Bohm Dialogue
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Krishnamurti's "philosophy", if you could call it that, doesn't quite lend itself to being summed up in a handful of sentences, but at the crux were the ideas of thinking for oneself (as opposed to being a "second hand person"), trying to catalyze psychological change through dialogue, and denying the distinction between the "observer" and the "observed". The latter, despite sounding abstract, was of great importance to David Bohm since the field of physics was heading in that direction; that is to say that Bohm saw a connection between Krishnamurti's "philosophy" and discoveries/new theories being advanced in physics more concretely.
There's dozens of videos on youtube, etc of Bohm and Krishnamurti engaging in dialogues that basically were "Bohm Dialogues", for anyone who's curious.
The last point is while the idea of the "Bohm Dialogue" is very "obvious", it's rare to see it properly executed in "normal" conversation; most people are so tied to their preconceptions that they can't ever actually hear the words you're saying as you mean them.
On Dialogue is an excellent book. However, to really understand Bohm's vision of dialogue you would need to look at more than just that book. His work on dialogue is not separate from his explorations into the origin of human conflict.
As Werner Herzog says, 'Read! Read as much as you can!'
0 - https://www.amazon.com/Dialogue-Routledge-Classics-76/dp/041...
I think the approach has real value, but really isn't a technique for, say, moving "public discourse" forward: too many people with too much emotional zeal for their preexisting positions to have such a willing participation in such a dialog.
---
E: I don't use Nietzsche much as a reference, but I guess "transvaluation of values" is closer to my approach than the meaning-flow idea of Bohm. The word I use is "general axiology". But that's one in a pile of technical terms that like 10-15 people are aware of.
E2: I'm like two separate people (one technical, one batshit cuckoo continental-philosophy) and cringe at the notion of exposing one to the audience of the other. But what the hell, I need dismissive readers too. A succint presentation of my concept that's close to the Bohm dialogue: https://asemichorizon.wordpress.com/2019/06/28/topo%ce%bb%cf...
E3: "A better model for applied axiological thinking is a marital row. The optimal outcome for a disagreement between married persons is not to find a winner; most of the time, it isn’t even to arrive at the best objective thesis. Rather, the best results are obtained by repeatedly reframing the disagreement until it dissolves under the weight of the reasons why you’re married in first place — a strong axiology if there’s ever one in bourgeois society." There, I saved you time.
I recommend Richard Rorty -- though given your interests and background you may already be familiar with him. If not, try "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature."
I think of him as someone who takes continental philosophy but learned to write and think in the analytic tradition.
As for my writing, it's pretty bad -- but I blame that on writing a stream-of-consciousness fashion very quickly and never revising. Amateurish, as I said.
These blowhard academics are so accustomed to having conversation only to prove they are right and their partner is wrong, when they hit on "normal human conversation" they think it is so novel they name it after themselves!
Ordinary conversations larger than that tend to break into different groups, in which each person spends a larger percentage of their time talking and less time listening. Bohm Dialogue is mostly about listening, not conversing. You don't have to "hold up your end" of it, which (supposedly) makes it easier to suspend judgment and engage.
It does resemble casual conversation in a lot of other ways, including its free-form nature and the goal of engagement rather than defense. But the numbers change it in kind, not just in size.