필독서 <대화란 무엇인가> 오늘날의 비극을 극복할 수 있는, 유일해 보이는 길.

대화란 무엇인가 갈등과 대립을 넘어 공생을 추구하는 지속가능한 변화의 시작점 - 데이비드 봄 저

국내도서 > 인문 > 인문/교양 > 인문에세이

 

 

데이비드 봄

 

 

평소에도, 그리고 책을 쓰면서 중요하게 생각하던 점에 대한..

나와 비슷한 접근을 하고, 이미 온전한 형태의 답을 이끌어낸 책이 있었다.

 

닐스 보어의 제자이면서, 아인슈타인과 얼굴을 맞대고 지냈던.. 양자물리학 태두의 일인인.. 데이비드 봄..

솔직히 그를 이 책으로 첨 알았지만..

책을 읽으면서.. 그의 섬세하고 깊은 지성을 만나면서.. 그를 저절로 흠모하게 된다.

 

그의 이야기는.. 뭔가..헛점이 보이지 않는다.

물론.. 논의 중에.. 아주 중요한 '이익'에 대한 논의가 누락되어 있는 것이. 좀 걸리긴 한다.

공자님도 '견리사의'라 하셨고.. 인간과 사회를 논의함에 있어서.. 가장 중요한 핵심요소인데..

아무튼..

용어의 오해를 피하거나 ..온전한 이해를 위해서.. 서두의 원전이 필요해 보인다.

더보기

FOREWORD

On Dialogue is the most comprehensive documentation to date of the process David Bohm referred to simply as “dialogue.” This revised and expanded edition of the original booklet of the same name is intended to serve both as a practical working manual for those interested in engaging in dialogue, as well as a theoretical foundation for those interested in probing into the deeper implications of Bohm’s dialogical world view. While the exercise of dialogue is as old as civilization itself, in recent times a profusion of practices, techniques, and definitions has arisen around the term “dialogue.” Though none of these approaches can lay claim to being the “correct” view, it is indeed possible to distinguish the various views, and to clarify what is intended by each. To this end, the current edition of On Dialogue illuminates the underlying meaning, purpose, and uniqueness of David Bohm’s work in this field.

As conceived by Bohm, dialogue is a multi-faceted process, looking well beyond typical notions of conversational parlance and exchange. It is a process which explores an unusually wide range of human experience: our closely held values; the nature and intensity of emotions; the patterns of our thought processes; the function of memory; the import of inherited cultural myths; and the manner in which our neurophysiology structures moment-to-moment experience. Perhaps most importantly, dialogue explores the manner in which thought – viewed by Bohm as an inherently limited medium, rather than an objective representation of reality – is generated and sustained at the collective level. Such an inquiry necessarily calls into question deeply held assumptions regarding culture, meaning, and identity. In its deepest sense, then, dialogue is an invitation to test the viability of traditional definitions of what it means to be human, and collectively to explore the prospect of an enhanced humanity.

Throughout his career as a theoretical physicist, Bohm made note of the fact that, in spite of claims to pursue “truth,” scientific endeavor was often infected with personal ambition, a rigid defense of theory, and the weight of tradition – all at the expense of creative participation toward the common goals of science. Based in part on such observations, he frequently remarked that the general lot of mankind was caught in a similar web of contradictory intentions and actions. These contradictions, he felt, lead not only to bad science, but to all variety of social and personal fragmentation. In Bohm’s view, such fragmentation cuts across cultural and geographical distinctions, pervading the whole of humanity to such an extent that we have become fundamentally acclimated to it.

