Holistic Dialogue: Origins: Holistic Dialogue & Meditation

By Ayham Kader and Paul Dimmock

Simultaneously living through and sharing a conversation which the world is deprived of; not having the slightest idea that such a thing exists in us, let alone out there. The ambiguity of what HD is all about is intense enough for many to be shocked by it. Can we see this intensity for what it is rather than define it and explain it away? And maybe an organic process of redefinition starts to take place as we go along ~ AK

 

Within a couple of weeks, they met, fell in love and started a family. It all happened very quickly. But they were not two teenagers caught up in a romantic illusion. Instead, they are two people a generation apart and from widely different cultures; they are two human beings in thrall to the joy of living through the exploration of their own immediate relationship, which apparently seems to have no end or limitation, a relationship unclouded by the usual concerns of sexual desire, economic success and social ambition. Their family includes you, whether you read this book or not. But only those of you who read this book and join their exploration will know the same joy - because their relationship is your relationship, which is all human relationship regardless of age, gender and race. A lot happened in a few weeks. The conscious record of some of it is in this book. What happens next is entirely up to you ~ PD

 

A book by Tripute - A holistic collective concerned with a living not led by consciousness

• Language: English
• Publisher: Tripute
• Release date: Sep 9, 2022
• ISBN: 9798215592809

Ayham Kader

What started as means of thriving and improving one's life continued to morph into itself as the story that he was told and consequently the story he kept telling and building for myself. Whatever was achieved, professionally or socially, did not deliver the sanctification, satisfaction or the happiness he knew for a fact was missing. So this was the beginning, and now it is his everyday in living; to see whatever is going on as long as he is alive for. Ayham Kader is a holistic dialogue facilitator, artist and founder of Tripute.

Book preview

Holistic Dialogue: Origins 2nd Edition

Twelve meetings between Ayham Kader and Paul Dimmock

Contents

PREFACE

DISCLAIMER

INTRODUCTION

Meeting #1: The value of dialogue for our daily lives

Meeting #2: From Trauma to Freedom and Responsibility

Meeting #3: What does it mean to help another?

Meeting #4: Is there a relationship between leisure and so-called mindfulness?

Meeting #5: What limits exploration and enquiry?

Meeting #6: What is communication when we are not separate?

Meeting #7: Faith, trust and freedom explored anew

Meeting #8: Is there a relationship that is not tied to time?

Meeting #9: The fact of our psychological separation explored

Meeting #10: Can our psychological problems ever be solved?

Meeting #11: Why don’t we see that we are acting from memory?

Meeting #12: New beginnings

AFTERWORD

ENDING NOTES

BIOGRAPHIES

While every precaution has been taken in the preparation of this book, the publisher assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions, or for damages resulting from the use of the information contained herein.

Typefaces: Existence Yeah Noah and Gill Sans by Eric Gill

HOLISTIC DIALOGUE: ORIGINS

First edition. September 9, 2022.

Second edition. June 29, 2023

Copyright © 2022, 2023, 2024 Tripute.

Written and designed by Paul Dimmock and Ayham Kader.

PREFACE

The content of this book was originally meant to be only a recorded podcast with the intention of making dialogue available to each and everyone. Yet later on, when Paul Dimmock and Ayham Kader reviewed the podcast, which is called Tripute’s Holistic Dialogue, it was felt that the fact of having many periods of silence between each of the interactions (which is an important and crucial part of the dialogue itself) might make it difficult for many listeners to stay and continue to be engaged. So the book format came about to address this limitation, giving freedom to the reader to contemplate with us, if they see fit, not through a decision but as a natural occurrence.

We could not be happier with the book and we see that the result expanded on the actual value of these shared dialogues. The podcast could now be considered the audio-version of these dialogues, available to those who want to dig deeper and gain a taste of the actual vibe that was present between the speakers.

The podcast can be found through our website and later on to your favorite podcast player.

DISCLAIMER

We at Tripute feel that it is important to share the following facts with the readers in order to make sure the experience is as unbiased as possible:

2 years after the release of this book the authors parted ways for a number of reasons that are considered to be beyond the scope of this book. It is necessary for the reader to be even more skeptical of what is being read.

