用深度匯談探索事實
For Truth Try Dialogue By David Bohm (1992)
這篇文章曾經刊登在下列雜誌：
- NOETIC SCIENCES REVIEW # 23, PAGE 16 AUTUMN 1992
- Resurgence, No 156, vol 13, pp. 10 - 13, 1993
原文網址：http://www.noetic.org/publications/review/issue23/main.cfm?page=r23_Bohm.html
本文是Phildea Fleming、James Brodsky兩人與David Bohm的一次會面之後，從Bohm的書《On Dialogue》摘錄出來編輯而成。版權屬於David Bohm ©1990
This article was excerpted from David Bohm On Dialogue (transcribed and edited by Phildea Fleming and James Brodsky from a meeting with David Bohm.) ©1990 by David Bohm
“Dialogue”來源於希臘文中的dialogos：logos意思是「話」或是「話的意義」；而dia意思是「之間」（不只兩者之間，深度匯談可以發生在任何人數之間；即使一個人也可以和自己深度匯談。）
"Dialogue" comes from the Greek dialogos: Logos means "the word", or in our case we would think of "the meaning of the word", and dia means "through" (not two-a dialogue can be among any number of people; even one person can have a sense of dialogue within him- or herself if the spirit of the dialogue is present).
具體而言，就像意義在我們之間，裡裡外外流動著，從整個團體的意義之流中浮現全新的領悟。當每個人能洞察自己內心及發生的各種細微的差異，就形成一種共享的意義。在那樣的情況下，我們能一同談話並且一起思考。共享的意義把人與社會如膠似漆的聯繫在一起。
The image this derivation suggests is of a stream of meaning flowing among us and through us and between us-a flow of meaning in the whole group, out of which will emerge some new understanding, something creative. When everybody is sensitive to all the nuances going around, and not merely to what is happening in one's own mind, there forms a meaning which is shared. And in that way we can talk together coherently and think together. It is this shared meaning that is the "glue" or "cement" that holds people and societies together.
相較於”discussion”（討論），它和”percussion（敲打）、”concussion”（震動）有相同的來源。討論其實有「把東西分離」的意思在，它著重分析的觀念，相信事物具有許多不同的觀點。然而人們有各種說不出口的不能妥協、不能觸及的想法，在這種情形下，很多我們所謂的討論並不是真心誠意的。討論像打乒乓球一樣，人們想著如何贏得遊戲。
Contrast this with the word "discussion", which has the same root as "percussion" and "concussion". Discussion really means to break things up. It emphasizes the idea of analysis, where there may be many points of view. A great deal of what we call "discussion" is not deeply serious, in the sense that there are all sorts of things held to be non-negotiable, untouchable, things that people don't even want to talk about. Discussion is like a ping-pong game, with people batting the ideas back and forth in order to win the game.
深度匯談中沒有得分的企圖，也沒有想讓自己的觀點取得優勢，這是一種更純真的參與，人們一同遊戲，人人都有收穫，不是在玩彼此對抗的遊戲。
In a dialogue there is no attempt to gain points, or to make your particular view prevail. It is more a common participation, in which people are not playing a game against each other but with each other. In a dialogue, everybody wins.
團隊的凝聚力
The Power of the Group
可以用雷射來比喻團隊的凝聚力。一般的光源是散射的，光波之間不同步，無法增強。但是雷射發出強烈的一致的光束，光波因為集中而增強。這種光束能做出散射光線不能做到的事。
The power of the group could be compared to a laser. Ordinary light is called "incoherent", which means that it is going in all sorts of directions; the light waves are not in phase with each other so they don't build up. But a laser produces a very intense beam which is coherent. The light waves build up strength because they are all going in the same direction, and the beam can do all sorts of things that ordinary light cannot.
相同的，社會上一般的思維是散亂的，它們彼此衝突、抵消著。如果人們用像在深度匯談中和諧的方式一起思考，會有無窮的力量。我們會有和諧的溝通，不只是在我們能清楚意識的層面，更重要的，也在隱隱約約，難以表達的意會層面產生協調。
Now, you could say that our ordinary thought in society is incoherent. It is going in all sorts of directions, with thoughts conflicting and canceling each other out. But if people were to think together in a coherent way, as in a dialogue situation, it would have tremendous power. Then we might have such a coherent movement of communication, coherent not only at the level we recognize, but at the tacit level at the level for which we have only a vague feeling. That would be even more important.