To illustrate the significance of fragmentation, Bohm often used the example of a watch that has been smashed into random pieces. These pieces are quite different from the parts that have gone into the making of the watch. The parts have an integral relationship to one another, resulting in a functional whole. The fragments, on the other hand, have no essential relationship. Similarly, the generic thought processes of humanity incline toward perceiving the world in a fragmentary way, “breaking things up which are not really separate.” Such perception, says Bohm, necessarily results in a world of nations, economies, religions, value systems, and “selves” that are fundamentally at odds with one another, despite topically successful attempts to impose social order. One primary intent of Bohm’s dialogue, then, is to shed light on the activity of this fragmentation – not only as theoretical analysis, but also as a concrete, experiential process.

On its surface, dialogue is a relatively straightforward activity. A group of fifteen to forty people (Bohm’s suggestions regarding numbers varied) voluntarily convene in a circle. After some initial clarification as to the nature of the process, the group is faced with how to proceed. As the group has convened with no preset agenda, settling into an agreeable topic (or topics) may take some time, and generate some frustration. In these early stages, a facilitator is useful, but the facilitator role should be relinquished as quickly as possible, leaving the group to chart its own course. Experience has shown that if such a group continues to meet regularly, social conventions begin to wear thin, and the content of sub-cultural differences begins to assert itself, regardless of the topic du jour. This emergent friction between contrasting values is at the heart of dialogue, in that it allows the participants to notice the assumptions that are active in the group, including one’s own personal assumptions. Recognizing the power of these assumptions and attending to their “virus-like” nature may lead to a new understanding of the fragmentary and self-destructive nature of many of our thought processes. With such understanding, defensive posturing can diminish, and a quality of natural warmth and fellowship can infuse the group.

If this all sounds a bit too pat, a bit too formulaic, it is. While the accumulated experience of many people in many different parts of the world shows that this unfolding can in fact occur, it is by no means a guaranteed result. The movement of a dialogue group is rarely from point A to point B. Rather, the movement is more typically recursive, with unexpected dynamic shifts following periods of frustration, boredom, and agitation, in a perpetual cycle. Even then, the creative potential of the dialogue – its capacity to reveal the deeper structures of consciousness depends upon sustained, serious application by the participants themselves. In the dialogue, a very considerable degree of attention is required to keep track of the subtle implications of one’s own assumptive/reactive tendencies, while also sensing similar patterns in the group as a whole. Bohm emphasized that such attention, or awareness, is not a matter of accumulated knowledge or technique, nor does it have the goal of “correcting” what may emerge in the dialogue. Rather, it is more of the nature of relaxed, nonjudgmental curiosity, its primary activity being to see things as freshly and clearly as possible. The nurturing of such attention, often bypassed in more utilitarian versions of dialogue, is a central element in Bohm’s approach to the process.

Concerns about the seemingly intractable incoherence of human thought led Bohm to engage in explorations with various individuals who entertained similar views. Prominent among these was the Indian educator and philosopher, J. Krishnamurti. Two themes in particular were of shared concern, and emerged as additional components in Bohm’s view of dialogue: the prospect that the problems of thought are fundamentally collective, rather than individual; and the paradox of “the observer and the observed,” which implies that traditional methods of introspection and self-improvement are inadequate for comprehending the true nature of the mind.

Bohm also inquired into the nature of communication and dialogue with the English psychiatrist, Dr Patrick de Mare. Among the many ideas de Mare had been exploring in group contexts, two were to figure prominently in Bohm’s evolving conception of dialogue. The notion of “impersonal fellowship” suggests that authentic trust and openness can emerge in a group context, without its members having shared extensive personal history. In addition, the theory of the “microculture” proposes that a sampling of an entire culture can exist in a group of twenty or more people, thereby charging it with multiple views and value systems.

At the same time that Bohm was involved in these ongoing explorations, he traveled throughout Europe and North America with his wife Saral, conducting seminars on topics both scientific and philosophical. One such seminar, in the spring of 1984 in Mickleton, England, provided an opening for the emergence of two further aspects of dialogue – the notion of shared meaning within a group, and the absence of a preestablished purpose or agenda. Bohm described the significance of the seminar in the following way.

