We contrive ...

... not to communicate with each other.

Tags

  1. communication
  2. intimacy

Comments


Seth says
seth 2013-09-13 11:09:33 16752
ME 2013-09-13 10:44:00 16752
seth 2013-09-13 10:04:45 16752
ME 2013-09-13 08:48:09 16752
seth 2013-09-13 08:12:11 16752
seth 2013-09-13 08:01:26 16752
ME 2013-09-13 07:05:53 16752
Maybe 8770 is just one example!

actually i think that item is a good example of communicating. 

Carlin's ode to the word, certainly put it in a new light for me.  He communicated to me the new feeling that the wrod   really is a versatile ... and, err, even useful ... and made me laugh in the process.  I tried to magnify that on facebook here.   So, me thinks  8770 is a good example of communicating ... not of contriving not to communicate. 

Why are you saying that item is contriving not to communicate?  Or are you saying that?  I really am not hearing what you are communicating with your comment.  Something in the process is contriving that it not perform its function ... but me thinks it is not 8770.

actually, after thinking about it more, and writing the above, i now think i heard your real meaning.   I think you wanted to say, "FUCK YOU!" to me because is said "We contrive not to communicate with each other" to you.   Was that it?
You are again projecting your own motives in resurrecting the fuck you item upon others. Nice try. Effective communications?
NOPE! Tony Robbins & the NLP people suggest that the meaning of your communications is the response you get. Try that on for size.  (or not).

Incidentally i resurrected the fuck item because i wanted some item to be about Carlin's monologue and i found it from its tag ... it certainly seemed an almost exact match.   I noticed Carlin's monologue from a Facebook post and i wanted to preserve it here in this fastblogit memory.  Those were my motives for resurrecting that item ... it had absolutely nothing to do with me noticing that "We contrive not to communicate with each other".   That connection was yours. 

So you say "NOPE" quite emphatically.  So i guess that you are saying that i guessed wrong about why you sited 8770 as an example of  this item.   Ok, then why did you question whether that item was an example of this item?   I really still don't know.   Really, Mark, i do not.  I could guess again ... but wouldn't be easier for you to just tell me.

I first heard the notion that "communications is the response you get" as the "Pragmatic theory of truth" perhaps two decades ago.  I do see the point.   I also  think the idea "meaning" is one of those fuzzy natural language words to which we cannot use a binary logic as required by Tony Robbins proposition.   I mean i can well distinguish several kinds of meaning ... there is the meaning intended by the author ... there is the meaning heard by his audience ... and there may be a temporary or even a lasting effect on events.  Who is to say that any one of those must stand as "the" meaning.  So, no, that notion doesn't click here as pertinent.
I'll take Korzybski (semantics) & the inventors of NLP over your pragmatics abstractness theory of truth (? shudder, tilt) any time.


well for the purposes of this context here i think those philosophies of language are  substantially the same.   so, in a sense, i propose  we are in some from of agreement.  though i suspect, it will be hard for that to be acknowledged out loud.
Tony's use was quite simple. If you don't like the response you get take responsibility for your communication (don't blame it on the other person's stupidity or whatever)  & communicate your intent in a way which gets the response you want; presumably a nodding of heads, apology or maybe even a kiss.  Communication is more than words 7%. We use pictures & emoteys which are less effective unless they are crisp like the one you used.



Seth says
seth 2013-09-13 10:57:47 16752
ME 2013-09-13 10:39:27 16752
seth 2013-09-13 10:31:51 16752
ME 2013-09-13 08:45:24 16752
seth 2013-09-13 08:27:16 16752
ME 2013-09-13 07:04:40 16752
Speak for yourself, dude! Speaking is only 1/2 of communicating.  Listening is another half. What is "your listening" that others are speaking into which makes you feel that you are contriving not to communicate with others?


Well, i "caught" myself ostensibly communicate with another person about something totally unrelated to anything here and noticed how i (and they) were  contriving not to communicate at the same time as were were supposidly communicating.  Then i came over here and noticed the same thing going on.

