🎆 When Do You Think The Dialog Happen

Source wollyvonwolleroy/Pixabay It has now been two years since my post “The Crisis of Meaning”—which introduced and drew upon the wisdom of psychiatrist Viktor E. Frankl, author of the classic book, Man’s Search for Meaning1—was published on this site. To be sure, the various symptoms of this crisis—among individuals, organizations, and societies—continue to persist, and humanity’s call for meaning can still be heard loud and clear. So what can we, individually and collectively, do to answer the call? Besides serving as a conceptual starting point, I propose that the process of authentic dialogue offers an antidote to this existential crisis. In this regard, the Ancient Greeks advanced what they referred to as a common education “to heal disunion and division of spirit,” and, importantly, viewed dialogue as a way to build a spiritual community not to be confused with church and religion. In turn, this kind of meaningful connection between citizens, especially between the governed and the governors, increased the likelihood of identifying and achieving aims that best served the common good. Now fast forward to today’s highly polarized world. I suspect that most readers would agree that humanity would benefit from a similar approach as that espoused and practiced by the Ancient Greeks, one that provided a “common education” and leveraged the process of authentic dialogue to heal the disunion and division of spirit that currently exists. These days we frequently hear people throwing out phrases like “Let’s dialogue,” “Let’s have an authentic conversation,” “Let’s have a convo,’” “Let’s talk,” etc., which may, intended or not, leave the impression that actual dialogue is going to take place. While this kind of invitation to engage with others is commendable and, to be sure, much needed in the contemporary era, even the very best of intentions is not enough to make it happen. We need to dig deeper in order to understand why the process of engaging in authentic dialogue is easier said than done, as well as uncover what this particular kind of meaningful engagement between people actually means and implies. Let’s begin to address this challenge by first seeking to understand the meaning of the word dialogue at its “root” level. The word actually comes from two Greek words—dia, meaning “through,” and logos, most frequently but only roughly translated in English as “the meaning.” Upon closer examination, the various translations of the word "logos," a common Greek word λγο, reveal that it has deep spiritual roots. In fact, the concept of logos can be found in most of the great works describing the history of Christianity, as well as throughout the literature on religion and Western philosophy. In this regard, one of the first references to logos as “spirit” came from the Greek philosopher, Heraclitus, around 500 The logos of Heraclitus has been interpreted in various ways, as “logical,” as “meaning,” and as “reason," but, as the German philosopher Martin Heidegger pointed out, “What can logic ... do if we never begin to pay heed to the logos and follow its initial unfolding?” To Heraclitus, this “initial unfolding” viewed the logos as responsible for the harmonic order of the universe, as a cosmic law which declared that “One is All, and Everything is One.” The doctrine of the logos was the linchpin of the religious thinking by the Jewish philosopher, Philo of Alexandria, who, while not always consistent in his use of the term, clearly established it as belonging only to the “spiritual” realm. Indeed, Philo sometimes suggested that logos is the “highest idea of God that human beings can attain ... higher than a way of thinking, more precious than anything that is merely thought.” For Philo, the logos was Divine, it was the source of energy from which the human soul became manifest. Consistent with the logocentric character of Philo’s thought, “It is through the Logos and the Logos alone that man is capable of participating in the Divine.” Moreover, Philo’s confidence in the human mind rests on the self-assurance that the human intellect is ultimately related to the divine Logos, “being an imprint, or fragment or effulgence of that blessed nature, or ... being a portion of the divine ether.” To Philo, the origins of logos as “spirit” were clearly well-documented in the writings of the early Greek philosophers and the theologians of his era. This kind of interpretation of logos also received attention more recently in Karen Armstrong's bestseller, A History of God, in which she notes that St. John had made it clear that Jesus was the Logos and, moreover, that the Logos was God. Herein, however, lies the difficulty associated with engaging people in “authentic dialogue"—it cannot and will not happen if we are “prisoners of our thoughts.”2 In this connection, I learned a long time ago that you can never connect meaningfully with others if you believe that you have a monopoly on truth. A true dialogue will only occur if the participating stakeholders are willing to enter the spiritual realm of the logos and “converse,” if you will, on this deeper level. Cognitive, so-called “knowledge-based” interactions, which can be described as discussions or ordinary conversations, are not enough for authentic dialogue to occur. One must be open and willing to entertain a diversity of thought and discover a common ground by going to a higher ground It is time to return to the literal meaning of psychology—the study of the soul—and apply it to all aspects of life, work, and society. Interpreting logos in this way, that is, viewing it as a manifestation of spirit or soul, carries with it significant implications, both conceptual and Authentic dialogue, as a concept, takes on a new and deeper meaning when it is perceived as a group’s accessing a larger pool of common spirit through a distinctly spiritual connection between the members. This suggests more than just collective thinking, although dialogue certainly is a determinant of such a holistic process. Spirit flowing through and resonating among the participants in true dialogue leads to collective thinking, which, in turn, facilitates a common understanding, thereby resulting ideally in what we now refer to as collective learning. Authentic dialogue enables individuals to acknowledge that they each are part of a greater whole, that they naturally resonate with others within this whole, and that the whole is, indeed, greater than the sum of its various parts. As participants in such a holistic process, together they can produce greater results than they would just as individuals without this meaningful connection. References 1. Frankl, Viktor E. 1984. Man’s Search for Meaning, 3rd ed. New York, NY Simon and Schuster/Pocket Books. 3. It is interesting to note that Viktor Frankl shared this interpretation of the common Greek word logos, which he told me was the basis for calling his unique system of psychotherapy, “Logotherapy.” Moreover, in Dr. Frankl’s book, The Doctor and the Soul, he wrote the following “A psychotherapy which not only recognizes man’s spirit, but actually starts from it may be termed logotherapy. In this connection, logos is intended to signify the spiritual’ and, beyond that, the meaning.’” It should also not come as a surprise that one of the main techniques used in Frankl's System of Logotherapy is Socratic Dialogue.

