|
|
27 May 2008 @ 14:45, by anandavala. Communication
Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.
In a recent
conversation here on NCN I indirectly learnt a great deal. Even
though it was not what one would call a functional conversation it
was nevertheless a very interesting experience...
Below is an article compiled from my part in the conversation. It
addresses many issues that are central to the conduct of a
progressive discourse, which can result in cooperative solution
seeking that is grounded in reality and can be genuinely effective
even in the face of cynical attacks and denial. These are just
thoughts on the matter. More >
|
|
|
|
 26 May 2008 @ 19:26, by mortimer. Communication
newciv offers members with newlogs the option to publish in rss format but it seems that most do not utilize the service. Perhaps most do not know what rss is or how rss works. I have never publish an rss feed before. I use my newslog more like a webpage than a newslog but, i decided to publish a feed just to demonstrate how rss works.
More >
|
|
|
|
19 May 2008 @ 14:49, by vaxen. Communication
You are governed, your mind is molded, your tastes formed, your ideas suggested, largely by people you have never met or heard of before. This is the logical result of the way in which society functions today. Vast numbers of human beings must co-operate in this controlled manner if they are to live together in peace and prosperity.
The real issue or concern is whether or not you are aware of the fact that your freedom has been substituted by mind enslavement. More >
|
|
|
|
  15 May 2008 @ 06:22, by feecor. Communication
A campaign for intercultural, interdisciplinary events and side-events, formal and informal, to promote dialogue and unity in diversity across scales, nations, languages, cultures, diciplines, sectors, lervels,.. is starting today: May 15 to June 15, 2008
TITLE: The Cultures and Powers of Diversity
Map Diversity and Mind Unity in Diversity - Create it & Accept it - Share & Expand it ! [link]
BY DIVERSITY WE MEAN: cultural, natural, biological, genetic, temporal, spacial, lingual, media (signs), artistic and creative diversity !
– even diversity of viewpoints, positions and world-views and world models or world maps ! and the need of not needing to agree and the beauty of difference (diversity) in view of requisite variety.
Why are these “Diversities treated seperately ? cant we learn from each other ? or do we think there is no common language and no overview possible? Can we come to grips with broad issues and vague subject areas?
There is also a diversity of views and positions, representations and displays, call them signs, symbols, schemas, maps and models.
What is needed is to go beyond dualistic approaches, thinking just from an individual an collective, or personal or societal, just as we are seperating goos and bad, black and white, north and south or east and west.
So let us explore and negotiate the merits of having more than one way to go and present, one perspective or one direction.
And see outcomes like from the EcoTHEE - 2008 Agora: [link] More >
   
|
|
|
|
 20 Apr 2008 @ 10:57, by deepwater. Communication
Reflections on how the individual system responds to being confronted by its own actual state of being and the physical, mental and emotional manifestations of its resistance to becoming aware of and clarifying its understanding of the true nature of its situation (its relationship with reality), and the specific therapies best suited to address them.
A better way to view the images included here is to visit my blog,
[link]
Thanks to Mortimer we can now see these diagrams in the comments!
Gratitude for the help bro. More >
|
|
|
|
8 Apr 2008 @ 06:31, by deepwater. Communication
After
much reading, research and web-surfing it has become apparent that
many people are operating with serious limitations upon their
cognitive equipment, of which for the most part they seem oblivious.
There
is, unbeknownst to many of us, an enormous amount of conditioning
that we bring with us in our most vital piece of equipment....the
mind. Without
the awareness that our minds are operating in ways that can distort
or corrupt information, we are powerless to apprehend the truth of
the subjects we seek to understand.
This
situation can lead to all manner of unnecessary miscommunications and
frustrations which can hamper even the most well intentioned
conversation.
Even
the suggestion that ones thought process may require adjustment can
lead to episodes of denial and reactionary behaviour that seriously
undermine even the best effort to communicate around any other
issues.
