jeanne
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 544
|
Post by jeanne on May 14, 2007 18:52:35 GMT -7
George I want to disagree with you and I hope this does not produce the effect that the Jaga/Joan disagreement produced!! I think it is the first time I have disagreed with you. I dislike strongly, the word abhor came first to my mind, of any argument for or against secularism or non-secularism. Poland, if the people want it, have every right to accept, nay want, a strong, dictatorial, autocratic form of Catholicism, just as they would have the right to want the opposite. I am against anyone - state or church telling everyone in what they should believe or how they should believe in it. I have a very strong religion that varies considerably from any of the major 'recognised' churches - and I feel I have every right to believe in this way (or not believe as was my stance for many many years). I do believe that good moral values can be fostered by home, family and community without any dogma of church - but if people want to add that to the list, that is their right. Europe exists at the present time with almost the complete spectrum of views and Poland will be viewed with suspicion and non-cooperation if it insists that Europe accepts its views alone. But consider - are the people of Poland without fault in moral and social values? Are there not reports of an unfeeling attitude of motorists against each other out on the road; hooliganism at football matches; and the like - the very things Europe is being accused of because of its 'liberal' attitudes to people. I believe that God created us and gave us the freedom of self development, - what we do with this freedom is up to us - who is any group who wishes to act as God and demand acceptance of their way only? Sorry, George for using your posting as a means of spouting my views - at least we are two of the few who appear to be currently interested in using the forum. Leslie Leslie, Maybe I missed something, but what on earth did George say to upset you? Are you sure it's not me you are upset with? Perhaps you misread where he was quoting me. Jeanne
|
|
|
Post by leslie on May 15, 2007 2:15:52 GMT -7
Jeanne You are off the hook this time!!! No it was George with whom I had the slight disagreement, but there was no malicious intent and I am sure he has taken it so. My main reason for my posting was my disagreement with the concept that people as a nation or even wider, should be told whether they should believe it not, belong to the church or not - to me that is withdrawal of the number 1 freedom - freedom of choice; after all when God created us, He gave us that choice of how we developed.
I feel that electronic communication can be very dangerous to relationships. We take less trouble over them than when we sit down to write a letter and this is when misunderstandings arise. However, I think we should be able to write freely in the forum and the receivers should realise that difficulty and not take strong offence. But what is said to us/about us makes different people react in different ways, and we would be denying them that freedom if we said 'Do not take offence'!!
I go with the words of the John Lennon song 'I'd like the world to live in perfect harmony' ( Chris - is this a tune for the video you mentioned to me?) but I'm afraid the world is just going the other way.
Pozdrawiam bardzo serdecznie
Leslie
|
|
jeanne
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 544
|
Post by jeanne on May 15, 2007 3:11:47 GMT -7
Jeanne You are off the hook this time!!! No it was George with whom I had the slight disagreement, but there was no malicious intent and I am sure he has taken it so. My main reason for my posting was my disagreement with the concept that people as a nation or even wider, should be told whether they should believe it not, belong to the church or not - to me that is withdrawal of the number 1 freedom - freedom of choice; after all when God created us, He gave us that choice of how we developed. I feel that electronic communication can be very dangerous to relationships. We take less trouble over them than when we sit down to write a letter and this is when misunderstandings arise. However, I think we should be able to write freely in the forum and the receivers should realise that difficulty and not take strong offence. But what is said to us/about us makes different people react in different ways, and we would be denying them that freedom if we said 'Do not take offence'!! I go with the words of the John Lennon song 'I'd like the world to live in perfect harmony' ( Chris - is this a tune for the video you mentioned to me?) but I'm afraid the world is just going the other way. Pozdrawiam bardzo serdecznie Leslie Leslie, Well, I'm glad you weren't chastizing me, but I still don't see what George said, unless his post was deleted... I agree with you that people should not be dictated to as to whether to believe or not; God gave us a free will. My point was that religion is one of the pillars of culture and when that dies, the culture also dies, creates a vacuum, and something must take its place, i.e. in the case of Europe, Islamic culture. I agree too that electronic communication is very dangerous. Letters are better, telephone discussion allows discerning of voice intonations, and face-to-face the best of all, where body language, voice, and eye to eye contact make meaning much easier to clearly grasp. This is one of the reasons I spend little time on the computer and remain technologically challenged! Jeanne
|
|
|
Post by hollister on May 15, 2007 6:18:00 GMT -7
Since the topic has come up - I think this guy has an interesting take on Internet communication. I see where he is going but I wonder about the limitations - What about cross-cultural communication ect... An introduction to his essay: Listen to what I mean, not what I say! May 13th, 2007 — zeb Many years ago, my wife Jennifer was explaining something to me and she accidentally used the wrong word to describe a concept. I knew what she was trying to say, yet I couldn’t resist suggesting the word that she should have used. Somewhat embarrassed and with a sheepish look, she said: “Listen to what I mean, not what I say.” That made me laugh and smile. What an interesting thing to say. I’ll never forget that. But then, recently, I realized that her amusing request is actually a very powerful statement of the quality of human interaction, and is the very thing we should be demanding of the Internet. anyway read his thoughts here: tinyurl.com/3bgw8m
