#64: Glenna Gerard: Dialogue and the Ineffable

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:14):
Hey there, welcome to the Fools and Sages podcast.
We are extremely excited today to welcome Glenna Gerrard.
Glenna and I have worked together and that's been a great
privilege of mine. I studied dialogue facilitation
with Glenna and and have really enjoyed kicking ideas around

(00:35):
with her in all kinds of contexts.
And yeah, Glenn, I'm really excited to welcome you to the
podcast. Thank you, Boaz.
I'm excited to be here. It's a new experience for me.
I don't think I've ever engaged in a podcast other than
listening to a podcast. Yeah, very nice.
We are honored. Yeah, and and curious to see

(01:00):
what emerges. Yeah, me too.
Maybe let's start with, maybe you could tell our listeners a
little bit about yourself. Obviously, I I know you, but
talk about your your background a little bit and and what's
interesting to you. My background is kind of like a
patchwork quilt. I, until I was in my early 40s,

(01:25):
I never lived anywhere more thanthree years, including kind of
after I left home. My, I was born in Reno, NV, So I
love wide open spaces and that kind of landscape.
And I, there's beauty and like denser landscapes like in the

(01:46):
Southeast, you know, but it's just different.
I love being able to, for the horizon to be way out there.
And so I, that's something aboutme, you know, I really love the
spaciousness and not and traveling through unknown
territories. And that's true in terms of
geography and loving the outdoors, loving hiking, rafting

(02:10):
in the Grand Canyon, kite boarding.
All of that is important to me. And I, I love the same kind of
landscapes mentally and in the interior kind of wide open.
And I'm curious about always what I will find there when I
engage. My dad, when he was 30, sat down

(02:35):
in a church he was going to because my mom wanted to get
married in the Episcopal Church and he got a call.
He decided to become a priest, and so he did.
He went to seminary and my brother and I and my mom, of

(02:55):
course, all went with him. My brother and I were like 03
and 4 1/2. And then when I was 12, my dad
decided to take a foreign missions assignment, so we went
to San Jose, Costa Rica. We all learned to speak Spanish.

(03:15):
I went to high school in Puerto Rico and to university at
Columbia in New York City. And then I came back to the West
Coast, so which I left in 2002 to come to New Mexico.
So when I think about me and kind of the essence of me, I

(03:38):
said a little bit about, you know, curiosity.
I'm a kind of a lifelong learner.
I'm always, even when bad thingshappen, I'm always asking
myself, what am I learning from this?
You know, what's the message here in terms of dialogue, which
is I, I came into contact with David Bohm when I was in my

(03:59):
early 40s and I, I think that's how he really inspired me.
I, because for me, what I would,I guess I would have called
authentic conversation or just the ability for us as humans to
talk with each other honestly and openly has always been

(04:25):
really important to me. When I, before I met David Bohm,
I was actually a business manager within an organization
that was a subsidiary of Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical.
And in that role, I just always wondered, you know, because we,
the teams I that I LED, were successful.

(04:48):
We always met our objectives. But I just thought, what could
we accomplish if we really couldhave all the main conversations
in the room instead of out in the hallway?
And what does it take to create that kind of an environment?
And then I ran into the work of David Balm.

(05:08):
It was introduced to me, and I read a little blurb in a
scientific article about him, about him as a physicist.
And he, in that little blurb, hetalked about something called
dialogue. And he said, just what would it
be like if we could talk in thisway?
And it, just as I said, it rang a bell.

(05:29):
And so I, I began to read about his work.
And then I asked myself, So whatwould it take to help people to
engage in this kind of exploration, a conversation
where they where we really couldmake visible the way that we
think about things, how we make meaning and could begin to

(05:51):
discern where are the places where there's like coherence in
the ways that we're making meaning and where are the places
where there are disconnects? And so I became fascinated with
that. And so over the last 30 plus
years, that's actually been a key focus of me as Glenna, both

(06:14):
in terms of the kind of work I love to do the most and also in
terms of just the way I work to live my life.
And I'll tell you one more storythat had to do with my dad
around dialogue. And this I realized when I was

(06:35):
older, I didn't know it at the time, but I have this very
strong memory of when I was about 9 and my dad had recently
because of become a priest, because he did that kind of
after he was a pharmacist. It wasn't what he was going to
do from the time he was 10. And he was really deep into

(07:00):
reading a number of the spiritual teachers in the world,
like Ramakrishna and Yogananda, some of the Saints in the
Christian Church. And he would give me books to
read because I was a voracious reader even when I was really
young. And I remember one day walking

(07:20):
over to him and saying, Dad, I, I don't get, I don't get it.
You know what's going on here? I mean, these people are all
talking about the same thing when they talk about God.
No matter. And, you know, but they're

(07:40):
fighting with each other. Why?
You know, why are people from different religious and
spiritual traditions fighting with each other when really
their experience is about the same reality or so?
And of course, that was, I couldn't really put it into
words. And what I realized as an adult

(08:02):
was that we have this experiencethat's definitely transcends our
ability to understand it or to put it into words.
And yet we will. We must make meaning and we must
share it with other people. So we create a narrative or a
story about that experience, andthen at some point we begin to

(08:27):
think that our story is the experience and it's not.
And then we go to war over our story and who's got the right
one. And it's, it's just always been
a really, really sad thing to me, because our capacity as

(08:53):
human beings to make meaning is incredible.
It it might be what distinguishes us from other
species. I'm not sure because I don't
know, maybe dolphins make meaning to really don't know.
But yeah. And you know, what David Bohm

(09:14):
had to say was we make meaning, but then we'd say we didn't do
it when something goes wrong, you know?
Oh, that wasn't really my idea, you know, he said.
We don't, we, we're, we're, we're not conscious of what
we're doing. So we make meaning and then we
put it into the databanks and itbecomes just that something that

(09:36):
gets triggered by an experience.And so we pull that forward and
we make decisions based on it. And they may be good decisions
or they shouldn't use good and bad.
They may be decisions that are healthy for the well-being, for
ours, and also for other people's and other life forms.

(09:58):
Or they may be decisions that are unhealthy and lead to pain
and suffering and violence. So it became just incredibly
important to me that we learn how to create environments and

(10:18):
conversations with each other where we can really say what's
on our hearts and our minds and pay attention at the same time
so that we can see how we're creating meaning and make
choices. Yeah.
Yeah, yeah. I wanted to just to just set a

(10:41):
little context for our listenersand to rhapsodize David Bohm a
bit because, you know, we have, we have talked about the history
of the quest for meaning and forunderstanding about the
universe. And, you know, we've talked a
little bit about deterministic pictures and, you know, the sort

(11:05):
of different world views that people would roll up,
philosophers would roll up to try to understand things.
And in that, in that course, we've picked out certain
individuals that I think of as sitting at the crux, like in
this idea of an important crossroads and they come to
represent almost major changes in world views.

(11:30):
And, and David Bohm, you know, Ithink maybe people know his name
as a physicist, but, but I thinkat one point, Albert Einstein
said that he considered David Bohm his successor and that he
was kind of a wunderkind. And so, you know, but part of
part of the things that I found moving about David Bohm's story

(11:53):
is that, you know, here's a guy who I believe really did have
the very best of all intentions.He believed in science.
He believed in the March of knowledge improving human lives.
He wanted to participate in that.
And then here he is. I mean, working with Oppenheimer

(12:14):
and, and, and Einstein and Bohr and these people that were that
were, you know, iconic within that that arena.
And then they create this, this horrific atomic bomb.
And so, so, so bore or Bohm rather sits at this, this crux

(12:40):
where science in the quest for knowledge all of a sudden meets
morality and and ethics. And how do we relate to other
people? And I think that posed it, it
put Bohm in a different frame ofmind, like realizing that that
that that there's something elsegoing on here.