Goto Home → Font or the Font dialog box (click the little launcher button shown in Figure 4-1 or press Alt+H, FN) and make your formatting choices. Many of the buttons in the Font group act like toggles. So, when you select text and click the underline button, Word underlines all the characters in the selection.

^{Last updated Save as PDF Page ID40400 City College of San Francisco via ASCCC Open Educational Resources Initiative Narration Image from Pixabay When doing a close reading, you also need to keep the big picture in mind. You already know how to look for major plot points, identify the setting, and list possible themes, but you should also keep in mind who is telling you the story. The narrator, or the person telling the story, is one of the most important aspects of a text. A narrator can be a character in the story, or he or she might not appear in the story at all. In addition, a text can have multiple narrators, providing the reader with a variety of viewpoints on the text. And finally, a story can be related by an unreliable narrator – a narrator the reader cannot trust to tell the facts of a story correctly or in an unbiased manner. Note One thing you should always keep in mind is that the narrator and author are different. The narrator exists within the context of the text and only exists in the story. However, in most non-fiction and some fiction, the author can model the narrator after him or her self; in this case, the author and narrator are different people sharing the same viewpoint. Unreliable Narrators In reading a first-person narration we encounter a potential problem that we do not have when we encounter an omniscient third-person narrative such as Austen's Northanger Abbey. Can you think what that might be? The factor I was hoping you would identify is that of the degree of reliability we can attach to a first-person narrative. As we read and discover more about a narrator we receive more and more indications that determine the extent to which we can trust the voice telling us the story. Kazuo Ishiguro's novel The Remains of the Day 1989 is narrated by its central character, an English butler called Stevens, who recalls various events and incidents from the past in such a way as to constantly cast doubt on the dependability of his narration. At one point we are presented with a prolonged and heated argument between Stevens and the housekeeper Miss Kenton about the butler's ailing father, also a member of the staff of the same country house. The argument is narrated in direct speech, suggesting an authentic recreation of the actual incident, but is followed by a piece of narration by Stevens that immediately undermines our trust in his version of events But now that I think further about it, I am not sure Miss Kenton spoke quite so boldly that day. We did, of course, over the years of working closely together come to have some very frank exchanges, but the afternoon I am recalling was still early in our relationship and I cannot see even Miss Kenton having been so forward. I am not sure she could actually have gone so far as to say things like these errors may be trivial in themselves, but you must yourself realise their larger significance’. In fact, now that I come to think of it, I have a feeling it may have been Lord Darlington himself who made that particular remark to me that time he called me into his study some two months after that exchange with Miss Kenton outside the billiard room. By that time, the situation as regards my father had changed significantly following his fall. p. 60 There are numerous such examples of Stevens' "unreliability" throughout the novel. These become more significant when placed against the wider historical and political backdrop of the story. Stevens had been butler to Lord Darlington, devoting his life to the service of someone he saw as a "great man." However, as the narrative unfolds, and in spite of Stevens' selective and constantly revised memory, Darlington is revealed as an unwitting pawn of Nazism. The unreliability of Stevens' narration draws an implicit parallel between memory and history and shows both to be liable to distortion and manipulation, whether consciously or unconsciously. Fragmented Narration We can see, then, that even when the identity of the narrator of a prose fiction is made clear to us, there are possibilities for uncertainty and ambiguity. So what are we to make of the next extract? Exercise Please read the extract from A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man by James Joyce now and consider what the narrative is describing, and try to characterize the narrative voice and perspective. Answer This is not at all an easy narrative voice to characterise. Indeed, it is difficult to define who is narrating at various points in the opening section of this novel. However, I hope you realised at least that, as with the other two extracts, this is an account of childhood experience. It even begins with the time-honoured phrase used for telling stories to children – "Once upon a time." The diction of the remainder of the opening sentence seems very childlike, an excited-sounding unpunctuated flow with repetitions of childish terms such as "moocow" and nonsense words like "nicens." We are a long way from narrative "realism" here. As the novelist Anthony Burgess has implied, a more conventional representation of the child's impressions–"My first memories are of my father, a monocled hirsute man who told me stories"–would have a very different effect on us as readers. Burgess described the beginning of Portrait as "the first big technical breakthrough of twentieth-century prose-writing" 1965, p. 50 and I hope you were able to identify aspects of the extract that might warrant such a description. The narrative seems to be made up of fragmented, unrelated associations; the father's "hairy face"; the mysterious Betty Byrne and her even more mysterious "lemon platt"; the random and sometimes distorted snatches of song and the sinister nursery-rhyme-like refrain "Pull out his eyes /Apologise"; and the unexpected reference to Michael Davitt and Parnell, which we need some knowledge of Irish politics to understand fully. But can we detect some sort of order or pattern here? I think we can, though it is by no means obvious. The