The weekend began with the expectation that there would be a series of lectures and informative discussions with emphasis on content. It gradually emerged that something more important was actually involved – the awakening of the process of dialogue itself as a free flow of meaning among all the participants. In the beginning, people were expressing fixed positions, which they were tending to defend, but later it became clear that to maintain the feeling of friendship in the group was much more important than to maintain any position. Such friendship has an impersonal quality in the sense that its establishment does not depend on close personal relationship between participants. A new kind of mind thus begins to come into being which is based on the development of a common meaning that is constantly transforming in the process of the dialogue. People are no longer primarily in opposition, nor can they be said to be interacting, rather they are participating in this pool of common meaning which is capable of constant development and change. In this development the group has no pre-established purpose, though at each moment a purpose which is free to change may reveal itself. The group thus begins to engage in a new dynamic relationship in which no speaker is excluded, and in which no particular content is excluded. Thus far we have only begun to explore the possibilities of dialogue in the sense indicated here, but going further along these lines would open up the possibility of transforming not only the relationship between people, but even more, the very nature of consciousness in which these relationships arise.1

We find here a pivotal definition: dialogue is aimed at the understanding of consciousness per se, as well as exploring the problematic nature of day-to-day relationship and communication. This definition provides a foundation, a reference point if you will, for the key components of dialogue: shared meaning; the nature of collective thought; the pervasiveness of fragmentation; the function of awareness; the microcultural context; undirected inquiry; impersonal fellowship; and the paradox of the observer and the observed. The breadth of view indicated by these various elements hints at the radical nature of Bohm’s vision of dialogue. As Bohm himself emphasized, however, dialogue is a process of direct, face-to-face encounter, not to be confused with endless theorizing and speculation. In a time of accelerating abstractions and seamless digital representations, it is this insistence on facing the inconvenient messiness of daily, corporeal experience that is perhaps most radical of all.

David Bohm continued to refine his notions of dialogue until his death in 1992, bringing forth new material in his last years. In addition, a considerable body of his work exists, dating back as far as 1970, which has direct bearing on the development of dialogue and its theoretical underpinnings. Selections from these materials are brought together in this volume for the first time, providing an extended survey of Bohm’s work in the field.

The material derives from two distinct contexts. The first and fourth chapters, “On Communication” and “The Problem and the Paradox,” are specific essays authored by Bohm in 1970 and 1971 respectively. Both were originally published in the Bulletin of the Krishnamurti Foundation Trust of England. The remainder of the material is drawn primarily from seminars and small group meetings held in Ojai, California between 1977 and 1992. The book, then, is a combination of extemporaneous presentation and intentional, considered essays. Its intent is to provide a general introduction to dialogue, and to offer reference chapters that correspond with some of the central themes in the theory of dialogue. Thus, the reader may use the second chapter, “On Dialogue,” as a primer, while referring to other chapters for deeper exploration of issues addressed only topically in the dialogue essay.

The first chapter, “On Communication,” offers insight into Bohm’s early formulations of the meaning of dialogue, particularly the manner in which sensitivity to “similarity and difference” enters the work of the scientist, the artist, and communication at the day-to-day level. The essay is prescient in its treatment of “listening,” an issue that is frequently misunderstood in the process of dialogue. “Listening” in dialogue is often taken to mean thorough, careful, empathic sensitivity to the words and meanings of group members. While this is indeed a part of dialogue, Bohm here outlines a listening of a different order, a listening in which the very mis-perception of one’s spoken intent can lead to new meaning that is created on the spot. Grasping this point is essential for an understanding of what Bohm eventually referred to as the “flow of meaning” in dialogue.