(13:03):
Because what I got out of bone was, was, yes, it's about
physics, but it's really about the mind.
And it's really about how the mind tries to move in ways to
understand reality and, and the the role that our thinking plays
in that. So when he comes up with

(13:23):
dialogue, this is not at all from a naive place.
This is like from a extremely sophisticated understanding of
this relationship between mind and form or logos, and then the
matter in the universe that it creates around us.
And then to derive out of that anew an understanding of a new

(13:46):
potential for human relationshipthrough dialogue.
To me that story is, is mind blowing.
I mean, that makes him someone that really stands out.
He's not just another soldier inthe March of science.
He really represents an aha for all of us.
And I think he was really revolutionary in that in that

(14:09):
sense. Yeah, I don't it's interesting
because I don't know how many people see him that way.
I if for me, I, you know, when Ihave read other scientists,

(14:30):
right, Some of them, I think that I've encountered physicist,
others like, or Einstein is another example, or Franklin
Merrill Wolf, you know, who was an incredible mathematician, you
know, and when, when they take their discipline, like as far as
they can take it and they keep moving, it feels to me like they

(14:55):
all punch through kind of like awormhole, you know, and then and
then all of a sudden they're in this other, they've reached an
an ability to perceive kind of this huge universal unified
field is what David Bohm would have called it.
And I think they're in it. And then they'd be the way that

(15:17):
they begin to see the world and the connections that they make,
for example, around morality andright science.
And they're just different. You know, it's like gaining a
perspective where we're able to see reality in a in a different

(15:39):
way. And I think that, you know, that
to me is really that's what David Bohm was wanting to bring
back. Now, these are my words.
They're not his words, but it's kind of how I perceive that in
terms of dialogue, creating an environment where and using

(15:59):
skills, being aware of the ways we pay attention, being willing
to use language because that's how we make meaning.
That's what we do right with ourwords.
That's a way that we create meaning and enhance reality for
ourselves and being able to, to create or craft a conversation

(16:26):
where we can actually make that visible because mostly it's not
visible. It's something we're doing all
the time, but we're, we're not really conscious of it.
And so I'm having trouble like finding the words I'm because I
think we're, we're again trying to transit that reality.

(16:47):
You know that they enter when they move through their
discipline all the way through and transit that reality of the
unified field with this reality of a podcast where we're using
language to try to define and point to something that we

(17:07):
actually can't put into words, not the words because the way
that words are constructed is limiting.
So. And that's one of the reasons I
think poetry, for example, is soincredible because it points to
something with words and and somehow manages to convey

(17:33):
something that's beyond just thewords themselves.
So I feel like David Bohm was was inviting us to become more
aware of that whole process. He's like one of these, one of
the great thinkers in history that serves almost as a
guardrail to kind of bump us back on to the road.

(17:56):
Because I see him, as you know, we've given this example before
on the show of looking at a record player and say a candle
on a record player, and you see it going back.
And then people can argue about back and forth, but only when
you get up on 1/3 dimension do you see the record players going
around. And that all that was like
illusory. And what that was, I think would

(18:18):
be an example of what David Bowemight call fragmentation because
he he was very aware that in thehistory of the March of our
thought and the March of science, what we see, what we've
seen in the past 100 years is all these new sciences, right?
Well, what's the difference between psychology and cognitive
linguistics and what's the right?

(18:39):
And what we've seen is this fragmentation of understanding
and boom, you know, his book wascalled, which I would love the
first word, wholeness, right, Wholeness and the implicant
order. And so his sense of wholeness
was was juxtaposed to this experience, I think of

(18:59):
fragmentation that was happeningin our world, but that it was
connected to the way we think and language brings out the way
we think. And so dialogue is a natural
place to kind of maybe try to dance with this a little bit.
Well, because language creates borders, right?

(19:20):
And so, yeah. Well, so like when you look at
the Earth right from space, you see the whole of the globe,
right? And David Bohm used to use this
example and say, you know, and then we have country states,
their arbitrary borders that we've created.
We to organize things, to own things, right?

(19:42):
But they don't really exist, except, I mean, we have made
them exist and made them concrete.
But and the same thing is true for words.
You know, words are boundaries. They create boundaries.
They describe different things. It's this.
It's not that. And so just like the record
where you say, you know, if you,once you gain another

(20:04):
perspective, you see that it's going around, but this
perspective down here, it's alsoreal.
It's, it's one perspective rightin a much in a hole that has
many different ones, just as we have lots of sciences, which are
ways of looking at what we are perceiving through a particular

(20:28):
lens and then another science looks through another lens.
That's not fragmentation. Fragmentation is when we think
our lens is either better than and or not connected directly to
the other one, not part of this whole.
That's the only thing that makessense of all of them together.

(20:49):
You can't see the sense from just one place.
And that's one of the reasons indialogue where we say we need to
hear all the voices, you know, And David Baum used to say we
need the disagreement because that's how we get to see the
whole is through all the different perceptions in the way
that we're thinking about thingsand trying to communicate what

(21:14):
it is that we're experiencing with each other.
It's not about who's wrong and who's right.
It's about what's actually goingon here.
Yeah. Glenn, I'm wanting to ask, I
guess a couple of questions are coming up.
So, so let me let me just offer one so as not to confuse things

(21:37):
too much. So, so I think there's a little
bit of a paradox that what what we're saying about David Bohm
and the practice of dialogue is attempting to integrate.
And I think integrating paradoxes is a common way that
we gain insight or coherence through dialogue.

(22:01):
And the paradox is words and language either create
fragmentation or represent fragmentation that our thinking
creates, right, one way or the other.
But it's through words only thatwe can bring our narrative

(22:25):
together with other people's so that our narrative can expand,
so that we can learn and our narrative might come a little
bit closer to representing the whole or reality.
And the so the paradox is we, we're stuck with words and words

(22:49):
represent fragmentation or causefragmentation.
Can you talk more about kind of,we're not trying to reject
words, right? How do how do words take on this
power? I want to challenge you.
I don't think words create fragmentation.
OK. I think that because I look

(23:13):
through three different lenses and I see a different version of
what's in front of me through each one of those lenses.
That's not fragmentation, that'sthat's just looking through
different lenses. But when I begin to say I'm
right and you, Boaz, are not, that creates fragmentation

(23:39):
because it disallows, you know, it it disallows one part of the
whole or one set of lenses. So I, I don't, I don't actually
think it's the word. I mean the words contribute
because they can't, they don't hold the whole right.
I mean, that's why we say there are things that are ineffable,

(24:00):
meaning they can't actually be just put into words because
they're bigger than that. But it's really are I think it's
more our psychology and our thatcreates fragmentation, not the
words themselves. So yeah, it's interesting.

(24:26):
And and this brings that. I mean, it brings forward
another piece for me when I in when Linda, Eleanor and I were
working together in the dialogueproject and we were, you know,
really exploring. We're kind of in the first
number of years of exploring dialogue and how to create
environments and help people to enter into this kind of

(24:48):
conversation. One of the things that we
incorporated in all of the work that we did was what we called
non verbal channels meaning, notwords.
So movement, somatic art, painting, you know, imagery

(25:11):
without words. And because we felt like that to
some degree, the verbal channel actually, it's almost like it
limits what can come through because it has to fit into the
words that you have. And of course, you see this
right when you learn a second language.

(25:32):
When I learned Spanish, it was like, it is such a different
experience to attempt to be in communication or sit in dialogue
and speak a second language, even though when I was fluent,
it's different if you didn't grow up with the wiring that
comes with that culture and thatlanguage.

(25:54):
And so, you know, the, the ability to translate what you're
experiencing into some words to describe it to somebody else is
not the same. And so it so there's something
about opening ourselves also to other channels that we can

(26:16):
perceive through that, that helps to bring in more of the
picture, more of the whole. And but yeah, so that is so it's
again that question of yours. It's like, what is it that
ultimately is creating the fragmentation?
I think it's our refusal to see ourselves as inextricably

(26:41):
interconnected, interdependent parts of a whole.
And I hate the word parts, but members of a whole, whatever,
you know, small living systems nested within each other, but

(27:02):
totally interdependent. And that we don't want to, we
don't want to recognize that reality.
It has all kinds of implications.
We're not, we're not really wired for that.
You know, I've been reading Bergson a lot and he talks about
he, he defines intellect as a very pragmatic thing that's

(27:25):
meant for manipulating objects in 3D space.
And so the impulse to thingify things as opposed to seeing them
as, as, as moving through time or as part of a flow, it's
really useful. But he taught, you know, he, he
says that we see things like they had just invented the, the

(27:46):
movie camera. So he says we see like a
cinematography, cinematological,cinematological device or a
movie camera breaking things into frames.
And he goes into Zeno's paradox.So that's why it doesn't make
sense because we want you're breaking it into frames because
we have this impulse. And he talks about how all

(28:09):
through philosophy we can't escape that impulse to thingify
things. But when Bohm, that's what I
think what Bohm kind of represents to me when he talks
about wholeness and this idea ofthe implicant order, which I
think maybe we could explain to folks, is that Boehm's idea was
that the implicant order was sort of like the potential that

(28:33):
the future would unfold as the implicate passes into the
explicate. That is that that that the
future is sort of mixed in with everything and gluing everything
together. Because in physics he had to
explain non locality and, and this is like an impossible thing

