of "deliberation" ("weighing") suggests, the purpose of deliberation is to choose, to decide. In contrast, dialogue is an exchange that necessarily entails the acquisition by each party of something it did not possess previously. Thus dialogue implies learning, an expansion of one's knowledge, experience, perception, etc.

But one can learn without intending it or having it as one's purpose. This suggests to me that there are either different kinds of dialogue or, perhaps, different stages in a dialogical continuum. I have always thought of dialogue as a process in which the parties move toward "mutual comprehension" (i.e., understanding and appreciation) of each other's perspective (which encompasses perceptions, experiences, beliefs, attitudes, emotions, etc.). But it strikes me that things can happen both before and after mutual comprehension is achieved. In the early going, the parties may be preoccupied (psychologically) with having certain basic needs met (e.g., the need for a secure identity, which may require "confirmation" or "validation" from the other party). At this early stage, there may be relatively little in the way of self-exploration, questioning of assumptions, disinterested inquiry, etc.

I wonder, then, whether Bohmian generative dialogue describes or marks out a stage or phase of self-questioning, exchange, joint learning, etc. that occurs at a point in psychological transformation that comes after certain other phenomena have occurred.

[mj317522]

I am developing a theory on generative Bohmian Dialogue that I am interested in trying inside Motiva Enterprises LLC. Our conversations, and dialogues (I use the term loosly) are often missing a shared intent. Our gaol is to have a discussion/deliberation on the topic at hand, make some decisions and go about our business. I see the speed of our conversations as too fast for any reflection. In my practice I try to slow the dialogue down to allow space for reflection. I often find myself thinking of responses and solutions to problems that I do not understand. I am always up my Ladder of Inference and a high quality inquiry almost always stops me cold and allows me to consider my intent. By intent I mean to think about my thinking. I am engaged in the conversation and spend no self-reflection on my comments. I feel that those around me are practicing the same techniques. With this dualing advocacy we are often misunderstood. This leads to confusing decisions and actions that do not resolve problems and create collateral damage. I am thinking with the advent of people cacooning in their homes watching TV or listening to music we are loosing our ability to communicate clearly with each other. I had a team once with 12 folks and every Friday we would allow 2 team members to tell their story. The team had been stuck for weeks and could not make progress on its goals. We were dysfunctional! During the story telling the most amazing things happened. People revealed things about themselves that were not known by others. Some of these people had worked together for 20-25 years and did not know eachother. At the end of the process the team became unstuck and performed beyond their own expectations. Here is where my interest in generative dialogue began. My mental model now is to create the opportunity for generative dialogue with teams that have been assembled to investigate causes to something in our refinery going haywire. I think that when people talk about what they want in an audience that actively listens some or our organizational defenses drop. The ability to feel heard is so rare and so humanly rewarding that we love the experience. When it comes to business after these sessions our ability to perform is enhanced and we over achieve. Any inquiry to my assessments and theories? Your inquiry will deepen my own reasoning and I am looking for that experience.

Mike