Challenges to Comprehension Implied by the Logo
of Laetus in Praesens
University of Earth Alternative view of segmented documents via Kairos

1998

Typology of 12 complementary dialogue modes

essential to sustainable dialogue

- / -


Tentative adaptation and development from related tables on Typology of 12 complementary strategies essential to sustainable development, and on Characteristics of phases in 12-phase learning / action cycles -- both derived from Arthur Young's Geometry of Meaning (1978). See commentary on learning cycles in Cycles of dissonance and resonance and below. See also alternative table based on clustering strategies and values.


Dialogue modes

 .  "Positive" Identifying 
Associating 
Recognizing
Responding 
Intending 
Engaging
Acting 
Effecting 
Changing 
Implementing
Ensuring 
Sustaining 
Maintaining
 .
 
Symbol A B C D
Knowledge 
Comprehension 
Framing 
Scoping
Clarification
("head")
1 A1
[L] 
Making points 
Enunciating principles
Stating credo
Getting facts "straight" 
Establishing positions
Fact-finding
Mutual information
Consulting
B1
[L/T] 
Developing line of argument
Adaptive accomodation of other perspective
Selective exclusion of points
Rhetoric
C1
[L/T2]
Initiating new line of argument
Opening new dialogue front
D1
[L/T3]
Controlled dialogue 
Self-reflexive dialogue 
Facilitated dialogue
Verification of condition of the other
Accepting uncertainty
M0L
Concern 
Involvement 
Participation 
("heart"; "how do you feel about that?")
2 A2
[ML]
Making points to which affective meaning is attached
Points of significance
Mutual sensitizing
Speaking from the heart
Sticking points
B2
[ML /T]
Expression of concern
Dialogue momentum
Adversarial discourse
Emotional identification with line of argument
 
C2
[ML/T2]
Persuasive force of dialogue Framing collective action
Determining dialogue processes
Accepting authority
Ruling 
D2 [
ML/T3]
Consolidating variety of tendencies
Patterning incompatibles
Holding together
Managing disagreement
Buffering 
Redistributing 
tensions
ML
Grounding 
Praxis 
("walking the talk"; "guts"; "being there")
3 A3
[ML2]
Affirmation of belief
Confirmation of worldview
Recognition of common ground
Demonstrating meaning thru practice 
Living principles
Celebrating differences
Mutual endorsement 
B3
[ML2/T]
Collective resolution
New commitment
Deciding moment in dialogue
Moment of recognition of larger pattern
 
C3
[ML2/T2]
Readjusting beliefs in face of new understanding
Change of mind
Conversion
D3
[ML2/T3]
Sustainable dialogue
Applied transformative insight
Empowering 
dialogue
Self-organizing dialogue
 
ML2
 .   T0 T-1 T-2 T-3  Dim.
. "Negative" Denying 
Misrepresenting 
Forgetting 
Desensitizing
Tokenism 
Lip-service 
Irresolution 
Demonizing
Malpractice 
Exploitation 
Domination
Mismanaging 
Disempowering 
Misallocating 
Non-complying
 
 . Psychological functions Sensing 
(Touch)
Feeling 
(Sound; Rhythm)
Seeing 
(Sight)
Intuiting 
(Smell; Taste)
.

Commentary

Rows: These distinguish between the 12 dialogue types based on (1) knowledge of issues, (2) concern for issues, and (3) "being there" -- where the issues are hurting.

Columns: These distinguish between the 12 dialogue types based on (A) acknowledging issues, (B) responding to issues, (C) acting on issues, and (D) sustaining action on issues. Each of the 12 dialogue types has a vital function. The challenge is that their complementarity is not necessarily recognized. Certain dialogue types are easily neglected, notably those in Row 3 and those in Column D. Because of its lower "dimensionalty", it tends to be easier to engage in dialogue A1, for example -- which is coded with the lightest colour in the table. The current challenge is to give meaning and force to dialogues of type D3, that correspond to sustainable dialogue -- which is coded the darkest in the table.

The colour coded diagonals suggest a pattern of progressive engagement towards sustainable action "on the ground":

Diagonal variants: There are various diagonals across the table: Negative variants of each dialogue type necessarily also exist. These are suggested by column labels at the foot of the table.

Meeting participation: It is also fruitful to see each of the 12 dialogue types as reflecting the complementary views that need to be expressed at an archetypal strategic "roundtable" (Camelot style). The specific relationships between each such view have been tentatively explored in an earlier study on Toward a New Order of Meeting Participation (https://www.laetusinpraesens.org/docs/contract.php) that charts the Shadowy Roundtable Hidden within every Meeting. This endeavours to show how the seemingly "external" issues tend to be reflected in the different behaviour styles of meeting participants -- and the need for a new kind of participant contract to move beyond such constraints.

Torus representation: As implied above, the Row 1 dialogues can also usefully be considered as bordering the Row 3 dalogues -- by rolling the table into a cylinder. Similarly the Column A dialogues can also be considered as bordering the Column D dialogues -- by connecting the ends of the cylinder to form a torus. It is on the surface of this torus that the connectivities between the dialogue types might be more appropriately comprehended. A possible representation of this structure, appropriately coloured, has been developed as a hypersphere to illustrate Arthur Young's insights (http://www.hypersphere.com/hs/abouths.html)

Individual action: The relevance of the above typology can also be explored in relation to individual or community group dialogue. The status of a "New Year's Resolution" with respect to personal sustainable development is then clarified -- and demonstrates the nature of the challenge for international organizations inspired by its many Resolutions.

creative commons license
this work is licenced under a creative commons licence.