i joined some kind of dedicated (sic) experiment in dialogue a few years ago, a la the rheomode style of David Bohm. I expereinced a similar dynamic. The immergence in my case was that they quickly went into linear formation, jeuvenile name calling, (original art-works would have been more interesting for me;-)and finally in some nice 'groupthink'.
I think a point missed by many experts who deal in this area may rest in, so far as i ever understood Bohm re. dialogue, he was interested in creativity at it's fundamental levels.
The yingANDyang is neat ;-) like poetry can be 'neat'
In the book The Blackwinged Night, Chapter 2, David Peat points to poetry (poiesis - self generating creativity?) where the vision emerges for this 'subject'/'me' as the (this) inter-activity between ying and yang (son and daughter of...) through Dylan Thomas..."The force that through the green fuse drives the flower."

Innocent ;-)
"... a western authors dualistic model was being used to argue against dualistic thinking and wasn’t this a contradiction" ?
Why should a non-dualistic thinker have a problem with such a contradiction?
Personally, I still have problems to really understand pure yang. I can think it through, but I have a hard time not going beyond: "the yin-yang does not get the yang".

I am no expert, but I thought I could share a few insights I have on the topic.

1- indeed separating 'dialogue from 'debate/discussion' is yet another illusion of our minds, as Bohm would probably point out. Both are models, guides, and might be useful, but they are NOT reality... Personally I like to see them both as 'states of conversations'. A 'creative conversation', one where 'novelty' emerges out of NoWhere and Now & Here is one where ALL types of conversations are experienced and flow seemlessly.

2- Under 'pressure' a sustained 'dialogic' setup, i.e with no center, no rules, and no agenda, but focused on an apparent 'contradiction', maybe a Koan, is a great way to feel discomfort, just like a very passionate discussion/debate would. But where discussion is 'Ego'- centric, Dialogue dissolves the ego, and opens the mind to some strange feeling that we are all interconnected in some way. This is NOT GroupThink, but a newer and, it seems, deeper level of understanding...

3- I think it is fair to perceive that 'western' culture is well embedded in debate/discussion as the default mode of conversation (dating back the Greeks really !), and that MANy other cultures (not just eastern, African, Middle East, native americans) are more diolgic of nature, as the emphasis is less on the individual but on the comunity and its survival/health...
pushed to en extreme, both are unhealthy....

Nice to see a discussion developing on this theme (I will avoid the debate/dialogue words)

I think one of the mistakes people make is to see debate as "ego" centric. Properly understood it is a form of ritual - taking a position to see how it can be sustained without necessarily believing in it.

I have seen people manipulate dialogue through their command of language and use it to build their ego at the expense of the group - they are ever so humble. Manipulation can extend from the simple use of verbal tricks "I'd just like to build on ...." to more sophisticated and dangerous use of legitimising language, in which only certain forms of expression are permitted. A lot of so called dialogue is just another name for a prayer meeting with the facilitator replacing the preacher. In fact you can see cult like tendencies in many of the more extreme forms.

The mistake is to say that one is better than the other, they are different and work in different ways. That said its about time we tipped the balance towards logic a bit and tested some assumptions. The pendulum has swung too far in one direction.

The other major confusion I see (and its in your last paragraph) is assuming that debate necessarily is about individuals when it isn't. If you study indigenous cultures you will see that ritualised debate is as present as in the "west". Debate can be individual or collective, so can dialogue. I'm sorry I just don’t buy this East-West dichotomy. To make it work you have to take a limited aspect of each cultural tradition not the full range, and even if it was ever true it isn't any more.

