I tossed a brick in a writing conversation earlier today. DKer had a stranglehold on the discussion with a huge run of thread bumping posts, (bad netiquette, pattern I had seen before so I spoke up.), that amounted to little more than gibberish. My point being: What we say is just as important as how we say it. This is what a brick can look like.
To wit:
There are very good reasons for story archetypes, parables, and fables. Jesus, Aesop, Muhammad...Buddha. Every major religion and/or civilization understood the need of this tool. It is a translation medium between: Blithering gibberish and comprehensible insight. If you cannot communicate that with some level of effectiveness the wind will have more to say. Toss up a block of abstract whatnot WITHOUT grounding context and the speaker has no foundations. No foundations. Basic physics tell the rest of that tale as does the old song, House upon the Rock.
How you connect A to Q is just as important as the start and end points. In terms of conscious awareness it matters even more. (I'm thinking it might be a good time for me to dig out my copy of the Egyptian Book of the Dead again.) Myths and parables function as wormholes between points A and Q, while much more finite in size, it is a tangible medium rooted in workable context of our perceived realities. Consciously we are aware of the story and its lesson. We remember it.
People remember and read Marcus Aurelius, Plato, and Neitzsche because of the tools they used and how they used them. Einstein said: 'If you want your children to be smart read them fairytales.' Because in essence fairytales, myths, fables, and legends are the wormholes to deeper understanding and higher levels of consciouness.
Consciousness and the art of storytelling are inextricably interlinked. To wit: George Orwell's 1984. I don't remember one word of Goldstein's Manifesto of the Brotherhood (I actually had to google the title of the text), but I do remember that paperweight with its bit of coral. The glass being the concrete world and the coral the living abstract of one's mind, context, and history.
Learning is a lifelong process, so when a student sees a pattern of stymied one-sided conversation, dying discussion (while inert it causes stagnation of thought blocking the flow of ideas and energy) and raised their hand to say: I don't understand. They open themselves up to ridicule and biase. (But in their frustration the student stirs the waters altering the pattern of stagnation.)
The idea is a fresh current of energy and when another speaks up, and still others add their voice to the chorus, we see the problem. Is the problem with the ability of the students or with the methods being used? Biase points to the ineptitude of the students, but consciousness points in a different direction. The method.
One of the biggest steps one can take with consciousness is being able to allow for possibly of mistakes. It takes courage to say, I do not understand, but it takes an open mind to listen without judgement. That is consciousness at its most basic level. It is my own basis when it comes to the weight I give an opinion.
This:
What are your thoughts on effective (conscious) communication?
To wit:
There are very good reasons for story archetypes, parables, and fables. Jesus, Aesop, Muhammad...Buddha. Every major religion and/or civilization understood the need of this tool. It is a translation medium between: Blithering gibberish and comprehensible insight. If you cannot communicate that with some level of effectiveness the wind will have more to say. Toss up a block of abstract whatnot WITHOUT grounding context and the speaker has no foundations. No foundations. Basic physics tell the rest of that tale as does the old song, House upon the Rock.
How you connect A to Q is just as important as the start and end points. In terms of conscious awareness it matters even more. (I'm thinking it might be a good time for me to dig out my copy of the Egyptian Book of the Dead again.) Myths and parables function as wormholes between points A and Q, while much more finite in size, it is a tangible medium rooted in workable context of our perceived realities. Consciously we are aware of the story and its lesson. We remember it.
People remember and read Marcus Aurelius, Plato, and Neitzsche because of the tools they used and how they used them. Einstein said: 'If you want your children to be smart read them fairytales.' Because in essence fairytales, myths, fables, and legends are the wormholes to deeper understanding and higher levels of consciouness.
Consciousness and the art of storytelling are inextricably interlinked. To wit: George Orwell's 1984. I don't remember one word of Goldstein's Manifesto of the Brotherhood (I actually had to google the title of the text), but I do remember that paperweight with its bit of coral. The glass being the concrete world and the coral the living abstract of one's mind, context, and history.
Learning is a lifelong process, so when a student sees a pattern of stymied one-sided conversation, dying discussion (while inert it causes stagnation of thought blocking the flow of ideas and energy) and raised their hand to say: I don't understand. They open themselves up to ridicule and biase. (But in their frustration the student stirs the waters altering the pattern of stagnation.)
The idea is a fresh current of energy and when another speaks up, and still others add their voice to the chorus, we see the problem. Is the problem with the ability of the students or with the methods being used? Biase points to the ineptitude of the students, but consciousness points in a different direction. The method.
One of the biggest steps one can take with consciousness is being able to allow for possibly of mistakes. It takes courage to say, I do not understand, but it takes an open mind to listen without judgement. That is consciousness at its most basic level. It is my own basis when it comes to the weight I give an opinion.
This:
What are your thoughts on effective (conscious) communication?
