Communication

[Shieru]

I don't think anyone (in a place like this at least) would dispute the practical importance of communication. Without it we couldn't be such an intelligently collaborative species and likely would exist in a more primitive, less advantaged state. However, I'd like to discuss the more philosophical, even psychological implications of communication.

To me, clearly communicating one's ideas isn't just a matter of fulfilling one's personal aesthetic or pursuing logistical efficiency. It's about honoring a universal reality about humanity.

I see communication as such a sacred and fundamental thing to the soul (the innermost, living and feeling part of a person), because it is how its contents are relayed. Through communication, we bridge the uncrossable gap between souls. It is how we manifest who we are in the outside world, as well as how we connect with each other; two things that are vital fulfillments for a human being.

Language, writing systems and visual expression are all things which have a numinous gravitas to them. This makes sense, for to a human being, all have the power to make one vulnerable to the world, and even change ways of thought and life profoundly. I think this is part of the reason why those who communicate masterfully earn the respect and regard of their fellows, because of the power to change that comes with efficient communication. I think accurate, engaging communication also is a subconscious sign of respect, to which others respond in like kind. One who communicates clearly, and soulfully takes a topic to heart, honors their soul and opens them self authentically to the world; they respect their self and express honesty. One who listens sincerely likewise honors the soul of another by seeing it accurately.

This is one of the key parts of my philosophy on communication. I'm curious about what other's ideas may be.. Why do you think communication is important to us philosophically?

 

[Sinny91]

Of course communication is important, and almost fundamental to our existence.. an important angle would be the distortions and limitations of communication.

http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=23247

Check out the additional links, language and communication play a large influence in the authors motivations.

 

[redbaron]

Clear communication depends a lot on the listener. What's clear to you is murky to me. Clarity of communication is often decided upon by our own interal standards as opposed to the standards of an audience.

Ideally a communicator would be able to make their ideas clear to almost any audience, without losing other audiences in the process. Something like what's outlined in this blog.

Unfortunately some audiences take more effort than others to open up clear lines of communication. I tend to think that most people these days just can't shut the fuck up for long enough to listen to anyone else in the first place, so the onus is generally on people to develop the capability to be attentive than it is to communicate more.

 

[flowboat]

My viewpoint on communication is that is the sound tool used to bring personal sense for today on the table. Purposeful life is challenged by time, surprise, and other entities to express that intrinsically and convey a message. Free will, intent, and motivation and a whole bunch of other ambiguous things add up into the whole entanglement of vocal word webs and verbal brainstorms and what not.

For show, purpose, and trial, error, and tribulation.

 

[Sir Eus Lee]

I think communication is essential. No evidence for that conclusion though.

Communication is problematic because although you can transfer an idea, the idea you have in mind must be converted to words, spoken, heard, recompiled in the other persons head, and then analyzed by them. At each of these steps, clarity is defiled a little, and also the other person's method of interpretation of the same verbiage is slightly (or not so slightly) different from the interpretation. Thus, the message sent is skewed from the original intent. This also happens with writing, but the ability to carefully pick words negates some of the skewing.

Additionally is the opinion of the receiver on what they are hearing. Regardless of the skewing in the transfer of information, the critique of the information, and the past experience of the receiver are integrating or comparing the communication with change how the information is interpreted.

So essentially, first the actual words or language can be skewed through translation, and then the interpretation of the meaning can be skewed.

Looking at it this way, it's surprising we can even communicate at all, or that communication can be accurate.

 

[emmabobary]

Clear communication depends a lot on the listener.

Unfortunately some audiences take more effort than others to open up clear lines of communication. I tend to think that most people these days just can't shut the fuck up for long enough to listen to anyone else in the first place, so the onus is generally on people to develop the capability to be attentive than it is to communicate more.

Wait a minute. What?
Clear communication depends on the context and the meta rules of the particular communication. And these as well, depend on the capability of the parts implied to question their own judgement.

 

[redbaron]

Not really sure what your point is since our two statements aren't mutually exclusive.

Obviously you're not communicating clearly enough

 

[emmabobary]

Our statements don't have to be mutually exclusive for you to be wrong :v

 

[redbaron]

We said basically the same thing, if you read the rest of my post for context and the meta rules the paragraph you quoted were communicated under.

 

[Urakro]

I tend to think that most people these days just can't shut the fuck up for long enough to listen to anyone else in the first place, so the onus is generally on people to develop the capability to be attentive than it is to communicate more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX-CqQPWQvc

 

[emmabobary]

We said basically the same if you read the rest of my post for context and the meta rules the paragraph you quoted were communicated under.

I thought we were playing a symmetric escalade :/




Jhmmm nope we're not saying the same meta communication isn't only a phenomena that occurs and that's it. A bad communication wouldn't be only a product of a bad predisposition to listen or to speak clearly. On the contrary we can access this level to adjust the rules of communication: i.e.
I thought you were playing, my answer was a joke. I don't think you're wrong.
*your input*
=>New rules of communication
Ta-dá

I know it sounds quite plain, but this is what I'm talking about, when you refer me back to what you've said before, expecting me to 'understand' better.

 

[redbaron]

Escalators are for walking, not playing. It's dangerous to play on escalators.

 

[kora]

I agree it is sacred, along with consciousness

 

[emmabobary]

Escalators are for walking, not playing. It's dangerous to play on escalators.

Awesome....



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schismogenesis

 

[flowboat]

So little of communication is not even the words you say but how you say it.