“On Dialogue,” the second chapter, provides a comprehensive overview and rationale of the dialogue process, with practical and procedural matters being addressed in detail. Certain fundamentals of dialogue – suspension, sensitivity, the impulse of “necessity” – are introduced and explained. In addition, the difficulties that may emerge in a dialogue are surveyed, and suggestions offered as to how these difficulties can actually be used to deepen understanding of the process itself. Bohm also presents what he calls the “vision of dialogue” – the prospect that our tendency to fall prey to mindless group activity can be transformed to intelligent collective fellowship, if only we will face the actual nature of the problems that exist between us.

In “The Nature of Collective Thought,” Bohm proposes that a “pool of knowledge” – both tacit and overt – has accumulated throughout human evolution. It is this pool of knowledge, says Bohm, that gives rise to much of our perception of the world, the meanings we assign to events, and indeed our very sense of individuality. Such knowledge, or thought, moves independent of any individual, or even any particular culture – very much like a virus. From this perspective, our attempts to solve our problems through highly personalized analysis, or by attributing malignant qualities to “other” groups or individuals, are of limited validity. What is called for, says Bohm, is to begin to attend to the movement of thought in a new way, to look in places we have previously ignored. Using the analogy of a river that is being perpetually polluted at its source, Bohm points out that removing the pollution “downstream” cannot really solve the problem. The real solution lies in addressing what is generating the pollution at the source.

To illustrate one aspect of this generative pollution of thought, Bohm explores the manner in which perceptual input is fused with memory to produce representations that guide us in our moment-to-moment experience. The construction of these representations, which is both natural and necessary, is nonetheless a process that lies at the heart of collective incoherence. According to Bohm, the essential difficulty here is that we automatically assume that our representations are true pictures of reality, rather than relative guides for action that are based on reflexive, unexamined memories. Once we have assumed that the representations are fundamentally true, they “present” themselves as reality, and we have no option but to act accordingly. What is suggested is not that we attempt to alter the process of representation (which may be impossible), but that we carefully attend to the fact that any given representation – instinctively perceived as “reality” – may be somewhat less than real, or true. From such a perspective we may be able to engage a quality of reflective intelligence – a kind of discernment that enables us to perceive and dispense with fundamentally false representations, and become more exacting in the formation of new ones. Perhaps the greatest challenge, says Bohm, is to attend to those representations which are tacitly formed and upheld at the collective level.

In “The Problem and the Paradox,” Bohm points out that when operating in the practical or technical realm, we typically proceed by defining a problem we wish to deal with, then systematically apply a solution. But in the realm of relationship, whether inwardly or externally, the posing of a “problem” to be solved creates a fundamentally contradictory structure. Unlike practical problems, where the “thing” to be solved has independence from us (e.g., improving the design of ocean-going vessels), psychological difficulties have no such independence. If I realize that I am susceptible to flattery, and pose this as a problem to be solved, I have made an internal distinction between “myself” and “susceptibility to flattery” which in fact does not exist. Inwardly, I then seem to consist of at least two parts: an urge to believe the flattery, and an urge not to believe the flattery. I am thus proceeding on the basis of a contradiction, which will result in a cycle of confused attempts to “solve” a “problem” whose nature is quite unlike that of a technical problem. Bohm suggests that what is occurring is in fact a paradox, not a problem. As a paradox has no discernible solution, a new approach is required, namely, sustained attention to the paradox itself, rather than a determined attempt to eradicate the “problem.” From Bohm’s perspective, the confusion between problem and paradox operates at all levels of society, from the individual to the global.

“The Observer and the Observed” continues the inquiry into the paradoxical nature of inner experience. Specifically, Bohm addresses the phenomenon of a “central entity,” a “self,” which observes and acts upon itself. For example, if I see that I am angry, then “I” may try to alter “my anger.” At this point, a distinction has occurred: there is the observer – “I,” and the observed – “anger.” Bohm suggests that this observer is primarily a movement of assumptions and experiences – including anger – but is attributed the status of “entity” through habit, lack of attention, and cultural consensus. This sense of an inner entity carries extremely high value; consequently, a protective mechanism is set in place that allows the “observer” to look both inwardly and outwardly at all variety of “problems,” but does not allow sustained consideration of the nature of the observer itself. This limitation on the mind’s scope of activity is seen to be yet another factor in the generic incoherence of thought.

