Author: [[David Bohm]] ## Main idea [[Dialogue is the process of aligning meaning]]. - Dialogue is the iterative creative process that facilitates the emergence of a common meaning. ^985ab2 - Communication, according to its Greek root, means to make something common. - "Thus, if people are to co-operate (i.e., literally to “work together”) they have to be able to create something in common, something that takes shape in their mutual discussions and actions, rather than something that is conveyed from one person who acts as an authority to the others, who act as passive instruments of this authority* (p.3)" - In a dialogue, people are not only making something common, but making something in common. They together are making new meanings. - We can have dialogues with inanimate objects, or at least conversations to a certain degree. - "*Even in relationships with inanimate objects and with nature in general, something very like communication is involved. Consider, for example, the work of an artist. Can it properly be said that the artist is expressing himself, i.e., literally “pushing outward” something that is already formed inside of him? Such a description is not in fact generally accurate or adequate. Rather, what usually happens is that the first thing the artist does is only similar in certain ways to what he may have in mind. As in a conversation between two people, he sees the similarity and the difference, and from this perception something further emerges in his next action. Thus, something new is continually created that is* (p. 3)*" - *But you are not actually creating a common meaning?* ## Notes For people to cooperate they need to be able to communicate. To make something common. *Evidently, communication in the sense described above is necessary in all aspects of life. Thus, if people are to co-operate (i.e., literally to “work together”) they have to be able to create something in common, something that takes shape in their mutual discussions and actions, rather than something that is conveyed from one person who acts as an authority to the others, who act as passive instruments of this authority* (p.3) In a dialogue, people are not only making something common, but making something in common. They together are making new meanings. Me: I think this is very relevant for [[human-AI creative collaboration]] because dialogue therefore is fundamentally a creative process. We can have dialogues with objects as well. Bohm gives the example of an artist that makes something in common with the material. This reminds me of [[Lambros Malafouris]] and [[Material Engagement Theory]] *Even in relationships with inanimate objects and with nature in general, something very like communication is involved. Consider, for example, the work of an artist. Can it properly be said that the artist is expressing himself, i.e., literally “pushing outward” something that is already formed inside of him? Such a description is not in fact generally accurate or adequate. Rather, what usually happens is that the first thing the artist does is only similar in certain ways to what he may have in mind. As in a conversation between two people, he sees the similarity and the difference, and from this perception something further emerges in his next action. Thus, something new is continually created that is* (p. 3) Dialogue can be seen as a river of meaning flowing between two or more people *I give a meaning to the word “dialogue” that is somewhat different from what is commonly used. The derivations of words often help to suggest a deeper meaning. “Dialogue” comes from the Greek word dialogos. Logos means “the word,” or in our case we would think of the “meaning of the word.” And dia means “through”—it doesn’t mean “two.” A dialogue can be among any number of people, not just two. Even one person can have a sense of dialogue within himself, if the spirit of the dialogue is present. The picture or image that this derivation suggests is of a stream of meaning flowing among and through us and between us.* (p6) For Bohm, the main source of conflict is that we each have different representations of objects in the world, informed by assumptions, emotions, contexts, etc. Therefore, we form different meanings and sometimes these meanings don’t align. He gives the example of a dialogue where one person considered Zionism as the main impediment for harmonious relationships between muslims and Jews in the Middle East, while for some other person considered Zionism as the only thing that kept the country from falling apart. Me: therefore a process of dialogue consists on aligning these meanings for a shared context, this is similar to what is described in [[Cooperative AI machines must learn to find common ground (Dafoe et al., 2021)]] #Paper Bohm, David, Peter M. Senge, and Lee Nichol. 2004. _On Dialogue_. Routledge.