The definition of Holistic Dialogue (HD) keeps on changing as chronological time passes, with the latest version available on www.tripute.net. The reader should keep in mind that the work in this book might not correspond to the current definition as it lays out the beginnings of HD.

To see how the space has evolved, please check out the podcast for new HD meetings releases.

INTRODUCTION

By Paul Dimmock

As I’ve been asked to say a few words about the meaning or the significance of dialogues, I shall start by saying that in order for our dialogues to bring about a fundamental change in both ourselves and in society, we first have to understand something about the nature of dialogue itself and about what we are sharing together.

It’s easy to share opinions and trade arguments and to act as either the consumer or producer of words, but a proper dialogue between two or three people demands something far more vital if we are to touch the depths of something new and to discover the remarkable beauty of a relationship with another person which is totally free from the restrictions of thought.

Is it possible to look holistically at a problem or a question in the course of a dialogue? I say it must be possible - for we are the whole problem. The problem is not out there, far away, but right here with each one of us as we talk together now.

I feel this is a fundamental truth. And that’s why I also maintain that dialogue is important not for what we say or do within it but for the very manner in which we approach it. For we are approaching ourselves as we actually are; and this may be the very first time that we have ever done such a thing and looked properly at what we see without turning away into some form of idealism. 

In dialogue with one another, much of the nonsense that we are unable to detect within ourselves is brought out into the light because our faults and defects are exposed in dialogue. Dialogue is therefore an arena of human communication where one is truly vulnerable; whereas self-enclosed, analytical thinking is never going to permit such vulnerability.

That's why the nature or the quality of the dialogue matters above all else. It doesn't really matter what we talk about or when we talk; but how we talk is tremendously important because to go into the heart of oneself is only possible by going into the heart of another. And this means immense care, affection, love, intelligence - not later but right from the start.

If we bear in mind that we are probably talking to someone else not just out of idle curiosity but out of a deep sense of loneliness or confusion about who we are in the world, then this loneliness or confusion is really our common ground, our shared interest. Usually we don't admit such common ground because we prefer far higher ideals. But when we do admit it and when we go on into it, carefully and sensitively, pushing away all the false ideas as they arise, then something happens radically to alter the entire ground of human consciousness. So this to me is dialogue and I hope you find something here that resonates with you; and you’ll be very welcome to join in.

Meeting #1: The value of dialogue for our daily lives

16th September 2021

AK: I read your passage about what dialogue means to you. It is really, really nice. And you said that if I have some problems about it, some questions, some enquiries about it, then we can maybe talk about it in this podcast. Yet honestly I just fell in love with what you said - very well put, very detailed - so there are no issues there, no conflict. Did you come across anything when you were writing it down? Did something come up for you?

PD: I don’t know. You see, I wrote that a long time ago because I said to myself, ‘I’ll go back and see what I thought ten years ago.’ It’s actually from two different places; and I managed to put it into one paragraph. I’ll tell you why I did that: because it came about in a dialogue. So it was the product of a dialogue; it wasn’t just me sitting on my own working out what to say. So that’s why I think it had a bit more freshness.

AK: I see. So it was from the moment.

PD: If that makes sense.

AK: Yes. It’s kind of timeless.

PD: It was just an extract from a discussion with somebody else - and I don’t remember who that somebody else was.

AK: It was a long paragraph. All that was from one extract? You took bits and pieces of it?

PD: No, it’s in two halves, actually. The first part was written later than the last, but that’s irrelevant. I can find you the originals and I can send them to you.

AK: I’m a little bit fascinated by the how because I think I’m going to include it as part of the trailer for the podcast. There is going to be a trailer - ‘What is dialogue?’ – and I wrote my piece and it is very dry; and then when you wrote what you wrote...

PD: You see, that was my feeling: ‘I could write something now’ – this was me the other day wondering if I could sit down and write something – ‘but it would be dry because it wouldn’t be coming from the dialogue.’ I don’t know. It does seem to make a difference.

