Holistic Dialogue: Sober Psychedelic Conversation: Holistic Dialogue

By Ayham Kader

The complexity of our selves, relationships, and consciousness at large demanded an action that was not visible until it came about on its own. Driven by, among numerous countless impurities, a deep desire to move beyond the trivial and delve into the serious. Knowing that our perspectives are ever so limited, both are then meaningless without honesty in exploration and inquiry. The more we delve into this, the more infinite it appears to be; hence the word "dialogue," a flow not limited by a starting point nor an end goal.

 

What became clear to us is that the infinite is not to be sought after and reached but rather embodied. Not intellectually, psychologically, or even emotionally, but rather factually; hence the word "holistic," representing a fundamentally inconceivable quality of non-bias and cohesion.

 

Is it possible to go through this—hard not to associate with a psychedelic quality—without any help, assistance, external or internal? Without inducing any substance or relying on a body of knowledge? For us, it proved to be possible; hence, this book was brought to you.

 

• Language: English
• Publisher: Ayham Kader
• Release date: Jan 11, 2024
• ISBN: 9798224770571

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

PREFACE

This book’s core content is a direct transcription of a series of recorded meetings, recorded holistic dialogues, supposedly. So the following notes are essential for the reader to be aware of before going into them.

There were periods of silence between people’s lines of verbal thought and the duration of these silences has been broken down into the following:

[Period of silence] = more than 10 seconds and less than 1 minute

[Long period of silence] = between 1 to 3 minutes

[Very long period of silence] = between 3 and 5 minutes 

[Extremely long period of silence] = more than 5 minutes 

Since it is a live conversation and not rehearsed, we have removed many of the stuttering and verbal tics where they are redundant to the meaning:

Replaced Okay with OK

Replaced gonna with going to

Replaced yeah with yes

Removed I mean

Removed you know

Removed like

Removed sort of

Removed whatever

Removed if you see what I mean

Removed if that makes sense

The participants who requested to remain anonymous are split between individuals who wanted to be called only by their first name and those who are called by the first letter of their first name.

The meetings are not consecutive yet they are listed in the order of their occurrence.

Finally, one individual chose to be left out and remain totally cut out from the text and original audio recordings and for that reason you will find the following notice sentence every once in a while highlighting the areas where we could have not edited the text in way that won’t break the flow of the transcription:

[Cut out text for the sake of anonymity of an individual]

However, due to the nature of HD being not a purely narrative driven conversation, we believe that it did not disrupt the overall work presented here.

INTRODUCTION

By Ayham Kader

Holistic Dialogue (HD) is a term addressing a cultural and educational tendency that the majority of us, humans, fail to understand in its entirety. It is the tendency to establish meaning of the present based on what was – what was learned before – and consequently, what is to come. While this is a must in the technical field, it breeds corruption in the psychological field. In an HD, one engages with this aspect in mind. This has been explored and inquired into intensively in the book Holistic Dialogue: Origins which can be found through our website.

Though this gap, in our understanding, cannot be addressed through the intellect and through an intellectual exchange between individuals and groups alone, since the intellect is ever-so limited, due to the fact of how limited knowledge is in its nature – no matter how much one accumulates. Within this context, HD is not a normal conversation, not through the topics it assumes but in and out of itself, hence the short definition of HD: A sober psychedelic conversation.  

HD is a space for individual and collective inquiry and exploration, transcending our psychological and sociological structures in real-time based on no past knowledge.

And so this book is made to document a selected number of HD meetings. They are not listed in sequence nor are they selected for their topics, the meetings titles are given after the conclusion of the meeting, but for their clarity regarding the whole process, of each, from beginning to end.

This book is to be continuously updated with more and more reprehensive examples of what HD is, demonstrating the potential each and every one of us has, though they may be dormant. Not through theory and diagnosis but through direct engagement with oneself and the other. Between you, the reader, and the read.

These texts are meant to be read with a quality of meditation, otherwise they will be treated as a work of literature which this book is not. The gaps of silence in between the verbal exchanges are also to be recognized for what they are not, allowing the reader to stay with the ambiguous until it is revealed on its own. And who knows, you, the reader, may reach something untouched by the participants of the transcribed recordings.

