Discussion vs. Dialogue. by Dean Gotcher

by
Dean Gotcher

"A Dialogue is essentially a conversation between equals." "A key difference between a dialogue and an ordinary discussion is that, within the latter [in a discussion] people usually hold relatively fixed positions and argue in favour of their views as they try to convince others to change. At best this may produce agreement or compromise, but it does not give rise to anything creative." "The purpose of dialogue is to reveal the incoherence in our thought ... genuine and creative collective consciousness." "What is essential here [in the consensus process] is the presence of the spirit of dialogue, which is in short, the ability to hold many points of view in suspension, along with a primary interest in the creation of common meaning." (Bohm and Peat, Science, Order, and Creativity)

You discuss facts and truth. You dialogue "feelings." You persuade in a discussion. You manipulate in dialogue. You suspend pleasure in a discussion in order to continue discussion—the issue being doing the job right and not wrong according to commands, rules, facts, and truth you have learned. You suspend commands, rules, facts, and truth in dialogue in order to continue dialogue—which requires you to not hurt someone's or everyone's "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., so that everyone can "feel good," i.e., "feel" wanted, needed, important, etc., so they will continue in dialogue (manipulation). In a discussion, commands, rules, facts, and truth are difficult if not impossible to change. In dialogue, commands, rules, facts, and truth are rapidly 'changed.' The "old" world order, i.e., nationalism and local control is based upon discussion (persuasion with facts and truth). The "new" world order, i.e., globalism is based upon dialogue (the manipulation of "feelings"—with nature, i.e., rocks, plants, and animals you do not have to seduce and deceive in order to manipulate but with men, women, and children, i.e., that which is made in the image of God, you do). In discussion there is fear in being or doing wrong, resulting in you wanting to do the job right. In dialogue there is fear of being rejected, resulting in "feelings" 'driving' the outcome—whether the job is done right or not. The conscience, i.e., doing right and not wrong is involved in a discussion. The "super-ego," i.e., "feelings" are involved in dialogue. Discussion focuses upon "the details" (specifics), i.e., what words mean. Dialogue depends upon generalization (ambiguity), i.e., depends upon semantics in order to "bend" or "spin" words, in order initiate and/or sustain confusion (chaos), in order to initiate and/or sustain 'change.' In order to discuss commands, rules, facts, and truth with your "self," in order to do the job right, you must first humble, deny, die to, control, discipline your "self." In order to dialogue your desires and dissatisfactions with your "self," in order to do what you want, you must esteem, i.e., 'justify' your "self" over and therefore against any command, rule, fact, or truth that gets in the way.

This is why those of dialectic (dialogue) 'reasoning' always move the "'discussion' of personal-social issues" from discussion (facts and truth and right and wrong) to dialogue ("feelings," i.e., stories, fables, emotionally laden examples, i.e., life experiences). By doing so they are able to capture their victim "feelings." Manipulating them like Skinner's rats, Thorndike's chickens, and Pavlov's dogs they are able to then program them into obeying their commands (at a moments notice).

When you merge the two, discussion and dialogue (as in the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus meeting), conflict and tension result, with only one of the two, i.e., facts and truth or the "feelings" of the 'moment' winning out. Whoever controls the meeting, enforcing discussion or "encouraging" dialogue, determines the outcome. Being "positive," i.e., focusing upon everyone's "feelings" of the 'moment,' in order to make sure they "feel" wanted, needed, important, etc., i.e., a part of the outcome ("the team"), and not "negative," i.e., focusing upon commands and rules to be obeyed and facts and truth to be accepted as is by faith in order to do the job right requires the negation of discussion in order for dialogue to take place. Capitalism depends upon discussion—in order to do the job right. Socialism upon dialogue, i.e., seduction, deception, and manipulation—until it gains control over everything, then its do this, i.e., "shut up" or else. Therefore capitalism rewards good work. Socialism bad.

While you can dialogue with your children what color they want in their room the conversation can quickly move to discussion and then "Because I said so" when the color "gets out of hand"—the truth being it is your house, i.e., you are the sovereign over the land, including "their" room. If you remain in dialogue, when the color is absolutely wrong, you loose the land and therefore your sovereignty. This is how globalism works, taking over your children, property, business, liberty, sovereignty, rights (inalienable rights, under God—which you abdicate, as two in a garden called Eden did) through the praxis of dialogue in establishing policy, whether it be in the home, in the classroom, at work, in the town hall meeting, at the capital, or in the "church."

When you say "you're wrong" in a dialogue your conversation just moved into a discussion. If you say "I think you're wrong" it remains a dialogue. Your opinion is not a position. A position is given to you (from someone else) which you have accepted. Your opinion is from you, based upon your "feelings," i.e., your desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment' instead. Therefore you discuss positions, dialogue opinions.

Discussing "personal-social issues" is in all practicality dialogue. Do not be fooled. Its sole purpose is to initiate and sustain consensus, the pathway to the "new" world order aka Globalism aka Social-Capitalism where your soul is bought and sold as "human resource." You can not get to consensus—where you sell your soul to "the group"—without going through the land of dialogue. It is not that we do not dialogue. It is that when it comes to doing right and not wrong, we discuss instead.

"Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making, our objective centers upon transform public opinion into an effective instrument of global politics." "Individual values must be measured by their contribution to common interests and ultimately to world interests transforming public consensus into one favorable to the emergence of a stable and humanistic world order." "Consensus is both a personal and a political step. It is a precondition of all future steps." (Ervin Laszlo, A Strategy for the Future: The Systems Approach to World Order)

"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:16

"And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15

"Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished. By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil." Proverbs 16:5-6

"And for this cause [because men, as "children of disobedience," through dialogue, 'justify' themselves, i.e., their love of "self" and the world, i.e., their love of the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates over and therefore against the Father and His authority] God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie [that pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing the Father's will]: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth [in the Father and in His Son, Jesus Christ], but had pleasure in unrighteousness [in their "self" and the pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates]." 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12