(28:54):
unless you really step out of the way that that's that impulse
to signify. And so his idea is, well,
obviously that's an illusion, the signifying, obviously
wholeness is the fundamental reality.
And so, so I kind of see the when I look because I also, you

(29:15):
know, got pretty fluent in Spanish and I felt like it was a
different me, you know, when I had, when I was in a Spanish
setting and I'm relating to, youknow, they call me by a
different name and I'm really coming out of a different set of
it felt like a different world in some set, but it was really
just like this different linguistic cognitive model that

(29:37):
had to overlay and, and I feel like rather than, you know, am I
right or are you right? What I'm really trying to do is
get that otherness as a way to, we've talked about this before
on the show as a way to, to fusehorizons, like as a way to
really get to open to truth and,and, and who's right and who's

(30:03):
wrong. It's kind of like this petty
social thing that we all just need to get over.
Yeah, it's this, it's this pettysocial thing that creates world
wars, right? And yeah, it's well so.
But, you know, the fact that we see Bohm with the Dalai Lama and

(30:25):
with Krishnamurti sort of tells you he's got an instinct that
humans have a way to wholeness. Oh, and I think we do.
And I think for David Bohm, the possibility of literally in some
sense opening a portal, you know, not in the digital sense,
but you know, into that, you know, to really kind of pass

(30:49):
through to a place where we actually know ourselves, you
know, as interconnected. And we're, you know, where we
live day-to-day. Most of us is in, is in is the
is in the land of disconnected. We are individual realities.
I mean, I, it's interesting though, because at some sense,
in some ways, I believe we know fundamentally that that isn't

(31:14):
the truth. It's a truth, right?
But it's not, it's not another larger truth.
And I think it's one of the reasons why, you know,
relationship is so important, you know, because in all the
work that I've done with dialogue over the years, I mean,
I have, I have talked to been indialogue with people.

(31:36):
And even now I find myself, you know, I will spend like a
Thursday morning and dialogue with this group and another
morning in the week with this other group.
Or I hear about somebody who's doing something called emergent
dialogue. Then I get invited and I think,
oh, I wonder what they're doing.Like, what is this?
So I go sit in that. And one of the most common most

(32:00):
the one thing that the majority of these different forms of
dialogue have in common is this intense focus on relationship
and really creating connection between people.
And, you know, David Bohm used to talk about if you sat in

(32:24):
dialogue long enough, you would experience something called
impersonal friendship. And to me, he was describing
that recognition or coming to recognize and actually
experience a web of connection between the people that had been

(32:48):
sitting and, you know, in conversation and dialogue with
each other for a period of time.And that to so there's a hunger,
I think there's a real longing in US for to to reconnect re or
to we're already connected. So it's not that we're
reconnected it connecting. I see it more as that we're,

(33:12):
we're energizing, you know, those connections send and as we
do that, there's some, there's asense of belonging and being
heard. You know all of that.
Is part of that world, you know,in terms of relationship.

(33:34):
And so I think the the majority of dialogue practice in the
world is really focused all around that relationship,
creating those connections, energizing those connections.
And I think that's an incrediblyvaluable thing to do because if
I don't see you as other, you know, so much anymore, I might

(33:58):
be more willing, you know, to listen to you and I and I might
be less willing to support a regime that bombs bombs you,
right. So it's it's just something
that's there. And what isn't being brought to

(34:19):
the center in a lot of these forms of dialogue is this piece
that I call metacognition, this piece of making visible the way
we're making meaning, which for me is the piece David von Broth.
That was the piece that was different that you know, that
really distinguished and and I think it's where that

(34:41):
intersection, Brian, that you were talking about before, you
know, happens because I think David Bone saw the implicate
order as where everything is, but it's not in form, OK,
Although he might have called, he might have gone even to the
Super implicate for that. I'm not sure.

(35:03):
But you know, so if you want to think of it as field of
potential, then what comes forward into the explicit is
what gets attention. Yeah, yeah.
And it seemed like for Bohm, like like we've gotten in a
hyper materialist reductionist mentality.
We think somehow that stuff is real, but thought is not real.

(35:28):
That's just thought. But it seems like for for Bohm
thought was extremely real and, and that like is the foundation
of language or that logos is therealness of that thought.
I mean, it felt like that's kindof where he was, where he's
going. Yes.
And remember, for him thought was meaning making, frozen in

(35:51):
time. Thought was always past tense,
never present tense. For him, the only present tense
activity of the mind was thinking, and it was a much
slower process than what he called thoughting, which was
kind of like automatic. So it.

(36:14):
Yeah, so. It sounds like the difference
between putting into language and cooking the content.
Yeah. Well, it's also kind of the
difference between saying something that you've said many
times before and only speaking when you know, you've never
heard yourself say that before and which is a really

(36:37):
interesting experiment. I, I wonder how much of what
I've said I would not have said.So it just it's, it's, yeah.
Interesting. Anyway, I'm, I'm not, you know,
I could go on and on and on because I, for me, I could play

(37:01):
in what I would say is a conceptual realm.
And for, for a lot of people that feels very, can feel very
ungrounded and abstract. And for me, it's not for me,
it's like very real and groundedbecause it's because what we're

(37:21):
talking about is very much an experience of reality.
But I'm wondering in terms of your listeners and you know,
just what you're, you know, if we want to make some
transitions. I think there's, there's more
here, but what I was going to suggest is that maybe you could

(37:44):
Orient our listeners a little more in terms of, we've been
talking about boom dialogue for the last half hour or so, but we
haven't, we've touched on what it's like we we've said meaning
making and, and metacognition and, and some interesting

(38:06):
things. Can you introduce it a little
more fulsomely to our listeners and then we can jump back into
the deep end. Yeah, let me just talk just a
little bit kind of about my trajectory or my arc in at the
beginning in with dialogue. So so first I I want to connect

(38:28):
why David Bohm really connected with me through even that one
tiny pie paragraph where he was talking about physics.
But he's decide somebody asked him about dialogue and it was
because he was talking about a form of conversation where we
could actually reveal our meaning making.

(38:52):
So and, and for me, that's kind of what was missing.
So for example, when I said to my dad when I was 9, what's the
fight about here? And then, you know, when I was
in my early 40s, recognizing, oh, that's what the fight was
about. You know, it was about the

(39:13):
meaning making and then that becoming identified with the
experience that people are trying to share.
So when I first met David Bohm, because he used to come to the
United States, he would to be inconversation with Krishnamurti
and he would come to Ojai, California at least once a year.

(39:38):
And in the last few years of hislife, I, I was really privileged
to be able to sit with him on weekends, you know, hi.
And he would do these weekend workshop kind of things and and
there would be about 7075 of us that would be in the room and we
kind of all sit in this long oblong circle thing.

(39:58):
And he would talk a little bit about kind of how he came to,
you know, his thoughts about dialogue.
And actually, one of those talksthat he gave at the beginning of
the weekend is in the book on dialogue.
That's edited by Lee Nichols, and it's just a transcript of
him talking about it kind of from his perspective.

(40:20):
So he would do this bit of introduction and he would talk
about why it was important, you know, that we be able to, to
really get a handle on what we were up to so that we could make
conscious decisions. And, and he, he, he would say
the only way we really can do that is by, you know, by really
being able to see what, how we're making meaning of things,

(40:41):
because that's what drives all our choices and our actions.
And his idea about how to do that was to sit in that circle
and to after he gave the introduction, that was it.
It would just be kind of like, OK, what's going to get talked
about? So it would be, you know,

(41:01):
somebody would say something, someone else would come in, you
know, and that that form of whathe, I don't know, actually, I
don't think he ever called it that.
I think it came to be called noncontingent dialogue or some
people called it emergent. There was no topic.

(41:26):
There was no initial question other than what showed up in the
circle. I've heard you call that
generative dialogue also. I've heard people call it
generative dialogue. Yes, that's that that's another
word and and always that was pointing towards let's sit
together. You know, there had been this,
there had been this kind of talkthat he gave that spoke a little

(41:48):
bit about, you know, what is this?
You know, we want to really listen, you know, to each other.
What happens when we judge things?
You know, he would talk a bit about that.
And so he was in some sense, doing what I call building a
little bit of a container and speaking from his intention

(42:09):
about it. And then he would invite people
to be in conversation. Well, that was really
fascinating to me. It was also pretty frustrating I
think to a lot of people and it takes a particular, well, I

(42:31):
don't actually, I don't think I want to go there.
So that's what he would do. And, you know, probably
somewhere in the second day, youknow, there, I don't know, I
think people would somehow therewould begin to be meaning that
was there was a bit more flow inwhat was happening.

