Guest guest Posted March 2, 2001 Report Share Posted March 2, 2001 On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 18:36:59 Mark Otter wrote: >I think this is a useful strategy, but I would propose another even more >radical one just for kicks. What would happen in the world if we all >decided to assume the best? If we assumed that everything said was said >with good intentions, and hunted for that meaning to assign to words >that we hear? > > I would like to add one additional guideline: > > - NEVER ASSUME (or you make an ASS out of U and ME). If >in doubt, ask > for clarification. > > Many email disagreements can arise out of making >incorrect > assumptions about another's meaning. I guess we're back again at the interpretation and trust themes of communication. "Assuming the best" requires a certain level of trust and asking for clarification, an even greater level of trust. In most instances, it simply doesn't happen because trust is not present. It's difficult to trust others when you don't trust yourself. Ppl have mentioned before on this list the necessity of "having compassion with one's own conflicts" and that is something that may be an introduction leading to developing more trust. Internet communication is often severely lacking in trust, maybe due to its faceless and gestureless nature, lacking all those little pointers for interpretation and interpersonal signs that seem to be vital for human communication. You suggestions for ways of creating and demonstrating more trust online are really good ones, good additions to Greg's reminders of internet communication. Printed out and forwarded to other who may like to hear them too. A level of trust is alpha and omega when it comes to spritual communcation and so is a level of receptiveness. The two are pretty much the same. However, there is usually very little receptiveness until the mind is exhausted enough to let go of its own arguments and views, or the self clearly and irrevocably knows it is not the arguments and views contained within its mind, and then, more talk is not necessary. Sure, communication and interaction always contain chances for interesting encounters and you could say someone hurling insults and abuse at you (or vice versa) is a trust granted by the heart, sort of an event which bypasses the restrictive mind and comes directly from the heart or gut or whetever. But this reaction of defensiveness doesn't always mean the mind is open and receptive. It usually means there is a sense of helplessness and exhaustedness of the mind and emotions in it, but I don't find it much of a fertile ground for further communication. Lessons "learned", if at all, in this kind of state seldomly stick due to the adrenaline, kind of like trying to teach a puppy not to do things by scolding it. Takes time, is effective sometimes, but doesn't always stick and the chance that the deep reason for the reaction will only bubble out into another area is very great. I see the best way of communication is by positive encouragement, not punishment. Love, Amanda. Who needs Cupid? Matchmaker.com is the place to meet somebody. FREE Two-week Trial Membership at http://www.matchmaker.com/home?rs=200015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2001 Report Share Posted March 2, 2001 Hey, Amanda, and you,thank you as well ! Love, Wim Wonderful that: >... there is usually very little receptiveness until the mind is *exhausted enough to let go of its own arguments and views*, or the self clearly and irrevocably knows it is not the arguments and views contained within its mind, and then, more talk is not necessary. < Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.