Probably because reflective dialogue is not fashionable nowadays. It's a great idea, though. I notice that you posted that question under Heidegger. I'm always happy to meet someone who's even heard of Heidegger, let alone is interested in his thought. Kudos to you. What is the extent of your reading and study in Heidegger?

My reading of Heidegger is limited & might consist of cross/references, some original text etc. (including Wikipedia), but this has not detered me from continuing on.
I am fascinated with phenomenology & have been introduced to phenomenolical method through a course in love & friendship which showed through a feminist phenomenological perspective how woman's experience was different from that which was postulated by the dominant male discourse. My immediate concern is how the 'reflective discourse' heals, allows for openings to a greater synthesis & also allows for integration into the social structure. This is particularly important for the dispossed & the 'victims' of our social structure....as an avenue of return.
Thank you for your note...
very best...
I am open to suggestions in reading & research...
very best.....

Thanks for the reply. Along the lines you're suggested, you might find something of value in Derrida, who was very much indebted to Heidegger. The problem with Heidegger when it comes to love and friendship is that he doesn't have a whole lot to say about it. I'm not sure why this is the case. But, on the topic of the dominant social discourse, I would recommend a close study of his concept of "Everydayness" (Alltaeglichkeit), which is found, of course, in Being and Time, but also in his early Freiburg lectures (which are an excellent starting point for understanding him). I would also recommend Gabriel Marcel, especially his work "Creative Fidelity." Many years ago, I was a student of Prof. James Marsh, an accomplished philosopher in the school of Phenomenology, who is now a Prof Emeritus at Fordham University. At that time, he gave me an off-print of an article he had written for the International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, entitled "Freedom, Receptivity, and God." I didn't appreciate it at the time, but over the years, as I've read and re-read it, I've come to understand what a monumental achievement this short paper really was (is). In it, he combines his own ideas with Marcel's, to offer an alternative to Sartre/Nietzsche, which is about as lucid and incisive as anything I've ever read. If you have access to a university library, I would recommend that you try to find it. I think you'll find in it much that's right on point with your concerns.
Cordially,
TOSTrader