‘So what are you reading?’ asked Lulu, my parrot.

‘I am reading ‘On Dialogue’ by David Bohm. It is a very good book; I regret not having read it earlier.’

‘David Bohm, did you say?’ Lulu asked.

‘Yes’ I said, ‘He was a physicist and Einstein wanted to take him as his assistant. His work on dialogue is recognized as very original one and thought provoking. The preface by Peter Senge is very well written and I am reading it again.’

‘What thought did you like?’

‘That the opposite of dialogue is not monologue or silence but incoherence!’

‘Is that what you are underlining on your copy?’ Lulu.

‘Yes.’

‘Why this sudden interest in the subject of Dialogue?’ Lulu asked.

‘Well, this skill is required by every person. The Bohm essay is well written and as you see the world around you, you understand how true his words are.’ I said.

‘His words seem to resonate with you!’ Lulu remarked jumping on my hand.

‘I guess you are right.’

‘Are you missing it?’

‘What’s that?’

‘The dialogue’ Lulu said.

‘You said it. One feels very lonely sometimes. I miss my friends. And how much will you speak to your wife?’

‘It happens when you get old’ Lulu had a smirk on his face.

‘Oh, shut up!’ I admonished Lulu.

‘That’s incoherence. How can I have dialogue with you if you do not listen to my view?’ Lulu said patting on my head. ‘Any other thought that appealed to you?’ Lulu asked.

‘Hear this one.. Bohm knew that the quest for “unique truth” carries potential to divide rather than connect people. As Chilean biologist Humberto Maturana says “when one human being tells another human what is ‘real,’ what they are actually doing is making a demand for obedience. They are asserting that they have a privileged view of reality.”

‘Well said. You have given me some food for thought. Fritjof Capra and David Bohm…I think these physicists move from physics to philosophy with such ease.’ Lulu said.

‘Great men indeed. I could never understand the former and it took sixty years to understand a bit of the latter.’ I said closing the book.