I always liked the way At de Lange would encourage the idea of 'reality' as something encompassing everything, so that an 'idea' is reality, a 'vision' of say an artist like Blake is a reality, an 'angel' is a reality - quantum mechanics is a 'reality' and to escape the Bohm aspect, for a moment, i always rather liked this passage, by Michael Polanyi,

“Minds and problems possess a deeper reality than cobblestones, although cobblestones are admittedly more real in the sense of being tangible. And since I regard the significance of a thing as more important than its tangibility, I shall say that minds and problems are more real than cobblestones. Dead matter, matter that is both lifeless and deathless, takes on meaning by originating living things... The field of new potential meanings was so rich that this enterprise, once started, swept on toward an infinite range of higher meanings, unceasingly pouring them into existence, for the better part of a billion years. ... Rising stages of evolution produce more meaningful organisms, capable of even more complex acts of understanding. What is the relationship of the significance criterion to the revelatory criterion? Polanyi follows up his statement that minds and problems are more real than cobblestones with this elaboration: "This is to class our knowledge of reality with the kind of foreknowledge which guides scientists to discovery". This foreknowledge includes an inarticulate ability to sense clues which can be successfully indwelt and integrated into meaningful comprehensive entities. The same structure of coming to know underlies our comprehension of people, problems, and cobblestones, but the former have a rich diversity of aspects not exhausted by our knowledge of one facet of their existence. Hence they will reveal themselves in unexpected ways, which are signs of their significance. But our knowledge of reality is also confirmed after the fact by the criterion we use to assess knowledge.”

I think i like it in this context because Dave seems to elevate meaning making as a reason for his work, and i suspect Polanyi is doing a similar thing?

BTW, i often complement a painting or image with a text, i have one for this, so if anyone would like to see that, just e-mail me and i'll send it along.

warmest

Andrew

Im my early days of learning, I cam across a phrase that says; "communication is sometime a Monologue disguise as a Dialouge" So Dave is quite right that a dialogue usually is manipulated for a preconcieved outcome of a buy-in like in most communication or change management. In many sense it is a tools intended for that. Whereas, I tend to agree with Dave that Debate will bring out the true dissenting views that organisation sorely needs for radical change. My 2 cents worth.

Just to take a contrary tack, debate is not without its problems - mostly when the ritual element is under- or over-played. With too little ritual it becomes personal and with too much it becomes sterile point-scoring.

Rather depressingly, I found heaps of pages like this: http://www.rcas.org/tag/Dialogue_Debate.htm

I was slightly amused to find that debate "Demands a conclusion". No! The talking must go on and on forever...

Kim: Most organisations are scared of debate. Good debate is predicated on your opponent being your equal. Good debate would mean having to listen & formulate counter-arguments rather than just sticking fingers in ears and going "la la".

Matt - that web site is really depressing .....

all good points; I too have seen all types of conversations being 'badly' manipulated (I could be tempted to play with words and sttate the BY DEFINITION ALL conversations are manipulations i.e the product of human beings nd bodies!)...

I would like to come back because I stand to be corrected and got carried away in note (thks dave).

Who am I to know what other 'cultures' do and do not, are and are not, I should be humbled by the fact that I quite frankly struggle to put names and labels on my OWN culture....

So let me give it a second try, if I may.

My experience in my private AND professional (in a VERY big anglo saxon corporation) settings is that the vast majority of the conversations I participate in are... very poor. Whether they are debates or dialogues is irrelevant; the felt fact is that, depsite best efforts, I find myself, and observe around me people having 'serial monologues' and not entering the dance.... So that we end the conversation, at best as if nothing had happened, or at worse, feeling more isolated, misunderstood and separated than before.

So what ?
I am struck by Dave's use of the word 'ritual', and the other comments along those lines.

A conversation is a very precious moment where two or more beings desperately try to 'connect' through expressing their differences or their commonality, or both. I find that such momment is spoiled before starting by lacking awareness of its importance. A ritual is a good way to remind oneself of such thing (and yes, it can be manipualted and overplayed too !)... In the end, one should do whatever it takes to be 'present' and bring this magical mix of weght and 'conviction' and openness and readiness to accept what is 'other'.

Easier to say.....

Fully agree with you niclas

http://www.FoolQuest.com/fooltrek_faq/fooltrek_faq_II_b_honesty.htm