From Dialogue to Monologues

The power to the complex interchange of ideals by means of articulated speech is endemic to the human race. We don’t go around squawking, squeaking, warbling, barking or meowing at each other during coffee breaks. We don’t whoop, howl and screech when demanding a pay increase (although it may sound like it at times.) Human conversation is filled with intonations, interruptions, gestures and individualised body language, all laced together to create a colourful spectrum of vocalised expressions.

Human speech, in dialogue form, has been instrumental in the propagation of human intelligence, in ensuring co-operative development and in ensuring constructive evolution. It is a marvel of the human intellect. It is what separates the animal kingdom from that of the human realm. It is also what negates all the above.

In modern life, constructive dialogue seems to be as dead as the proverbial ‘Dodo,’ specially given the fact that so much of it is filled with one-sided communication:

Television, although a clever invention, has entrenched itself into modern society with negative influences. Televised programs are presented in a singular fashion with specific goals and objectives in mind. The interactions are all on screen. All the watcher has to do is watch (an interesting point is that research shows that the brain is more active during sleep than when watching TV.)

The News media, while cowering behind ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘you have the right to know the truth,’ expresses biased opinions in a sensationalist manner while only allowing selected retorts to be printed.

Talk-shows are no better – A skewed subject is chosen, so-called experts are called in to argue the chosen subject (and the more acronyms they have behind their names, the more credible they are perceived to be,) and a ‘well-to-do’ presenter is chosen to chair the proceedings. The whole affair takes place under guarded conditions which minimize accountability and liability on the part of the broadcaster. The end result is a muddle of ideals.

The Internet, the miracle of technology, has done nothing to encourage dialogue: people are more prone to chat merrily for hours in anonymous chat rooms than to physically relate to people around them.

At work, dialogue, although seemingly encouraged, is disparaged by management - “yours is not to question why, yours is to do (or die.)” A dictum that serves no purpose except to stifle human communication.

The art of conversation requires aural and verbal skills from its practitioner. But listening may mean having to adapt one’s stance on a given subject, a subject that one may be uncomfortable with or be totally opposed against. The tendency is then to shut down the hearing sense and to continue to dispute the given subject, pushing home one’s viewpoint at all costs; monologue enacted. The end result, no advancement, no enlightenment, no progress.

As most of what is believed by the human animal is based on perceptions (individuals largely live by their cultivated assumptions based on their own philosophies and or beliefs,) the whole process of assimilation of new ideas via conversation, as an ideal, is rather difficult. It requires an abolishment of all assumptions, it requires a re-establishment of substantiation and a re-assembling of proof; in other words, don’t guess, don’t predict and don’t assume.

Unfortunately, the human animal, does not like being put on the spot, being made to (seemingly) look the fool. But the converse to the perceived connotations is an increase in enlightenment, in knowledge, in experience and in wisdom. Surely, a little embarrassment is a small price to pay for elucidation? Why oppose a viewpoint just because it clashes with one’s personal beliefs? Voltaire once said “Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers.”

The above may mean having to enter into discussions where one’s view points will be challenged, defied, taken to task, but in the end, if the information is correctly and wisely assimilated, one will be better off for it. That is the power of dialogue: enrichment, astuteness and understanding.

Living in an information-rich environment does not mean that verbal communication should be sacrificed or abolished for the sake of the medium presenting the information. Two-way conversations should be encouraged and fostered. It should be practiced often.

Dialogue: The power behind expressive communications; The power behind the exchange of ideas and ideals; The power behind the acquisition of knowledge; The power behind personal growth. The power behind luciferous living.