Yes of course, "Speaking is only 1/2 of communicating.  Listening is another half"  is totally true.  But i am totally baffeled why you are "" about it.   Was it something i said?
Your projecting upon others what seems to be yours makes me slightly irritated (we don't have an emotey for that) so is close.  You are still projecting what you feel is a contrivance not to communicate upon others & not taking responsibility for your "not listening" as its cause.


hmmm ... strange ... is there anything in what i have actually said or implied that suggests any asymmetry between you and I in this process?   No there is not!  I do miss a lot of your meanings ... even though i do try to guess and pay attention as best that i can.   I also know that you miss a lot of my meanings notwithstanding that i call myself being crystal clear.  None the less a contrived obstruction to our communication happens again and again.  We both are to blame and we both are responsible.  This is not about you being wrong and me being right or visa versa.  But, of course, you could certainly make it all about that by what you say to me.
Yep, re-assert the exact opposite of what I said AND reaffirm the same shit you already said.  I suppose you are listening with some other kind of ears.  Not all symmetry is equal. Not all sides of an argument carry equal weight. ..... & your artful dodge of the rwg is being ignored on purpose because .... .... wait for it .... the RWG!


Wo, wo, wo!   What was there is what i actually said which implied to you that i was not taking blame?   Because, Mark, i intentionally tried to eliminate any of that from what i wrote.   How can i not now believe that supposed projected meaning was concocted (contrived) by you?
As to twisting this into a RWG, i agree, we should not do it.  been there, done that .
source: Mark above
Not all symmetry is equal. Not all sides of an argument carry equal weight.
... that seems to be a hint at some interesting insight.  Certainly as each of us approach the conversation the meaning of what is said is not symmetrical to us ... err, just because we see it from our own individual minds.  What you think, is going to "carry more weight" to you, than what i think.  But how to link those two ideas together in the context here is beyond me.  Could you perhaps help me out here?
You might be embarrassed to take the blame for something like "I contrive not to communicate with others (a re-phrasal of your prime item idea).


Seth says
ME 2013-09-13 10:39:27 16752
seth 2013-09-13 10:31:51 16752
ME 2013-09-13 08:45:24 16752
seth 2013-09-13 08:27:16 16752
ME 2013-09-13 07:04:40 16752
Speak for yourself, dude! Speaking is only 1/2 of communicating.  Listening is another half. What is "your listening" that others are speaking into which makes you feel that you are contriving not to communicate with others?


Well, i "caught" myself ostensibly communicate with another person about something totally unrelated to anything here and noticed how i (and they) were  contriving not to communicate at the same time as were were supposidly communicating.  Then i came over here and noticed the same thing going on.

Yes of course, "Speaking is only 1/2 of communicating.  Listening is another half"  is totally true.  But i am totally baffeled why you are "" about it.   Was it something i said?
Your projecting upon others what seems to be yours makes me slightly irritated (we don't have an emotey for that) so is close.  You are still projecting what you feel is a contrivance not to communicate upon others & not taking responsibility for your "not listening" as its cause.


hmmm ... strange ... is there anything in what i have actually said or implied that suggests any asymmetry between you and I in this process?   No there is not!  I do miss a lot of your meanings ... even though i do try to guess and pay attention as best that i can.   I also know that you miss a lot of my meanings notwithstanding that i call myself being crystal clear.  None the less a contrived obstruction to our communication happens again and again.  We both are to blame and we both are responsible.  This is not about you being wrong and me being right or visa versa.  But, of course, you could certainly make it all about that by what you say to me.
Yep, re-assert the exact opposite of what I said AND reaffirm the same shit you already said.  I suppose you are listening with some other kind of ears.  Not all symmetry is equal. Not all sides of an argument carry equal weight. ..... & your artful dodge of the rwg is being ignored on purpose because .... .... wait for it .... the RWG!


Wo, wo, wo!   What was there is what i actually said which implied to you that i was not taking blame?   Because, Mark, i intentionally tried to eliminate any of that from what i wrote.   How can i not now believe that supposed projected meaning was concocted (contrived) by you?
As to twisting this into a RWG, i agree, we should not do it.  been there, done that .
source: Mark above
Not all symmetry is equal. Not all sides of an argument carry equal weight.
... that seems to be a hint at some interesting insight.  Certainly as each of us approach the conversation the meaning of what is said is not symmetrical to us ... err, just because we see it from our own individual minds.  What you think, is going to "carry more weight" to you, than what i think.  But how to link those two ideas together in the context here is beyond me.  Could you perhaps help me out here?

Seth says
Sometimes the threadedness of the conversation actually makes it difficult to follow.  So just for some future mind (perhaps my own) who attempts to make some semblence of sense in this maze, here is Mark's comment which most of the conversation ended up being about ...


the link went here.

Seth says
ME 2013-09-13 12:26:37 16752
seth 2013-09-13 11:41:37 16752
source: Mark
You might be embarrassed to take the blame for something like "I contrive not to communicate with others (a re-phrasal of your prime item idea).

... , well yes certainly .   Though, i don't believe for a moment that this is just a thing that i do, and others not so very much.

