A Question on Communication

So it's all framing then. Since any of us can hardly start a thread without intending a result of the thread, the only reason we would ever ask a question is to receive an answer that we like. The intention is to provide the context, where the context confirms the intention.

This is brilliant and the bold part worth consideration

I feel there is always an intention on responding to a thread as much as the person writing the thread. Now, whether it's a "Good" intention or a "Bad" intention that is in the eye of the threaders and the commenters.

My intention of commenting or posting is:

A1. Commenting
1. Unity in TOTJO I want us to bond together to learn together.
2. Help someone with their post. Often, it's a question or one that wants an opinion.
3. Share what I've learn as a Jedi on the subject

B2. Posting
1. My intention is like before I am trying to gather unity through my posts
2. I have a question that I cannot answer.
3. I want to share something that I enjoy and want to share that joy with others.

I enjoy this thread it's very good may I add. I hope this helps answer your question.

SamThift wrote: So I will frame my thread to that end, my reasoning already evident, but will wait for the context to equal the intention before I consider the thread to be closed or settled.

Oh, yea sure, I thought you were saying the context of the question being asked, not the context being the answer being sought..... as if it related to your reply to my point about should context (reason) be included in the question. So if I follow, you indicate your context in asking is clear when you say your reasoning would already be evident. :S :laugh: :blink:
And that an answer that provides a context matching the intention is what defines its measure of 'like'?

Proteus wrote: So lets take two people discussing their views. Person A and person B.

Person A expresses views that are accepting, open, and considering of Person B's views even given that they are not exactly the same.

Person B replies with not only views but direct statements that literally condemn Person A's views, showing no signs of any possibility of their own view being incomplete, imperfect, or even slightly inaccurate, and instead, insists that Person A's position is deluded, dangerous, and outright misguided.

Person A went into the discussion to share a belief in a neutral manner, devoid of judging person B's views or personal state.
Person B replied to the discussion with statements that contain notions against Person A to tell Person A he is wrong and deluded, using information that is no more proven or historically supported than Person A's.

What would you say is the state of this discussion?

Id say this discussion is a perfect example of something that ive said about a half a dozen times and that you in particular have ignored: how to stand up for oneself and how to confront others in a mature and healthy way are the kinds of practical knowledges and skills that people need to know, and that should be taught and studied at a Jedi Temple.

There isnt any need for personal insults here, but that doesnt mean anyone is protected from having to modify their positions. I think youre referring to your conversation with Wes and not to the non-conversation that you and i were having... or not having lol.. i was having one with you but you werent having one with me. I half expect this post to be ignored as well, but i think its important and so i will continue.

For my own part of things, i dont know if you feel that i was being insulting to you, but i apologize if you do. I respect you. I have many times been impressed with things that youve said and the perspectives that youve shared. Id like for us to respect each other and i dont intend any offense to you when i post. I know it does seem that im abrasive sometimes.

Respectfully to you, it appears you have embraced the axiom "theres nothing to learn and nowhere to go". While there may be some context where that statement makes sense, generally speaking it is factually, technically, and psychologically, WAY out of touch with reality. This is not a matter of "you have your opinion and i have mine": there are lots of things necessary to learn and lots of skills necessary to develop for people to handle their lives in effective ways. Many of the people who come here are looking for those things.

You say you were being "accepting, open, and considering of Person B's views" but would Person B agree with that? You were accepting the fact that their view is different from yours, but obviously you didnt accept the validity or accuracy of their view. And you were being courteous to them about it, but that not the same as being considerate: to be considerate of what someone is saying to you requires that you fairly and honestly consider it. Would Person B say he felt you had fairly considered what he said to you?

This next quote is why i am thinking youre not referring to me but i could be wrong:
"Person B replied to the discussion with statements that contain notions against Person A to tell Person A he is wrong and deluded, using information that is no more proven or historically supported than Person A's."

That comment cannot apply to me (not in its entirety), because my perspective is a direct result of training for a career in mental health, and of studying modern mental health therapies. Even where my understanding and interpretations are incomplete, everything that i say about the utility and importance of life skills, and about our ability to study many of them in a systematic way is 100 percent proven and historically supported. Thats part of my point: we (modern society) know for a fact that "life skillls" exist. How can we (totjo) call ourselves a place dedicated to personal growth if we dont recognize that fact and embrace it openly?

Is this off topic? I dont know: you asked about the state of the conversation, and if i am correct about which conversation youre referring to, these things that ive mentioned here were being disregarded. Recognizing them would fall under the purview of "communication". The reason that Objective Truth needs to be argued for in that context is because the belief that there is only subjective interpretation leaves people thinking that all interpretations are equally valid: they arent.

