"Dialogue comes from the Greek word *dialogos*. *Logos* means 'the word', or in our case we would think of the 'meaning of the word'. And *dia* means 'through' -- it doesn't mean two. A dialogue can be any number of people, not just two.
The picture or image that this derivation suggests is of a *stream of meaning* flowing among and through us and between us. This will make possible a flow of meaning in the whole group, out of which will emerge some new understanding. It's something new, which may not have been in the starting point at all. It's something creative. And the *shared meaning* is the 'glue' or 'cement' that holds people and societies together.
Contrast this with the word 'discussion', which has the same root as 'percussion' and 'concussion'. It really means to break things up. It emphasizes the idea of analysis, where there may be many points of view, and where everybody is presenting a different one -- analyzing and breaking up. That obviously has value; but it is limited, and it will not get us very far beyond our various points of view. Discussion is almost like a ping-pong game, where people are batting the ideas back and forth and the object of the game is to win or to get points for yourself. Possibly you will take up somebody else's ideas to back up your own -- you may agree with some and disagree with others -- but the basic point is to win the game. That's very frequently the case in a discussion.
In a dialogue, however, nobody is trying to win. Everybody wins if anybody wins. There is a different sort of spirit to it. In a dialogue, there is no attempt to gain points, or to make your particular view prevail.
Opinions tend to be experienced as 'truths', even though they may only be your own assumptions and your own background. You got them from your teacher, your family, or by reading, or in yet some other way. Then, for one reason or another, you are *identified* with them, and you defend them.
The object of a dialogue is not to analyze things, or to win an argument, or to exchange opinions. Rather, it is to suspend your opinions and to look at the opinions -- to listen to everybody's opinions, to suspend them, and to see what all that means. If we can see what all of our opinions mean, then we are *sharing a common content*, even if we don't agree entirely. It may turn out that the opinions are not really very important -- they are all assumptions. And if we can see them all, we may then move more creatively in a different direction. We can just simply share the appreciation of the meanings; and out of this whole thing, truth emerges unannounced -- not that we have chosen it.
If each of us in this room is suspending, then we are all doing the same thing. We are all looking at everything together. The content of our consciousness is essentially the same. Accordingly, a different kind of consciousness is possible among us, a *participatory consciousness* -- as indeed consciousness always is, but one that is frankly acknowledged to be participatory and can go that way freely. Everything can move between us. Each person is participating, is partaking of the whole meaning of the group and also taking part in it. We can call that a true dialogue."