passage gives me the impression of an attempt to replicate a child's growing awareness of his world, the relationships between those who populate it, and the development of his facility for language. The novel begins with an episode of storytelling as we have seen, though we can't be sure whether the child or the father is the actual speaker at that point. The child's stumbling attempts at language are suggested by the nonsensical line of song–"O, the green wothe botheth"–which seems to be a corruption of the two lines quoted prior to that. A world of sensations, sight, sound, touch, smell, and movement is invoked and gradually the wider world begins to impinge and we can see the child beginning to categorise and impose order on his growing knowledge, recognising different smells and the ages of the adults around him. The family unit is then transcended as mention is made of the Vances and the "different father and mother," again implying a developing awareness on the part of the child-narrator. The sense of fragmentation remains strong, however, with the unexplained incident of the child hiding under the table we are not told why he is there or why he must apologise. The critic Hugh Kenner has described the opening of Portrait as "contrapuntal," and there are certainly at least two contrasting perspectives revealed in this extract what Kenner calls "an Aristotelian catalogue of senses, faculties, and mental activities" combined with "the unfolding of the infant conscience" quoted in Beja, 1973, p. 126. Narrative Organization The way a story unfolds is as important as who tells it. Even though prose is just “regular writing,” there are many different kinds of prose. Some prose is written as short stories, while other prose is written as novels and novellas. Each type of prose has its own organizational scheme as well. For instance, some stories are organized into large sections, while others are organized into chapters. Some prose is even organized into sections of journal entries or letters between characters. It is important to note how an author divides a story. Ask yourself why a chapter ends where it does. Does the chapter ending add suspense to the story, or does it just provide a place to transition to another character's point of view? Does each section of a story have its own theme, or is there only one overarching theme? If you are reading an epistolary novel, why do you think one character chose to reveal certain information to another? Paying attention to how a text is organized, divided, and sub-divided will provide you insight into the plot and theme. Points of View All prose is written in one of three points of view first-person narration, third-person limited narration, and third-person omniscient narration. First Person First-person narration is written in the first person mode, meaning that that story is told from the viewpoint of one person who often uses language like “I,” “you,” or “we.” A first-person narrator can even be a character in the story she is narrating. Furthermore, the narrator will have a limited perspective; he cannot tell what the other characters are thinking or doing, and his telling of the story is influenced by his feelings about the other characters, the setting of the story, and the plot. When you read prose related by a first-person narrator, pay attention to the narrator's biases – they can tell you a great deal about the other elements of the story. For instance, here's an example of first-person narration As I walked home from the store, I could feel the cool spring breeze stir my hair. It was getting warm, and I had been looking forward to the end of snow, sleet, and rain for the past few months. I saw Charley coming down the sidewalk towards me. He was a nice guy, that Charley, but I always thought he was a few bulbs short of a chandelier. He waved at me, and I nodded in return. As you can see, in the first-person mode, the narrator tells the story directly from his point-of-view. He has the ability to influence the reader's opinions of characters through his narration – here the narrator explains Charley is not a very intelligent person. However, for all the reader knows, this could just be the narrator's bias, not fact. Thus, when you read a story written in the first-person mode, look for evidence to support the narrator's claims. Exercise How would you describe the narrative voice and perspective of this extract? Click to read the opening of Great Expectations by Charles Dickens. Answer This is an example of first-person narration. The story is told by a character who is also a protagonist in the narrative. In Great Expectations, as in most first person narratives, the narrator is also the central character. The opening paragraph, with its emphasis on the narrator's family background, and the repetitions of his name – "So I called myself Pip, and came to be called Pip" – are an immediate suggestion that the character telling us the story is likely to be at the heart of it. This is further reinforced as we are then given more information about his family and his circumstances. The story begins, then, with the narrator giving us an introduction to his own childhood, moving rapidly from the general to the particular and his meeting with the "fearful man" he met in the churchyard. Again, the relation of this incident at the start of the novel leads us to attach some significance to the episode and its participants, raising expectations that are not fulfilled until much later in the narrative. Here, and throughout Great Expectations, there is in a sense a dual narrative perspective, presenting events narrated by the adult Pip which are at times mediated through the perceptions of the child Pip. The opening encounter in the churchyard, for instance, is enacted with a vivid immediacy. Look again at the point at which the narrative shifts from description to direct speech. The rapidity of the exchanges, with further repetitions of the main character's name and the allusion to his feelings of terror, engage us much more directly with the boy's feelings of horror and dismay. Third-Person Limited and Omniscient Third-person narration is related by someone who does not refer to him or her self and does not use “I,” “you,” or “we” when addressing the reader. Here's the same story as