Some interpretations increase suffering and some decrease it, some increase
Prndecrease our ability to endure suffering. So, before we can ever get to the task of figuring out which knowledges and skills to pursue, we have to agree that there actually are some knowledges and skills that are better and more useful to pursue than others. Thats where the other conversation was at, i think, that there are Truths outside of us to which we must adapt.

I want to finsih by saying that i hope you dont feel i am being hostile or disrespectful to you. I dont mean to be. I am adamant on this topic because I consider this a CORE issue of Jedi culture: what are people doing here? What benefit is this place (or any other "Jedi" community)? What is there to study and whats the point of an IP (much less an apprenticeship) if it doesnt help people to learn the practical skills that they need in order to deal with the real issues of their lives? When I ask these questions, it appears to me that the answer you give is "theres nothing to learn". Maybe i dont understand what youre really saying. But i do know is that "theres nothing to learn" is not the right answer to the question that i am asking.

Proteus wrote: So lets take two people discussing their views. Person A and person B.

Person A expresses views that are accepting, open, and considering of Person B's views even given that they are not exactly the same.

Person B replies with not only views but direct statements that literally condemn Person A's views, showing no signs of any possibility of their own view being incomplete, imperfect, or even slightly inaccurate, and instead, insists that Person A's position is deluded, dangerous, and outright misguided.

Person A went into the discussion to share a belief in a neutral manner, devoid of judging person B's views or personal state.
Person B replied to the discussion with statements that contain notions against Person A to tell Person A he is wrong and deluded, using information that is no more proven or historically supported than Person A's.

What would you say is the state of this discussion?

Person A is AIR
Person B is EARTH

My gut reaction is to say Person A is right but who decided that this was the best way to be in a debate? It seems reasonable to many people, but this is itself a relative viewpoint.

If we somehow say that everyone should debate like Person A then we just ran afoul of the basic premise: accepting, open, etc.

If Person A is open and accepting then they must accept the nature of Person B and the immovable static object that they might present.

If Person A is truly adept at being open an accepting then they will figure out how to handle B's argument.

The problem is that we tend to have a mix of all the elements. We behave like all the elements. We simply take turns doing so.

Most people don't like being corrected. However, there is no rule that says someone cannot correct you... or me. How we grow depends on how much we are willing to accept correction. If it comes in a different form than you're used to... adapt to that form.

Some people will come at you with an agenda to verbally assassinate you. Why? Maybe without realizing it, you insulted their intelligence. And they feel like they have to respond.

Ego.

Try to see beyond their methods to what they're trying to say and why. An apology may even be in order. Why not if it will help this person understand what you're saying without the filter of a perceived slight or insult? Communication is about giving and taking. It is a sharing of thoughts and ideas. No one is going to agree all the time. Do they need to personally attack you? No. Maybe you can find out why they are making ad hominem attacks. Is it for the sake of their argument? (Because it's weak on its own?) Or is it for their own sake? Are they trying to save face?

Some people use insults and other devices to keep you off balance so that eventually you get stuck trying to defend yourself more than the point you were trying to make. It's like sword fighting with words. Some people fight because they're fighting for a cause they believe in. Some people fight to defeat a person they oppose. The trick is not to assume what they're trying to do in the beginning. Draw them out with questions. Let them express themselves. If they're speaking as if their opinion is 100% fact, reiterate that you are sharing your opinion. Tell them that you respect their opinion. Thank them for their contribution. Encourage them to share more. None of us are masters at communication; especially not me. But the more you master yourself, the easier it becomes to deal with others. And at the end of the day, trust that intelligent people can tell what person B is trying to do.

ZealotX wrote:

Proteus wrote: So lets take two people discussing their views. Person A and person B.

Person A expresses views that are accepting, open, and considering of Person B's views even given that they are not exactly the same.

Person B replies with not only views but direct statements that literally condemn Person A's views, showing no signs of any possibility of their own view being incomplete, imperfect, or even slightly inaccurate, and instead, insists that Person A's position is deluded, dangerous, and outright misguided.

Person A went into the discussion to share a belief in a neutral manner, devoid of judging person B's views or personal state.
Person B replied to the discussion with statements that contain notions against Person A to tell Person A he is wrong and deluded, using information that is no more proven or historically supported than Person A's.

What would you say is the state of this discussion?

Person A is AIR
Person B is EARTH

My gut reaction is to say Person A is right but who decided that this was the best way to be in a debate? It seems reasonable to many people, but this is itself a relative viewpoint.

