The Relational Genesis of Community: Self–Other Dialogue

Of late, there is increasing interest in the dialogical foundations of the self and community. Indeed, dialogical theory points to the embeddedness of community in self–other relations. This article proposes a dialogical approach to community that draws upon four key themes of discourse: the sociality of the self, the realm of interindividual relations, the constructive role of social representations, and the emergent properties of collective action. The ‘between’ constitutes a valuable concept for theorizing fundamental processes of relational existence and responsive meaning‐making, including the co‐constitution of community. In the process of coming into dialogic relation with one another, individuals construct meanings, experiences, and actions that profoundly shape both selfhood and community. Thus conceived, community is founded on dialogic interaction and intersubjective representation, thereby becoming the conscious object of reflection and action. The intention here is to theorize the relational genesis and continued transformation of community through self–other dialogue. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Dialogue and faith

‘Dialogue’ between members of differing traditions is nowadays replacing polemics, debate, and monologue preaching of traditional missionary policy. Terms in which it can be conducted have not yet, however, been widely found. It will be illuminating to discover whether among diverse groups conversation in the terms propounded here could prove fruitful, or at least mutually intelligible. This will be a highly significant test of the theory, expecially in view of the possible importance of this activity for the world's future religious development.¹     

Dialogue and faith

‘Dialogue’ between members of differing traditions is nowadays replacing polemics, debate, and monologue preaching of traditional missionary policy. Terms in which it can be conducted have not yet, however, been widely found. It will be illuminating to discover whether among diverse groups conversation in the terms propounded here could prove fruitful, or at least mutually intelligible. This will be a highly significant test of the theory, expecially in view of the possible importance of this activity for the world's future religious development.1 W. Cantwell Smith, The Meaning and End of Religion (Mentor ed. New York 1964), p. 177.      

"对话"与哲学的沟通--哲思随笔

在读柏拉图对话文体的哲学著作时,好像自己也置身于与哲人的对话之中.而那睿智和深邃的哲思,就在对话中自然地流淌.哲人已逝,但著作尚存.对于已逝哲人,后人只能借研读其著作与之对话.就是还在世的当代哲学家,能与之直接对话的机会也不多.真正与之对话,也只能研读其著作.现在的问题是:当人们在研读哲人的著作时,是否意识到是一种与哲人的对话?有自觉的对话意识与没有这种意识会有什么不同?甚至可以发问:存在不存在这种对话的可能?对话如果可能,那么这种对话可能包括哪些内涵?     

Dialogue representation

We consider question-answer dialogues between participants who may disagree with each other. The main problems are: (a) How different speech-acts affect the information in the dialogue; and (b) How to represent what was said in a dialogue, so that we can summarize it even when it involves disagreements (i.e., inconsistencies).We use a fully-typed many-sorted language L with a possible-worlds semantics. L contains nominals representing short answers. The speech-acts are uniformly represented in a dialogue language DL by focus structures, consisting of a mood operator, a topic component and a focus component. Each stage of the dialogue is associated with a set of information functions (g-functions), which are partial functions taking a topic component (representing a question raised) to a set of propositions determined by the corresponding focus component (to the set of answers given to it).Asserting is answering a question and, hence, it causes a new g-function to be defined. Asking is an attempt to cause the hearer to define a new g-function satisfying certain conditions. A question asked requests a true and complete answer. A reaction answers a question if it satisfies some of the conditions of the question. Indirect questions are viewed as indirect answers.A dialogue representation consists of: commitment sets, each representing the commitments expressed by one participant; sets of questions under discussion associated with each stage of the dialogue, and the common ground, containing the g-functions and representing consistently what was said in the dialogue.Concepts of informativeness are naturally defined within the theory. Whether an utterance is informative depends on which question it answers and how the question was answered previously. These concepts yield that uttering mathematical and logical truths is as informative as uttering a contingency.     