(42:53):
And I think overall it was a satisfying experience.
But, you know, David Bone was insistent.
This is not about creating an outcome.
This is not about making a decision.
If you think about making a decision or you're trying to
reach an outcome at the end of the weekend, you will actually
like put blinders on your ability to see and to explore

(43:19):
this meaning making process, youknow, through conversation.
My words, not his. So we would do that.
So what happened was I went homeand I, I was like, OK, I think
this is can be incredible. You know, if it's what I
actually hear David Bohm talkingabout, and I was here listening

(43:43):
through the words he was using. But I really, I wonder how do I
help people like engage this conversation in a way, give them
a little bit of something more than just, well, here's this
kind of thing and you know, thisis kind of and OK, now let's do
it right. So, so I began to think, well,

(44:05):
what are, what are the things that, what are the ways we can
pay attention that help to create an environment where
people feel that they can speak about, you know, what they're
feeling and what they're thinking with each other and at
the same time be paying some attention to what they're
saying, not just sharing, but paying attention to it.

(44:26):
So, so that was, you know, the beginning of saying, OK, here's
some practices or skills. And so that's part of how I tend
to also introduce people to dialogue.
And depending upon the group, you know, and why we're, you
know, engaging with dialogue, whether we're inside an

(44:49):
organization that is almost always wanting to do it to get
to a better result, which David Bohm would have said you can't
do dialogue in that circumstance.
And because of the hierarchical components.
And that was one of the places where where I didn't, I didn't

(45:12):
agree with him. I, I agree that it would be
difficult and it's challenging. But from my perspective, even
sitting in that in Ohio with 70 people and David Bohm, there was
a hierarchy and he was actually at the top of it, not because he
wanted to be, but because we allput him there because that's the

(45:34):
culture, that's, that's the meaning system that we live in,
right? So, so that didn't really
dissuade me. And I, I felt like working in
organizations was one way that potentially could have a lot of
leverage because there were a lot of people, they were there,

(45:57):
you know, spending a whole lot of time in those organizations
and the organization could pay to introduce them to this form.
And if nothing else, they would have a different option in terms
of how they communicated with each other and with other people

(46:18):
and maybe even with their families.
So it felt like a high leverage kind of an activity.
So that's what drew me into thatsetting and into continuing to
develop the how do I help peoplecreate the container?
So how rather than me talking just about the container, what

(46:40):
are different kinds of activities we could do together?
Because I really believe people know what they need to pay
attention to. They know how, you know, they,
they know what it is to have a conversation where people listen
deeply and you know, and, and actually just set their
judgements aside temporarily in order to be curious about what

(47:02):
somebody else is seeing and how they're understanding the world.
And so I would just, you know, some of what I do sometimes with
groups is just ask them. So here I'm going to describe a
particular kind of conversation to you, and I want you to come
up with what are the things thatare needed in order to create
that. And so we would create a

(47:23):
container around that. And then, yes, I would introduce
very specific skills and ways ofways, perhaps some new ways of
thinking about what listening is.
And also, there was always the component of learning how to
notice our judgments, put them aside, get curious, ask

(47:48):
questions and notice our assumptions because our
assumptions are, they're like the periodic table of how we
make meaning. I don't think I've ever used
that particular metaphor before,but it actually reads true
because they're kind of like keyelements in the way that our

(48:09):
meaning, you know, unfolds and the way we make decisions.
And so it's really important that we be able to identify them
and. Add elements.
Yeah, so and how we put them together and you know, and, and
hence how, what conclusions we reach and then hence what
decisions we make and what actions we take and what results

(48:33):
we get. So, you know, Chris Ardris's
work actually with the ladder ofinference, which I've actually
just described in different words and how we take data and
move through different steps in our meaning making process.
It's one way that the corporate world can really understand the
value of the metacognitive aspect of dialogue.

(48:57):
They already get the relational,you know, value.
But but the metacognitive piece is a little trickier, you know,
so then they're like, so then that's so how do you have a
conversation that where you actually can see meaning suspend
judgments, be curious, perhaps, you know, experience that kind

(49:20):
of portal opening where you begin to see things in ways that
you've just never seen them before.
You know, they're just, you gaina different perspective.
You know, you get on top of the turntable instead of at the side
of it. And you know, that can happen
now, you know. So, so anyway, so that's some of

(49:45):
you know, how I found David Bowman, the kind of the
evolution of what was really important to me in terms of, you
know, just NUM numerous ways, you know, that I continued to
seek over the years to introduceit to people in different
contexts. And also to help people see the
relationship between being awareof their thinking and how they

(50:09):
talk with each other. Also their relationships, their
connections and the results thatthey get, because that's key
within organizations. But the other thing that's key
is if you want to gain a perspective that you haven't had
before, you have to let go of outcome temporarily because if

(50:30):
you don't, it will keep you inside the box of your current
meaning making and your current assumptions and you will not get
out of it. So you will not have a
perspective that you've never had before.
So it's really important that you create that space and that

(50:51):
container for the dialogue without the outcome in the
middle of it. And then after the dialogue, you
can harvest your insights and take them to a conversation
where you're going to talk aboutdecision making.
So that's a really critical piece.
And I think it without that, it's one of the reasons why

(51:12):
dialogue didn't ever really gainground in organizations, not in
the way that it could have. It was one of the one of the
issues. You still can have a great
conversation. You still can build better
relationships, but but if you'renot looking at how you're making

(51:35):
meaning you're, you're just you're, you get some benefit,
but you don't get the whole, youdon't get the whole thing.
Now see in my my reaction to that is it's related to
something that I've said many times, and we'll say again,
because it bears, it bears repeating.

(51:55):
And that is that in the Western world we often conflate or
confuse propositional knowledge with dispositional knowledge.
And so. Say, say what the distinction
is, Brian. Ford Well, the, the, the, the,
the approach of propositional knowledge is to say that I can

(52:17):
make truth claims and I'm going to give them to you
propositionally, and then you'regoing to be able to validate
them or not validate them. But the great example of
dispositional knowledge, I always think of Chuang Tsu and
the wheelwright where, where thePrince Juan is sitting on the
porch and he's reading the wordsof the ancients, which is, of

(52:39):
course, propositional knowledge.If you can write it down, it's
propositional. And the, the wheelwright is out
in the courtyard making a wheel and he says to the king, what
you doing in the, in the Prince?And the Prince says while I'm
reading the word, the wisdom of the ancients, and the
wheelwright says, oh, Peshaw, the the wisdom of the ancients

(53:01):
died with them. And what you're reading are the
droppings that they left behind.And I think that that, you know,
they'll say the chafe for something, but I think it was
like animal droppings because they're left behind the animal
as he go. And of course, the Prince
doesn't take wisely or happily to this.
He says, you better explain yourself.
And he explains it by basically saying, you know, I'm 70 years

(53:23):
old and I make wheels my whole life.
And now that I'm 70, I make really good wheels.
But, you know, it's tricky. You can't have the spokes too
tight or too long. And even, you know, and even
though I could explain it to my son, I couldn't.
He's going to have to do it and really learn to make good
wheels. And I guess I feel like Boom was

(53:44):
was swimming in the first of all, he was like a, you know,
such a such an intellect, such amental power.
And then he's brushing along with all these people that are
just pushing thinking to Olympiclevels.
And, you know, Spinoza says anything that's rare and
excellent is difficult. And so, so I feel like we're

(54:08):
kind of trying to, to, to learn how to gain some of that
dispositional knowledge that these, these real, you know, I
mean, I, I can imagine the conversations that physicists
would have when they're really wrestling with a problem and
they all sincerely want to see it.
And they know they need a new way to look or they're all stuck

(54:31):
together. And they know that if they
filter it from what they alreadythink, they're only going to get
what they already think, which won't solve the problem.
And so you get this like focus of genius on this idea.
And I think he glimpsed this process that maybe all of us
with effort. You know, I feel like I was

(54:51):
really blessed by some teachers that that in dialogue had this
ability to sort of demonstrate away to think and and not just
take things apart, but put them together or turn them around or
a way to. They could model a free
thinking, open, unfiltered approach to things.