AK: There is another thing as well. What was written is ten years old.

PD: Something like that, yes.

AK: It’s like the relevancy and it being timeless or not. Did you read it again when you sent it to me or not?

PD: Yes.

AK: And how relevant was it for you when you read it?

PD: Well, it sounds silly, but I thought it was OK, I felt it was good. I wouldn’t want to change much there because it says everything.

AK: Yes, I think so too.

PD: And I hope it’s fairly clear. But it’s difficult to judge one’s own comments.

AK: Yes, I agree. Other than that then, what do you think? Do you have anything in mind?

PD: For tonight?

AK: Yes, for now.

PD: So how are we going to do the extract for the trailer then? Let’s get that clear first. What do you want to do?

AK: Basically, what I wish for is if you can record it yourself with your voice and I will add it to whatever I have recorded so that we can put the two recordings together. This is a deeper, more emotional take on what dialogue is, and then you come along and say it, and this would be an introduction to what dialogue is.

PD: Yes, I see. And do it separately from tonight, you mean.

AK: Yes, definitely. Tonight is a normal episode, whatever it is.

PD: So we’re not live – are we? – tonight?

AK: No, we are.

PD: Oh, we are live!

AK: We’re already live, yes.

PD: Oh, OK. Hello world! [Laughter]

AK: Exactly! I mean, it has to have a human element, otherwise... - well, it is what it is. And this is not the first time we are live, you know, we have had two or three sessions already.

PD: We have, yes.

AK: But, honestly, Paul, this is proving to be very difficult to find the right people. 

PD: To find anyone. Never mind the right people, we haven’t even found the wrong people. [Laughter]

AK: I have two or three people who would like to join, whom I think you already know as well, but it doesn’t feel like the right match for the energy or for the kind of dialogue I personally would like to have. It’s also a matter of chemistry, a matter of seriousness, and it’s a little bit weird that I have to be the judge, I have to be the gatekeeper; and you are also for me like a gatekeeper. It’s kind of confusing because I don’t want to limit it, but at the same time it is quite complicated. But what is the right kind of...

PD: ...person?

AK: Yes. I mean, I recognised you quite fast. Like when we met in the dialogues, the first person I recognised was you. There was no-one else. Maybe there were two or three others as well, but the first person was you. And I think, OK, so there is this ability, I can actually relate. But also at the same time I think there are some people I relate to, I think this could be great, but actually deep down it could be just a matter of – how can I say it? – some kind of communality that is only part of my memory rather than the actual connection I am having with a person. You know, like a kind of attraction, like a certain kind of beauty, because it reminds me of my ex-lovers maybe or my culture or some other culture I would like to have, all that. But to have that kind of connection, it seems to be quite rare or not common. And I don’t think it’s based on personality, is it? I don’t know. What do you think? 

PD: No. I suppose it’s a connection without the filters, or the filters are working differently somehow. When we filter people with the images we have of them, these are perhaps not so strong or they are not operating in the same way.

AK: I wonder why. Are we supposed to be serious enough to have these kinds of discussions or this kind of communication? I don’t know what to call it any more, you know, because it’s not a conversation.

PD: I think if we stick to the word ‘dialogue’ and make it really clear what we mean by that, make it clear that the word ‘dialogue’ stands alone from other forms of interaction.

AK: From verbal exchanges.

PD: Yes, from other forms of exchanges, verbal and non-verbal. We might eventually come up with a different word, but I don’t think at the moment there is any other word that we could actually put.

AK: So I had a podcast called Synopsis. I changed it and left that for the kind of people who are not experienced in dialogue, who don’t know what dialogue is - and I think also they are not interested in even having a dialogue in that way – so I left Synopsis to the interesting people, but not to dialoguers. And I find Synopsis to be quite perfect as a synonym for dialogue because it literally means ‘seeing together.’

PD: I didn’t know that. It’s a new word to me: Synopsis. Isn’t that something when you are a writer as well, a summary?

AK: Yes, this is the mainstream meaning, but the root meaning in Latin is ‘seeing together.’

