Interactions

These are how Conscious Beings coevolve in interaction with others. 

Dialogues, Debates, Arguments, Hostilities have exact parallels in the domain of Coevolution patterns of Mutual, Competitive, Host-Parasite, Predator-Prey.

The first two are to be sought out and nurtured - they correspond to the Mutual, Competitive patterns.

Whereas the last two are to be identified, ideally before the express, and nudged into the first two patterns.

A bit more needs to be added to this section to make it complete.

The Bohmian Model

The Physicist-Philosopher David Bohm and J. Krishnamurti, two of our many inspirations, had a number of talks which have been very influential in clarifying JK’s deeply profound teachings. 

Physics

Bohm in his mode as philosopher spoke an implicate order of the Universe into which everything enfolded, and an explicate order into which everything unfolded (manifested), implying that everything is likely connected, like every part of a Hologram containing an image of the whole.

Language

Bohm also hypothesized that the Universe, in addition to Energy & Matter, was also based on Meaning and the search for Meaning is what drives human existence.

This is exactly our Conscious Universe.

Bohm’s unique ability to nail down the actual Meaning of JK’s teachings were very profound, and it has filtered down into the techniques of Dialog that we talk of here, and shed light on the nature of Debate too. 

He had an art of clarifying exactly, with scientific precision, withholding all poetic embellishment, on what is being said.

The ephemeral nature of the Mind deserves such a rigorous attention to language to clarify its intent, at least from a second person’s perspective, if not from a more universal perspective if such exists even.

Language, however, exists at many levels - across cultures, cults, species even.

Here we look at two of the more interesting forms of how Language is used in conversations- in Dialog and in Debate. 

As for the concept of discussion, we need not dwell on that as it is more about producing a lot of heat and smoke with very little outcome, and could possibly lead to a concussion even :-)

Debate

A Debate by definition is contentious, and typically to show one-up-manship. So we just list the issues that rise.

Truth Claims

The subjective experience of facts is the process of Truth seeking.

As each side attempts to establish validity of its Truth Claim, it also attempts to negate the others. This is a bipolar model of the world and not reflective of full understanding.

We can also have more than one Truth Claim being established, and thus the first thing to realize is that it may not be simply a two-value proposition, there are also 4-value Hindu Logic systems, e.g. true-true, true-false, false-true, false-false, etc.

Indeed, Truth lies in its interpretations. 

As in, when we collect all the interpretations of any particular statement, we see there are two meanings to the phrase lies in:

• as in “is embedded in”: when we resolve any conflicting interpretations then what is agreed upon is the Truth.

• as in “is falsified by”: when we cannot resolve any aspect of conflicting interpretations then Truth does not exist, presumably then this requires more digging until we can go back to the previous step.

In our AI-driven world it is possible to: 

• systematically encode the statements of any document,

• enable all individuals to create interpretations of specific statements,

• use NLP to process these interpretations to keep resolving the Truth.

Insider vs Outsider

Debates in society are also based on an insider versus outsider view, this division being part and parcel of the Social Sciences, where it is called emic vs etic.

In Yogic mind sciences we would call this the Observed & the Observer. And this fragmentation is where the conflict lies, but when all there really is is the Observation alone, and the Observer & Observed are completely & totally one. This is called Samādhi state in Patanjali Sutras, the definitive text on Yogic mind sciences.

By definition the non-practising Outsider will be in a fragmented state wanting to maintain a clinical distance with the Observed, and conversely the knowledgeable Insider will be in Samādhi state as they fully embody the Observed. We are generalizing, to reinforce the concepts, and details could vary, for example the Insider may be deluded, or the Outsider may show empathy.

Whatever the true intent of the Insider or the Outsider, each may also engage with preconceived biases and projections of the other. It is best to clarify this up front to reduce conflict.

The Insider View

An insider will typically have a particular cultural idiom, or concepts, some of which are untranslatable. For example when we say Dia-Log any self-respecting Greek will insist on reminding us of the Logos, and when we say Dharma any self-respecting Hindu will hopefully contrast it with blind Faith of Religion. 

Without culturally sensitive language we lose diversity. Of course by overdoing it we could get fragmented Thought as one side does not even understand the other. But why should only Greek & Latin linguistic roots in English have sole favor - how about Ahramaic, or Hebrew, supposedly the original languages of the Christians?

Our area of expertise though is in the Indian civilization. In fact there is a whole area of Psycholinguistics to consider beyond simple linguistic roots, such as the Sanskrit-Tamil languages that resonate in psychosomatic ways to embed understanding deeper than mental concepts alone, and even transcend such concepts totally. This is exactly the whole purpose of Mantra. 