「意會」是無法表達清楚的，就像難以描述騎腳踏車的默會知識一樣，它是因人而異的實作知識。思維活動實際上是細緻的意會過程。我想我們都明白，幾乎做任何事都是透過默會知識。思維是由意會層面中浮現的，任何思維的蛻變都源於意會層面。如果我們交流意會層面發生的事，那也許思維會蛻變。
"Tacit" means that which is unspoken, which cannot be described like the tacit knowledge required to ride a bicycle. It is the actual knowledge, and it may be coherent or not. I am proposing that thought thinking is actually a subtle tacit process. I think we all realize that we do almost everything by this sort of tacit knowledge. Thought is emerging from the tacit ground, and any fundamental change in thought will come from the tacit ground. So if we are communicating at the tacit level, then maybe thought is changing.
共同意識
Common Consciousness
用「思維」這個詞不只表示是我們能意識到的思考的產品，還有感覺、情緒、目的、慾望。它也包含學會騎腳踏車那樣難以言喻的過程和一些不知不覺習得的條件反射，例如連貫起影片中不同的場景、解讀交通號誌上的抽象符號。一言以蔽之，在本質上，思維是生命中方方面面記憶的主動反射。實際上，一切的知識是在思維中產生、顯現、交流、轉化和聯結。
We are using the word "thought" here to signify not only the products of our conscious intellect but also our feelings, emotions, intentions and desires. It also includes such subtle, conditioned manifestations of learning as those that allow us to make sense of a succession of separate scenes within a cinema film or to translate the abstract symbols on road signs along with the tacit, non-verbal processes used in developing basic, mechanical skills such as riding a bicycle. In essence thought, in this sense of the word, is the active response of memory in every phase of life. Virtually all of our knowledge is produced, displayed, communicated, transformed and applied in thought.
意會的過程是共同、共有的，不只在表現出的溝通和肢體語言，還有更深層的，共同的意會過程。我認為人類幾百萬年前就知道了，但在近五千年的文明中，因為社會發展而迷失了。因此交流、分享意識變得急迫，現在我們必須從新再來。為了能有智慧的做該做的事，我們必須能真正的集思廣益。
The tacit process is common-it is shared. The sharing is not merely the explicit communication and the body language. There is also a deeper tacit process which is common. I think the whole human race knew this for a million years; and then in five thousand years of civilization we have lost it, because our societies got too big. But now we have to get started again, because it has become urgent that we communicate, to share our consciousness. We must be able to think together, in order to do intelligently whatever is necessary.
重點是，這種關於深度匯談和共同意識的概念啟發了我們集體困境的出路。如果我們能一起覺知閃過的念頭、觀念，看著它們，那我們就處於相同的意識狀態。隔閡、戒心和觀點會在深度匯談時解體，突然有一種共同參與、共同分享的友誼，分享著共同意識。
The point is that this notion of dialogue and common consciousness suggests that there is some way out of our collective difficulties. If we can all suspend carrying out our impulses, suspend our assumptions and look at them, then we are all in the same state of consciousness. In dialogue the whole structure of defensiveness and opinions and division can collapse; and suddenly the feeling can change to one of fellowship and friendship, participation and sharing. We are then partaking of the common consciousness.
觀念
Assumptions
人們會帶著不同的利益和觀念。不只是表面的觀念，包含了更基本的觀念──生命的意義、個人利益、國家利益、宗教利益、覺得真正重要的事等。
People will, however, come to a group with different interests and assumptions. They are basic assumptions, not merely superficial assumptions-such as assumptions about the meaning of life; about your own self-interest, your country's interest, or your religious interest; about what you really think is important.
觀念也可以說成是「意見」，這個詞本身包含了數個意義。當醫生有了診斷（意見），那是他基於病徵所能做出的最佳假設。他會說，「嗯，我也不十分確定，讓我們聽聽其他的意見。」如果其他的意見不同，好的醫生不會防衛自己的診斷，不會激動的說：「你憑什麼這樣判斷？」醫生的診斷是理性觀點的一種例子，不會強烈的防衛。
We could also call assumptions "opinions". The word "opinion" is used in several senses. When a doctor has an opinion, that's the best assumption s/he can make based on the evidence. The doctor may then say, "Okay, I'm not quite sure, so let's get a second opinion." A good doctor does not react to defend the assumption-if the second opinion turns out to be different, s/he doesn't jump up and say, "How can you say such things?" That doctor's opinion would be an example of a rational sort of opinion, one not defended with a strong reaction.