Interfaith Dialogue

The modern ecumenical movement initially sprang from the missionary movement. This led to considerable struggle within the ecumenical movement over embracing interfaith dialogue as a main focus of its ministry. This focus was eventually accepted, and since then the ecumenical movement has done much to promote interfaith relations at the local, national, and global level; to struggle with the theological issues such dialogue presents for the Christian faith; and to collaborate with other religions to reflect on common issues faced by the global community. Current Dialogue has played a major role in promoting the dialogue concern.     

Dialogue and Orthodox Mission Today

Dialogue and Orthodox mission are two fundamental aspects of contemporary Orthodoxy that characterize and qualify its ecclesiastic activity. Orthodoxy is open to ecumenical dialogue, as it believes in apostolicity and the truthfulness of its doctrine. Ecumenical involvement is both the fulfilment of Christ's will and a special occasion for the Orthodox Church to promote the richness and beauty of its spiritual legacy. The Orthodox mission focuses on all aspects and current needs of Orthodox believers, including the response to contemporary secular challenges. It is based on well‐defined principles and it is systematic, its main aim being to promote our Lord's gospel.     

Dialogue of life and faith

DIALOGUE OF LIFE AND FAITH: SELECTED WRITINGS OF BISHOP BIENVENIDO S. TUDTUD. Philippines: Claretian Publications, 1988. 189pp. P$49.00. ISBN 971–501–267–1.

MUSLIMS AND CHRISTIANS ON THE EMMAUS ROAD. Edited by J. D. WOODBERRY. California: MARC, 1989. 392pp. n.p. ISBN 0–912552–65–4.

RELIGIONS IN CONVERSATION: CHRISTIAN IDENTITY AND RELIGIOUS PLURALISM. By M. BARNES. London: SPCK, 1989. 200pp. £9.95. ISBN 0–281 ‐04418‐X.

THREE FAITHS — ONE GOD: A JEWISH, CHRISTIAN, MUSLIM ENCOUNTER. By J. HICK and E. S. MELTZER. London: Macmillan, 1989. 229pp. £29.50. ISBN 0–333–43970–8.     

无神论与有神论的对话

在20世纪八九十年代,基本上是“有神论有人讲,无神论无人讲”。这样,基督教发展到我们眼皮底下(党校宿舍院)而无人敢过问,唯恐违反宗教信仰自由政策。我们认为,人家有在教内宣传有神论的自由,我们有在教外(社会上、人群中)宣传无神论的自由——不过这个宣传要有点“由头”;不然,凭空“开讲”是没人听的。有一家信点佛教的老人,她家是什么神也信,屋内既供着观音菩萨,也供着财神灶君。这一天,她也想“赶时兴”加入基督教,教方牧师说,欢迎你“信了主”。     

Apologies: Levinas and Dialogue

Abstract

In his recent article ‘Speech and Sensibility: Levinas and Habermas on the Constitution of the Moral Point of View’, Steven Hendley argues that Levinas’s preoccupation with language as ‘exposure’ to the ‘other’ provides an important corrective to Habermas’s focus on the ‘procedural’ aspects of communication. Specifically, what concerns Hendley is the question of moral motivation, and how Levinas, unlike Habermas, responds to this question by stressing the dialogical relation as one of coming ‘into proximity to the face of the other’ who possesses ‘the authority to command my consideration’. Hendley’s thesis is bold and provocative. However, it relies on too partial a reading of Levinas’s work. In this paper I argue that the sense in which Levinas thinks of ‘justifying oneself’ cannot be adequately understood in terms of an ‘outstretched field of questions and answers’. Rather, Levinas’s primary concern is to show how, prior to dialogue, the ‘I’ is constituted in existential guilt: the violence of simply being‐there.     

你有可能走向泛神论——关于有神论与无神论的对话

一个偶然机遇,主客之间进行了一次涉及科学与无神论诸问题的友谊式的、比较系统的对话,取得一定的效果。