As promised in DaaS, I propose a definition of dialogue as Human-to-Human Communications (H2HC) protected from corrupting influences. In this sense, dialogue is the opposite of PR, which my “Devil's Dictionary”1 defines as systematic covert corruptions of H2HC to achieve amoral objectives.
The list of possible corruptions doesn't conform to neat categories but it certainly includes:
Transactionalism
Objectification
Manipulation
Undisclosed conflicts of interest
Desire to be right
Tendency to debate from fixed positions
Fear of the other
False dichotomies
Implicit imbalances of power
Inability to acknowledge the wholeness of the participants in dialogue.
Misuse of Artificial Intelligence (AI).
Unseen participants in dialogue, including other people or organizations and what object-relations theorists call “introjects”.
The more we become aware of these and other corruptions, the more we strengthen the layers of protection around dialogue. Mere awareness provides the first layer of protection. Of course, our awareness is never complete, and the protection it provides is never impenetrable. Even as we add protective layers, it helps to think of Dialogue as an ideal that we never attain even though it never fails to guide us in the right direction. As we move toward this horizon, we clear space for increasingly conscious dialogue.
Like every other space we know, the space for Conscious Dialogue has been polluted with ideology — arguably, the source of all corruptions. Part of the ideological pollution comes in the form of pseudo-protections around Dialogue, such as organized simulations of impartiality that politely conceal ideological influences. Impartiality serves as a fig leaf covering up a source of shame. By contrast, movement toward the Horizon of Dialogue requires us to realize that nothing should cause us shame except shame itself.
No source I know provides the definitive map of the space for Conscious Dialogue or a taxonomy of its corruptions. For centuries, numerous ideologically inflated factions — including, philosophical, religious, secular, therapeutic, scientific, etc.2 — have claimed to provide reliable maps of this territory. Some have even claimed cartographic supremacy.
With all due epistemic humility, I compare existing maps to the contents of an average email spam folder. Even without formal proof of fraudulent intent, we apply the presumption of guilt to the latest email bearing a misspelled promise of salvation. Any cartographic tradition without self-corrective mechanisms falls into the trap of confirmation bias and becomes part of the problem.
So, most existing maps of the space for Conscious Dialogue will prove as reliable as the maps of the world drawn before the Copernican Revolution.
Just notice the countless ways in which the corruptions above creep into the practices that aspire (or purport) to facilitate dialogue:
Psychotherapy, across modalities
Mediation and deliberation
Pastoral counseling
Human Resources
Online communities
Medicine
Management Consulting
At the same time, we stand on the shoulders of cartographic giants and —mixing metaphors now — there's a precious baby of cartographic genius that we must redeem from the bathwater of cartographic malpractice. This redemption, too, works best through dialogue.
I won't attempt a more formal definition of dialogue. Any such attempt would miss the point entirely. Instead, I focus on noticing the corruptions, in any context. As the corruptions recede, what remains at least comes closer to the truth about the potential and pitfalls of dialogue.
Dialogue as a Service (DaaS): My Pledge
In offering dialogue as a service to subscribers, clients and other Founding Members, I mean that:
We come together as equal partners in dialogue, without presupposing that either party is instructing or advising the other party.
All I offer is my time and the quality of my attention — no solutions, fixes, guarantees, results and other fictions of modern advisory arts.
I believe that mutual trust is the vital foundation for Conscious Dialogue. Objectivity, by contrast, is a perspective we can use as needed.3
Beyond “DaaS” and “Conscious Dialogue”, as defined here, I reject all other labels for my services, including labels drawn from the nomenclature of industries and areas of research to which I've dedicated decades of my life and career. I am not an adherent or licensed practitioner of any established system or method. I’m not a therapist, coach, PR strategist, financial advisor, economist, sociologist, or psychoanalyst, or shaman. I'm just a man with a Substack and a consuming enthusiasm.
I welcome RFPs from individuals and institutions interested in Dialogue as a Service (DaaS). Email me at m2dialogue@substack.com, write “DaaS” in the subject line, and tell me how I can help you clear space for Conscious Dialogue.
The Devil's Dictionary is a satirical dictionary written by American journalist Ambrose Bierce, consisting of common words followed by humorous and satirical definitions.
These are the Blind Gropers (BGs) I introduce in Chapter 1 of my book Naming the Problem: The Quest for Redemption from the Cage of Fractal Falsehood.
Elsewhere, I've written about how simulations of objectivity can mask conflicts of interest. For me, transparency and mutual disclosure standards provide more effective frameworks for participants in dialogue.