Carol Johnson tries to get to the root (couldn't resist) of the issue of
exactly what is communication anyway..., and suggests that the use of
metaphor doesn't help, in my case anyway. :) And then follows with a great
closer:
> When you start asking good questions, listening to the answers and
>taking action, communication will improve. If it feels like you're
>talking to a tree, perhaps you need to learn to speak "tree", once you
>are fluent in tree, I suggest you express your ex pectations to the tree
>for it's part in the communication. Other approaches, again IMO, are
>excuses. You know what they say about excuses...
Carol, whatever do you mean! I do remember the old communication-oriented
exercise where the story starts by being whispered in the next person's
ear, etc., etc., and winds up being a different story at the end. At the
risk of perhaps "barking up the wrong tree" (there, I've done it again)
let's get back to the beginning. Maybe we all can learn from it.
1. the original post was in respect to Mr. Heyduck's difficulty with his
congregation. The suggestion was in the context of not bothering too much
with a group that doesn't have ears to hear, or eyes to see, and letting
it go. Thus, communication being dependent upon the listener, inter alia.
Notice, I did not use the term "responsible".
2. Should we, in our own efforts at communication, not learn to define
what it is that we are talking about? Communicate: From the Latin,
"communis" comes the verb "communicare" - to make common. Hence,
(transitive) 1. To make known; impart, 2. To transmit (as in a disease)
(Intransitive) 1. To have an interchange, as of thoughts or ideas, 2. To
receive communion, 3. To be connected or form a connecting passage.
Now, the process of, the system of, the means of, the complexity of the
act of communication is covered substantially, IMHO, within the
definitions above and probably others. But what appears to be quite clear
is that there is an express assumption that there be a "two" involved,
not simply a "one", otherwise there simply is no co-mmunication.
It doesn't make those persons bad people or ignorant who have a
pre-determined response in re the "who is responsible" in the context of
communication. It may simply be a matter of interpretation, as long as we
start from the same common understanding of what we are discussing, and
what we mean by it.
Nor does it change my original post to Richard Heyduck.
With due deference to Doc Holloway and the other good people who
contribute to this list; we are all searching for communication in our
daily lives both on the net and elsewhere, and I do think we all do pretty
well. But the topic comes up every now and again, and it does a person
good to get a rise out of the sometimes nameless and faceless in the
crowd. That's why the list is a joy, it is open to all, and respectful to
everyone. God bless.
--Regards, John Constantine rainbird@trail.com Rainbird Management Consulting PO Box 23554 Santa Fe, NM 87502 http://www.trail.com/~rainbird "Dealing in Essentials"
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>