David Bohm and Dialogos pt.1

A quantum philosopher's vision for the necessity of dialogue

David Bohm was a pioneering quantum physicist and philosopher known for his work on ‘the implicate order’ (of reality) as well as his decades-long dialogue with mystic-philosopher J.Krishnamurti. Bohm was the grandfather and inspiration to a movement of dialogue that has spread around the world and is now coming to the forefront of transformative culture. In this piece, I’ll be exploring the core insights of his posthumous work ‘On Dialogue’ (1996) and weaving in some of my own insights. I certainly recommend this short book as it’s the best I’ve yet read concerning dialogue and still stands today as an excellent field guide to those those curious about the practice and power of dialogue. In On Dialogue, Bohm shows us how dialogue holds profound implications for culture and society as well as our understanding of mind and consciousness.

David Bohm

Bohm, Dialogue and Dialogos:

Bohm advocated and practiced an intentional approach to dialogue that goes beyond everyday conversation. Known for some as ‘Bohm dialogue’, this emergent process allowed dialogue to engender "a flow of meaning" which Bohm called 'Dialogos'. Dialogos has exploded in relevance since 2020 through the emergent collaboration of several fascinating philosophers and practitioners. Vervaeke, Hall, Mastropietro & Sengstock pioneered & exemplified this on Youtube and we’ve since seen Dialogos spread through a new generation of explorers and practitioners. I'm glad to count myself among them. There are also other transformative dialogue practices flourishing simultaneously, such as Elizabeth Debold & Thomas Steininger’s 'Emergent dialogue' and contemporary ‘Bohm Dialogue’ circles.

In the context of the psychedelic renaissance, metacrisis, & culture war, people are being drawn to dialogos as a practice with culture-changing potential. Because of the breakdown of religion and myth in the west, eastern practices like Yoga & Meditation were able to forge a rapid foothold—going from fringe to counter-culture to mainstream in just a few decades. While much has been said about the limitations of "McMindfulness," it is still worth noting the radical impact of these practices. They have been key to generations of culture-shifting leaders, they've also shifted the mainstream in ways we cannot measure. I believe that the capacities these practices have afforded and the cultural space they have opened, has created a foundation for what comes next. In my own efforts, I've found people much more able to understand and enter Dialogos because I offer it as a practice that combines meditation and dialogue. I feel that Dialogos can and will follow the example set by these counter-cultural practices because it meets a great need in western culture. Dialogos directly address our need for interpersonal transformation. It is a way to consistently experience meaning, flow and insight. It allows us to partake in a communion of shared spirit and fosters new community. It also cultivates our capacities to make sense in a complex world.

‘Dia-logos’ etymologically means ‘through-logos’, logos for me is akin to the 'living word"—speech that participates in the eternal flow that organises reality. Bohm describes dialogos as a "flow of meaning", a creative dialogue that takes us beyond our starting position into the emergence of a new understanding and perspectival knowing. This shift is quite distinct from being ‘educated’ or re-programmed at the level of propositions, concepts, or language. What we learn and exchange in Dialogos are ways of seeing and being.

Bohm contrasts Dialogos with ‘discussion’, the meaning of which derives from "to break apart." Discussion, he says, separates things into fragments—often with the intent of a particular viewpoint prevailing. Dialogos instead has the spirit of a "win-win" process. It is oriented toward listening, understanding, and having an experience of the "whole." Dialogos is non-rivalrous, it is not about winning over another but rather an invitation into depth. With that being said, for Bohm, it's strictly not about being agreeable or eagerly seeking consensus. Bohm saw discord and disagreement as essential (insofar as there was the requisite intention and capacity to hold them). Through ‘well held’ conflict, participants could participate in something like ‘opponent processing’ (John Vervaeke’s notion) in which they beneficially work in opposition to one another in the spirit of a larger collaboration.

The Method and Spirit of dialogue:

Over the last three years, I delved deeply into the practice of Dialogos, working with people 1-1 and creating Dialogos journeys for groups of 4-5 using Zoom. I discovered great benefit in working with these sizes, as they afford an intimate and collaborative field in which each person can feel their impact and be equally impacted by the space.

Bohm dialogue takes a different approach. He proposed gathering together larger circles of 20-40 people in a room. Spatially, this worked best with a single circle or two concentric circles, depending on size.

