A Question on Communication

ZealotX wrote:

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.

Well this seems mostly steeped in how communication works at all then. Whenever we communicate anything, we do so by attempting to appeal to the Ethos, Pathos, or Logos, or the other's Character, Emotions, or Logic. We may switch between any of the three, fashion our persuasive arguments built upon a mixture of any two, or go full blown and incorporate appeals to all three in our communications. In practice, however, it is probably most common that we are often employing one tactic, whichever we are most comfortable with using ourselves, and thus people get accustomed to our "tone" and we can be seen to rub others wrong, or be generalized as the faint of heart romantic, depending on which strategy we use most.

Perhaps we ought to exercise appealing to a healthy balance of the three when we do find ourselves in a debate. Beginning with how we read into others' posts at all...and even where we find someone to seem to be attacking our Ethos, just recognize they are only employing a persuasion tactic, and not actually questioning your character?

Simple...I'm here to learn about the Force. I am the student, all are my teachers.

Tzhar wrote: Simple...I'm here to learn about the Force. I am the student, all are my teachers.

Thank you Tzhar. Though I may voice my opinions, debate, even show anger. This is the reason I too am here.

Much Love and Respect,
Kobos

Proteus wrote: 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).

Thats very reasonable. People could ask more questions.
Have you considered that when a person attempts to engage you in conversation on these points, even if they do not address you in the way that youd prefer to be addressed or the way that you would address them if the situation were reversed, that you still could use this as an opportunity to explain yourself further?
Would it be possible for you to say something like "i can see from your responses that the point i am attempting to express and the point that is actually coming across arent quite the same, let me see if i can explain what i mean in a different way"? Or some version of that sentiment?

I understand that you dont want to debate; thats cool, i get tired of debating myself, believe it or not lol. It it possible (even if not easy) to converse with someone who is debating you without falling into the mind set of debate yourself?
When we are engaged with someone who simply wants to prove that they are right, to what degree is it still up to us to determine our own emotional response and social presentation?

...."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."

I get some of the individual pieces that youre mentioning here, like how the "subconscious" communicates in images and symbols, but when i read the thing as a whole i don't understand what kind of situation or experience it is that you're referencing. Could you give a real life example of what youre talking about?

...."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)."

I understand abstract ideas, but theres not much of anything in any religion (includong the abstract odeas) that doesnt have some practical utility or benefit, because theres literally no point or reason to engage with such a thing. Theres especially no reason to CONTINUE to engage with it, and religions arent about what people do once but what we do regularly, traditionally. What the actual utility of a practice or idea turns out to be might not be what youd expect, but there usually is one. Which brings it at least partially into the realm of pragmatism and objectivity. But maybe we still have a gap in communication. So, in the form of a question: again, could you give me a real life example?

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.

I personally have been attempting to engage you in this discussion forever. Its been something like those three-pronged claw machines at arcades where you try to grasp the little stuffed animal from the pile and youre sure you got it this time and then it just slips away again lol.

Is "dangerous" is the right word or just "useless"? If it doesnt have any practical utility then isnt it "useless" as a matter of definition?
We only have so much time between this moment and the moment when the next tragedy strikes or the next opportunity presents itself, before the next life-challenge emerges. What do the Starks say, "winter is coming"? Well, its nice to have a tan while the summer is young, but winter is coming, and at some point doesnt it become dangerous to lay around doing nothing (practical)?

Life tends to lull us into complacency because it gets routine and mundane, but events with immediate or potential consequences and implications spring up out constantly of the void. Sometimes they tease or threaten us from a distance, daring us to come to them or reminding us that we are within their reach (the car that almost plowed into us on the freeway or the pretty girl who we made eye contact with from across the room) but sometimes we choose to enter into them knowingly or haphazardly. Sometimes they just pull us in.... and sometimes they swallow us whole. The efficacy with which we face them is a result of our own resources: psychological, material, social, ect. What resources do we most need in life and how do we get them? How does TOTJO help in that?

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).

Just so you know, i dont hold anything against you as a person. My impression of you is that youre a really cool guy and that the people who know you are enriched because of your presence in their lives. There are many here who i know will vouch for that.

What I see most often in my view, is people taking their own stances probably too seriously.

We're all gonna die on some hill some day. If we just pick whatever hill we happen to be on at the moment then it probably wont have been worth it, but if we take seriously the process of sorting out whats important and real and useful from what isnt, what helps us to grow and become stronger from what doesnt, and letting go of the things we've been clinging to once we have outgrown them, then MAYBE when our time comes we will be lucky enough to be on a hill that IS worth the sacrifice.

Lol, now IM being philosophically vague.

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....

I think that a section on healthy/mature and effective communication practices is a brilliant idea. The kind of thing that almost no one thinks of but everyone realizes how obvious it is once its been said. I think it would be most beneficial if it could address both online and offline dimensions.

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.

Youre easier to disagree with than some people i could name... one of them being me lol. Thank you for sharing your perspective and thank you for the conversation.