“Suspension, the Body, and Proprioception” is an exploration of various aspects of awareness that have the potential to cut through the confusion produced by the weight of collective opinion, ill-founded representations, and the illusion of the observer and the observed. Bohm suggests that both on one’s own and in the context of a dialogue, it is possible to “suspend” assumptions. For example, if you feel that someone is an idiot, to suspend you would (a) refrain from saying so outwardly and (b) refrain from telling yourself you should not think such things. In this way, the effects of the thought, “You are an idiot” (agitation, anger, resentment) are free to run their course, but in a way that allows them to simply be seen, rather than fully identified with. In other words, suspending an assumption or reaction means neither repressing it nor following through on it, but fully attending to it.

In the activity of suspension, the role of the body is of central importance. If a strong impulse is suspended, it will inevitably manifest physically – increased blood pressure, adrenalin, muscular tension, and so on. Likewise, a spectrum of emotions will emerge. In Bohm’s view, these components – thoughts, emotions, bodily reactions – are in fact an unbroken whole. However, they sustain one another by appearing to be different – a thought here, a pain in the neck there, and an observer somehow struggling to manage it all. Underlying this activity is a further assumption that the entire difficulty is caused by something “other,” something “out there.”

Bohm then suggests that “proprioception of thought” may be capable of directly penetrating this cycle of confusion. Physiologically, proprioception provides the body with immediate feedback about its own activity. One can walk up and down steps, for example, without having to consciously direct the body’s movement. Further, one can make clear distinctions between what originates within one’s body, and what has come from outside. If you move your own arm, you do not have the mistaken impression that someone else has moved it for you. Currently, however, we lack such immediate feedback about the movement of thought. Often, therefore, we perceive a difficulty to originate outside ourselves, when in fact it is primarily a construction of thought. Bohm proposes that, with suspension as a basis, the movement of thought can become proprioceptive, much as the body does.

“Participatory Thought and the Unlimited” inquires into the relationship between what Bohm refers to as “literal thought” and “participatory thought.” Literal thought is practical and result-oriented, its aim being to form discrete, unequivocal pictures of things “just as they are.” Scientific and technical thought are contemporary variants of literal thought.

Bohm suggests that while literal thought has been predominant since the inception of civilization, a more archaic form of perception, formed over the whole of human evolution, remains latent – and at times active – in the structure of our consciousness. This he refers to as “participatory thought,” a mode of thought in which discrete boundaries are sensed as permeable, objects have an underlying relationship with one another, and the movement of the perceptible world is sensed as participating in some vital essence. Even today, says Bohm, many tribal cultures maintain aspects of participatory thought.

While acknowledging that such thought is susceptible to projection and error, Bohm nonetheless maintains that at its core, participatory thought is capable of perceiving strata of relationships that are generally inaccessible from a “literal” perspective. Indeed, Bohm suggests that the perspective of participatory thought is not unlike his own vision of the implicate order, in which the phenomena of the manifest world are understood as temporary aspects of the movement of a deeper natural order, in a process of perpetual “enfolding” and “unfolding.” The essential point to consider, says Bohm, is that both literal thought and participatory thought have virtues and limitations. He makes an appeal for a renewed inquiry into the proper relationship between the two, suggesting that dialogue is uniquely suited to such an exploration.

Finally, Bohm raises doubts as to whether any form of thought can apprehend what he refers to as the “unlimited.” As the very nature of thought is to select limited abstractions from the world, it can never really approach the “ground of our being” – that which is unlimited. Yet at the same time, human beings have an intrinsic need to understand and relate to the “cosmic dimension” of existence. To address this apparent disjuncture in our experience, Bohm proposes that attention, unlike thought, is potentially unrestricted, and therefore capable of apprehending the subtle nature of the “unlimited.”