If we somehow say that everyone should debate like Person A then we just ran afoul of the basic premise: accepting, open, etc.

If Person A is open and accepting then they must accept the nature of Person B and the immovable static object that they might present.

If Person A is truly adept at being open an accepting then they will figure out how to handle B's argument.

The problem is that we tend to have a mix of all the elements. We behave like all the elements. We simply take turns doing so.

Most people don't like being corrected. However, there is no rule that says someone cannot correct you... or me. How we grow depends on how much we are willing to accept correction. If it comes in a different form than you're used to... adapt to that form.

Some people will come at you with an agenda to verbally assassinate you. Why? Maybe without realizing it, you insulted their intelligence. And they feel like they have to respond.

Ego.

Try to see beyond their methods to what they're trying to say and why. An apology may even be in order. Why not if it will help this person understand what you're saying without the filter of a perceived slight or insult? Communication is about giving and taking. It is a sharing of thoughts and ideas. No one is going to agree all the time. Do they need to personally attack you? No. Maybe you can find out why they are making ad hominem attacks. Is it for the sake of their argument? (Because it's weak on its own?) Or is it for their own sake? Are they trying to save face?

Some people use insults and other devices to keep you off balance so that eventually you get stuck trying to defend yourself more than the point you were trying to make. It's like sword fighting with words. Some people fight because they're fighting for a cause they believe in. Some people fight to defeat a person they oppose. The trick is not to assume what they're trying to do in the beginning. Draw them out with questions. Let them express themselves. If they're speaking as if their opinion is 100% fact, reiterate that you are sharing your opinion. Tell them that you respect their opinion. Thank them for their contribution. Encourage them to share more. None of us are masters at communication; especially not me. But the more you master yourself, the easier it becomes to deal with others. And at the end of the day, trust that intelligent people can tell what person B is trying to do.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you opened a point that I had considered making previously.

If Person B initially replied with "not only views but direct statements that literally condemn Person A's views"...then it could be inferred that the original views expressed be Person A were NOT "accepting, open, and considering of Person B's views"...for if they were, then Person B would not have had an argument upon which to levy an attack...nor would they have felt compelled to defend their views...right?

The question then becomes whether Person A should review their original comments, assuming they still intend to be "accepting, open, and considering" of others' views...and discover where it was that their initial posting did not accomplish that goal.

I created this thread simply as a means of stepping back try to get a larger picture of something that happens sometimes here in the temple between many people, in order to have a better understanding of what exactly might be going on when it does. There has been a lot of light shed onto my curiosity now. Thank you all.

A lot of contemplation and observing the replies in this thread and various other discussions I've been watching (and been involved in) has made me wonder particularly about our tendency to interpret statements as something they are not.

I tend to see a great deal of what seems to be flat assumptions about other people's statements.

I've watched a number of people respond to statements of a conditional nature into an absolute image. They then use this tactic as a means of trying to shoot holes into it.

For example, when I say something such as "I don't believe we are here to know things" or "I don't invest too much in knowing", there have been responses (both in threads and in PM) depicting my responses to mean "i don't believe in knowledge, knowing, or learning", some have even made it out as if my beliefs are that learning and knowing is simply bad and discouraged.

This is a pattern that I've seen many people fall into. Is this lazy interpretation?

I wonder how these kinds of discussions would have gone if people asked more questions to move the person to further elaborate their ideas (as if they are even curious about it, instead of promptly decided what it simply must mean, in absolute).

"What do you mean exactly when you say you don't invest too much in knowing? Does it mean you don't believe in knowing altogether for some reason?"

"No. Knowledge is actually quite important where it is obviously necessary, especially for the practical world of living. When I talk about knowing, I am referring to knowing about particular things which deal in the abstract aspects of the self, the dimension of one's experiencing of the world that cannot be grasped practically, the dimension that evades our awareness everyday because it does not operate in the practical form."

"Ohhh, I see then! I'm glad I asked!"

"I am too. Because when I talk about these kinds of topics, I talk about them in the context of what we are learning about here in the temple religiously, spiritually, in the ways that are rooted in abstract ideas more than practical ideas (though they do have obvious involvement in the practical dimension)."

"So, are you against the notion of being objective? This is how I'm interpreting some of the things you say about subjectivity"

"Nope. The objective world is essential and something very important to KNOW about. I leave the dialogue about the objective aspects of reality to those who have the most important things to communicate about it, while I deal with communicating the subjective aspects to fill in the gaps. I have nothing against the objective world or being objective where it is obviously appropriate. The reason I focus on the subjective aspects of topics is because I believe that, in a fair respect, it has a very important role to play in what we are learning and practicing at the temple and away from it, and it is quite a very tricky aspect to really get your head around, which is why when I talk about things (in the subjective sense), it can come off as cryptic or overly philosophical. It doesn't seem to work in the same way as the objective aspects to the world."




