Disjunctive Communication

By disjunctive communication(DC) I mean the phenomenon when dialogue breaks down. It’s a frequently observed phenomenon on this website and perhaps most particularly on this forum where religion and spirituality are discussed.

While every instance DC may be a peculiar moment, there do seem to be commonalities that are identifiable so that DCs may be categorizable. Any given DC may fall into multiple categories.

One broad category would be the misunderstanding. Analyzing misunderstandings as a means of restoring communication is indeed an important aspect of dialogue.

This can be difficult work. It can test the strength of motivation of the participants in dialogue. It can result in further misunderstandings along the way which would also have to be parsed out if mutual understanding were to be achieved.

Implicit in every dialogue are the participants individual assessments of what is at stake and what can possibly be gained. These assessments are rarely made explicit and yet would seem to be an important factor in the relative success of any dialogue.

I don’t get it. :confused:

That’s because we need an actual context in which to explore it more substantively, descriptively, illustratively, existentially.

In other words, an example of a dialogue breaking down given a set of circumstances that, say, liberals and conservatives see in different ways, given, in turn, a belief in or no belief in a God/the God.

Who wants to start it?

If you’re serious, explain what it is you don’t understand.

In the past my dialogue with you broke down after you dismissed a proposition of mine as a contraption without supplying an argument for why are you saw it as such. When I asked you to explain you didn’t. And I had seen you make similar moves with other people in the past. At that point I decided it wasn’t worth pursuing a dialogue with you.

My understanding of your position is something like this:
"I can’t believe in an afterlife but I’d like to. So I want you to tell me what your belief in an afterlife is in the hope against hope that you can persuade me. "

Then if a person offers their belief in an afterlife you shoot it down. Did I get that right?