If dialogue is ontological event, and if craft demands disciplined participation within asymmetrical fields of power, then we must confront a more intimate difficulty.
Dialogue does not only destabilise institutions.
It destabilises selves.
To participate genuinely in dialogue is to risk being re-structured.
This movement concerns that risk.
1. The Illusion of the Stable Self
Most modern discourse presupposes a stable subject who “has” beliefs, expresses them, defends them, and perhaps modifies them incrementally.
But if positions are structured potentials actualised relationally, then the “self” is not a container of fixed contents. It is a dynamic configuration sustained through ongoing cuts.
Dialogue does not merely modify opinions.
It reorganises the structuring of possibility itself.
To resist this is natural. Stability feels like coherence. But coherence maintained through rigid closure is not strength. It is brittleness.
Craft requires tolerating internal instability.
2. Exposure as Condition
To enter dialogue is to expose one’s structuring assumptions to perturbation.
Exposure includes:
-
Having implicit premises surfaced.
-
Having distinctions challenged.
-
Discovering that one’s framing excludes alternatives.
-
Realising that one’s certainty rests on unexamined cuts.
This exposure can feel like attack.
It is not.
It is the mechanism through which individuation continues rather than stagnates.
Where exposure is refused, dialogue collapses into rehearsal.
3. Defensive Closure
When instability becomes uncomfortable, defensive mechanisms activate:
-
Shifting strata mid-argument.
-
Reclassifying critique as hostility.
-
Retreating into moral certainty.
-
Narrowing the field of possible interpretations.
These moves restore immediate coherence but at ontological cost.
They collapse structured potential.
They convert dialogue into containment.
Craft does not eliminate defensiveness — it notices it.
To notice the impulse to close prematurely is already a disciplined act.
4. The Courage to Be Re-Structured
Co-individuation is not symmetrical blending. It is mutual re-structuring through perturbation.
This requires courage.
Courage to:
-
Let distinctions shift.
-
Revise prior cuts.
-
Admit misrecognition.
-
Allow previously excluded possibilities to become available.
Such shifts do not dissolve identity.
They refine it.
The aim is not to abandon position, but to deepen its articulation under pressure.
A position that survives disciplined perturbation emerges more coherent, not less.
5. Instability and Trust
Dialogue cannot sustain continuous destabilisation without minimal trust.
Trust here does not mean agreement. It means confidence that perturbation is not annihilation.
Without this confidence, every cut feels existential.
Craft therefore includes the cultivation of conditions under which instability is survivable.
This may involve:
-
Clarifying intentions.
-
Slowing the tempo of exchange.
-
Re-establishing shared premises.
-
Naming points of convergence explicitly.
Instability without trust produces fracture.
Instability with trust produces individuation.
6. When Instability Becomes Collapse
There are limits.
If perturbation exceeds the capacity of participants to reorganise, dialogue disintegrates.
Signs of collapse include:
-
Total refusal to acknowledge the other’s legitimacy.
-
Recursive escalation without differentiation.
-
Withdrawal into pure performance.
Craft requires recognising these thresholds.
Not every exchange can be sustained indefinitely.
Sometimes pause is not avoidance but preservation.
7. The Paradox of Strength
Strength in dialogue is often misidentified.
It is not the refusal to shift.
It is the capacity to shift without disintegration.
Rigid certainty is fragile.
Permeable coherence is durable.
The more precisely one understands one’s own structuring commitments, the more one can allow them to be tested.
Craft therefore deepens both conviction and flexibility simultaneously.
This is not compromise.
It is refinement under relational pressure.
No comments:
Post a Comment