Conversation

I am not sure if I need to write about conversation conversationally or not. In view of our negative capability sub text, it probably does not matter.
I think about conversation and its cognates from two rather different perspectives. And these two perspectives are captured rather well, I think, in the ambiguity of the name of our blog. Conversations can refer to the dialogical interaction between the participants in counselling and, on the other hand, it can refer to an interchange on the topic of counselling.
I am drawn to the word conversation as suggestive of an open non hierarchical mode of exchange where doubt may be ever present.
There is more about conversation that is rather philosophical. Richard Rorty is particularly good on this, and the reference that appeals to me is to be found near to the end of his book, Philosopy and the Mirror of Nature.

Rorty writes, "To see keeping a conversation going as a sufficient aim of philosophy, to see wisdom as consisting in the ability to sustain a conversation, is to see human beings as generators of new descriptions rather than beings one hopes to be able to describe accurately. To see the aim of philosophy as truth.....is to see human beings as objects rather than subjects......"
Now, replace the word philosophy by therapy or psychotherapy or psychoanalysis. How much psychotherapeutic writing is guilty of what Rorty ascribes to traditional philososophy, namely treating human beings as objects?