above, told in third-person narration As Bill walked home from the store, he could feel the cool spring breeze stir his hair. It was getting warm, and he had been looking forward to the end of snow, sleet, and rain for the past few months. He saw Charley coming down the sidewalk towards him. Charley was a nice guy, but he was a few bulbs short of a chandelier. Charley waved at Bill, and he nodded in return. In this example, the story is told by someone looking at the characters from an outside perspective. A third-person narrator will not be a character in a story, but an outside entity relating the story's events. Third-person narrators rarely give biased accounts of events, but sometimes you will encounter an unreliable third-person narrator. Some third-person narrators tell from a limited perspective. These narrators relate a story from one point of view, which is often the main character's point of view. Because readers can only tell what that character is thinking and feeling, they have a limited perspective of what other characters are thinking and feeling. In addition, since only one character's perspective is narrated, the audience gets to see the world through that character's eyes; this can be good for revealing certain facts about setting and character, but it can also present a slightly biased story. The other type of third-person narration is told from an omniscient perspective. This means that the narrator relates the story in third person but has access to all information in the story. The third-person omniscient mode is often used when an author wants to relate a text through the viewpoints of several characters. Third-person omniscient narrators tend to be the most reliable narrators, as they can present all the facts of a story. Finally, you will sometimes encounter a story that is told in first-person narration by multiple narrators. When reading a multi-narrator text, you must always be aware of who is speaking. Multi-narrator prose provides the reader with as much insight about the characters as third-person omniscient narration does. However, because the reader only receives first-person accounts from each character, this kind of narration tends to be very biased. Thus, it is up to the reader to analyze the information provided by the narrators to reach conclusions about the story. Omniscient Narrators This would perhaps be a good point at which to say a little more about third-person narrators. These are often known as an "omniscient" narrators. An omniscient narrator is one that exhibits full knowledge of the actions, thoughts and feelings of each of the characters in the story. Austen invariably used this omniscient perspective, and it remains a popular means of narration amongst contemporary writers. Indeed, more recent authors have made great play of drawing attention to the narrator's role as an all-powerful figure, an embodiment of the author who has full control of the characters at his or her mercy. The beginning of Martin Amis' novel London Fields demonstrates this well This is a true story but I can't believe it's really happening. It's a murder story, too. I can't believe my luck. And a love story I think, of all strange things, so late in the century, so late in the goddamned day. This is the story of a murder. It hasn't happened yet. But it will. It had better. I know the murderer, I know the murderee. I know the time, I know the place. I know the motive her motive and I know the means. I know who will be the foil, the fool, the poor foal, also utterly destroyed. And I couldn't stop them, I don't think, even if I wanted to. The girl will die. It's what she always wanted. You can't stop people, once they start creating. What a gift. This page is briefly stained by my tears of gratitude. Novelists don't usually have it so good, do they, when something real happens something unified, dramatic and pretty saleable, and they just write it down? 1989, p. 1 We might be forgiven for thinking that this is the direct voice of Martin Amis himself. After all, he is the author of the novel, the manipulator of events and characters. But as we read on we realise that this narrator is another character, an American writer called Samson Young, who is living in London in the flat of yet another fictional writer, Mark Asprey note the initials. To further confuse matters a writer called Martin Amis also makes a cameo appearance in the novel! London Fields uses a variety of narrative perspectives. When Samson Young is actually present at the events described first-person narration is used; when he is not we have something akin to the omniscient narrator of the Austen extract in Activity 2, but we also have the sense that that narrator has a name and a role in the novel. Video Point of view/narrator Dialogue/Dialog Dialogue is defined as a conversation between two or more people in a movie. In addition, a fictional piece could have a monologue where a character is speaking out loud when he or she is alone. A character, for example, may contemplate the pros and cons of taking some form of action in a monologue. Dialogue, monologue, and narration progresses the story in literature. When analyzing character , the terms dialogue, monologue, and soliloquy take on increased importance. Conversation between two or more characters is referred to as dialogue usually the majority of speech in plays consists of dialogue. A monologue is when one character delivers a speech to convey his or her thoughts, although other characters may remain on stage in scene. Similar to a monologue, a soliloquy is a speech made by one character but delivered when he or she is alone on stage. Knowing the root words of each term can help clarify the distinction. Monologue comes from the Greek words monos single and legein to speak; soliloquy comes from the Latin words solus alone and Ioqui to speak. What would fiction be without dialogue? Take a look at the following example of a scene with and without dialogue. Jack, Suzie and Alec are walking home after work. Jack begins the conversation, as he always does. Suzie speaks, as she is always the first one to respond. Alec is silent for a moment and the other two stop walking. Alec notices that they stopped so he stops walking too. Bewildered, Alec mumbles. Jack retorts. Alec looks at them