While the language of such exploration is necessarily metaphorical and inferential, Bohm nonetheless insisted that sustained inquiry into the nature of consciousness and the “ground of being” is essential if we are to have some prospect of bringing an end to fragmentation in the world. It was his firm belief that this fragmentation is rooted in the incoherence of our thought processes, not in immutable laws of nature. He refused to place limitations on where the inquiry into this incoherence may lead, or to draw sharp distinctions between the individual, collective, and cosmic dimensions of humanity. In this respect, dialogue – always a testing ground for the limits of assumed knowledge – offers the possibility of an entirely new order of communication and relationship with ourselves, our fellows, and the world we inhabit.

LEE NICHOL
JEMEZ SPRINGS, NEW MEXICO
NOVEMBER 1995

---

그는 닐스 보어의 제자였으며.. 동시대에 스승의 라이벌이었던 아인슈타인과 함께 했던..

양자물리학의 태두 중의 한 사람이다.

그는.. 닐스 보어와 아인슈타인 같은.. 천재들의 반목을 보면서... 

 

" 과학이 ‘진리’를 추구한다는 주장에도 불구하고 개인의 야망, 특정 이론을 지키려는 고집, 전통의 압박 등에 영향을 받는 경우가 많다는 사실을 항상 명심했다. "

이 모든 것이 과학이 진리 추구라는 공동의 목표 달성에 창조적으로 참여하는 것을 방해하고 있음을 그는 잘 알았던 것이다. 이런 관찰에 근거하여 봄은 대다수 일반인이 의도와 행동이 모순되는 유사한 함정에 빠진다는 사실을 자주 언급했다. 봄은 이런 모순이 과학의 성과에 악영향을 끼칠 뿐만 아니라 온갖 형태의 사회적, 개인적 파편화fragmentation로 이어진다고 생각했다. 봄의 관점에서 보면 그런 파편화는 문화적, 지리적 분열에까지 영향을 미치며 사람들이 그런 풍토를 당연하게 생각할 만큼 사회 전체에 만연해 있다.

 

 

 

 우리의 일반적인 사고 과정은 세상을 파편화된 방식으로 인지하는 경향이 있다. 봄의 표현을 빌자면 이렇다. “사실은 분리되어 있지 않은 것을 산산이 부수면서.” 이처럼 파편화된 인식 때문에 사회질서를 유지하려는 노력이 원칙적으로는 성공하고 있는데도 근본적으로 서로 반목하고 대립하는 국가, 경제, 종교, 가치 체계, ‘자아들’의 세계가 탄생한다고 봄은 말한다.

 

 

대화 과정 자체가 참가자들 사이에 의미의 자유로운 흐름이라 .. 나중에는 특정 견해를 고수하기보다 집단 내의 친밀감이 중요하다는 사실이 분명해졌다. 이런 친밀감은 참가자들의 개인적인 친분에 토대를 두고 생긴 것이 아니라는 점에서 비개인적인 성질impersonal quality을 지닌다. 그리하여 대화 과정에서 계속 바뀌는 공통 의미common meaning에 입각한 새로운 사고방식이 생겨나기 시작했다.

==> 즉 .. 온전한 대화를 위해서는 적당한 10명 이상의 집단적인 대화가 필요하고, 꽤 오래 지속되는 정기적인 모임과 대화가 필요하다. 일회적인 대화는... 이런 결과를 이끌어낼 수 없다.

 

오인(誤認)이 즉석에서 새로운 의미의 창조로 이어지는 그런 듣기다. 봄이 나중에 대화에서 ‘의미의 흐름’이라고 부르는 것을 이해하려면 듣기의 이런 속성에 대한 이해가 선행되어야 한다.

