承先啟後的深度匯談
Dialogue ‘old’ and ‘new’
「dialogue」這個字來源於希臘字「dia」，意思是「穿過」；而「logos」的意思是「字」。Dialogue就像透過溝通的字句所展現出的意義之流動。綜觀歷史上各個大陸版塊上的史前部落，都曾經自然的聚在一起形成深度匯談，來促進政治、經濟、社會和精神生活各方面的學習和決策。然而，這可能只在50人以下的聚落才實現過。
The word ‘dialogue’ comes from the Greek words ‘dia’ meaning ‘through’, and ‘logos’ meaning ‘word’. Dialogue suggests a flow of meaning coming through ‘the word’, through communication. Throughout history and prehistory tribal village groups on all continents have engaged in forms of dialogue as a natural way of coming together to facilitate learning and decision making, in political, economic, cultural and spiritual life. However, this might have been realistic only when village members did not exceed 50 or a similar number.
不同於現代一般所稱的「對話」，這種意義的「深度匯談」，由當代兩位西方先驅重拾。精神病學家、團體精神分析師Patrick de Mare和物理學家David Bohm，他們為深度匯談的過程帶來非常不同的研究、實驗、專業知識背景。深度匯談和柏拉圖所描述的「蘇格拉底式的對話」有關聯，不過de Mare指出，那是2到8個人的聚會用的，而深度匯談是用在更大的團體中。
‘Dialogue’ in this sense (as distinct from the way the word is used in the media) has been taken up again in the contemporary western world by two pioneers, the psychiatrist and group analyst Patrick de Mare and the physicist David Bohm. Both men brought their very different research/experiential/professional backgrounds to the ‘dialogue’ process. ‘Dialogue’ is associated with the Socratic dialogues described by Plato, but De Mare points out that the Platonic dialogues took place in symposia of between two and eight people and so are distinct from dialogue in a larger group.
De Mare提到：
「深度匯談使所說的語言產生蛻變。相同的，更大的團體能有機會使文化產生蛻變。」
He says:
‘Dialogue uses language and transforms it. Larger group dialogue can, given the opportunity, do the same to culture’ (de Mare 1991).
這是說，深度匯談能使文化蛻變，例如de Mare提到在較大團體的「挫折」、「恨」和「心靈能量」透過深度匯談之後，蛻變成君子之交。
That is to suggest that dialogue transforms culture. For example De Mare speaks of ‘frustration’, ‘hate’ and ‘psychic energy’ in the larger group which is ultimately transformed through dialogue into impersonal fellowship.
Bohm區分了深度匯談和討論：「discussion」和percussion（敲打）、concussion（衝擊）有相同的字根，在深度匯談中，沒有企圖得分或使自己與眾不同的觀點獲勝，不是在彼此對抗。Bohm用雷射來比喻深度匯談：
「一般光源是不一致的，它向所有方向散射，光波是不同步的，沒辦法增強。但雷射製造了非常強烈的一致的光線。」
Bohm (1992) makes a distinction between dialogue and discussion. The word ‘discussion’ has the same ‘root’ as percussion and concussion. In a dialogue, there is no attempt to gain points, or to make your particular view prevail. It is not adversarial. Bohm compares dialogue 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’ (Bohm 1992).
他接著說：
「因此，你也能比喻我們社會上一般人的思維是不一致的，往所有的方向發散，互相衝突並且抵消。如果人們能像在深度匯談時一樣，用一致的方式共同的思考，就會有無比的力量。然後我們在溝通上會有一致的步調，不只是在能感受到的地方，還在我們感受不到的只有模糊感覺的意會的層面。
He goes on
‘Now, you could say that our ordinary thought in society is incoherent – it is going in all sorts of directions, with thoughts conflicting and cancelling 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 recognise, but at the tacit level – at the level for which we have only a vague feeling’ (Bohm 1992).
Bohm和de Mare都提到懸掛念頭、假設和意見的價值。因此談論的議題能在比較平靜的狀態下包容多樣的觀點。
Both Bohm and de Mare speak of the value of suspending impulses, assumptions and opinions. This is so that the issues involved can be considered in a more dispassionate fashion involving multiple perspectives.