both. Suzie interjects. Alec returns a comment. After a brief moment of silence where all three look at one another, they shrug their shoulders and begin to walk again. Suzie questions. Alec comments again. There is silence again and Suzie stops the other two. Suzie speaks. Jack interjects again. Alec calmly states. Jack and Suzie look at each other stunned. The above scene, with no dialogue but just a description, is only a group of actions with no meaning. They could refer to almost any type of situation. As a viewer, after watching the above scene, would you be interested enough in watching the rest of the movie with no dialogue? Now read the scene with dialogue. Jack, Suzie and Alec are walking home after work. Jack begins a conversation as he always does, “How was the work day?” “All right,” Suzie says as she is always the first one to respond. Looking at Alec, Jack asks, “How was your day, Alec?” Alec is silent for a moment as the other two stop walking. Alec notices that they stopped walking so he stops. Bewildered, Alec mumbles, “What?” “How was your day?” Jack retorts. “Fine, fine.” Alec looks at them both. “How do you think it was?” “I don’t know. That’s why I asked.” Suzie interjects, “That’s why we asked. We like to know how your day was.” “Oh,” Alec returns. After a brief moment of silence, where all three look at one another, they shrug their shoulders and begin to walk again. “Wait a minute! You never did tell us how your day was,” Suzie questions. “Yeah!” agrees Jack. “Oh,” Alec comments again. There is silence again and Suzie stops the other two. “Well…” Suzie says. “Yeah,” interjects Jack again. “I quit my job,” Alec calmly states. Jack and Suzie look at each other stunned. The dialogue gives the viewer an understanding of what is going on. If the above scene was at a beginning of the fiction piece, the viewer would have an idea what the conflict in the story was going to be. Contributors and Attributions Adapted from Writing About Literature The Basics by CK-12, license CC-BY-NC Adapted from the course Approaching Prose Fiction from OpenLearn licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA Adapted from What is Sound? in Exploring Movie Construction and Production, license CC-NC-SA Adapted from Elements of Drama in Literature for the Humanities, source Florida State College at Jacksonville, license CC-BY Attribution}

Historicallyspeaking, empires on average last for around 250 years, after which they tend to either slowly — or very, very quickly — fall apart due to overreach and internal conflict. Somewhat ominously, the 250 th birthday of America is coming up in 2026.. Yet when, towards the end of Trump's presidency, a radical friend of mine told me that he thought America was headed for civil war

^{14/02/2023 Pendidikan 0 Views 1. Where do you think the dialog takes place. 2. When does the from Introduction Dialog merupakan salah satu cara untuk menyampaikan pesan atau informasi dengan menggunakan kata-kata yang tepat. Dengan dialog, kita bisa menyampaikan pandangan, pendapat, dan informasi yang tepat dan sesuai. Dialog juga bisa menjadi cara untuk menyelesaikan masalah, menyampaikan kesimpulan, dan menyampaikan informasi yang benar-benar valid dan dapat dipertanggungjawabkan. Kapan Dialog Berlangsung? Meskipun dialognya berbeda untuk setiap situasi, ada beberapa waktu yang biasanya cocok untuk dialognya. Dialog terjadi ketika orang percaya bahwa mereka memiliki kepentingan yang saling bertentangan. Jadi, ketika sebuah masalah muncul dan orang yang berbeda memiliki pendapat yang berbeda tentang apa yang terbaik, dialog akan terjadi. Kemudian, dialog juga biasanya terjadi ketika sebuah masalah muncul dan orang yang bersangkutan percaya bahwa dialog akan membantu untuk menyelesaikannya. Dialog juga akan terjadi ketika orang-orang yang bersangkutan percaya bahwa dialog akan membantu untuk menyampaikan informasi yang dapat dipertanggungjawabkan dan dapat diandalkan. Kemudian, dialog juga dapat berlangsung sebagai cara untuk menyelesaikan masalah yang ada. Ketika masalah muncul dan ada orang yang memiliki informasi yang berbeda tentang masalah tersebut, dialog akan terjadi. Dialog akan membantu untuk mengungkap informasi yang benar-benar valid dan dapat dipertanggungjawabkan. Dialog juga akan membantu untuk menyampaikan informasi yang benar-benar valid dan dapat dipertanggungjawabkan. Ketika Dialog Berlangsung? Dialog dapat berlangsung setiap saat, namun ada waktu-waktu tertentu yang lebih cocok untuk dialognya. Dialog biasanya terjadi ketika ada orang yang memiliki pendapat yang berbeda tentang masalah yang sedang dihadapi. Jadi, ketika masalah muncul dan pendapat yang berbeda muncul tentang apa yang terbaik, dialog akan terjadi. Selain itu, dialog juga dapat berlangsung ketika orang-orang yang bersangkutan percaya bahwa dialog akan membantu untuk menyampaikan informasi yang dapat dipertanggungjawabkan dan dapat diandalkan. Selain itu, dialog juga dapat berlangsung ketika orang-orang yang bersangkutan percaya bahwa dialog akan membantu untuk menyelesaikan masalah yang ada. Dialog juga dapat berlangsung ketika orang yang bersangkutan percaya bahwa dialog akan membantu untuk menyampaikan informasi yang benar-benar valid dan dapat dipertanggungjawabkan. Dialog juga akan terjadi ketika ada orang yang memiliki informasi yang berbeda tentang masalah yang sedang dihadapi. Manfaat Dialog Dialog bisa membantu untuk menyampaikan informasi yang tepat dan sesuai. Dialog juga bisa menjadi cara untuk menyelesaikan masalah, menyampaikan kesimpulan, dan menyampaikan informasi yang benar-benar valid dan dapat dipertanggungjawabkan. Dialog juga bisa membantu untuk menyampaikan informasi yang benar-benar valid dan dapat dipertanggungjawabkan. Dialog juga bisa menjadi cara untuk membangun ikatan, menyatukan pandangan, dan memperdalam hubungan antara orang-orang yang bersangkutan. Selain itu, dialog juga bisa membantu untuk membangun kesadaran tentang masalah yang sedang dihadapi, membantu untuk menyelesaikan masalah yang ada, menyampaikan informasi yang benar-benar valid dan dapat dipertanggungjawabkan, dan membangun ikatan. Dialog juga dapat membantu untuk menyampaikan informasi yang benar-benar valid dan dapat dipertanggungjawabkan. Dialog juga bisa membantu untuk membangun kesadaran tentang masalah yang sedang dihadapi. Kesimpulan Dialog merupakan cara yang efektif untuk menyampaikan informasi yang tepat dan sesuai. Dialog juga dapat membantu untuk menyampaikan informasi yang benar-benar valid dan dapat dipertanggungjawabkan. Dialog juga dapat membantu untuk menyelesaikan masalah, menyampaikan kesimpulan, dan membangun ikatan antara orang-orang yang bersangkutan. Jadi, ketika sebuah masalah muncul dan ada orang yang memiliki informasi yang berbeda tentang masalah tersebut, dialog akan terjadi. Check Also Admin Dashboard Php Welcome Inilah Cara Membuat Dashboard Admin Yang Menarik Dan Mudah Digunakan Bagaimana Menggunakan Admin Dashboard PHP? Admin Dashboard PHP adalah alat yang sangat berguna untuk mengatur …}