意見有被當成「事實」的傾向，包括我們接受和排斥的觀念。但只要我們帶著心防去擋掉或抓著觀念不放，堅持己見，那智慧就受到束縛。智慧源於包容不同的觀點。觀念和意見要包含著願意改善的態度，才能產生智慧。
Opinions can tend to be experienced as "truths", assumptions that we are identified with, and which we defend. But as long as we have a defensive attitude-blocking and holding assumptions, sticking to them and saying, "I've got to be right-"then intelligence is very limited, because intelligence requires that you don't defend an assumption. The proper structure of an assumption or of an opinion is that it is open to evidence that it may not be right.
文化塑造的觀念非常的強大，而且通常無法察覺到他們。就像你通常不會察覺到自己講話時的腔調。其他人可以告訴你，或者你仔細聽也可能發現。腔調是文化的一部份，很多你的觀念也是文化的一部份，從人際關係中也會發現這點。
Cultural assumptions are very powerful and you are not usually aware of them, just as you are not normally aware of an accent in the way you talk. Other people can tell you that you've got one, or if you listen carefully you might find it. But the accent is part of your culture. A great deal of your assumptions are part of your culture, too, and this comes out in relationship.
Krishnamurti曾說，「存在就是緣份」，而緣份可能非常的痛苦。他認為，一個人必須清楚的思考、感覺自己的心智過程，然後就會另闢新徑。我認為這在深度匯談團隊中能夠發生。有些人會感到痛苦、難過，你必須經歷這些。
Krishnamurti said that "to be" is to be related. But relationship can be very painful. He said that you have to think/feel out all your mental processes and work them through, and then that will open the way to something else. And I think that is what can happen in the dialogue group. Certain painful things can happen for some people; you have to work it all out.
這個部份就是我對深度匯談過程所考量的，能讓人們明瞭彼此的內心，而不做出任何結論和判斷。在深度匯談中，我們由淺入深，一點一滴的弄清楚，越來越熟悉觀念的運作。
This is part of what I consider dialogue-for people to realize what is on each other's minds without coming to any conclusions or judgments. In a dialogue we have to sort of weigh the question a little, ponder it a little, feel it out. You become more familiar with how thought works.
不需要確認每個人的觀點一致。分享心智的過程、分享覺知到的思維，比意見的內容是什麼還來得重要。你可能會發現答案在意見之外。事實不會由意見中浮現，它必須在其它地方浮現，也許是從意會心智更自由的活動中浮現。
It isn't necessary that everybody be convinced to have the same view. This sharing of mind, of consciousness, is more important than the content of the opinions. You may find that the answer is not in the opinions at all, but somewhere else. Truth does not emerge from opinions; it must emerge from something else-perhaps from a more free movement of this tacit mind.
事實和意義
Truth and Meaning
深度匯談可能通往事實，但它並不把注意力放在事實上，它在意的是意義。如果眾人的意義互相矛盾，永遠也無法到達事實。你可能認為，「事實勝於雄辯，某某人胡說八道。」但這樣就無法共享任何意義。即使部份人有理所當然的「事實」，但其他人被忽略的話，就會持續的衝突，困境仍無法解決。一直以來，我們的社會都是如此。
Dialogue may not be concerned directly with truth-it may arrive at truth, but it is concerned with meaning. If the meaning is incoherent you will never arrive at truth. You may think, "My meaning is coherent and somebody else's isn't," but then we'll never have meaning shared. And if some of us come to the "truth", while a lot of people are left out, it's not going to solve the problem. You will have the "truth" for yourself and for your own group, whatever consolation that is. But we will continue to have conflict. Therefore it is necessary to share meaning. Our society is incoherent, and hasn't done that very well for a long time, if it ever has.
沒有通往事實的「路」。我們在深度匯談中分享所有的路，最終會發現它們都不重要。我們看清了每條路的意義之後，會發現我們「無路可走」。在內心深處，所有的路都一樣，每條路都固執己見。
There is no "road" to truth. In dialogue we share all the roads and we finally see that none of them matters. We see the meaning of all the roads, and therefore we come to the "no road". Underneath, all the roads are the same because of the very fact that they are "roads"-they are rigid.