(55:13):
And that you kind of get the spirit of the thing from them,
as well as understanding that, OK, well, you just don't want to
do this or that, you know, but more of the, the flavor of
things. And I, that's what I mean by
dispositional knowledge, is thatthere's a kind of a genius there
that we, that we're just kind oftrying to, to get just a little

(55:34):
taste of how that works. Well, and I think there's more
than thinking. I, I think there's because I,
when I listen to you, you know, what I'm, what I'm hearing is
transmission. You know that, you know, it's
like some of the great teachers who have lived to have

(55:56):
experience to have, and they actually embody this wisdom
which may get spoken through words intellectually, but that's
not all. So when when you sit with them,
you receive a transmission and the words are only a very small
part of what's coming to you. I do believe that you receive

(56:22):
it. Now, can you actually act on it
and go out and make the wheel? No.
Can it influence kind of the ground of who you are and, and
how you move forward in your life?
Absolutely. So, yeah.
So I'm not, I mean, I'm, I'm notsure kind of what the, I'm not

(56:47):
sure where we're navigating right now.
Because I, I think one thing waswe started out with kind of
talking in a way that actually was pretty expanded and
expansive and conceptual and lovely, lovely play from my
perspective and very real. And then Boaz, you asked the

(57:07):
question about, well, what does this kind of look like?
Right, You know, and, and how doyou, how do you talk about it
with people? How do you, you know, what are,
what are some of the things thatare important to be paying
attention to? How does that translate into an
organizational environment? And, you know, without giving a
workbook, I've been, I've, I've just, I've been trying to kind

(57:31):
of talk to the threads of that. And, and so I'm wondering kind
of what's next? I mean in how would you like to
leave or where else would you like to go?
What I was pointing at was just that it, it seems like it's more

(57:52):
than just techniques, that it's actually something that has to
shift in in a perceptive condition somehow.
And so that's I guess what I'm trying to point at.
It's just that. And it really is about the
mechanism that we experience andcommunicate through and that,

(58:13):
and that's a tall order to just go in and say, OK, we're going
to, we're going to, we're going to turn this on.
Well, that's yeah. So it doesn't happen like that.
I mean, I think that when, when I've gone into, let's say an
organization or to work with a team, right?
And, and I'm, you know, I mean, I will talk to them about it not

(58:39):
being a one time deal. Sometimes it is.
And always I've never had an experience where people don't
say, wow, that was a different kind of conversation that I'm
used to. That was great.
I wish we had more conversationslike this.
So that's like that's like level1 in some sense, right, Because

(59:03):
what they are so used to is, is basically David, you know,
discussion percussion, you know,like I'm right, you're right.
But you know, so they're and so for a while, you know, they're
they're bringing forward their curiosity and they're listening,
you know, and maybe they're alsoidentity starting to talk a bit
more about the way that they that they think about this

(59:28):
problem, you know, and why they think that way.
Like how did they get there to that conclusion?
You know, and they kind of beginto unpack that, which is not
something they normally do. So so that is very useful,
right? And it's, and so there's
comments, you know, about that. If groups continue to have, you

(59:56):
know, to have more conversations, use some of those
same guidelines, then they beginto the probability increases
that that portal is going to open at some point, you know,

(01:00:16):
and it's always going to be a surprise.
It's going to be a delightful surprise.
For people, it's like, whoa. And they caught the scent on the
wind and so now they kind of know, have an instinct to how to
follow maybe or hotter, hotter, colder, colder.
Yeah, they know kind of like there's something else going on

(01:00:38):
here, you know, and they know they've created that together,
you know, through the way that they're engaging and talking
with each other and the way they're paying attention.
I'm sorry, but David Bohm, he really believed that was the
unfolding of the implicant orderwhen we get something new out of
that, didn't he? I Would you say that?

(01:01:00):
I think he believed life was theunfolding of the implicant
order, quite frankly. But but I but, and that what?
And that what came forward depended upon what we paid
attention to. So, so yes, that kind of an
experience where people, I thinkwhat happens is people begin to
experience themselves thinking together, not like a bunch of

(01:01:25):
collectives, but actually a being that's thinking together.
And I'm sitting in the circle and I'm having a thought that I
want to put into, to offer into the circle.
And the person across the way speaks to the same thing.
And I have no need whatsoever tofollow them with my version of

(01:01:51):
that thing because it's already in the circle.
And the fact that I might have said it in different words makes
no difference whatsoever. I'm there's no attachment to I
had to say whatever this thing is, that's, that's a sign that
there's this collective being that's, that's beginning to, to
be there and people and it's changing the way people are

(01:02:14):
experiencing and the way they'recommunicating with each other.
So that does happen. Now the other thing that happens
though it just in being truthfuland honest about it is that if
you continue to be committed to look at your assumptions and how

(01:02:36):
you're making meaning, you will run into things that don't work
that you're very attached to. And so unless you're willing to
let go, you know, of those things, you will, they'll be

(01:02:57):
like a backlash type of responseto the dialogue, right.
It's almost like the the system that exists is saying, oops,
there's something foreign happening here and it's
threatening the way we think about ourselves and who we say
we are. And so antibodies get busy, get

(01:03:22):
rid of this. So.
So that also happens. Yeah.
And, and it's totally understandable, you know.
Self corrective function. Yeah.
So, so along the, the practical lines, I like to try to dance

(01:03:45):
with how do we make the outcomesthat are possible with dialogue,
higher probability. And, and what I find when we
practice dialogue, Glenna, is that there are some patterns
that I've noticed. So, so there is this kind of

(01:04:09):
propositional knowledge to, to use Brian's phrase, where, where
we can kind of develop a nose for how, how it feels when the
portal might open and how to create space for that or
something like that. But I think there are also some,

(01:04:30):
some tools. So for example, earlier I
mentioned if, if we keep an eye out for paradoxes, then we might
recognize the opportunity to change our thinking so that the
paradox can be integrated. So there's there's like a portal

(01:04:51):
to the portal. When we see a paradox, there's a
portal to the portal. It's like in the matrix from the
Black Hat across it a couple of times.
Another one that that I've noticed that you and I, I don't
think have talked much about yet, and I'm curious to hear
your thoughts about it, is that in our dialogue group, we've got

(01:05:12):
a bunch of really smart, competent consultants that come
with all the frameworks in the world and, and use them well,
are practiced in using frameworks.
And sometimes we see frameworks meet and we use this framework

(01:05:32):
to apply that framework and thatcan give us a leap.
So, so for example, one framework that I love to use and
that opened the door to my interest in dialogue is Ken
Wilber's 4 quadrants. We've talked about this, right?

(01:05:54):
So there's the internal and external along 1 axis and the
individual and collective along the other.
And dialogue is the only tool I know of that works on the
collective internal quadrant andgives us access to that aspect
of an organization. When we take that framework and

(01:06:18):
take Larry's polarity framework and kind of mix them together or
use one to view the other, we suddenly have potentially a
quantum leap in how we're viewing the emergent, what we
you know, or, or the topic or, or what have you.

(01:06:41):
So I'm curious what reactions you have to these kinds of tools
maybe and what other tools you might offer.
Or do you think this rabbit holeof tools is not a useful
direction? I think, OK, so I I so language,

(01:07:04):
OK, when I hear the word tool, Ithink about screwdrivers and OK.
And, and so that's kind of the energetic for me of tools.
They're very practical. They're very useful.
They have very specific ways in which they can be used.

(01:07:25):
Although people, you might say, well, I could use a screwdriver
for something it wasn't initially intended for and still
it would be useful. That's true.
And then I think, you know, there are models.
This is a distinction I learned from a teacher of mine.
There are models that are kind of like A2 dimensional

(01:07:47):
representation of something thathelp people image something.
And then there are what my teacher used to call frameworks.
And frameworks are something that as you move through the
framework, the whole experience becomes 3, potentially 4

(01:08:10):
dimensional. It's changing you as you're
moving in the framework. Tools don't tend to do that.
So when you talk about Ken Wilber's integral quadrants that
you know what that does is give you a reference to whole, right.

(01:08:35):
So and most of our most of our organizations tend to hang out
in the two external quadrants ofindividual skills and tools on
the top right and budget strategies, P and LS on the
bottom in the group and rarely go into the interior.

(01:09:01):
And it's one of the reasons why so much of what's on the
outside, especially in the bottom quadrant, doesn't work or
works very incompletely. So, but at any rate, it, it, I
think it opens the possibility of proceeding the whole, that
particular framework. So as you navigate the whole

(01:09:21):
thing, you begin to pull in these, all these other
dimensions of who we are. So then if you take something
like polarity or paradox, which is a polarity, usually it's
well, that's not always true. I don't want to get into the
detail of that. But still, when you get take

(01:09:43):
things like that or conflict, you know, David Bohm used to say
that's the true, you know, an Arnie Mandel's process work use
conflict as a very powerful framework for being in the whole
and gaining different perspectives that were and being
able to integrate different things into the into our view
and our experience of the whole.Then those particular two.