PD: Yes, I can see the word ‘optic.’ It’s like all these old words have got a former meaning, haven’t they? I suppose the word ‘dialogue’ isn’t perfect, and because Jiddu Krishnamurti (J.K) used it a lot there is that history to it, but it doesn’t matter.

AK: When I’m talking to people who don’t know whatever this is, they are always quite surprised about what a dialogue is really all about. I had an idea about it because I saw Jiddu Krishnamurti and David Bohm (D.B) talk quite a lot in that way, but in my head it really sounded like a normal conversation - it’s so much fun, that kind of conversation. But in realising that for so many of us this is something that is not even on the radar - it’s not something that one can have in their daily lives in that sense - this would be my question. This is what we are talking about. Do you think dialogue is suitable for everyday life? You say something and then ask a question about it. Can the normal day-to-day conversations be transformed as a result of dialoguing?

PD: Probably, yes, I would say so.

AK: So did your personal relationships change, your conversations with your loved ones, due to dialogue? Not what dialogue makes you see or that it allows you to see such and such, but in the way that you converse, the way that you express yourself.  For me personally it did definitely change the way I listen. I started to listen differently. My reactions to whatever I am listening to have been transformed, I would say. I don’t know about radically or fundamentally transformed, but it definitely changed – and the way I talk as well, definitely. But not in a direct manner; it’s not like I am having a dialogue with the person in front of me; but the conversation itself has a different quality now, the kind of conversations I am having with the regular folk. 

PD: But it’s interesting that we’re bringing in the distinction between a dialogue and our daily life. 

AK: Isn’t dialogue another way to describe meditation?

PD: Yes.

AK: So similarly I think the word ‘dialogue’ is as hard to define as meditation.

PD: And in daily life that’s not something we would necessarily think of doing.

AK: So meditating all the time, although this is something that J.K hinted at – that you have to die and live every moment, which is meditating every moment – and in a way whenever you are conversing with another person you are having a dialogue as well. But then what that dialogue means, in what way, it’s the same thing as meditating; it depends on the moment.

PD: Again, that’s another word with lots of hidden meanings, the word ‘meditation.’ And I think it’s greatly misunderstood.

AK: Definitely.

PD: But I don’t think we should shy away from it, from using the word, if we understand it’s not a practice, it’s not something we are applying in the doing of, there’s no technique for it. It’s a state that the mind may enter. When we have a dialogue, the mind may enter a state of meditation. And I think one of the most interesting things in a dialogue is when that happens to the whole group. At the moment, the two of us are now the whole group – there may be ten of us or twelve – but we haven’t set out to get there. We haven’t said, ‘We’re going to meditate; we’re going to have a dialogue to meditate and end up at this point.’ I think it must always take us by surprise. Otherwise, as you said earlier on, there is no fun in that, if it’s something we set out to do.

AK: Yes, definitely. I stopped practising meditation some time ago, maybe a year or more. I just found myself not meditating. And I asked myself, ‘Why are you not meditating anymore?’ I really did not know why; and until now I really do not know why I am not meditating. Seeing myself stop meditating, was that a good thing or a bad thing? I really don’t know. I never went into the question except for maybe wanting to pat myself on the back, saying, ‘Now you are meditating all the time.’ But I really don’t know.

And in a way I don’t know if I’m having a conflict with someone until it is pointed out. Otherwise, I am just running along. Like the other day I had a conversation with a friend and a third friend was there; and it was pointed out to me that we were arguing; and I didn’t know that I was arguing. I thought we were just conversing, having a discussion. But it turned out that I’m arguing, that we were arguing.

PD: Well, from their perspective, maybe.

AK: Well, the conversation definitely changed when that was pointed out and I recognised it, but also what you’re saying is interesting because from my point of view I was asking questions which were completely ignored. I asked a question and they came back with something from whatever they know.

PD: In other words, in daily life conflict is more or less there all the time. Right? We expect to be in conflict. In most of our conversations, there is some degree of conflict because each party wants what they want: they have a goal, an end in view, they want to be helped or they want to help, they want to put things right or they want things put right. Most of our conversations in daily life have this element.

AK: It seems that in daily life I