... and strangely enough i find it happening not usually in a context of RWG like what incessantly happens between you and i here.  but rather in many social contexts ... where being right or wrong is not even in question ... nor any other game like i'm richer than you ... or sexier ... or more proper ... or whatever.

It's more that the obstruction habit happens because of a fear of the intimacy of real communication.  That was the gestalt i got last night.  And that is why i posted this item at 5 Am so that i would not forget it.
I think fear of intimacy is more a man-woman relationship problem or similar ones. Just don't contrive & then push the reset button & not the other one & something may (or not) emerge!


Well if that is your way of saying "don't contrive not to communicate" ... or "don't obstruct communication" ... or ,"don't say things unless they enhance the possiblity of getting an informative response", then we are in agreement.  Otherwise i don't know what you mean.

Incidentally whereas "intimacy" is certainly most frequently used to refer to a man-woman or man-man  sexual relationship ... it need not be exclusively used for that purpose. I have frequently heard is used in a context of "intimacy of mind" quite apart from any sexual connotation.  I actually don't know of any other word which describes what i am talking about.  Do you?

Seth says
Well, I wrote intimacy into a part of my marriage vows thus:

For the sake of the sweetness of intimacy ... For you who are so brave & dare to join so close as to lose yourself in ONE…

...(& discover the whole universe in each other) ...

For this sacrament & the gift of LOVE spoken by God who said ...

“Where 2 or more are gathered in my name there I AM!”

I pledge my body, soul & spirit - my life & sacred fortune to You in this marriage !!

... as closeness like two fingers touching each other; at one moment feeling the touching & at another feeling the being touched.  (Same analogy works on scratching each other's back).
That's a bit much for most communication, especially blogging. The experiencing you experiencing me experiencing you exercises with Peter Ralston were close to the same thing only in a F2F situation - sitting cross legged facing each other . At the end if we could actually experience the nested experience we declared success by saying "We are in communication!".
I suspect that about all we can do here is avoid boring arguments & practice the Golden Rule in the context of fastblogit.




Seth says
ME 2013-09-13 10:44:00 16752
seth 2013-09-13 10:04:45 16752
ME 2013-09-13 08:48:09 16752
seth 2013-09-13 08:12:11 16752
seth 2013-09-13 08:01:26 16752
ME 2013-09-13 07:05:53 16752
Maybe 8770 is just one example!

actually i think that item is a good example of communicating. 

Carlin's ode to the word, certainly put it in a new light for me.  He communicated to me the new feeling that the wrod   really is a versatile ... and, err, even useful ... and made me laugh in the process.  I tried to magnify that on facebook here.   So, me thinks  8770 is a good example of communicating ... not of contriving not to communicate. 

Why are you saying that item is contriving not to communicate?  Or are you saying that?  I really am not hearing what you are communicating with your comment.  Something in the process is contriving that it not perform its function ... but me thinks it is not 8770.

actually, after thinking about it more, and writing the above, i now think i heard your real meaning.   I think you wanted to say, "FUCK YOU!" to me because is said "We contrive not to communicate with each other" to you.   Was that it?
You are again projecting your own motives in resurrecting the fuck you item upon others. Nice try. Effective communications?
NOPE! Tony Robbins & the NLP people suggest that the meaning of your communications is the response you get. Try that on for size.  (or not).

Incidentally i resurrected the fuck item because i wanted some item to be about Carlin's monologue and i found it from its tag ... it certainly seemed an almost exact match.   I noticed Carlin's monologue from a Facebook post and i wanted to preserve it here in this fastblogit memory.  Those were my motives for resurrecting that item ... it had absolutely nothing to do with me noticing that "We contrive not to communicate with each other".   That connection was yours. 

So you say "NOPE" quite emphatically.  So i guess that you are saying that i guessed wrong about why you sited 8770 as an example of  this item.   Ok, then why did you question whether that item was an example of this item?   I really still don't know.   Really, Mark, i do not.  I could guess again ... but wouldn't be easier for you to just tell me.

I first heard the notion that "communications is the response you get" as the "Pragmatic theory of truth" perhaps two decades ago.  I do see the point.   I also  think the idea "meaning" is one of those fuzzy natural language words to which we cannot use a binary logic as required by Tony Robbins proposition.   I mean i can well distinguish several kinds of meaning ... there is the meaning intended by the author ... there is the meaning heard by his audience ... and there may be a temporary or even a lasting effect on events.  Who is to say that any one of those must stand as "the" meaning.  So, no, that notion doesn't click here as pertinent.
I'll take Korzybski (semantics) & the inventors of NLP over your pragmatics abstractness theory of truth (? shudder, tilt) any time.


well for the purposes of this context here i think those philosophies of language are  substantially the same.   so, in a sense, i propose  we are in some from of agreement.  though i suspect, it will be hard for that to be acknowledged out loud.