(01:10:09):
First you've opened the whole, then you bring it.
You know, if you bring in a paradox or two polar things that
look like they're irreconcilableand you're and you've opened the
lens or the ability to look fromthe whole, you recognize that
you never resolve paradox. The tension of paradox is part

(01:10:32):
is and the opposition is only a,is only part of where we're
standing and looking from. It's not inherent in the two
energies at all, right? But when you have a, a framework
that enables you to look at thatparadox from the whole, then

(01:10:52):
things change. So I guess, and I think that's
what, what is the guy's name? Barry?
What was his last name? Who did all the work with
paradox And he also has a four quadrant system that he works
with paradox with. At any rate, you know that when

(01:11:13):
you're working a framework that as you work it, it literally
shifts the way that you are perceiving reality.
I think that's one of the thingsthat that can help a group to
move in that way. And sometimes there may be
combinations that really go together well.

(01:11:34):
But I think the danger is if youstart getting into the analytic
thing, OK, we're going to analyze with this, you can
actually vandalize, that's what my teacher used to call it, kind
of vandalize the power of the framework because you move it
from three-dimensional or 4 dimensional to two or even one

(01:11:56):
with the analysis and and then you lose the portal, right?
So rather than activate it, right.
So I don't know if that made anysense.
Yeah, yeah, that I, I really liked the, the clarification
about what these words like tooland framework mean to you and

(01:12:18):
model and, and I'm excited to kind of be more precise about
how I use those ideas in the future.
I'm wondering if if there, if there are other other ways that
you think about improving the chances of success in

(01:12:44):
organizations for, for the use of dialogue or, or you know,
what are your expectations? And, you know, and if you're
going to do 10 sessions with a group, I imagine you're not
expecting the portal to be open a majority of the time.
But there are other useful outcomes.

(01:13:08):
Yeah. So at one, at, at at kind of
level 1, there's the outcome of it's like team building in a
sense. You know, people learn how to
communicate more effectively with each other.
They learn how to listen, to be curious, that, you know, they
they will get better results, they will make better decisions
because by virtue of learning todo that, they're actually

(01:13:30):
bringing in more information that will inform and shape
whatever decisions they make. So and I think they also, you
know, there's also a next level where where they begin to be
able to not resolve conflict, but actually use it as a

(01:13:53):
doorway, you know, to again, seemore of the system.
Arnie Mandel used to say conflict is a signal that
something needs to move in the system.
So there it's not that there's aright or a wrong, there's

(01:14:14):
something stuck. And so he saw his work as by
enabling people to engage with that conflict in the system to
then begin to enable the a flow to re establish itself or

(01:14:34):
movement to happen. And I think when people begin to
see conflict as a source, a resource actually that does
require them being skillful. And it, it all, of course, it
requires them to be able to witness and not, not to be in

(01:14:57):
judgment and attachment. There's a whole lot of things
that then happen, not only in terms of what people can see in
terms of, you know, and, and howthat influences their ability to
think together, but also there'sa huge influence on their
relationships. So that can happen when I have

(01:15:20):
gone into an organization and been able to do work with a
group of people, like a departmental team over a period
of sessions with, it's always with the intention that they
will use the dialogue, practice the skills for their day-to-day,

(01:15:43):
to engage with their day-to-day challenges and they will in the
process learn to facilitate their own dialogue.
In other words, I'm not necessary.
So in the beginning, I do facilitate because it's within
our culture. It's too, it's too radical for

(01:16:07):
the facilitator to say here thisis your job, right?
But that's where that's where they need to go.
They need to not be dependent upon another person.
Because when we do that, we shift the burden of
responsibility and we shift it inside ourselves, you know, and

(01:16:28):
then we don't do the work that'sneeded to develop the kind of
listening and curiosity and assumption identification that's
going to take us to a next level.
Yeah. So yeah.
What, what this is bringing up for me, Brian, is the the
connection to the conversations we've had about Lebanas and

(01:16:50):
phenomenology and how encountering the other is
necessary to experience the infinite.
And, and what Glenna is calling kind of how we relate to deep
listening and judgments and assumptions and witnessing has
to do with not totalizing, right?

(01:17:15):
I was wondering if you were kindof landing in the same place and
what's coming up for you? Yeah, you know, the whole, I
guess I the, the thing that I keep coming back to is this
happening in a work environment and that that that might make a

(01:17:38):
challenging context. And at the same time, it seems
like maybe this is really the place that needs transformation
and that somehow maybe sinceritybecomes the foundation for for
read recontextualizing work relationships.

(01:18:01):
But but for yeah, for Lavinas. And I guess it also, you know,
which we haven't talked about isthis is a sort of an ethical, an
ethical responsibility that shows up in Lavinas.
So we haven't talked about. And that is that that I sort of
I have almost a metaphysical obligation to discover the

(01:18:28):
relevance that this other personhas for me.
And therefore it's it's like I'mnot I'm not furthering my own
philosophical growth if I don't police my own assumptions and
don't you know, hold hold my ownfeet to the fire in that way

(01:18:50):
that that sort of brings us to that place.
And so that it really has a moral kind of a component.
And and I guess I feel that there is an ethics, maybe an
unspoken ethics to work relationships that, that we
expect a kind of a sincerity that we bring to it and that
that we. Yeah, that well, and this is I

(01:19:13):
guess I, I'm, I'm a great one for the idea of setting examples
and having, you know, so the people that I would want to have
this, this training with first would probably be the board of
directors and, and then and thenlet it trickle down through by
by example. And because there, there there's

(01:19:34):
a, a thing that's happening, notjust we're here at work and
we're trying to get better numbers, but that like this is
like a big part of our lives andwe're spending a lot of our
lives with each other doing thisthing.
And shouldn't that be the pithiest?
Shouldn't that move us along our, the course of our lives as

(01:19:54):
much as it can instead of just being something that we do so
that we can buy lunch? And so that like, like, I'm, I
mean, I guess it's a different take on work life balance
because I don't see a difference.
I've never seen a difference between work and life.

(01:20:15):
Maybe that's been my problem. But, but I, I guess I'm looking
again, it's this idea of fragmentation and reintegration
and wholeness and, and us together unfolding a future by
what we choose to give attentionto.
I mean, that's all just bullseye, right?

(01:20:37):
And, and, and so, so no, I, I find it all fascinating.
And I guess I feel like in our time of hyper novelty and with
these new these new technologiesthat are enabling us to connect
in all these different ways, that it's like this is the kind
of work that's really thrown at our feet, you know, because we

(01:21:00):
have so much to resolve. And yet now we have you.
Like the clues are here, the pieces are here.
Some of these luminaries have dropped the, the, the clues for
us, but we have this due diligence, you know, like we say
in the Chinese classics, even though it is our inheritance, we
still must strive to attain it. And so I guess I kind of feel

(01:21:21):
like all of that is all wrapped up in there and that we tend to
fragmented into, OK, this is a thing that's happening at work.
So I'm going to bring my work self there and I'm going to put
on my work mind. And I just don't know how much
future there is once I've gone through that process.
And I'd really like to open up what's going on in our

(01:21:43):
relationship to our work and howit, how it does us as we do it.
So relationships in, in work that's just huge and enormous
and feeling responsibility to the, to the, the isness of our
humans, you know, in our settinglike that, that's just
fundamental to me. And, and I don't tolerate a work

(01:22:07):
environment now I'm retired. So, you know, but I won't, I
won't tolerate a work environment does that doesn't
show a certain amount of respectto who I am.
And, and, and maybe that's a part of that sincerity that I
expect to be shown when I bring it to that place.
And, and I just see that challenge in a lot of work
environments. And so I see this is really, you

(01:22:30):
know, not just a breath of freshair, but a chance to to re pithy
if I work in, in in a way to adddimension that humanizes it
somehow. And and I saw that.
So that's where I go from Lavina's is that there's a
really big moral component and, and, and, and an unfolding of

(01:22:51):
who we are in this, the Infinityof ourselves and others, you
know? Yes, that makes sense.
Well, and as you're talking, I'mthinking, well, you know, this
just if we just think about that, there are there are arenas
or territories right in our in our meaning making world.

