Dialog or monologue? I have worked in rehab centers for recovering alcoholics and the drugged addicted and one of the true things one comes up against is that you cannot talk to the addiction. If someone is intoxicated you are "speaking to the alcohol" or "speaking to the drug", not the person. They cannot begin to be helped until they are off the drug.

I believe this phenomena has a broader application. You cannot reason with an ideologue. You waste your time butting up against an "ideal" and not actually reaching the person or their own thoughts. The same holds true for for religious zealots, hidden agendas or used-car salesmen.

Conversation occurs when you can say to yourself; I can set aside me belief system, my biases, my culture, long enough to hear you and to try and understand where you are coming from; what works for you and why. I can examine my own beliefs honestly in the light of what you hold to be true and see what may apply and how. This is dialog.

I, and I am sure that many of you, have instinctively known that this is how real conversation works. Lack of logic, ad hominem attacks, pre-recorded messages from some guru or religious leader can be a real stopper to any meaningful conversation.

It is always easier to "preach to the choir" and soak up the agreement and applause (or applesauce). A shared body of beliefs and core values allows us comfort and the security of knowing we are among our own. It is a jumping off point for other interests. Emily Dickinson wrote "...The soul selects its own society, then shuts the door." It is this "door shutting" that ends all real conversation.

There are some folks here who have a real gift for listening and really considering what is being said even though they may disagree with your stance, Bill D among others. Little Hawk always seems to to understand what you are saying, SRS, Big Mick, Joe, Art Brooks many others. Thanks all!

The integrity of the language is an absolute necessity for an honest conversation. Vocabulary and definition must be shared in common. When a belief system gains its meaning from redefining terms all that results is confusion and bogus "enlightenment". I mean no offense to anyone of the Christian Science persuasion (at least they are honest about doing so) but they have re-defined many common terms (listed in many dictionaries as "Christian Science") that leads the hearer to believe they are speaking about the same thing when in actuality, they are not.

I don't know if this will draw comment or not but it IS something to think about. There are other impediments to dialog that you may want to share.