The resistance to learning a few non-translatables from Sanskrit-Tamil languages must be looked at with attention - after all many of the world’s masters of spiritual traditions hail from such psycholinguistic traditions. Surely something of value may have seeped in, and as we pay attention to the source terminology it allows us to go deeper to the Source of the Truth Claims being made.

Another area of deep learning are the practices of Hatha Yoga & Tantra, as part of Deep Yoga, that ensures this learning is part of every cell, and enlivens it to its fullest potential. Not mere transcending mental constructs in the Mind, but embodying a whole new Avatar when in Rishi mode.

This potent power of linguistic & cultural depth is what makes the knowledgeable Insider so keen to share this total experience of literally being in Samadhi with all of this learning.

The Outsider View

An outsider will typically have a perspective of observing a situation from whatever the dominant discourse prevalent in modern society, which today is as through a clinical lens, devoid of cultural sensitivity. Fragmented and pinned down under a harsh microscopic lens.

The object of study may thus become a soon-to-be-fossilized culture, but the better outcome of such clinical study could be as an impetus for internal reform. 

What is resisted by the Insider is externally-imposed reform because typically large complex systems have millennia of structure and in-built mechanisms for change without needing destruction or implosion.

It's all just Narrative

Finally, who claims to be an Insider is typically every individual’s prerogative, but who claims to speak on behalf of the Insiders needs of course consensus buildup.

Dialog

A dia-log in Greek is any assembly where there is a Logos (reason, or purpose - Buddhi) that “goes through it” (dia, like in diagonal).

So what is the Logos that goes through any group that is assembled?

There could be different group purposes, revolving around understanding a book, or a recipe, or any earthly situation that needs a sharing of perspectives. 

And then there is when a group assembles for the sake of understanding the brain-simulated sense of Self, and in this context Dialog is about ensuring that all members are able to share in a Fresh Creative Moment that arises, spontaneously as it were, to enliven all Minds.

The group with its shared Logos now is a unified Collective Being. 

This is a tall order.

Dialog Issues

There are some issues that arise in reaching this lofty goal.

First, there needs to be a fundamental understanding that each member of the group is observing how to manifest this unified Collective Being. 

If that overarching understanding is not set in place, then such groups become mere intellectual exercises with no lasting impact on individual personality. 

• This ability to go “wow”, having an “aha” moment might be scoffed on by clinical practitioners, but experiencing a Fresh Creative Moment shared is a moment that is not mere dead experience based on past patterns of recognition. It is when all doubt disappears.

• Also, treating it as a moment of Divinity, in a sacred space, makes it feel part of a Grand Cosmic Play, not some serious unsmiling undertaking. Of course there are negative connotations to Divinity in the context of organized Religion, but this is not our particular context.

Second, we each have our own individual frameworks such as biases & opinions, that thus result in a difference of mental capabilities even, and this prevents the entire group from moving together at the same pace. What works here is:

• A skilled facilitator, impartial and sharp.

• A Master/leader, or in their lieu paying full attention to a work of theirs.

Third, is that Groups that meet often where members know each other also have deep fracture lines in the face of repeated confrontations, or tight cliques when there is repeated confirmations of our personal frameworks being reflected. An interesting ritual to help would be for all members to:

• put away some aspect of their clothing, shoes, jacket, hat, scarf etc. affirming internally that they are doing the same with their frameworks, and

• use a mask like in Greek Theater whenever they are speaking, maybe each has a choice of two masks - one for serious comment, one for lightheartedness. This helps us focus on the message, and not the painful human underneath.

Debate to Dialog

The key to resolving conflict in Debate and approach Dialog is to switch Observer/Observed roles, giving credence to all subjective viewpoints, depending on context. In Sanskrit we call this Purva-Paksha, clarifying the other’s perspective totally.

Typically no great Thought (or non-conditioned Thought rather) has come out of a blank slate. It is almost inevitably influenced by other great Thoughts that have gone by, in its particular cultural milieu. 

If in the course of Debate, we clinically (and myopically) negate cultural influence, then we may as well negate all of human life itself and hand ourselves over to an Axiomatic God Machine. 

Of course it is not necessary to deify such lineages of knowledge, nor get caught up in ritual, but a hat-tip to the prior sources of great Thought can properly contextualize the entire Human journey. 

And most importantly prevent us from deifying any one particular Master as the Second Coming!