(01:23:16):
And the huge one is work, another one is family, another
one. So right.
So you know, it's like in our culture, what is work, right?
And, and what are all the assumptions we hold around it?
What are the power that all of that is all about our, the

(01:23:37):
meaning that we've created over years and years and years,
right? It's evolved over centuries, but
you know, of work and what is work And and there's all kinds
of assumptions and expectations that we have about not actually
being a place where we bring ourwhole being.

(01:23:58):
And of course, now in the last, what, 25 years, maybe 30 years,
you know, the workplace is more and more talking about we want
you to show up with your whole self, right.
Of course, there are also a lot of subtext to that, that and,
you know, except this piece hereor don't talk to that VP that
way or so. There's all kinds of power stuff

(01:24:22):
in it as well. And it's but yeah, it's.
And that, I mean, that was a question for me too when I began
to do some of the dialogue exploration within organizations
was the recognition that, yes, you know, those hierarchies
exist. Does that mean it's not because

(01:24:45):
I can't change that whole thing overnight, that it's not worth
doing that, you know, introducing people to this?
And of course, my choice was, no, that's not what it means
because, you know, this change, you know, could, could, it could
create kind of like epiphany moments for some people, shifts

(01:25:06):
in how people feel about their life, about work, about their
family, whatever it is, right? But it, it could.
But the work, this kind of work of to me, it feels so huge.
You know, it, it's like my life is like a second in time.
You know, I'm not going to change the world and yet I am

(01:25:31):
changing the world, right? That's one of the amazing
paradoxes that I, you know, thatI really, that I had an
experience around, you know, when I was 30.
And it's just, you know, becauseI exist, everything in the
universe is different. And if I stop existing, it's

(01:25:51):
really not a big deal. I'm.
Not sure that's possible. I think, well, yeah, there's
another conversation. Do we ever stop existing, or do
we become part of the Super implicates implicate order and
come back out anyway? Both as well say something.
I want to stay with organizations just for, for
another round here because, you know, Brian said earlier,

(01:26:16):
wouldn't it be great if we couldstart with the board of
directors and, and have a modeling of the ethics that a
dialogic relationship at work could represent?
And Glenn, I'm wondering what kind of experiences you've had
working at different levels of the organization and, and you

(01:26:38):
know, do you, do you commonly find openness at the highest
levels of an organization? And what do you think gets in
the way if not? You read my mind, Boaz.
I have. I have limited experience
working at the upper levels of organizations.

(01:26:59):
It's not a place that I have hada lot of access to and so more
of my experience is probably working with like departments
within large organizations or the work we did Boaz, right a

(01:27:21):
few years ago. That's the top of a small
organization within a much larger organization.
So, but that was an example of where, you know, there was where
the leader could make choices, could make decisions that might

(01:27:43):
not have been able to be made lower down of, you know, and of
bringing in people, a select group of people.
So I think it's always more or Idon't know if that is that true.
I've worked with a couple of boards in foundations and not

(01:28:07):
for profits. And I think that potentially
that is the that is the highest leverage place to go simply
because you're working in a hierarchy and they're at the top
of the hierarchy. And so they can take something

(01:28:32):
down where some where people in the middle may not be able to
influence anything moving up. We tend to be able to influence
what's beneath us in the hierarchy in term in terms of
decision making, that kind of thing and use of resources.
And I think both of those are really important, but the same

(01:28:56):
dynamics exist. So when I did work with the
board, when I worked with the board of the Fetzer Institute,
you know, we worked with the board and then we actually
worked with the whole of the institute.
And of course that's not a huge organization, but the dialogue
went throughout the organizationand for a couple of years that

(01:29:21):
was incredibly powerful for thatorganization.
And then, you know, somebody newcame in and they, I'm not sure.
I think Part 1 of the patterns that is very powerful in
interrupting this is when a new leader comes in and for whatever

(01:29:42):
reason, they, they almost alwayscome in with a mandate that
they're new and they're supposedto make a difference.
Either because something isn't working and they're supposed to
fix it, which is 1 scenario, or it could be that everything's
working but this other person has left and we want to know
that we've made the right choice.

(01:30:03):
So we want to see who you are. You know, you have to prove
yourself to us. In other words, in both cases,
whether it's sort of like a neutral positive or negative,
the leader always has to prove themselves.
So it takes a very particular person to not to actually go to
people that are already there and say, tell me what's working

(01:30:26):
and how I can prove myself by helping you make everything even
better, right? That's not generally what
happens. So I think, you know, the and,
and so that's one of the ways that systems get limited or
limit themselves, you know, or we limit ourselves because we

(01:30:49):
buy into that organizational culture and that set of
expectations. So maybe a so it takes an
unusual leader, but they exist. I mean, they do exist, but
they're not, they're my experience is there's not a
whole lot of them. And from one of the people that
I do know who did all of her work in big organizations at the

(01:31:10):
top, she spent a lot of time being very choosy about who she
worked with. And she did it not just for
herself, but also for the peoplein the organization because she
knew that there was either goingto be like positive cascading
down or there was going to be backlash kind of stuff.

(01:31:30):
And then it not only would it bea waste of her time, but it
actually could be detrimental topeople Because, you know, it's
like when you go in and you introduce something and people
get a taste of it and they recognize the value.
And then something happens wherethey get told, I'm sorry, we're
not doing that. There's, you know, it's hard.

(01:31:56):
I still think it's a value to them in your personally to every
person who was there because they had a different kind of
experience and they know what's possible.
So I think it's worth having done the work.
And I also understand that it can be, it can be really kind of
disruptive for some people. It's in a negative.

(01:32:21):
Sense it sounds. Like what?
Disruptive. Yeah, it can.
It can be difficult, disruptive in a difficult way.
So let me give a different example.
That's just an individual example, but I think it's the
same kind of, I don't know. I think I think we as people who
come in from outside have some responsibility.

(01:32:42):
So for example, people would sayto me often you do these like
intensive, you know, introduction to dialogue things.
And they were all in person and they said that one, many number
of people would ask me, So what do you do, You know, when
somebody like falls apart? And I said I've actually never

(01:33:08):
had that experience. And it's not because people
don't go to places that are really risky for them.
I mean, I attribute it to the fact that when I set up work,
especially intense work with people in person, I talk to
people about paying attention. If this feels scary to you.

(01:33:34):
And but it feels like something where you can push it and you'll
be OK. You'll be able to take care of
yourself. You know, you might want
somebody to pat you on the shoulder, but other than that,
you, you, you're going to be OK.Go for it, you know, But if you
feel like you're not sure or no,it feels like you're really
getting pushed, don't do it, youknow?

(01:33:58):
So take, you know, take the responsibility and really let
people know that that's good that you know that that getting
giving in the pressure to belongis not a good is not good.
And then I also talked to the group because it's so possible
for groups to put pressure on people to go where they really

(01:34:20):
shouldn't go. And they can do it without ever
even knowing that they're doing it.
So by really working with that, I think it helps create a place
that's safe so people don't end up falling apart and not being
able to put it back together. Right, which is I think if

(01:34:41):
people get disrupted and they'rethey have the tools to deal with
it and I can be a little bit helpful, but I'm that's not my
profession, then that can be good.
You know, they can make use of that disruption for really in
depth learning for themselves, but just getting super disrupted
just to know, you know, that feels really it feels dangerous.

(01:35:06):
And I think there are times whenthere can be individuals in an
organization who might get, you know, disrupted in a way by
backlash with things changing ora leader saying, Oh, you thought
you had the great. I mean, they don't say this, but
the action is like, wow, you know this.
They had this wonderful environment that they suddenly

(01:35:28):
discovered and they're feeling like different than they have
for a long time. And then somebody puts their
foot down on top of it. And depending upon the integrity
of that person, I mean inner integrity, not their values,
depending upon that integrity, that could be pretty
distressing. And I would not want to see that

(01:35:48):
kind of thing happen. So I think about that kind of
stuff, you know, when I, I don'tdo it anymore because I don't do
that work anymore pretty much just occasionally.
But, but I thought about that a lot when I was working in
organizations, yeah. Thanks for for following that

(01:36:10):
thread. It, it seems to me that maybe we
reinforce the leadership personas of leaders needing to
know what's right and knowing how to do what needs to be done
and outsourcing kind of like the, the vision, the North Star

(01:36:36):
to them. And, you know, and that
concretizes them in a, in a sortof in a trap where they can't
learn, they can't take a dialogic view because they're
supposed to know already. And that's really unfortunate.
Yeah, yeah. Yeah, we do.