天人合一
The Collective Dimension
世上的問題不可能有個圓滿的「答案」。然而就像深度匯談一樣，重點不是答案，不是某個主張，而是柔心弱骨、海闊天空的包容所有意見。
There may be no pat political "answer" to the world's problems. However, the important point is not the answer-just as in a dialogue, the important point is not the particular opinions-but rather the softening up, the opening up, of the mind, and looking at all the opinions.
深度匯談不同於討論（discussion），討論和敲打（percussion）、震動（concussion）有著相同的字源，都有把東西分離的意義。也不同於辯論，這些形式的談話隱含著朝向目標、得到決議、解決問題或是讓意見顯露頭角。深度匯談也不是提供休閒娛樂、交朋友、嗑牙的社交聚會（salon）。雖然dialogue這個字常用在這些活動，但它最深、最源本的意義說明了它不以這些活動為主。
Dialogue is not discussion, a word that shares its root meaning with "percussion" and "concussion," both of which involve breaking things up. Nor is it debate. These forms of conversation contain an implicit tendency to point toward a goal, to hammer out an agreement, to try to solve a problem or have one's opinion prevail. It is also not a "salon", which is a kind of gathering that is both informal and most often characterized by an intention to entertain, exchange friendship, gossip and other information. Although the word "dialogue" has often been used in similar ways, it’s deeper, root meaning implies that it is not primarily interested in any of this.
總體而言，不論是潛在的或實際上來看，人類具有無比的力量。我們試著用深度匯談帶來一種「天人合一」的關係。關鍵問題是，「你是否瞭解深度匯談的必要性？」如果你認為它是絕對必要的，那你就會去盡一份心力。
The collective dimension of the human being, where we have a considerable number of people, has a qualitatively new feature: It has great power-potentially, or even actually. And in dialogue we discuss how to bring that to some sort of coherence and order. The question is really: Do you see the necessity of this process? That's the key question. If you see that it is absolutely necessary, then you have to do something.
雖然我們需要解決社會的不健全，但我們要謹記在心，深度匯談一開始並不直接針對社會的不健全來解決。直到我們產生強大的和諧的能量時，才只是剛越過門檻，成為可以解決社會問題的團隊。
We should keep in mind, nonetheless, that the dialogue is not only directed at solving the ills of society, although we do have to solve those ills. But that's only the beginning. When we have a very high energy of coherence, we might get beyond just being a group that could solve social problems.
人的內心可能會有新的蛻變，進而改變人和宇宙的關係。這種能量被稱為「圓容」（communion），它是對宇宙的一種參與。早期基督教有個希臘字「koinonia」，意思是「參與」，分享整體並且加入其中，不僅是「團隊」，而是「整體」。這就是我想要表達的「深度匯談」。我認為透過深度匯談，可能會在個人和集體的覺知上產生根本的蛻變。
我們還在探索。
Possibly it could make a new change in the individual and a change in the relation to the cosmos. Such an energy has been called "communion". It is a kind of participation. The early Christians had a Greek word koinonia, the root of which means "to participate"-the idea of partaking of the whole and taking part in it; not merely the whole group, but the whole. This, then, is what I mean by "dialogue". I suggest that through dialogue there is the possibility for a transformation of the nature of consciousness, both individually and collectively. That's what we're exploring.
側欄1
SIDEBAR 1
科學奠基於「科學是通往真理的唯一道路」的概念上。深度匯談的概念對於目前科學的架構而言是陌生的。在某種程度上，科學已成為現代的一種宗教，它和過去的宗教扮演著相同的角色：「給予真理」。因此不同的科學家就像不同的教徒一樣，當觸及到對真理的不同看法時，就無法共處。科學家Max Planck曾說：「新看法沒有真的比較好，只是長江後浪推前浪。」但事情實在不該如此。
Science is predicated on the concept that science is arriving at truth at a unique truth. The idea of dialogue is thereby in some way foreign to the current structure of science, as it is with religion. In a way, science has become the religion of the modern age. It plays the role which religion used to play of giving us truth; hence different scientists cannot come together any more than different religions can, once they have different notions of truth. As one scientist, Max Planck, said, "New ideas don't win really. What happens is that the old scientists die and new ones come along with new ideas." But clearly that's not the right way to do it.
這不是說科學家無法用其他的方式共事，如果科學家來參與深度匯談，科學的基本原則會有革命性的變化。事實上，科學家的原則符合深度匯談的一個概念：「我們必須傾聽，無所不容。」
This is not to say that science couldn't work another way. If scientists could engage in a dialogue, that would be a radical revolution in science in the very nature of science. Actually, scientists are in principle committed to the concepts involved in dialogue. They say, "We must listen. We shouldn't exclude anything."