Dohealing miracles happen? Unbelievable Project: Robby Dawkins & David Beebee - 15 March 2014 . Tue 03 June 2014 In #unbelievable #Unbelievable Project. As part of the Unbelievable Project, I am taking notes and "arm-chair" responding to each of the Unbelievable podcast episodes satisfying a set of simple rules.

Language is the hallmark of humanity—it allows us to form deep relationships and complex societies. But we also use it when we’re all alone; it shapes even our silent relationships with ourselves. In his book, The Voices Within, Charles Fernyhough gives a historical overview of “inner speech”—the more scientific term for “talking to yourself in your head.”Fernyhough, a professor at Durham University in the says that inner speech develops alongside social speech. This idea was pioneered by Lev Vygotsky, a Russian psychologist who studied children in the 1920s and noted that when they learned to talk to other humans, they also learned how to talk to themselves, first out loud, and eventually, in their speech, Fernyhough writes, isn’t bound by many of the conventions of verbal speech. For one, we can produce it much faster when we don’t have to go at the pace required to use tongues and lips and voice boxes. One researcher the book cites clocks inner speech at an average pace of 4,000 words per minute—10 times faster than verbal speech. And it’s often more condensed—we don’t have to use full sentences to talk to ourselves, because we know what we it does maintain many of the characteristics of dialogue. We may imagine an exchange with someone else, or we may just talk to ourselves. But that doesn’t mean it’s not a conversation. Our minds contain many different perspectives, and they can argue or confer or talk over each other.“We are all fragmented,” Fernyhough writes. “There is no unitary self. We are all in pieces, struggling to create the illusion of a coherent me’ from moment to moment.”I spoke with Fernyhough about how the fragments of ourselves communicate through inner speech, the difficulty in studying the phenomenon, and what it might teach us. A lightly edited and condensed transcript of our conversation is Beck In your view, is there a difference between “inner speech” and just thinking? Is inner speech a subcategory of thought or are they one and the same?Charles Fernyhough I think “thinking” is a tricky word. Thinking means a lot of different things and we’re not often very good at being clear what we mean by it. So I try to avoid it—quite a difficult term to avoid. But it’s kind of everything the mind does. A certain category of thinking that we call verbal thinking, and that's essentially inner speech, the stuff that we do in words. But I certainly think you can be intelligent and do lots of really clever stuff without language. Babies prove it every day; animals prove it every The obvious challenge to studying this is that the only thoughts you can really know with any certainty are your own. So what are the ways researchers have devised to get around that?Fernyhough It is a tricky thing to study, and when I was starting out there wasn’t much research on it. There were some studies done in the Soviet Union in the ’20s and ’30s, but there wasn’t much going on in the West, for some very good reasons. It’s impossible to see into someone’s mind, you can't read their thoughts, you’ve got to get them to report on their thoughts. That's tricky because the very act of observing the process could change the a long time, people were saying you just can't turn the focus on consciousness in this way because it’s so open to distortion. And that started to change, I'd say, in the last 20 years or so. People are studying consciousness as a scientific topic of inquiry. And they're getting better techniques for studying things like inner can look at individual differences between people and how much they seem to use inner speech and how that relates to their cognitive profile. We can look to see if you block the language system through giving people a secondary task like repeating a word over and over, does that affect the primary thing that you're interested in? You can ask people, you can give them questionnaires, you can use different methods of experience sampling, and with new techniques, you can start to look at what’s going on in the brain when people seem to be doing inner Obviously there's going to be a wide variety of what people report their inner speech looks like and acts like, but have you been able to determine any overarching, seemingly universal qualities to people’s inner speech?Fernyhough We’ve started to realize that inner speech isn’t just one thing. I think it was assumed that inner speech was just this kind of monologue, the output of a solitary voice chattering away in your head. And we now think there are a few main kinds of inner speech. Inner speech varies according to how compressed it is, how condensed. We think inner speech varies according to how much it’s like a conversation between different points of view. We’re starting to tease apart these different qualities. And that fits with the idea that inner speech has a lot of different functions. It has a role in motivation, it has a role in emotional expression, it probably has a role in understanding our selves as Let’s talk a little bit more about what the different purposes or uses of it are. I know one common example is in sports, people talk to themselves to improve their performance. But what are some other reasons why we might do this?Fernyhough If you buy into the theory of Vygotsky, inner speech is there because it’s a sort of