(01:36:58):
We do that. I mean, we put our leaders in
boxes, you know, and, and part of it, I do think in our
culture, part of it is because we don't want to accept
responsibility. We, you know, unfortunately I
think we want somebody else to, you know, take care of it for
us, you know, so I'm not going to go much further with that

(01:37:20):
one, but I, yeah. Because because my next question
for you, Glenn up is, I mean, dialogue is really integrated
into your life and we meant in work life balance before, at
least that's my impression that that you, you are identified
with this work in some way. And so I'm, I'm curious how it

(01:37:42):
informs how you live, how, how, because that dialogue isn't just
a practice. I think it's also a philosophy.
I think it's also an ethics. I think it's also a, a, a way
of, of being in the world. And you're the person that I
know that represents that in some way.

(01:38:02):
I'm not saying that's all you are by any stretch, but I'm
curious about how dialogue and how you live have kind of
together. Well, in some sense it's kind of
like a cosmology. I mean, in a way because it's
how it is one of the ways I makesense of the world, the kind of

(01:38:24):
practical, you know, down to earth world.
And so I think one of the one ofthe ways it affects my life is
that I work really hard to, to hold the whole and to not take

(01:38:49):
sides, which doesn't mean that Idon't, I do, I mean, so, but,
but I recognize the value of, for me of holding the whole.
And so, for example, in our country now, you know, with all

(01:39:09):
the division that's present in our country, and it actually,
it's been here for lots of years, it's gotten more
dramatic, you know, I think because of some of the people
involved. But it's been here for a long,
for quite some time, that Division.
I try, I try really hard to remind myself that no matter

(01:39:33):
which side you appreciate more, people on both sides have
realities and truths that are important to them.
And there's a reason why, you know, they take the side that

(01:39:54):
they take. And part of my job is to try to
understand that. Rather than fight against it.
So I hold activism, for example,in a very particular way.
You know, I'm not going to join an activist group that is going
to get violent, call people names, that sort of thing,

(01:40:19):
because I think all that does isreinforce the exact same
divisiveness that exists now. Are there times when I want to?
Yes, absolutely. So, you know, I, I mean, I, I
recognize, I, I think the other thing that is very true for me

(01:40:41):
is I'm very aware of all the assumptions that are running
around, you know, inside of me. And I know that there are
aspects of the larger culture that I grew up in and that's in
the air that I breathe that comeout of my mouth all the time.
And they also dictate how I feelabout something, you know, and,

(01:41:04):
and I, So what I do is try to beaware of them.
I don't expect them to not be there, but I, but I, I try to
learn to witness them. And of course, when I and when I
get emotionally upset, I try to give myself a space to calm down
because I know that when I'm emotionally upset, I'm a bitch,

(01:41:28):
you know, I mean, I all those kind of negative patterns can
come to the foreground because the emotions in the chemistry
kind of open the door for that. So it doesn't mean I don't want
to be emotional because I, I don't believe in that.
You know, I believe emotions area very important aspect of who

(01:41:51):
we are. But I also know that the stress
responses in our bodies, you know, kind of open the door for
stuff to come out that can be really harmful.
So yeah. So that's a little bit of it,
yeah. Thanks.

(01:42:14):
And what's interesting for you these days, what are you
thinking about? What are you working on?
What's what's your? What's unfolding for you?
What's what I find myself putting more and more energy in
to is it's just looking for opportunities to explore what

(01:42:37):
are different people doing with dialogue and not just listen to
what they're saying. But if I get invited to a group,
go and be in it and practice what they're practicing and see
what is, what is that? You know, what's 'cause there's,
it's like, there, it's like this, you know, prism with all
these different facets. And so I'm, and I want to, I

(01:43:02):
want, I almost never see a form of I, I don't think I've seen
one. I don't think I've seen a form
of dialogue that I don't think has value.
You know, I think there are manyforms that are missing the
metacognitive component, which for me is critical.
But that doesn't mean they're not valuable.
It doesn't mean they're not doing great work around

(01:43:24):
relationships and you know, which feels incredibly important
in our world with all the divisions that we do have,
because I think we have more of a tendency to be willing to
overcome fragmentation with people that we care about.
It doesn't mean it'll be easy. We see that in our personal

(01:43:45):
relationships for sure, but we're motivated.
So I, so I think that work is also really, really important.
And so I'm also doing a lot morestuff that, you know, is just
kind of pro bono. Our dialogue group.
I love our dialogue group and the exploration that we're

(01:44:07):
engaged with the experiment thatwe're doing, you know, about how
could a group actually be a collective, actually be come in
and help people versus a individual consultant kind of
thing. So it's exploring that that
experiment has a lot of, you know, value for me.

(01:44:28):
I'm, I'm also working on a curriculum with a group of
international people that are developing a, a curriculum for a
university in Germany around global We consciousness that was
motivated, came out of an interest of the leader around

(01:44:49):
climate change and having globalwe consciousness being so
necessary to even be able to think about climate change.
And so that's, that's challenging because it's got
scope creep. That's crazy, but it's also
really engaging. It's I'm pushing my edges, which

(01:45:11):
I, which is a good thing. So I'm doing that.
So I'm kind of looking for opportunities, you know, to
engage, but to do that in a way that supports people, you know,
in with dialogue with as kind ofthe primary focus.
Yeah, awesome. Brian, is there anything

(01:45:33):
remaining for you? Not that leaps to mind, other
than to encourage people to findout about David Bohm, because I
mean, seriously, this guy was was one-of-a-kind.
And no, I mean, I think that it really just to sort of sum it

(01:45:57):
up, you know, we started 60 someepisodes ago not really knowing
where our dialogue would end up.And we've been through a lot of
different areas and we've pulleda lot of references and sort of
recapitulated a lot of the partsof Western thought.
And we find ourselves ending up here with dialogue as as a

(01:46:20):
important thing, whether it's from Plato or from Lavinas or,
or, you know, any of those more modern settings.
And so I feel like this is a it's a conversation or a topic
that's bubbling up on its own. And I have to think that it's
doing so because it's apropos. It is, it is a time for this.

(01:46:44):
I think that that's what David Bohm thought, if I may be so
bold, that that we are in a place where now our
understanding will enable us to understand fragmentation and our
role in it and the price we pay for it.
And the the idea that there is apathway beyond it.
And that they're, you know, there's some universality to the

(01:47:08):
directions that those folks, be it, you know, David Bohm or
Krishnamurti or the Dalai Lama or that whole, you know, that
whole direction. I think that there is an
interesting. I'm very invested in philosophy,
gluing everything back together again.
You know, philosophy used to be everything was philosophy.

(01:47:28):
There was no trying to understand the world that was
not considered philosophy. We called science natural
philosophy and and and metaphysics was first
philosophy, you know, but so I feel like, like, you know, we're
in a place where our philosophy makes a huge difference now and
how we think about the world andrelate to it is huge.

(01:47:52):
We got to get smarter about it really quick, I think.
And we need to use technology ina way that empowers that, which
is what we're trying to do with fools and sages as opposed to
confusing and and and obscure it.
And, and so so this is just beena, you know, a beautiful natural
piece of this, of our own unfolding of the implicate into

(01:48:16):
the explicate. So, so now it's been wonderful.
Cool. Thank you.
Well, it's been lots of fun. So which is that's another motto
these days. If I can't have some fun doing
it, even if it's still challenging, if it's not at all,
does no fun, don't want to so. Yeah.

(01:48:38):
And I think it's been riveting. The conversations we've had have
just been really riveting to me.And so I that's what's what
keeps bringing me back to the whole dialogue.
Yeah, I love what you, what the two of you are doing.
You know, whenever I have a chance to listen, I'm always,
always fascinated and I always, you know, always I don't know if

(01:49:00):
it's fire. They're very evocative.
That's what I they're evocative and sometimes pro rocketed.
Yeah. Great, you definitely get a mug.
That's right. Oh, I definitely want a mug.
So thank you both very much. OK.
Glenn, I really appreciate it. I hope we can come back together

(01:49:20):
at some point and, and do this again as as we all continue our
unfolding. I feel like I, I learned about
you today. I learned more about David Bohm
today. I learned more about dialogue
today, as I do every time we we spend time together.
So I'm, I'm really grateful for that and I look forward to

(01:49:41):
seeing you soon. That's great.
Likewise. All right, you too.
Take care. Thank you.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Cardiac Cowboys

The Joe Rogan Experience

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}#64: Glenna Gerard: Dialogue and the Ineffable

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Cardiac Cowboys

The Joe Rogan Experience

All Episodes

#64: Glenna Gerard: Dialogue and the Ineffable

Stuff You Should Know