Dialogue vs “Just Talking”

The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed. We should expect the doctor to have an influence on the patient in every effective psychic treatment; but this influence can only take place when he too is affected by the patient. You can exert no influence if you are not susceptible to influence.
Carl Jung (Book: Modern Man in Search of a Soul )

Part I:

In communication there are levels: the lowest (which is not even considered as real communication) is the level of idle chatter, just talk for talk sake, empty talk (this is – as the base of a pyramid- most common). The highest level is dialogue, which is a real unification between both communicators but also is a breaking point into another dimension – together. 

What are the differences between a dialogue and the: “Just a talk“?
Well, “just a talk“ is unordered, even chaotic, any association goes. Jumping from subject to subject (any subject) just not to fall into the dreaded silence.
And mostly it has no common ground, no common goal, the talk itself is the goal.
In a dialogue they are not separated, they meet in a being in between them, that both of them construct; They create together this magical entity in between, an affinity, in which they can meet, without it, each is locked in his own cell, calling his call, but the other does not get it, he is immersed within his own call.

If both allow the relational affinity to take place between them, they can experience a kind of revelation; a world and experiences that were not available in regular separated talk.

An affinity between two people in a dialogue, graphically:

Good listening is not enough to make a good conversation | Lynne Baab
The affinity is the being that must be created between them if the dialogue is going to be accomplished. They cannot communicate directly, they need a mediator, a neutral medium, through which, and in which, the dialogue can happen. The best and unfortunately most rare mediator is humanity, human warmth, which should be the most natural between two human beings, but in the absence of it what usually is present is alienation, so within the embracement which is being caused by it, we turn to any kind of talk, only to cover the gap of alienation and the lack of humanity. 

In comparison to dialogue, “just talk“ has no mediator between the two, (in which both could meet), all they can find is only emptiness (alienation), which anchors each one in himself. By analogy it is like love: without it, man and woman could be talking  – but stay locked in themselves, they communicate, but it has a low quality, low understanding, no depth, but if there is the being of love between them, their communication can soar and contains higher quality and depth.

Part II:

So far it has to do with content, but what about the style, the way in which the dialogue is being executed? Is its way different from the style of ordinary talk?  The answer is yes. True dialogue does not go round and round, a real dialogue always has an aim, a “nut“ to crack. Thus its style and mode must be penetrating, direct, straight, orientated to the hidden point that needed to be cracked. Thus, the most fitting figure graphically for it is that of an arrow:

Dialogue Up Arrow Vector SVG Icon - PNG Repo Free PNG Icons

And ordinary talk, which is not a dialogue, has no direction towards an enigma that needs cracking – it looks like a circle that keeps repeating itself, going over again and again, no direction, no aim, no result, just more of the same, you heard it once you will hear the same again.

In dialogue the medium being created between both and by both is a vehicle, it could travel anywhere, it doesn’t go around, it has a purpose, so it goes straight to the point that they wish to crack and get the being out of it. A dialogue is always for a target, a true dialogue is more like a detective search, you don’t waste time, you go directly to the hidden mystery, you only use straight lines; yes or no, fits or no, belongs or no. If it doesn’t belong you take another line of approach.
But again, without the medium of affinity between them, they have no transport with which they can arrive in the dimension of the unknown, where the mysterious is hiding.

If there is an unresolved, hidden, conflicting, or paradoxical point – there is no chance to be able to discover or resolve it alone, for this we need two to create a dialogue, one person is not enough. Only this wondrous cooperation can execute the magic, and open the magic box and get the rabbit of truth out, only by a true dialogue.

The empty talk keeps repeating itself, feeling safe in what is acceptable and known. While true dialogue must be breaking to new frontiers which are blocking the way to jewels and gems of truth hidden in the unknown.

STOP!!! There is No Point Going Round & Round Talking In Circles Trying To  Get The Point Across, Remember.. Circles Have No Points! - Post by  KingsDaughter on Boldomatic

You May Also Like

The Language Tyranny

The ruling language and vocabulary – are very dominant, so much so, that everyone must watch his language as well as the language of others, and if it is not…
View Post