|
|
|
Post by leslie on May 15, 2007 7:44:47 GMT -7
Zeb's description of the concept 'Listen to what I mean, not what I say' is an interesting one but I feel he oversimplifies human communication. You have to know people very well to understand what they mean if they are not saying it - it becomes even more difficult when the communication is electronic. How many times in your, or others' communications do you hear the question 'What do you mean {exactly} by that' or observe a failure in the communication because the receiver thought the sender was saying something {and they decided what was meant - wrongly}. This is why we have a lexicon of words that describe exactly what is meant by the term - why use another word and hope that the other person knows 'what you mean'? Charles is quite open in his admitting that he and Bujno fell out over a disagreement - I have corresponded quite a lot with Charles and I have a fair idea of how his mind works; perhaps Bujno did not have this and thought that Charles meant to attack him - more than probably not the case. But e-communication is much more impersonal than face to face and we have to be very careful about making assumptions of what the other person 'meant' - these assumptions are often as a result of our own mind set which may be immovable. I see that this is a major benefit of this forum such as ours, where we can always say 'What did you mean?' or 'Did you really mean that?', or even 'Who the hell do you think you are to say that? Ha Ha' - but be careful, the 'Ha Ha is not always read as if you are making the remark in a jocular manner. This attitude may be as a result of my trainer career in which I always challenged a not too clear remark, not only for my benefit and for the rest of the group, but also for the sender to give them the opportunity to think and declare more clearly. Leslie
|
|
|
Post by bescheid on May 15, 2007 8:57:26 GMT -7
Holly
Thank you for expanding this, as a very important situation that shadows us. And that is as you have exampled: {Cross Cultural communication}. It is an area laden with a multiply number of sneaky pitfall's. For we do not as a writer, know for sure the picture of what we mean in words, is exactly transmitted as we intend to the received persons mind as the intended word picture. Or should I better say: {Empathic Understanding}.
For we are of three different peoples here, similar in many respects, but still, of vastly different life experiences, education and of different cultural expectations and make up.
{I have given the number as three for different peoples, this in self discounts not of Pieter, for Pieter and I are of the similar area just different nationalities.}
Thank you Holly, for I look forward to additional input on this very important and interesting encompassing subject.
Charles
|
|
|
Post by bescheid on May 15, 2007 9:08:22 GMT -7
Leslie
I do agree with you on your analysis. For what you have brought forward is very true and valid. For it is drawn from your training and experience in communication. Be that you are a trainer, you have exposure to a great many and varied peoples differing in language expertise, culture, education, gender and all that encompasses that of multi-ethnic groups, with a common purpose of learning.
And you are very correct with only the written word to read of the other person. For with only a computer screen to view, it is all too easy for some personalties to abuse. Happily this is not the case here.
Whilst on the other coin side, it is much better with only the written word. For the spoken word is soon lost, but, the written word stays. And with this concept, it is easy to re-exam and cross culture check for accuracy before proceeding further. Or, as evidence for later examination for irregularities as a check.
Charles
|
|
|
Post by hollister on May 15, 2007 9:26:58 GMT -7
Leslie (and Charles), I agree the author of the article is pointing at an important issue. When I read the article, I wondered why I expected people to understand me - and why the responsibility appeared to shifted to "them" to read what I have written and tease out the sub-text of my intentions. Where is my responsibility to understand "them?" Yes, face to face communication *may* be easier and written demands more of us as far as interpretation, but face to face communication can lead to mis-understandings and mis-read cues as well. I guess, I am saying yes, but not always.
A side question - do you "hear" voices in your head as you read posts on the board? If so, are the voices different according to who originally penned the post?
Now, that I have asked such a question should I be prepared for the men in the white coats to come for me with the special jacket that has no sleeves?
|
|
|
Post by bescheid on May 15, 2007 11:00:55 GMT -7
Leslie (and Charles), I agree the author of the article is pointing at an important issue. When I read the article, I wondered why I expected people to understand me - and why the responsibility appeared to shifted to "them" to read what I have written and tease out the sub-text of my intentions. Where is my responsibility to understand "them?" Yes, face to face communication *may* be easier and written demands more of us as far as interpretation, but face to face communication can lead to mis-understandings and mis-read cues as well. I guess, I am saying yes, but not always. A side question - do you "hear" voices in your head as you read posts on the board? If so, are the voices different according to who originally penned the post? Now, that I have asked such a question should I be prepared for the men in the white coats to come for me with the special jacket that has no sleeves? Oh Dear Holly! Of course you are not nuts! For you possesse a very rare skill, in that you invision withen your self, the other person, but, only once they have given of some thing of them selves. But, you have a highr degree of skill {gift} in {empathic understanding} for you envision that of their voice.. Charles
|
|