7/29/2019 Toward a Culture of Inquiry

1/3

Toward a Culture of Inquiry: David Bohm's model of Dialogue

Introduced by Tavis du Preeztdupreez@ucalgary.ca

We are proposing a kind of collective inquiry not only into the content of what each of

us says, thinks and feels but also into the also into the underlying motivations,

assumptions and beliefs that lead us to do so.

-David Bohm, Donald Factor, and Peter Garrett

In synchrony with tonights topic, HKBUs quote of the week, as found on their web

sites main page, currently reads:

A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging theirprejudices.

Why Dialogue?

During the final portion of the last Philosophy Caf the moderator, Steve Palmquist,pointed out that some members of that and previous cafs have commented on their own

perceptions of cafs as sometimes being rather testosterone charged and he wondered

aloud how humbleness might help to ameliorate the quality of such occasions. Havingcome from a background of involvement in several self-reflective types of group

process1[1] I was moved to suggest this topic in hopes of contributing usefully to dialogue

suggested by his question.

Who was David Bohm and what where his concerns?

David Bohm was a notable Quantum Physicist (1917-1992) who was particularly known

for his bookWholeness and the Implicate Order. Within it he draws upon his knowledgeand discoveries within the field of quantum mechanics to postulate a worldview

characterized by undivided wholeness in flowing movement. The root of ecological,

social and all forms of violence, he argues, is that we have forgotten this underlyingholistic ontology in favour of an atomistic cultural/thinking pattern, which has resulted in

systemic fragmentation of human activity. He noted that many well meaning efforts toheal this fragmentation such as the ecumenical movement and the United Nations havenot been fundamentally successful. Such negotiations, at best, may result in some

agreement or compromise but they are seldom truly creative. Why? Bohm asserted that

reason for this failure is to be found within the nature of thought itself. Not only are the

products of thought characterized by fragmentation but so is thought itself. We mustrealize that thought does not innocently represent the world as it is, but rather that it

occurs in and through a multitudinous web of prejudices/assumptions/opinions that

7/29/2019 Toward a Culture of Inquiry

2/3

deeply bound within culture and language. Transcending the fragmentation brought about

through thought was Bohms fundamental preoccupation and resulted, after years ofgroup seminar experimentation in the dialogue process, which is concerned not only with

examining not only the products of thought (ideas), but with the process of thought itself.

A good friend of Einstein and also of the spiritual educator Jidhu Krishnamurti, Bohmsinterests spanned the scientific to the spiritual and reflected his questioning of the

fragmentation that he perceived to be the hallmark and challenge of our times.

What is the Dialogue Process?

** Please feel free to take a copy of Dialogue A Proposal by Bohm et al. It provides

a useful exposition of the theory and practice of Bohmian dialogue group process **

A useful starting point is to distinguish dialogue from the more familiar medium of

interaction argument. In the most extreme examples of argument, participants interactfrom respective positions of 'knowing.' Wishful that their own ideas will prevail, they

compete with one another without truly listening to the other and in a manner that

remains mindless of the possibility that neither of their solutions may be correct. In asense they are 'full' - they each have the answers. This fullness makes it difficult for the

emergence of newness for a creative thought process to unfold through the interactions

of those who are arguing. The energy of the argumentative exchange builds up within the

created/false or egoic natures of the arguers. In dialogue (inquiry) participants cometogether sharing a common question, realizing that whatever 'knowing' they have in its

regard is, at best, incomplete. They don't have the answers. This emptiness allows space

for newness and creative insight to enter into the inquiry and the growing energy of thedialogue flows through the unfolding questioning rather than being dammed up within

the participants own constructed egos.

Participants (ideally 20-50) sit together in a circle and dialogue with no setagenda. A facilitator may aid in holding the context in the beginning. The

facilitators role being to aid the group in becoming more self-aware of their ownprocesses and not to direct or control the dialogue. The facilitator should work

herself out of a job.

Thecause of much of the uncreative conflict of argument is that participantsidentify themselves with the ideas (assumptions), which they espouse and theytherefore defend these assumptions as if they are defending themselves. But

disentanglement of this situation is necessary in order for a truly creative inquiry

to unfold. This may occur through a process referred to as suspension.

Suspension or self-observation, both within the consciousness of individuals

observing their own patterns of reactivity (both positive and negative), and by the

group of its own larger patterns of reactivity, alliance formation, topic avoidance,etc. etc. provides an opportunity to come to understand those psychological and

cultural influences that are actively altering and affecting the process of inquiry.

When these assumptions are thus raised to light and non-judgmentally observed,the inquiry may be released from their limiting influence and resume a more free

7/29/2019 Toward a Culture of Inquiry

3/3

flowing creativity. Suspension is what creates the space for newness and creative

insight to enter into the inquiry (above)

The capacity to sustain suspension in an ongoing manner develops a faculty thatBohm calls proprioception. This term refers to the manner with which a person

is normally self-aware of the position and movement of her own limbs. Bohm

applies this term to a potential self-awareness that he feels anyone/anygroup maycultivate of the movement and perspective of her own process of thought.

A sort of impersonal fellowship referred to by the Greek term koinonia(communion, fellowship, intercourse) is necessary amongst participants within a

healthy dialogue. When participants release themselves from self-identificationwith the assumptions that they have been defending, then dialogue may occur as

participants come to appreciate themselves as being involved in a mutual questfor understanding and meaning. (Bohm et al. 1991)

Suggested Reading:

http://www.david-bohm.net/dialogue/

Bohm, David. On Dialogue ed. by Lee Nichol (London: Routledge, 1996)

Bohm, David. Wholeness and the Implicate Order(London: Routledge, 1995)

Bohm, David., & Peat, David., Science, Order and Creativity (New York: Bantam, 1987)

de Mare, Patrick et al., Koinonia: From Hate, through Dialogue, to Culture in the LargeGroup (London: Karnac, 1991)

Krishnamurti, J, & Bohm, David., The Limits of Thought(London: Routledge, 1999)