I just posted a rather detailed (and perhaps overly complex?) blog on dialog in Mother and Sri Aurobindo\u2019s writings. For practical purposes, I thought it might be helpful to post an extremely simple guide on how to begin engaging in conversation in a more dialogic manner.<\/p>\n
Here\u2019s what I\u2019ve found to be an incredibly powerful, yet very simple first step.\u00a0 It\u2019s quite astonishingly effective \u2013 IF both people in a conflict are willing to try it; and that\u2019s often, unfortunately, a BIG \u201cif\u201d \u2013 when there is particularly strong disagreement on a topic.<\/p>\n
Since I\u2019m writing this in particular for the online Integral Yoga group, \u201cAuroconference,\u201d I\u2019ll take two examples that have been the source of a great deal of conflict, Peter Heeh\u2019s book on Sri Aurobindo, and climate change.<\/p>\n
PETER\u2019S BOOK<\/i><\/p>\n
Let\u2019s say someone\u00a0 – \u201cLaura\u201d (just making up names here) – writes something about Peter\u2019s book.\u00a0 Let\u2019s say that Laura writes about what a wonderful book it is.<\/p>\n
Now, someone else \u2013 \u201cBarbara\u201d \u2013 is horrified and writes in to say how terrible it is that anyone could even THINK of writing something nice about Peter\u2019s book.<\/p>\n
Somehow, Laura manages to convince Barbara to try a dialogic approach. It\u2019s very simple.<\/p>\n
Barbara rephrases, in her own language, what Laura said.\u00a0 Most likely, her first attempt will have critical elements, either hidden or more or less obvious. \u201c\u201dLaura thinks Peter\u2019s mean-spirited and biased book is good because\u2026.\u201d\u00a0 Well, obviously, that\u2019s not what Laura thinks, that\u2019s what Barbara thinks.\u00a0 So Barbara tries again, now stating it in the first person: \u201cI think Peter\u2019s book is good because\u2026.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 The second attempt may be better, but it very likely won\u2019t quite capture Laura\u2019s view.\u00a0\u00a0 After each attempt, Laura tries to explain further what she meant, and they keep going back and forth until Laura is satisfied that Barbara has successfully both (a) captured Laura\u2019s view; and (much more important) (b) done it without even a hint of irritation, anger or emotional reactivity.<\/p>\n
CLIMATE CHANGE<\/p>\n
Or say they have a disagreement about climate change. Exact same process:<\/p>\n
Laura: Anyone who objectively looks at the facts can see the earth has not warmed significantly since 1998.<\/p>\n
Barbara: (here\u2019s an example of not being dialogic): \u201cLaura thinks the earth has not warmed since 1998 because she doesn\u2019t understand science and is politically biased.<\/p>\n
So the same process \u2013 Barbara tries, with Laura\u2019s help, to restate, again and again, as many times as necessary, Laura\u2019s view until it is (a) clearly stated; and (more important) (b) free of all judgment, bias, and reactivity.<\/p>\n
This can be applied to virtually any disagreement. It\u2019s not at all easy, and takes a lot of work not to let one\u2019s biases, prejudices, irritation, etc get in the way.<\/p>\n
A lot of times, people think their view is so obvious, so scientifically accurate (this comes up a lot in discussions of climate change, on both sides) that there is simply no use in talking to the other side since it\u2019s not a matter of \u201copinion\u201d but \u201cFACT\u201d!<\/p>\n
The thing is, even if, despite what I\u2019ve written here about dialog, you still are convinced that your view is so accurate that there\u2019s simply no need to engage the \u201cother\u201d side, the exercise is still a wonderful yogic exercise in vital equanimity.\u00a0 If you can\u2019t restate an opinion you disagree with calmly, and with deep quiet and inner equanimity, it suggests that perhaps there may be something worth learning by engaging with the other person\u2019s view, even if at the end, you both end up convinced that you were right after all and the other person was wrong.<\/p>\n
CASTRO:<\/p>\n
Many years ago, public television in the US had an 8 part series in which a different controversial topic was addressed using this very exercise.\u00a0 I still remember what to me was a very humorous episode in which a pro-Castro liberal and anti-Castro conservative were on the show.\u00a0 The anti-Castro conservative went first, stating his position.\u00a0 It was then the job of the pro-Castro liberal to restate \u2013 with absolutely no bias or emotional reactivity, but in his own words \u2013 the position of the anti-Castro conservative.<\/p>\n
He couldn\u2019t do it.\u00a0 He was literally stuttering, barely able to get the words out, so incapable was he of empathizing with someone he disagreed with.<\/p>\n
This is why I think this is such a wonderful yogic exercise.\u00a0 As the Mother stated in Her essay on education, it is a good exercise for the mind but even better as a character building tool \u2013 it takes tremendous \u201cSincerity\u201d as She put it, and a great deal of inner calm and equanimity to carry out this exercise in the correct spirit.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
It\u2019s also profoundly therapeutic and is really the basis of the best practices in psychotherapy, but that\u2019s a whole other blog post!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I just posted a rather detailed (and perhaps overly complex?) blog on dialog in Mother and Sri Aurobindo\u2019s writings. For practical purposes, I thought it might be helpful to post an extremely simple guide on how to begin engaging in conversation in a more dialogic manner. Here\u2019s what I\u2019ve found to be an incredibly powerful, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ipi.org.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/441"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ipi.org.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ipi.org.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ipi.org.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ipi.org.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=441"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.ipi.org.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/441\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":442,"href":"https:\/\/www.ipi.org.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/441\/revisions\/442"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ipi.org.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=441"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ipi.org.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=441"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ipi.org.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=441"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}