“Dialogues” seem like a new endeavor, something that just popped up as a thing. They aren’t. They’ve always been what I wanted, what I attempted my whole life.
How do you know the how of anything if you’ve never been shown, or if it doesn’t exist around you?
Dialogues have nothing to do with identity, but with the real self — the entity that’s alive behind identity, before it and after it. So I, too, had to find my way to dialogue. Yes — a verb, different from conversing.
What I didn’t realize growing up was that most people were afraid of them. Conversations are ok. But dialogues? That’s a different category altogether. Only in hindsight did people's fear become visible to me.
It’s like dialogues always involved an invisible threat for people — sometimes greater, sometimes smaller, but always there. Even though my mind couldn’t yet make sense of it, I sensed it. But that’s the natural order of perception: sensing first, cognition later — understanding emerges only over time, through pattern. I could sense when walls were erected, or when they never came down.
It didn’t make sense to me. Why would I erect walls when what I wanted was to meet, to know another? Much later, I began realizing the mechanisms — the whys of this happening. Why people said they wanted to meet, get to know their own self and/or another, but then go into concealment.
All the meditating, the chanting, the mindfulness don’t install or accomplish dialoguing, I learned. Not sure why, because I’ve never practiced any techniques. But they’re different universes. Different frequencies.
The most obvious and unbridgeable difference is being alone versus being witnessed.
Alone has a comfort to it. A safety net the identity can use to play aware. A mirror doesn’t — because mirroring collapses privacy, timing, and self-narration in ways aloneness never touches. But safety was never the prerequisite or the purpose of dialoguing.
When someone cracks those walls of secrecy, recognizes the purpose of witnessing, of mirroring, I get child-like excited. Genuinely overjoyed. Because it’s the only time we can be on mutual ground — bridge our individual inner worlds and be together, as one, in the same space, in the same time.
With dialoguing, there’s no agenda, no pre-chosen topics, even if they do start somewhere. There are no forbidden topics either. Because the whole purpose is innocence:
– nakedness
– sovereignty
– honesty
There’s no guilt, shame, or hiding in dialogues. They are not conversations, small talk, agreements, or sameness, but connection through differences, through individuality.
Most humans live within boundaries they think keep them safe.
Relationships break not because people want different things, have different interests, or because they made mistakes, but because they never meet in dialogue.
Dialogues cannot be forced or taught. Only experienced, trusted, and cultivated along the way. They can only begin when both are willing to meet unguarded, unarmored, undefended.
There’s much more to the subject, but dialoguing is the purpose.