internalized version of what we used to do out loud. As young children, we engaged in social dialogues, we talked to other people, and we went through a stage known as private speech, where we talk to ourselves out loud. Then that becomes completely internalized, it’s all going on silently in the head. For Vygotsky, that self-directed language had all sorts of different functions, so a key one was planning out what you’re going to do. If you watch a small child playing with her toys, you'll probably see her talking to herself. She’s sometimes talking about irrelevant stuff, but often she's saying "I’m going to build a train track” or “I'm going to build a house,” or “This house is going to look like my aunty's house," or whatever. There's a commentary, which is apparently helping her to think through what she's doing, and plan what she's going to we use inner speech to reflect on the past as well. It has functions in imagination, in creating alternative realities. And it has these roles in motivation, very commonly as you see in sports. Where people will psych themselves up, but also tell themselves off. They'll use private speech to give themselves a ticking off after they've done something dumb. And I think we all do that, it's just sort of accentuated in So I talk to myself all the time, out loud. As well as in my head. You mentioned that Vygotsky's theory is that all these things we used to do as kids, talking to ourselves out loud, moves inside the mind. And for me, I'm still wandering around my room muttering like “OK, where are my keys, here they are, got my phone, got my wallet blah blah blah…” Is that a similar process, do you think? Whether it's out loud or in your head?Fernyhough I don’t see any reason to think it’s something different. I think it’s the same private speech we used to do a lot when we were kids. As adults, in particular situations, we find it really useful to say it out loud rather than just in our heads. The words are out there, echoing through the air for a split second. They’re a little bit more tangible, you can have a memory trace of what you just said. So it sticks in your head a bit like to hazard a guess that when you talk to yourself out loud, things are just a little bit more difficult or challenging or stressful than usual. I think we particularly start to say things out loud when the going gets tough. That certainly fits with how private speech works with children, children will talk to themselves more when things are more very fact that adults do talk to themselves does suggest we need to rethink that bit of Vygotsky's theory. Although the inner speech in our heads comes from that social language initially, and then this out loud private speech, when it goes underground, it can come back out again. It doesn't go underground permanently. It's not a one-way street. I would say most people talk to themselves, but there's still a sort of social embarrassment about doing quite nice to speculate about why we do this from an evolutionary point of view. When we acquired language and when we started to use language in out-loud private speech, we'd have learned pretty quickly that it’s not a good idea to talk to yourself out loud when you're in a difficult dangerous situation. We wouldn’t have lasted very long with that saber-toothed tiger if we were muttering away to ourselves in the bushes. And then there's a sort of social and cultural pressure as well. If you're going around saying what you think, your competitors, your rivals, the other people around you will know what you’re thinking and then it’s hard to fulfill your plans. So there are some good reasons for doing it Of course, most of the situations we're doing it in now are not that extreme. It's funny, I always find I talk to myself out loud most at the grocery store. Just something about the grocery store stresses me out, all the people looking at you while you're trying to buy your Although this is solitary speech, it's speech for the self, it seems to be stimulated by the presence of other people. Children do it more when there are other kids around. And I think that might apply to adults as well—if you're in a context where everybody else is muttering to themselves, [you might, too]. I do it in the supermarket because I'm trying to remember the last things on the Or you can't find something, it's supposed to be over here but it's There's a neat study that shows that kind of self-talk actually helps you do exactly that—pick items from a supermarket array. That’s one of the benefits that's been proven for You mention that part of Vygotsky's theory is that as we're learning social speech, we're also learning internal speech. Walk me through How does the development of spoken language correspond with the development of inner speech?Fernyhough So Vygotsky thought that two things come together in early childhood. You have some basic intelligence, which any one-year-old baby is showing. They're able to do all sorts of things, initiate actions, work stuff out, remember stuff. But that's intelligence before language—it’s prelinguistic intelligence. And then you’ve got this thing that comes along which is language. It's quite phenomenal how quickly most kids acquire language. The idea is not that you need language for thinking but that when language comes along, it sure is useful. It changes the way you think, it allows you to operate in different ways because you can use the words as tools. Somewhere around age 2, language comes together with intelligence and bang! Something really special is created. And the thing that is created might well be unique in the don’t have to have the kind of language that we’re speaking now, you can have a sign language, you can have any kind of language. Lots of people say, “Well how do people who are deaf think?” And I say, “Well, they use their language.” There's lots of evidence that there's people who have a kind of inner sign conversation going on. They use sign to regulate their thinking just like we use spoken fascinating because people who become deaf have differing amounts of exposure to language. Some people are born completely deaf, some people are born with a bit of hearing and get exposed to a bit of language, some people go deaf in early childhood, and so on. So you tend to get a bit of a