HD is a process continuously revealing itself to us. It is in no way, shape or form, developed. But we are committed to see it through until proven invalid. As the word holistic, to Tripute, mean: A fundamentally inconceivable quality of non-bias and cohesion. And the word Dialogue signifies a flow that is not limited by an end goal or a starting point.

Finally, the value we perceived from undergoing HDs are comparative to what one would go through taking in a psychedelic substance in a mature set and setting. Hence the subtitle and micro definition of HD: A sober psychedelic conversation.

Meeting #1: Self Concern

1st March 2023

Attendees: Ayham Kader, B, David Phipps, Gary, L, Paul Dimmock, R, Sean and X.

Ayham Kader: We did end with a question last week, but I don't know if we want to go into this question yet again or not. I was thinking about it a little bit for the last few days. And I've never looked at it like this before, but - just a thought; maybe mediocre, maybe not - for a dialogue to end with a question of such a kind, if there is a kind to it, it sounds like there are some questions that are already an answer of themselves. If you do anything with that, I don't know if it's a question that needs to be gone into or it's already inflicting a change once it's taken in. I don't know. But it totally felt it's the kind of question that brings in an openness and ease in my chest and in my head. I was like, ‘OK, why do I want to go further into it?’ So that's my question for today. The question about that question. Yes.

David Phipps: So I have a question. Can you remind us what the question was?

AK: Is right and wrong a requirement for honesty to come about?

[Period of silence]

DP: Can you elaborate on that?

AK: Well, am I speaking up, am I talking, because it's the right thing to do? Or am I doing it because it’s the wrong thing to do? Or maybe I'm clearly pissing you off yet I'm still talking - so it's the wrong thing to do. However it is, that's maybe even a decision to talk about something or not. But I think the word ‘honesty’ is way deeper than whatever is appropriate for the setting and whatever is not. I think when you break down a question like this, or go into it - as if I know exactly what it is - it gets complicated quite instantly. So I think for such a question, either I can explore it without memories, without examples - testing it, comparing it - or is the question alive with me throughout the day, throughout my life? 

[Period of silence]

DP: So you’re passionately trying to explore a point; it comes across as being overbearing; and somebody says to you, ‘Please stop, you're being overbearing.’ In a way, you feel you're almost being repressed by that person; it depends on how they come up with that. And then are you willing to let that go? And is that being honest? Or because I've heard it said that dialogue should be a tentative process where one is exploring carefully and in a questioning way, sometimes when you get into something passion arises and it can take over. Do you see what I'm trying to say? And, at the same time, in order to really see what is behind this passion, is it necessary to go into it? Or if somebody objects and you say, ‘OK, I'll listen,’ is it genuine or are you just trying to please people or something like that? I'm just talking around it. 

[Period of silence]

DP: So, if I say to myself, ‘Oh yes, I need to listen,’ is that because Krishnamurti says I need to listen? Or is it because I’ve really seen in myself that I've somehow narrowed the focus right down into my own desperation or whatever?

AK: Actually, when you bring in the word ‘listening’, for every conflict in relationship that is definitely the remedy. Right? You cannot go wrong with that. But then in the question is the matter of right and wrong. So basically, even if I don't know what's going on, definitely the solution is listening. Which means: is there honesty in that?

DP: Yes. 

AK: Is there honesty in that? Or is that the scale of good and bad?

DP: Yes.

AK: Right?

DP: Yes.

[Long period of silence]

AK: But I think, David, you went right to the core instantly. That's how it feels. It sounds like it's there because the next thing that comes to mind is: ‘Wait! Does the question invite recklessness?’ So my head goes reckless - why is it reckless? That expresses or points out that there is something that is reckless and something that is not, something that is good and something that is not good, something that is dangerous, or big and small: there's a big thing to convey; there's a small thing to convey. It's scale, comparison and all that. So saying, ‘I'm this; you're not,’ I can see that you're not, however.

[Period of silence]

DP: If the word ‘should’ is taken away, is there anything left to talk about? 

[Period of silence]

Paul Dimmock: The word ‘should’, doesn't it have within it already at the beginning a great deal of dishonesty? The word ‘should’.