Seth says

Seth says
source: Mark said
It means that I keep hoping this item will peter out!

better image to go with the last dribble.
...  of course, i presume that i don't need to tell you, that the best way for it to "peter out" is not to respond to it.  

Seth says
Strangely enough the original gestalt, which had nothing specifically to do with mark, has helped me get over some of my reluctance to participate in social settings. 

things are not always what they seem to you.

Seth says
seth 2013-09-14 11:51:19 16752
And finally, hopefully, and just for the record.  Fear of intimacy is maybe half the cause of the contrivance ... the other half, me thinks, is  reluctance to share one's soul.  Probably just because when shared bullies will usually pick on the bones. 
Yep ... shake off the last drop:


Seth says
ME 2013-09-13 16:50:36 16752
seth 2013-09-13 15:58:11 16752
ME 2013-09-13 12:21:46 16752
seth 2013-09-13 12:17:30 16752

... but you have a good point.  Shouting "FUCK YOU!" to sombody will almost certainly obstruct any possibility of honest communication.

Was that what you meant?
on that item, yes!

well now it actually seems that we got confused between ourselves by use and mention.  I thought that 8770 was an example of good communication because Carlin made me laugh and introduced the idea that "fuck" was a versatile word.  Whereas you thought it was an example of saying "fuck you" to the another person and thereby obstructing further communication.  No?

Now i wonder just how many our our mis-listenings are just simple confusions of the interpretation of words?
I did not click through to your link. There was no Carlin at the end anyway. I had already hear his several times in the past.  The message was fairly clear anyway.


well i had thought that was the voice of George Carlin, and it certainly sounded like something he would say. 

To be honest with you, totally honest with you, i still do not know what your comment referring to that item from this item, meant to you, nor what you intended it to mean to me, nor what information you wanted to convey to me. 

So, in a sense, your saying that on this item, was a prime example of how "we contrive not to communicate with each other".   I suppose i should thank you for that .  ... and, yes, it is also a good example of "meaning of a communication is the effect you get".

Seth says
Of course, it also should be recorded that Mark's above response happened almost immediatley after he made this comment  ...










..............................................................................................................

which i interperted as quite hostile ... a refusal to comprehend my statement ... and just an attempt to start a RWG.  And so it was in that context that responded to his example.



See Also

  1. Thought Hillary and Uma Aberdeen with 223 viewings related by tag "intimacy".
  2. Thought Sensing ... with 169 viewings related by tag "communication".
  3. Thought Context and Juice with 48 viewings related by tag "communication".
  4. Thought about: I like Words - I respect words - I love words with 25 viewings related by tag "communication".
  5. Thought Blank To Each Other with 17 viewings related by tag "communication".
  6. Thought do not shit in my mouth with 9 viewings related by tag "communication".
  7. Thought Just do not do it! with 7 viewings related by tag "communication".
  8. Thought Watching the explosion ! with 5 viewings related by tag "communication".
  9. Thought Seth & Words - Confusion (moved) with 3 viewings related by tag "communication".
  10. Thought sua sponte with 3 viewings related by tag "communication".
  11. Thought Inter-mind Value with 1 viewings related by tag "communication".
  12. Thought What consequences ... with 1 viewings related by tag "communication".
  13. Thought The Meaning of My Communication IS the Response I Get with 1 viewings related by tag "communication".
  14. Thought The meaning of a communication with 1 viewings related by tag "communication".
  15. Thought Arguments are for Lawyers, Philosophers & Politicians with 1 viewings related by tag "communication".
  16. Thought Sameness of thought with 0 viewings related by tag "communication".
  17. Thought Fort What Purpose Conversation? Communication? with 0 viewings related by tag "communication".
  18. Thought How to create a common reality ... with 0 viewings related by tag "communication".
  19. Thought [title (17247)] with 0 viewings related by tag "communication".
  20. Thought peculiar to each particular mind with 0 viewings related by tag "communication".
  21. Thought Cooperation is Love with 0 viewings related by tag "communication".
  22. Thought Communication ... with 0 viewings related by tag "communication".
  23. Thought Why Does Communication Not Work? with 0 viewings related by tag "communication".
  24. Thought Harpers Daily - Humors of the Day - September 14, 1878 with 0 viewings related by tag "communication".
  25. Thought An interesting image ... with 0 viewings related by tag "communication".
  26. Thought Perspective with 0 viewings related by tag "communication".