Dialogue is an interaction between people that is as much as possible free and open. As a result it is highly creative, while it also stimulates more awareness and commitment among those engaged in it and a bond amongst them. It is a type of human interaction, which is unlike many other types, such as discussion and debate, as it is characterized by energy that is not of a conflict type, but rather of a creative type.
The history of the word ‘dialogue’ is in ancient Greek: ‘dia’ means ‘through’ and ‘logos’ means ‘word’; significantly, ‘logos’ means, to be more precise, “the word that is read out loud” and thus it can be taken to mean “a meaning of reality that one expresses”.
The oldest and most famous use of dialogue is presumably in the dialogues of Socrates, as given to us by Plato. There they stand for the examination of a particular topic, such as justice or the nature of knowledge, by at least two people. What is significant here is that the persons involved in the dialogue do not talk hypothetical. The dialogues are undertaken from a personal interest in the subject and with one’s true thoughts about that subject laid bare for others to examine. The dialogues thrive on the courage of their participants to freely speak their minds, not holding back out of inappropriate modesty or overstating oneself out of foolish pride. The participants in Socrates’ dialogues find a balance, facilitated by Socrates, between expressing their true opinions on the one hand and the ability to disregard those in favor of more meaningful insight on the other hand (who has not been in meetings, where certain speakers missed that ability, let alone the balance mentioned?).
The enquiry conducted in the Socratic dialogue has a much to with fairness and honesty as it has to do with logical acumen. These two sides go together up to the modern practice of dialogue. This is not just because both fairness and reason are appreciated, but because the two need each other; without fairness and honesty the content of dialogue is on shaky ground, while fairness and honesty need reason to ground it in human reality.
The notion of dialogue has developed to refer to an interpersonal exploration of shared reality, but the origin of the notion means that it can also refer to an “inner dialogue” in the individual. Already in Socrates’ dialogues, the participants are lead by Socrates into a thorough exploration of their thoughts, and their values, and the consequences of their thoughts and values. Often, they are forced, by their own realizations, to adjust their opinions and attitudes.

Dialogue and Zen

Within Zen, there is the concept of 'mushin'. it stand for accepting sensory input without judging, classifying, analyzing, arguing, over-reacting, attaching or getting distracted. It stands for a focus which is non-judgemental. This relates to the element of dialogue which emphasizes to communicate from an attitude of non-judgemental listening and non-judgemental responding. This attitude requires almost Zen like practice. But the result of that practice is that it becomes safer to talk about subjects that before would have been banned out of sight due to all the judgements around them.

Listening

In order to use dialogue as a means of communication, one has to study listening. That means first and foremost that one stops to think only about one's own goals ("I have to get this point across", "I have to convince them of X"), which is usually hard, as those goals typically do have their own merit. But in dialogue one will meet up with one's own goals after first putting them aside and carefully listening to what others have to contribute.

Listening has the added value of making a gesture to the communication partners. They will feel more taken seriously and will typically appreciate that. This is not a luxury. Dialogue is a process of establishing both trust and meaning; the two go hand in hand. Trust is hard to establish if there is no gesture of taking the other seriously. This has to be established, along with the process of discovering and creating meaning.

Listening requires a bit of humility. By this, I do not mean that one has to refrain from defending one's interests; no, in dialogue, one becomes more aware than ever of one's interests. But it may be wise to sometimes postpone defending interests, as focusing too much on one's interests may prove to be a hindrance in properly listening to others. Ironically, then one's interests are more at peril than when one had listened.

Listening offers the opportunity to test one's assumptions. This is the more important as untested assumptions often make it difficult to properly understand each other. They may lead to misunderstandings. t the very least they will slow down the process of joining in the process of reaching the shared goals.