AK: I personally don't know. Right? I don't know whether one thing is honest and another not. On that note only, but also what David said about the word ‘should’, what came to my mind is ‘about’ - the word ‘about’ - because are we really talking about anything in a dialogue? Let's call it HD [Holistic Dialogue] Are we really talking about anything? And this is not a criticism of the word ‘about’ because that's true; it's always about something - for me, for the group, for the future, for the past, whatever it is. But in holistic dialogue are we talking about anything in particular?

[Period of silence]

AK: ‘About’ is a proposition in English, isn’t it? OK. Is there any fitting proposition that we can use like ‘talk into’, ‘talk about’? And what would be at the top?

PD: Well, there are lots of possibilities: talk around, talk into...

[Period of silence]

PD: ...talk through.

DP: Yes!

AK: Talk through. Talk through, yes.

PD: Are we talking in order to be listened to? Are we talking to generate listening in the other? Which is talking at.

AK: But is your question regarding a dialogue - this dialogue - or in general?

PD: Well, I think let’s stick to this dialogue.

AK: Then I would ask: how come I'm hearing a personal dynamic in what you're asking? Because in a dialogue we have a topic. Yes, we talk to one another about something - sorry, concerning something, starting from something, whatever it is. My question would be: are we really talking to each other? In the sense that you brought.

DP: It’s a lovely question. 

[Period of silence]

DP: I think sometimes one can be trying to understand something and using verbalization just to get a hold of what is coming through. Therefore, I'm not sure one is actually talking to anybody - except there are people there. Otherwise, talking to oneself is a bit odd somehow. Being in a group, I think, helps. And also one is hoping that somebody else will pick that up and take it along further. Yet I know there's a certain amount of self-concern in that. But so what? 

[Period of silence]

DP: Could I just say that that's what is: the self-concern here. Is there anything else? Does that register?

AK: To go back to the question at the beginning, the scale is self-concern. And why would any measurement or sense of measurement be other than survival/self-concern? Right? Which I think is quite understandable in my sense, in daily life. Definitely, I would say that this is maybe necessary; and not necessary in a sense of another. As things are, I'm going to be kicked out of this place if I say this or that. 

[Period of silence]

AK: But I think my question now comes: is this self-concern deeper than the scale? And I'm calling it the scale. I hope this is clear for everyone; if it's not clear, let me know. But to go back: is self-concern deeper than the scale of good and bad, right and wrong? In a sense deeper than what I perceive to be measuring, perceive to be comparing, filtering and all that.

[Period of silence] 

DP: I suppose the other question would be: is the self-concern the result... - I'm beginning to answer my own question because it is more than just a result of what is right and wrong because I want to be right because then I'll go to heaven. 

AK: Maybe we can try this: self-concern and whatever it's connected to. The scale is there for my self-concern. And this concern is because of everything that is populated in my consciousness and the consciousness of others, that they make sure that I am aware of, ‘Don't do this’, ‘This is wrong’, ‘It's offensive, disrespectful,’. So now I really don't know if that's a good question: is self-concern deeper than the measurements?

[Period of silence]

AK: You said self-concern, David, and I don't know what we mean individually and collectively. Now I'm lost. Because I could scream my heart out, out of no sense of rationality, because I'm so concerned. But I don't know if I'm concerned about myself or it's just a sense of concern.

DP: Yes.

AK: So I really don't know exactly what is self-concern. What's the difference between self-concern and concern? That's what I'm a little bit lost on.

[Period of silence] 

DP: Concern as in when one's on a march against what one thinks is a deep injustice and one is passionately demonstrating, passionate about a cause.

[Period of silence] 

AK: I don't know if this relates at all, but this is what I'm thinking about and let's see. So we're having a dialogue about something - right? - concern, into concern. I'm lost. But are my self-concerns - the concerns of my day with my girlfriend, with my wife or with my kids - are they interfering with the dialogue, with the talking into something? Because I could go into a question and I instantly bring an application out of my life: ‘Oh, this is relevant. This relates to me because this happened to me. This is the story,’ - whatever it is - and then it’s my own sphere of reflection. So are they interfering: my daily life, the memories of daily life, the things that I wanted to resolve, things that I'm troubled by? Or are we actually talking? So, in a dialogue, I talk about this and I'm wary of these kinds of interferences, the self-concern interferences about my day, so we can break