Instead of actually being interacted with for further dialogue about what I mean, I was given statements that my views are simply flawed, deluded, dangerous, and should be avoided and not spread. The things that I have said (not just recently but plenty further back into months and years) have been taken as absolute, one-sided notions, where I seemingly discourage objectivity, knowledge, learning, and practicality.

This happens with quite a number of people in the temple when expressing their views, probably as a reflexive reaction to ideas that are not familiar and thus not understood. Things that are not familiar or understood seem to be things that are feared (whether one admits they fear it or not, their responses give a natural impression that they do).


I am not here to debate. I do not discourage debating though (something else that would be assumed upon me not just now saying that, and then held against me, even though I would have never said I discouraged it).

What I see most often in my view, is people taking their own stances probably too seriously. Some might be much less interested in what the other person sees and communicates, and more interested in imposing what they themselves see and think. I've watched this play out many times into social train wrecks, and in the end, people wondering "what happened here?".

In the past 2 weeks, I've put myself a bit more out here than usual, putting myself open to "attack" to see if I can get a glimpse at what it is that happens, and this is what I have been able to gather.

Madhatter, you are running the IP team now if I have been correctly informed. I would like to suggest we develop a new section within it dedicated to the development of constructive communication practices, ones that help encourage being able to not be insecure when reading/hearing somebody say something that challenges their views, and instead, inspires them to meet the person with curiosity (with genuine questions about how their view works), even as a means of opening that person up in an actual debate as a tactic to take healthy control of said debate, and also, when to know WHEN its best to establish debate and when its probably not.

Again, thanks guys! I've learned a massive amount here from all of your points, and I agree that sometimes I can come off like a douche with the things that I say and the things I don't respond with, and I should be more considerate in what my side of a conversation includes and how its executed.

SamThift wrote: [
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you opened a point that I had considered making previously.

If Person B initially replied with "not only views but direct statements that literally condemn Person A's views"...then it could be inferred that the original views expressed be Person A were NOT "accepting, open, and considering of Person B's views"...for if they were, then Person B would not have had an argument upon which to levy an attack...nor would they have felt compelled to defend their views...right?

The question then becomes whether Person A should review their original comments, assuming they still intend to be "accepting, open, and considering" of others' views...and discover where it was that their initial posting did not accomplish that goal.

In my opinion? You're not wrong.

If Person A is objective then Person A must always be looking at themselves in the mirror, trying to "falsify" their own position. In the Scientific Method bias is a known quantity. The way you handle bias is not to sound open minded but then vigorously defend your findings to the point that debate turns into just arguing back and forth. Being open means you have to be open to being wrong. Sometimes people will beat you over the head because they don't think you're actually open to correction. We verbally "spank" each other. And because we all have egos sometimes people attack the ego in order for the person to confront the actually argument devoid of their own imprint of bias. A scientist isn't a good scientist if they claim to be right just based on their reputation or tenure. Sometimes my posts get a reaction I didn't intend. I think it happens to all of us. The question is whether or not communication is a 2 way street and therefore a 2 way responsibility.

@Proteus

I think you have done an excellent job with this thread and communicating your thoughts.

I think you've also touched on a reality that we aren't always conscious of.

Often, depending on the subject, a thread can turn into a mental sparring match. The more intelligent people you have gathered (and this site is a horde of intelligent people) it is almost inevitable that people will match wits with each other in mental sparring matches.

This isn't necessary sinister or problematic. One of the sayings I hear often from my past is "iron sharpens iron". I have benefitted a lot through mental sparring on forums, but at the same time a lot of people shy away whenever they see that. The danger of mental sparring is that there's a potential that the participants invest too much of their own self identity into their side of the debate. When this happens, you think you're debating the topic but you're actually debating the other person because their identity has merged with their position.

For those who are okay with mental sparring, the arguments a person uses is a lot like physical stances and attacks. And there's always that sparring partner who you'll hit too hard and then they start getting serious because they've lost their composure. And as much as we all want to be Jedi, as Bro. John implied elsewhere, we all at different levels of development which means different levels of both discipline and tolerance.

I think a lot of people learn by comparing their thoughts on different things to others'. If their logic is superior then you learn something. I think learning in general assumes that what you're learning is in a natural state of competition with what you believe you already know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method