mix. Some people, depending a bit on their language experience will say they have a more acoustic inner speech that’s probably like your and my inner speech, but others will say it’s much more sign-y, it's much more of a visual thing going You think of inner speech in terms of a dialogue. If it's between the self and the self, how does that splitting of the self work out internally? Is it like the old Freudian superego telling the id, “Don’t eat that donut?”Fernyhough That can be part of it. The key thing is that the self is multiple, that we have different parts to the self. Whether you want to fit that into a Freudian frame or not, that can be useful, but it’s not really the way I take it. The most important thing is that there's this basic structure of a dialogue where somebody’s speaking and somebody’s listening. It can be you as a listener but it can also be another person. I can have an inner dialogue with my mum, for example. A few people have told me over the years that they have inner dialogues with people who aren’t here anymore. It can be a dead person, it can be an imaginary person, it can be God. In the book I tried to use this as a way of rethinking the idea of spiritual meditation and of prayer. The idea of having a conversation with another being. To me, it’s all made possible by that dialogic structure that's created because of the way we develop as children. Because we internalize social dialogues, we bring in that dialogic structure and it's right there at the heart of our People are not very good generally at reporting the specifics of what’s going on in their minds, right?Fernyhough When we use descriptive experience sampling [in which people are asked to report on their own inner speech] , we assume that a lot of what people say when they are asked about their experience is kind of generalizations about what they think is in their own minds rather than what is actually in their own minds. And that's why people can be surprised by DES. People can think their thoughts are a bit negative but they turn out to be quite joyful, or vice versa. And that is a really fascinating philosophical question, because it suggests we can be mistaken about our own experience. And if we can be wrong about what goes on in our heads, then that's pretty So people might have fundamental assumptions about their personality or their thought patterns and then find out they're not true?Fernyhough Yeah, exactly, and it even could apply to certain aspects of mental health. Russ Hurlburt, [who created DES], has an example of somebody with OCD in one of his papers, where he talks about this character who complained of having constant intrusive obsessive thoughts, but when he did DES, he found there wasn't nearly so much of He was just noticing those ones more perhaps?Fernyhough Yes. So I think what is happening is we make a lot of self-generalizations about our experience, we have a kind of self-theoretical approach to our experience that doesn't always match up with what's actually there when you try and capture it moment by So how does that apply to trying to understand what happens to people who hear voices or have auditory hallucinations?Recommended ReadingFernyhough The basic story is quite a simple one. Hearing voices is a frequently very distressing experience. It's usually associated with severe mental illness, with a lot of different psychiatric diagnoses. It’s not particularly specific to schizophrenia. And it also happens to a lot of people who don’t have mental illness. A lot of regular people will have relatively fleeting or one-off experiences of hearing a voice at some point in their can be very very distressing. It can also be rather neutral and it can even be positive, uplifting, and guiding in certain cases. The idea is that when somebody hears a voice, what's happening is that they’re actually producing some inner speech but for some reason they don’t recognize that speech as having been produced by themselves. It’s experienced as something that doesn’t belong to the self, that comes from also a lot of problems with that idea. Many people who hear voices reject the idea that it’s just their inner speech. They can be quite distressed by the idea that what they’re hearing is just themselves speaking, often because what is said is so unpleasant. And also other factors must be involved, memory seems to play a huge part in this. Hearing voices is strongly associated with traumatic events. Somehow those traumatic events seem to be breaking back in to consciousness in a transformed way. So any account of hearing voices has to bring memory into it in some way. We propose that there may be different kinds of hearing voices, I think it’s likely that it’s not just one You write, “Another area in which inner speech might turn out to be important is in our reasoning about right and wrong.”—I know there hasn’t been any research on that yet really, but I’d like to hear what you think. How might the way we talk to ourselves, or the way we interrogate our own beliefs in our minds affect our moral judgments? Is this how we can change our own minds?Fernyhough I would say I talk to myself when I’m grappling with a dilemma. Not solely, but I do a fair bit of it when I’ve got a problem to solve that may be a moral problem. It makes sense to me that something that is a useful tool for cognition would be useful when we come to reason about moral issues. Of course a lot about morality is instant and emotional and not really thought through. But it wouldn't surprise me if, for a particular kind of moral thinking if we turned out to use language quite a an element of all this, which is about gut instincts. I do tend to trust my gut instincts a lot of the time, because I feel I'm doing some processing, I'm doing some intellectual work, but it may not be conscious, it may not be anything I could put into words. But I’m sure there are some other parts where thinking it through, talking it through [internally is helpful.] Just like talking a problem through with a friend works partly because we’re able to put it into words, and have that dialogue and have that to and fro of perspective—that can be amazingly useful. Even just saying the thing out loud can be incredibly helpful.

. 284 215 280 186 218 142 205 18

when do you think the dialog happen