觀點是我們所認同和辯護的假設，傾向被當成「事實」。但只要我們有防衛心理，堅持己見，阻擋異見，並且宣稱：「我才是對的」，那智慧就無法發揮了。智慧需要海納百川的胸襟才能產生。
‘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.’ (Bohm 1992).
De Mare和Bohm在他們各自的專業領域中，被視為權威或專家，他們可能也把自己視為在人性心理學或物質世界物理學的領域中的專家，但我們相信，他們不會把自己視為深度匯談過程發現的領域的專家，而是把自己視為探險家。我們的經歷也是一次探索，對「權威」和「專家」的質疑也是探索的中心。甚至談到每個人的「心理健康」時，「權威」和「專家」有更深更沈痛的感受。當一個人的學習能力、學習障礙、智慧、智能、學術能力被教育機構或傳統標準若有似無的懷疑時，這些質疑更顯得十分重要。
De Mare and Bohm might be considered (by other experts) as authorities or experts in their fields – they might or might not consider themselves experts in the psyche of humanity or the physics of the material universe respectively. They would not, we believe, consider themselves experts in the domain which arises through the process of dialogue: they would see themselves as explorers. Our experience too, is one of exploration, where the questions of authority and expertness are fully a part of the enquiry. Indeed ‘authority’ and ‘expertness’ have a particular relevance and poignancy when questions are raised about the ‘mental health’ of any individual. These questions are also of great importance when a person’s learning ability, ‘specific learning difficulty’, intelligence, intellectual capacity or academic ability are called into question explicitly or implicitly by educational authorities or received traditions.
和專家的有關的還有許多其他的情境（包括職場），每個專家有不同的功能，從不同角度思考，缺乏互相交流和整合，隔絕了共同的反思、策略、行動、經驗和想像力。這不是任何人的過失，而是人心所趨。深度匯談對急需「思考的生態」(ecology of thinking)和長期願景的今日世界是一個絕佳的工具。
Regarding the making of experts, there are many other situations (including the world of work) where reflection, strategy, action, experience and imagination are compartmentalised, distributed among different people (experts in one particular aspect) having separate functions without much possibility of intercommunicability or integration. This may not be the fault of anyone – it may well be one of the tendencies of the human mind. Dialogue might well be of great utility in today’s world, where the importance of an ‘ecology of thinking’ and longer-term vision are, in our view, badly needed.
深度匯談是由de Mare和Bohm所提出，樸實無華：約20到40人，圍坐成一個使每個人能彼此看見的圓形、沒有特定的議程、沒有指定的引導者、定期的聚會。雖然Bohm和de Mare希望能不涉及特定背景，直接探索精神、思考和文化的本質，但他們提出的深度匯談被許多人應用於探察特定情境，例如某個組織的本質。而我們應用「深度匯談」來探索心智健康的領域，每個月聚會一次，剛滿一年。曾經參與過的成員包括學生、職員、家庭醫師、精神病學家、心理學家、精神科醫師、精神科護士，還有衛生局、支援服務、志工服務單位中有興趣的人。有的人定期參加，有的偶爾過來，我們的門永遠是敞開的。
The suggestions for dialogue proposed by de Mare (de Mare 1991) and Bohm (Bohm, Factor and Garrett 1991) are simple: approximately 20 to 40 people seated in the round (preferably in one circle where every person if or when they speak is visible to all); no specified agenda; no designated facilitator; regularity of meetings. While Bohm and de Mare wished to explore the nature of mind, thinking and culture directly without reference to a particular context, their proposals for dialogue have been employed by many people to investigate particular situations, for example the nature of specific organisations. In our case, we have employed ‘dialogue’ to explore the area of mental health. This ‘dialogue’ has been running for just over a year now and meets once a month. Participants to date have been students, staff of the college, GPs, psychiatrists, psychologists, psychotherapists, psychiatric nurses and interested parties from the health board, advocacy services and voluntary services. Some people attend regularly, others more infrequently: there is an open door policy.
