Logic and Conversation

Is the only meaningful conversation one where both parties are well informed of the subject at hand, no offences are given or taken and a mutual agreement after deliberation is found?

Is conversation that does not have these qualities grounds for offence?

Is it acceptable to interject those qualities if they are lacking?

Can communication be mutually beneficial without these qualities?

The best conversation is where no party tries to insult the other, and if accidentally done, the other side takes no offence...

And at the end, whether an agreement is reached, both sides feel they have represented their thoughts adequately...

And really, never stops...

I think it's all about.....

mutual respect. If you have that a meaningful conversation will occure weither there is agreement or not. The minds met, the minds shared, the minds have more than they started with.

Baby!

Not sure if this is logic or reason in terms of book definitions . . . .

As long as I don’t set limits on another . . .
As long as I don’t expect a specific outcome of how one should speak or what they speak about . . .

Outcomes vary . . sometimes there is an agreement of something or many things, sometimes not. It is all has the potential to be beneficial to both parties, in my opinion.

Deciding if there is lack and whether or not to respond to an appearance of lack. . . takes focus, knowledge and wisdom in both cases.

rugadd wrote: Is the only meaningful conversation one where both parties are well informed of the subject at hand

In short no, but it would improve accuracy and therefore depth, but I think 'meaning' is really talking about either creating or repairing contextual networks and then those are probably going to weighed subjectively - unless the conversation has specific targets/goals in which case an informed panel of conversation would have a greater chance of resolving it quicker (for single outcomes) or choosing the better options (for multiple outcomes). It's not a guarantee though, as being informed can also make someone biased. Sometimes curiosity is vital to creating a solution where none existed previously, and the uninformed engaged person could likely be more curious due to the freedom from the known.

rugadd wrote: Is the only meaningful conversation one where no offences are given or taken

I'd think so, but that is more complicated... and less about the conversation and more about the participants (perhaps).

rugadd wrote: Is the only meaningful conversation one where a mutual agreement after deliberation is found?

If it involves a decision and that it impacts all participants then mutual agreement could dramatically change the perception of the decision's impact from being one of self responsibility to one of external authority. More generally though their could be multiple correct answers to problem at a decision point in time and so choosing one over the others might mean they are weighed the same and therefore mutual agreement is not required. If the conversation has no requirement for a decision, then it could arguably be more meaningful because each if each person has fully participated then it could be said every participant has taken away a unique valid meaning!!!

rugadd wrote: Is the only meaningful conversation one where both parties are well informed of the subject at hand, no offences are given or taken and a mutual agreement after deliberation is found?

Is conversation that does not have these qualities grounds for offence?

Is it acceptable to interject those qualities if they are lacking?

Can communication be mutually beneficial without these qualities?

Yes but you have to study the art of communication which involves, building rapport, sales techniques, NLP, semantics, you have to understand human behavior etc....to be intelligent you must be educated and that takes hard work. humans are only friends with other humans that they can relate too. Anyone else will annoy us. Its human nature but if you understand the the topics above you can learn how to steer conversation. A majority of the time at least in my experience is that, its just generally fun to get to understand people who arent like you because it gives you different levels of perception. Our nature is to be relaxed, our brains want nothing more but to be calm and when you approach others knowing how to talk to them, it helps immensely. Spend 7 months studying the art of communication so that you can get an idea as to why humans are they way they are and how you can control conversation.

I wrote about this in one of the IP lessons. In the lesson, they assume there's a thesis to every conversation but I pointed out a number of examples of a conversation with no thesis. So the short answer is no there is no logic to conversations. The real problem comes when one conversant has way more knowledge than the other and it becomes one-sided. I can relate to when I talk to people much younger than me about topics which I've studied and it seems really one-sided. It can also be frustrating to the person who has to sit and listen forever.

My experience has been that most people just want to hear themselves speak... so the true art of conversation is to just let others speak. Ask open ended questions and just let them talk all day. You'll be the most popular person in no time.

Whyte Horse wrote: My experience has been that most people just want to hear themselves speak... so the true art of conversation is to just let others speak. Ask open ended questions and just let them talk all day. You'll be the most popular person in no time.

Im not claiming I am popular...:lol:

But, I do try to not speak, having long ago realize exactly this point...

You prolly couldnt tell from my post count, however... :woohoo:

But, offline, I really do try to not speak too much... But, it depends on the subject...

Thanks Rugadd again!
Also, I am thanking each person who has participated in this thread. A great conversation indeed!

As I listened to each one, I am moved to a deeper response.

Conversation is an exchange of thoughts>> nothing more, nothing less.

An equal knowledge base is not a requirement for a conversation, if I expect that; then, I will be frequently disappointed.

No offenses given or taken is an ideal; but again if I expect to never be offended; then, I will be frequently disappointed. Although, I can deliberately practice not being offensive, keeping an open mind that I may make mistakes (which of course can be corrected).

Deliberation and mutual agreement are ideals; again, I will be bitterly disappointed if I have the expectation that other parties in all situations can and will deliberate. Although, if I choose to accept all things as they appear to be (open or closed); then, I have far better capacity to make decisions about what I say or do not say, and a better capacity to listen to and actually hear the person with whom I am conversing with.

If interjecting these qualities means that I solely am responsible for how I communicate; then, the answer is yes.

Mutual respect is an ideal, but, if I expect everyone to be respectful; then, I will be bitterly disappointed.

It is important for me to include that I practice taking responsibility for knowing, within myself, what intention and/or purpose that I bring to conversations and communications. I value my own on-going willingness to improve my communication and listening skills.

I have no control over what past the other party brings to the communication, what the other party may say in the conversation, and I have no control over what the other person thinks about when they walk away.

I may not always know what is mutually beneficial during a conversation. I may not learn that something was mutually beneficial until after the fact.

There is a value to every conversation, even if I say but a few words; because, I value the person.

rugadd wrote: Is the only meaningful conversation one where both parties are well informed of the subject at hand, no offences are given or taken and a mutual agreement after deliberation is found?

Is conversation that does not have these qualities grounds for offence?

Is it acceptable to interject those qualities if they are lacking?

Can communication be mutually beneficial without these qualities?

My most meaningful conversations are ones where I know little about the subject matter; or rather, significantly less than the other party. Through logic and reason I can still explore a topic I know little about, and gain knowledge from the other party.
My second most meaningful conversations are the opposite, where I am the More Knowledgeable Other; because of the exploration of the other party, I am forced to consider the topic from angles I may not have considered before.
These are both, unfortunately, rare, since most "conversation" seems to be inane small talk.

Offence requires ego; once we let our ego go, we open ourselves up to wisdom. This is not easy; I am not yet wise.

You cannot interject knowledge where it is lacking (unless you Google the topic on your smart phone for the conversation, which I find awkward and a little rude). You can, however, explore a topic from a point of little knowledge on the part of both parties, using logic and reason, and confirm or correct your speculations and deductions at a later date.

I am reminded of a Nietzsche (here's to hoping I finally managed to spell that correctly!) quote; "All intercourse is bad intercourse, except between equals" [if memory serves that's from Beyond Good and Evil]



Just some thoughts