Dialogue

From Nordan Symposia
Revision as of 22:14, 2 January 2008 by Rdavis (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Lighterstill.jpg

Oftentimes, we think of dialogue perhaps as a better conversation, but there is much more to it. Genuine dialogue is a conversation with a center, not sides. It is a way of taking the energy or our differences and channeling it toward something that has never been created before. It lifts us out of polarization and into a greater common sense, and is thereby a means for accessing the intelligence and coordinated power of groups of people.[1]


To finite man truth, beauty, and goodness embrace the full revelation of divinity reality. As this love-comprehension of Deity finds spiritual expression in the lives of God-knowing mortals, there are yielded the fruits of divinity: intellectual peace, social progress, moral satisfaction, spiritual joy, and cosmic wisdom. The advanced mortals on a world in the seventh stage of light and life have learned that love is the greatest thing in the universe--and they know that God is love.[2]

A dialogue (sometimes spelled dialog (n., v.) The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. 1993 is a reciprocal conversation between two or more entities. The etymological origins of the word (in Greek διά(diá,through) + λόγος(logos,word,speech) concepts like flowing-through meaning)) do not necessarily convey the way in which people have come to use the word, with some confusion between the prefix διά-(diá-,through) and the prefix δι-(di-, two) leading to the assumption that a dialogue is necessarily between only two parties.[[3]]

Platonic dialogues

The philosopher Plato wrote a series of dialogues, mostly between Socrates and some other person. In all these dialogues there is an explicit or an implicit disagreement, and the purpose of these dialogues is to resolve the disagreement. The typical way is for Socrates to probe his partner for further beliefs until a contradiction is reached with the disputed belief or hypothesis by implication. In this way the interlocutor is made to see the impossibility of his hypothesis, and then tries some other hypothesis, which is again subject to the same scrutiny. Most of these dialogues break off without a final resolution—as in real life.