The Art of Conversation

[Elizabeth (imported)]

This seemed appropriate considering the happenings of late. It was too long to copy the entire article, but I included a key segment. Comment if you wish, but I mostly posted it for the benefit of our membership.

Elizabeth

http://theconversation.edu.au/the-art-o ... ation-1927

Conversation is civilized speech. It is more purposeful than chatter; more humane than gossip; more intimate than debate. But it is an elusive ideal.

In our verbal exchanges we often flip from one topic to another – while conversation suggests something more sustained, more substantial.

A conversation is the encounter of two polished minds: tactful enough to listen, confident enough to express their true beliefs; subtle enough to search out the reasons behind the thoughts.

A conversation is a work of art with more than one creator. So, quite often, two or more people cannot rise to the level of conversation. They talk with one another. It may be cheerful, it may be polite, it may be a bit funny, it may be informative. But it lacks something crucial to conversation: the risk of seriousness.

Secretly we yearn for real conversation, because we long to encounter the best and most substantial versions of other people. We long for the truth of our selves to be grasped and liked by another person.

A classical conception of conversation takes convergence as its final – if distant – goal. When intelligent, reasonable and cultivated people disagree there is almost always some hidden confusion or failure of evidence that explains the lack of harmony. But with time and care these failings can be made good. Classical conversation is the mutual aid in the joint pursuit of the truth.

An interim benefit of such conversation is the light it sheds on what decent people really actually do disagree about. And more than that it illuminates the intimate why: the motives, fears, hopes, associations, key experiences, leaps of logic and quiet deductions – all of the things that add up to explaining why a serious person holds the view they do.

This is surprisingly rare. How often, really, do we appreciate why someone thinks as they do?

This is why true conversation is not quite like a debate. In a debate one feels that an argument has priority. In conversation it is the person that comes first. And though our traditions of law, science and scholarship, and even of politics, make a noble cause of putting the argument first, there is something they lose along the way.

In the end, all beliefs are the beliefs of individuals. This does not establish truth – for what is the case is the case whether anyone assents to it or not.

My point is the worth of a truth, the significance of an idea, the power of a belief, depends on the inner life of the person who holds it. And if we do not know about that inner life, we do not really know that idea.

But this is to move from the classical to a more romantic ideal of conversation. The finest talk with another person is the search for soul-companionship.

[moi621 (imported)]

What if the other person is just taking up air time

and putting me to sleep?

I guess they lack the "art"?

Or they're my boss.

[Dave (imported)]

But that is the Art of Conversation.

How to meet a stranger and interact with them. That means that one side listens and pays attention and then the other side does the same.

Those best at the art won't ever dominate the conversation and won't ever show that they are bored or uninterested.

ANd when conversation is at its best, the participants leave the interlude happy and satisfied.

[Riverwind (imported)]

The art of a great conversation is being a good listener then writing about it, Dick Schaap was one such person, still miss hearing his stories.

river

[butterflyjack (imported)]

I like the soulmate conclusion...Hey, he thinks just like I do...Jackie

[A-1 (imported)]

What if the other person is just taking up air time

and putting me to sleep?

I guess they lack the "art"?

Or they're my boss.

I understand, moi.

However, by courtesy perhaps consider NOT telling every time you feel this way.

It would go a long way in increasing your popularity. You know, people still like you, and you are a part of this place.

(hope you see this, if you don't perhaps somebody will tell you...)

[tugon (imported)]

I like people who talk with me and not at me. Several friendships have ended due to talking at me. I also like to include others in conversations. If I am talking with a friend and another friend stops by I try to include them by getting them up to speed with the conversation. There is nothing more boring to me than being invited to join friends and two talk about something you have no idea what they are talking about.

[janekane (imported)]

For myself, I greatly prefer what has been called "dialogue" to what has been commonly been called "conversation."

To illustrate the contrast, consider looking at:

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

And then consider reading the first paragraph of:

http://www.david-bohm.net/dialogue/dial ... posal.html

Which is:

"Dialogue, as we are choosing to use the word, is a way of exploring the roots of the many crises that face humanity today. It enables inquiry into, and understanding of, the sorts of processes that fragment and interfere with real communication between individuals, nations and even different parts of the same organization. In our modern culture men and women are able to interact with one another in many ways: they can sing dance or play together with little difficulty but their ability to talk together about subjects that matter deeply to them seems invariable to lead to dispute, division and often to violence. In our view this condition points to a deep and pervasive defect in the process of human thought."

***

The core of my work as a professional engineer having a Ph.D. in bioengineering is exploring the "condition" that Bohm, Factor, and Garrett thought "points to a deep and pervasive defect in the process of human thought."

In my bioengineering work that "condition" is not of a defect of any sort in the process of human thought, rather it is a situational (in the social psychology sense) aspect of human sociocultural development, an aspect said development that is as yet not completed, and its incompleteness may masquerade as a defect in the minds of people who accomplished the traditional socialization transition from infancy to childhood in historically conventional ways.

Perhaps a main contrast between conversation and dialogue, as I understand the contrast, is that conversation sometimes allows interchanging the messenger with the message, while dialogue disallows doing that.

[Elizabeth (imported)]

For myself, I greatly prefer what has been called "dialogue" to what has been commonly been called "conversation."

To illustrate the contrast, consider looking at:

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

And then consider reading the first paragraph of:

http://www.david-bohm.net/dialogue/dial ... posal.html

Which is:

"Dialogue, as we are choosing to use the word, is a way of exploring the roots of the many crises that face humanity today. It enables inquiry into, and understanding of, the sorts of processes that fragment and interfere with real communication between individuals, nations and even different parts of the same organization. In our modern culture men and women are able to interact with one another in many ways: they can sing dance or play together with little difficulty but their ability to talk together about subjects that matter deeply to them seems invariable to lead to dispute, division and often to violence. In our view this condition points to a deep and pervasive defect in the process of human thought."

***

The core of my work as a professional engineer having a Ph.D. in bioengineering is exploring the "condition" that Bohm, Factor, and Garrett thought "points to a deep and pervasive defect in the process of human thought."

In my bioengineering work that "condition" is not of a defect of any sort in the process of human thought, rather it is a situational (in the social psychology sense) aspect of human sociocultural development, an aspect said development that is as yet not completed, and its incompleteness may masquerade as a defect in the minds of people who accomplished the traditional socialization transition from infancy to childhood in historically conventional ways.

Perhaps a main contrast between conversation and dialogue, as I understand the contrast, is that conversation sometimes allows interchanging the messenger with the message, while dialogue disallows doing that.

I never intended a preference for the art of conversation, only that conversation is different than debate or dialog. The give and take of conversation does not require agreement or acceptance, only gratuitous listening. This may allow some people to introduce ideas that may be valuable, but not necessarily defensible, that might not be proffered in a debate or dialog setting.

All have value, just for different things.

Elizabeth

Elizabeth

[janekane (imported)]

"Dialogue," as described by Bohm, Factor,and Garrett and by the former MIT Dialogue Group, is not "dialog." Because "dialogue" is not "dialog," that the contrast might be clearer, I gave the web page site information.

I have participated in many dialogue groups, and in all of them, the matter of whether an idea was, or was not, defensible never arose, because, in dialogue, as espoused by Bohm, and others, defending an idea is of the antithesis of dialogue; because, in the dialogue groups of which I have been a member, there is plausible, if not-yet-recognized merit in every idea. Dialogue, as I have experienced it, does not involve defending ideas because dialogue does not include attacking ideas; rather, it only includes sharing and evaluating them for useful merit in particular contexts.