然而，他們發現做不到，不只因為科學家和其他人一樣有著讓我們無法傾聽的觀念和看法，也因為「我們將得到真理」成為現代科學的內涵之一。很少科學家質疑「思維能無所不知」的假設，那不是一個有效的假設。思維在擷取有限的重點，全貌太浩瀚無邊了，思維只是在籠統概括，無法掌握全貌，跳脫不出本身的框框。思維描繪的往事只包含有限的事物。當下不在思維中。因此，任何的分析都忽略了分析的瞬間。
However, they find that they can't do that. This is not only because scientists share what everybody else shares - assumptions and opinions - but also because the very notion which has been defining science today is that we are going to get truth. Few scientists question the assumption that thought is capable of coming to know "everything". But that may not be a valid assumption, because thought is abstraction, which inherently implies limitation. The whole is too much. There is no way by which thought can get hold of the whole, because thought only abstracts; it limits and defines. And the past from which thought draws contains only a certain limited amount. The present is not contained in thought; thus, an analysis cannot actually cover the moment of analysis.
側欄2
SIDEBAR 2
我們通常由談論深度匯談開始，談談我們為什麼要進行深度匯談及它的意義何在。
We usually start a dialogue group by talking about dialogue - talking it over, discussing why we are doing it, what it means.
＊議程：沒有議程比較好。只要我們試著完成目的或達成目標，我們就帶著「什麼才有幫助」的觀念在背後，這樣的觀念會影響我們。不用決定要做些什麼，這很關鍵，否則我們無法自由。我們必須有個無為的「空」間，不用有結論、不用考慮話要不要說，完全自由開放。就像Krishnamurti說的：「空杯子才能裝東西。」
* Agenda: I propose that in a dialogue we are not going to have any agenda. As soon as we try to accomplish a useful purpose or goal, we will have an assumption behind it as to what is useful, and that assumption is going to limit us. We are not going to decide what to do about anything. This is crucial: Otherwise we are not free. We must have an empty space where we are not obliged to do anything, nor to come to any conclusions, nor to say anything or not say anything. It's open and free. As Krishnamurti used to say, "The cup has to be empty to hold something."
領導：沒有領導比較好。這是比較困難的問題，因為整個社會的心智模式就是認為我們不能沒有領導。（有引導者可能會有幫助，而他的功用是讓團隊能自發的察覺思維的過程。）
* Leader: Nor are we going to have a leader. That's a harder problem as the whole society has been organized to believe that we can't function without leaders. (It may be useful to have a facilitator, whose function is to work him- or herself out of a job.)
人數：過與不足皆會運作不良。如果五六個人聚在一起，他們通常會「互相配合」，避免說一些傷人的話。當人數增加到二十至四十人時，會產生「文化的縮影」(microculture)。足夠的參與者由不同的次文化而來，形成整個社會文化的縮影。
* Size: A group that is too small doesn't work very well. If five or six people get together, they can usually "adjust" to each other so they don't say the things that upset each other. When you raise the number to about twenty, or up to forty, something different begins to happen you begin to get what may be called a "microculture". You have enough people coming in from different subcultures so that they are a sort of microcosm of the whole culture.
維持：不用天長地久。重點是能夠維持夠久的時間，來產生一些蛻變。規律的持續一兩年會很有收穫。只要能堅持，必定會浮現根深蒂固的觀念，而此時沒有人會批判或責難。僅僅看著所有浮現出的意見和觀念。
* Duration: The point is not to establish a fixed dialogue group forever, but rather one that lasts long enough to make a change. It may be valuable to keep the dialogue going for a year or two, and it is important to sustain it regularly. If you sustain it, it cannot avoid bringing out the participants' deep assumptions which the group is not going to judge or condemn. It is simply going to look at all the opinions and assumptions as they surface.
持續的進行深度匯談，你會發現參與者產生蛻變。他們在深度匯談以外的行為也轉變了。最後他們的蛻變會感染出去。就像聖經中的比喻，有些種子掉在石板地，有些掉在對的地方，結出豐盛的果實。
When you sustain a dialogue you find that there will be a change in the people who take part. They themselves behave differently, even outside the dialogue. Eventually the change spreads. It's like the Biblical analogy of the seed - some are dropped in stony ground and some of them fall in the right place and they produce tremendous fruit.