 

‘대화의 비전vision of dialogue’이라고 부르는 것도 비교적 상세히 소개한다. 봄은 우리들 사이에 존재하는 문제의 본질을 정면으로 보고 대담하게 맞서는 것이 무엇보다 중요하다고 강조한다. 그렇게만 하면 생각 없는 집단 활동으로 흐르기 쉬운 대화를 지적인 유대감을 공유하는 창조의 장으로 바꿀 수 있다

 

 봄에 따르면 여기서 근본적인 문제는 우리가 무의식적으로 표상을 현실의 +진짜 모습이라고 간주한다는 사실이다. 봄이 제안하는 것은 표상 형성 과정을 바꾸려는 시도가 아니라 무엇이 되었든 본능적으로 ‘사실’이라고 인지되는 표상이 알고 보면 사실이나 진실과는 거리가 있을 수 있다는 점에 진지하게 주의를 기울이자는 것이다. 그런 관점에서 소위 ‘성찰지능reflective intelligence’을 동원할 수 있을지도 모른다. 

 

봄은 구체적으로 ‘내면의 실체’, 즉 ‘자아self’라는 현상을 검토한다. 자아는 스스로를 관찰하면서 동시에 스스로의 행동에 영향을 미친다. 내적 경험의 역설적인 성질이다. 

 

 

봄은 혼자 있을 때든, 타인과의 대화 도중에든 가정을 ‘유보’하는 것이 가능하다고 말한다.  우리가 거기에 일체감을 갖고 공감하는 형식이 아니라 거리를 두고 그것을 바라보는 형식으로 진행된다.  ==> 이 부분은.. 부처님의 가르침의 4념처의 수행과 닮아있다.

 

봄은 ‘사고의 자기 수용 감각’을 통해 이런 혼란의 악순환을 종식시킬 수 있다고 보았다.

 ‘유보’를 기본으로 하면 육체의 움직임처럼 사고 활동도 보다 민감하게 지각할 수 있다

 

현실 경험과 욕구 사이의 괴리를 해결할 열쇠로 봄은 ‘주의’를 이야기한다. 주의력은 유한한 사고와 달리 잠재적으로 무한하기 때문에 ‘무한’의 미묘한 본질을 파악할 수 있다

 

의식의 본질과 ‘존재의 근원’에 대한 지속적인 탐구는 반드시 필요하다고 강력히 주장한다. 급속히 파편화되는 세계를 지킬 열쇠가 거기에 있다는 것이다. 

 

---

책의 도입부에.. LEE NICHOL의 .. 아주 친절하고 명확한.. 요점정리가 잘 되어 있어서..

이 요약을 몇 번읽고.. 나머지 본문을 읽으면..

뼈에 저절로 살이 붙는듯.. 정리가 된다.

..

 

 

 

사랑이

인간에게 필요한 것, 

그리고 우리의 가장 강력한 도구라고.. 말하지만..

현실에서.. 분명 한계가 있음을 안다.

 

다수의 맴버로 구성된 집단과.. 이런 저런 주제로 잡담을 하는 .. 단순한 대화 모임이..

한 사람의 정신과 생각을 성장 시킬 수 있다는 사실..

..

쓸데 없는 잡담만 한다고.. 모임을 빠질 것이 아니었다.

그런 잡담을 통해서.. 우리는..

우리의 말에 들어있는.. 우리의 것이 아닌 표상이나, '나'라고 착각하고 있었던 의견가 생각들을.. 벗어낼 수 있다.

친밀감을 갖게된 집단은.. 파편화되어 망가진 우리의 존재를 ..  마치 퍼즐조각을 맞추듯 서로의 대화와 말을 통해서 복구하게 된다.

..

그건 단순히 개인의 수준이 아니라.. 이 사회, 세계의 문제를 해결할 수 있는.. 유일하고도 강력한 수단이 될 수 있다.

..

불통, 날치기로 점철된 ..오늘날 사회 지도자들이 ..꼭 읽어야 할 책임에 틀림없다.