The purpose of this group size is to create a ‘microcosm’ or "'microculture' in which the circle could naturally represent society at large with many personalities and subcultures present. Through this microcosm, the dialogue circle could form a "nucleus" for what is occurring in society and collective thought at large. I had the opportunity to experience this with Elizabeth Debold & Thomas Steininger at Emerge gathering in 2021. There, we utilised a circle surrounded by a further circle of 'active audience'  with participants able to cycle back and forth from the inner to the outer. This circular spatiality harkens back to Arthur’s round table and has a democratic quality which orients toward the whole. We might contrast this with the structure of the houses of parliament (and other British inspired democracies), where each side sits facing one another in opposition—I'm told that the benches are arranged at approximately two sword's length apart.

Beyond spatiality, Bohm felt size was important. He believed that small groups could be self-selecting and cozy, whereas large circles necessitated that the conflicts and disagreements in society would come forth so that they could be held and examined. As such, ideas, emotions, and discord should all be allowed to come to the surface in this process. Participants would not suppress them but also weren’t supposed to unconsciously act them out or try to change one another’s minds. The key was to listen and examine what was coming up in the collective mind. This active listening occurred at several levels, with participants observing their own conscious experience and also partaking "in the whole meaning of the group." Bohm recounts several interesting experiences in which groups actually polarised into discord, sometimes splitting fifty-fifty along some line of disagreement. However, by sitting into this in a sustained and attentive way, the polarity was softened, and some insight and resolution were able to occur. This dialogue did not set out with a fixed agenda or focus, it was in essence ‘emergent’ and about following the unfoldment of the dialogue attentively.

In a very clear sense, the spirit of Bohm dialogue offers a model for relating to one’s own consciousness. We’re encouraged to suspend and soften our judgements and assumptions about what is arising. We dwell in a place of sustained, open listening and observe the unfoldment of the process. Through this posture, we find a new coherence, and understanding becomes possible. This isn’t just my understanding. Bohm hoped that in partaking in the ‘spirit of dialogue’ participants would carry it outward into smaller groups, 1-1 dialogues, and their own inner dialogues. Thus, we begin to see the expansive and revolutionary possibility that Bohm envisioned for dialogue and human consciousness. Dialogue and Dialogos work upon the fundamental fabric of society: the collective and individual consciousness. I don't think there is an opposition between Bohm's larger 20-person microcosm and the contemporary 4-person Dialogos. They serve different functions. The larger group is uniquely suited for societal understanding and rejuvenating democracy, while the smaller group remains excellent for a focused cultivation of Dialogos and the emergence of a quadratic mind. This is Kyle McGahee's phrase for the ‘squaring’ of Intelligence that flows from real coherence.

The necessity of Dialogue in society:

Fundamentally, Bohm believed that human beings were a 'meaning-making species'. It's a concept that has become increasingly prevalent in our post-modern malaise. Bohm saw that our capacity for shared meaning and coherence was the basis and fabric of society. He saw, even two decades ago, that this shared fabric was falling apart. Therefore, a practice like dialogos would become essential to the survival and functioning of an open society. Like so many visionaries, Bohm was ahead of his time. However, he sensed the coming dawn, the ripeness, and necessity for dialogue.

20 years later, that dawn seems to be arriving. We are in the midst of a revolution in dialogue. It has been facilitated by digital communications and the rapid growth of podcast culture not to mention the global accessibility of Zoom. A new spirit of dialogos is in the air. Yet still today, many consider a practice of dialogue a fanciful interest—something esoteric and unnecessary to their lives. The very notion may seem strange and alien when they hear of it.  Bohm struck directly at this point in On Dialogue. Through his analysis of the zeitgeist, he called for a reckoning with the historical moment at both a personal and collective level. He points out that people are quite capable of applying themselves to something challenging and sticking with it when they perceive it to be necessary. They will do so in their work, their relationships, and learning to code. So why not in dialogue? It seems that all that is now requisite is for people to perceive dialogue as necessary and essential to the maintenance and progress of civilisation.

Thank you for reading.

Subscribe for part 2 where we’ll explore a deeper sense for the necessity of dialogue, Bohm’s vision of existential risk and the possibility of consciousness transformation.