Quotes About Dialogue

Hans Küng's sobering words: "No peace among nations without peace among religions. And no peace among religions without a greater dialogue among them.

In real interreligious dialogue, heart speaks to heart. Only so can persons from differing traditions really "hear" each other.

My job, as Bernard Lonergan, S.J. taught us back at the Gregorian University in Rome during the early 1960s, is "to mediate between religion and culture." That means to make sense of the world in the light of Christian belief and experience and to make sense of Christian belief in the light of our experience and knowledge of the world we live in.

tells people how to recognize and deal with their feelings, and how to help others do the same thing by working through their mutual communications problems. Like Hendrix, he places great emphasis on listening. He lists three phases of ethical persuasion: First, exploring the other's position (listening), then explaining your viewpoint, and finally creating resolution.

To accomplish this, we practice and develop skill in interpersonal communications.

I think good conversation is really the best form of sex.

Let's do this right here," Belkor said. "What I have to say won't take long." "What I have to say will," Cham said ...

Generally, "I" statements make people less defensive and more open to exploring a solution to the problem.

Heldmann suggests paraphrasing, or repeating, the key points of the speaker's statements to show that you want to understand what the person is saying. Develop your own style of doing this so it comes across naturally.

We can speak without voice to the trees and the clouds and the waves of the sea. Without words they respond through the rustling of leaves and the moving of clouds and the murmuring of the sea.

Listen to all the conversations of our world, between nations as well as between individuals. They are, for the most part, dialogues of the deaf.

It is difficult to imagine how any behavior in the presence of another person can avoid being a communication of one's own view of the nature of one's relationship with that person and how it can fail to influence that person.

How can I enter into dialogue if I always project ignorance onto others and never perceive my own?...How can I enter into dialogue if I am closed to - and even offended by - the contribution of others? At the point of encounter there are neither yet ignoramuses nor perfect sages; there are only people who are attempting, together, to learn more than they now know.

some may think that to affirm dialogue—the encounter of women and men in the world in order to transform the world—is naively and subjectively idealistic. there is nothing, however, more real or concrete than people in the world and with the world, than humans with other humans.

Only by abolishing the situation of oppression is it possible to restore the love which that situation made impossible. If I do not live the world - if I do not love life - if I do not love people - I cannot enter into dialogue.

If I do not love the world, if I do not love life, if I do not love people, I cannot enter into dialogue.

Education must begin with the solution of the teacher-student contradiction, by reconciling the poles of the contradiction so that both are simultaneously teachers and students.

The more radical the person is, the more fully he or she enters into reality so that, knowing it better, he or she can better transform it, this person is not afraid to confront, to listen, to see the world unveiled is not afraid to meet the people or to enter into dialogue.

One must seek to live with others in solidarity..only through communication can human life hold meaning.

El educador ya no es solo el que educa sino aquel que, en tanto que educa, es educado a través del diálogo con el educando, quien, al ser educado, también educa. [...] Nadie educa a nadie, así como tampoco nadie se educa a sí mismo, las personas se educan entre sí con el mundo como mediador.

In a situation of manipulation, the Left is almost always tempted by a "quick return to power," forgets the necessity of joining with the oppressed to forge an organization, and strays into an impossible "dialogue" with the dominant elites. It ends by being manipulated by these elites, and not infrequently itself falls into an elitist game, which it calls "realism.

this dialogue cannot be reduced to the act of one person's "depositing" ideas in another, nor can it become a simple exchange of ideas to be "consumed" by the discussants. Nor yet is it a hostile, polemical argument between those who are committed neither to the naming of the world, nor to the search for truth, but rather to the imposition of their own truth.

Without this faith in people, dialogue is a farce which inevitably degenerates into paternalistic manipulation.

Dialogue is never an end in itself but a means to develop a better comprehension about the object of knowledge. Otherwise, one could end up with dialogue as conversation where individual lived experiences are given primacy.