Dialogue. Trust. Nonviolence.

I have just finished reading the section on dialogue in The Journey to Truth is an Experience. It is so ripe with blogging possibilities that I am having heart palpitations just trying to decide how to go about this. Most likely I will spew much information and ideas noncoherently, but as usual, it makes sense in MY head :-D

The impression I get about dialogue from my reading, and of which I wholeheartedly agree, is basically this: In order to truly reach someone on a meaningful level (i.e. dialogue), you must have a certain maturity, comfort level, and understanding of your own self and ideas. Dialogue is a function of universality and totality to which man is destined, but true dialogue is only true dialogue if it is lived as a comparison of the other's proposal with one's own proposal. Standing to reason, then, that if one does not have a complete awareness and understanding of his/her own proposal, it is nearly impossible to hear the position and ideas of another person. There is a schism, and it cannot be overcome without maturity and comfort of one's own ideas.

That is not to say that engaging in dialogue is a means of putting one's views on the line and searching for compromise. To search for a common starting point in order to truly engage with another is not compromising one's own ideas but it is a way to learn from each other without fear of differences of opinion. And this is a path that leads to trust.

I have it on good authority that the doctors at the Mayo Clinic have to go through a trust training workshop. The workshop boils down to the fact that if the words coming out of your mouth do not match up with the thoughts in your head, it is a breakdown of trust with another. People can sense when they are being patronized or used as a conversion. That is not trust, that is not dialogue, that is not maturity nor understanding. We are all in this life together, regardless of ideas/beliefs/life stations, and to not be comfortable finding a common ground to move on from is all about fear. Fear of a differing view maybe. Or fear of an undesirable outcome.

Okay, backing up here, we have Maturity ----> Dialogue ----> Trust.

This is true on a micro scale, in our everyday interactions and conversations, but it is also true on a grander scale. Reading this has led to a connect in my mind between two groups Conrad and I are involved in: our group which studies this book and another group we are involved in--on a superficial level anyway--the Nonviolent Peace Force. One is a search for Christ in everyday encounters and one is a nonpartisan, nonsectarian search for peaceful encounters in treacherous world situations.

Background:

The mission of Nonviolent Peace Force is to build a large-scale trained, international civilian nonviolent peaceforce. Nonviolent Peaceforce will be sent to conflict areas to prevent death and destruction and protect human rights, thus creating the space for local groups to struggle nonviolently, enter into dialogue, and seek peaceful resolution.

So imagine a large group of peace-loving people from all belief systems and walks of life having the maturity to be completely comfortable with their own ideas, enough so that they are able to dialogue in the most perilous and threatening situations and come to a level of trust that in turn can change the world.

Idealistic? Maybe. But where would we be without ideals?