There
are multiple, inter penetrating layers of confusion, distortion and
pre conceptions which form and reinforce each other as a result of
the subtle nature of this conditioning of the cognitive lens of the
mind.
It is
worth bearing in mind at this point that each of us will find
ourselves in this predicament at some stage and that we are all
fundamentally innocent of any ill intention, it is just that we are
unknowingly subjected to a proliferation of conditioning influences
over which we have no control.
Fortunately
there are many tried and proven methods by which to become aware of
and overcome these conditioning influences with a willingness to
participate being all that is required.
Given
that each of us has a unique, individual point of conscious
perception, then each of us will require a subtly different method of
approach to the clarification of their cognitive equipment. However,
clarifying the mind is the common and necessary goal for each of us
who seeks to operate effectively within the context of the best
possible outcome for all.
If we
can overcome the general tendency to consider our own self interest
as more important than the good of the whole, then we can begin to
work in the direction of manifesting a situation in which the greater
good can be served and the individuals who comprise that whole also
benefit as a result.
What I
am endeavouring to accomplish with this discussion is to suggest many
and various ways that individuals can approach the subject of mental
clarity, each to their own, with the hope that this better enables us
to reach a holistic understanding of the Nature of Reality, and a
greater ability to function in ways that foster right human relations
and greater peace and harmony between members of the human race.
More >
|
|
|
|
22 Feb 2008 @ 16:36, by ming. Communication
Blogging is a bit too much like publishing. I mean, writing articles to be published.
Of course different people use the medium differently. Some people still just write about what their dog had for breakfast. But, with few exceptions, the blogs that are interesting to read consist more or less of articles that people write.
But that makes it less fun and useful to write. Writing an article is for me connected with deadlines and trying to match the expectations of the audience. Where I'd rather write a weblog for me, and then maybe share it with others as a second thought.
So, what happened to the idea of "log" or "logging"?
See, a log is really something more directed. One might keep a log if one is working on something. A record of one's progress, one's discoveries.
Like, a learning log, or a research log. One is working on finding something out, solving certain problems, arriving at certain goals. And one keeps a record, which charts the path, maybe for others to learn from too.
That's not how I use a weblog. I'd like it to be. But that would require a re-framing.
In that case one would set a theme or a goal. It is quite possible that the process would have an end, as one either reaches the goal, or one no longer is interested in the subject. So, one would open up new logs, keep them going as one is continuing exploring the subject matter, and one closes them when one is done.
That doesn't work so well with the way we currently use blogs. I'd expect a person to have preferrably one blog, which I can subscribe to in my blog aggregator. If they have several, it is a little annoying, and if they close them down and start new ones, it would be more annoying.
Regular blogs have categories or tags. Which of course can be used for particular threads. But typically one tries to subscribe to everything one person is blogging, and you might get a mix of postings on very different postings. Which is why most blog owners feel obliged to keep a certain uniform atmosphere in all the postings, as if it were a magazine, with a certain style and theme.
But, say I wanted to log several different of my interests and activities. Like me right now, I'm interested in photography, rollerskating, genealogy, Ruby on Rails programming, plus a whole bunch of other things I'd be more likely to write about on my blog. But, say I wanted to have a log of my experiences as a novice photographer. There are lots of blogs like that, where people share their photos, talk about their equipment, etc. Just like there are lots of blogs about genealogy, where people talk about their research, resources they find, etc. But if I mixed all of that together, it might not be fun for readers who aren't interested in those things, who just want to see me write about alternate dimensions or new civilizations or something. So, would I have a different blog for each? That would be quite feasible, if they were ongoing interests. Less so if they were more short lived. I don't think it is very comfortable to maintain several separate blogs, though.
From the user perspective, the author, the logger, me, I'd really want just one interface for an assortment of logging subjects. I wouldn't want to log into a different account for each one. Rather, one interface where I freely can add new subjects, and add log entries for any of them. Some of those subjects would be just for me, others I would choose to share, and maybe make public.
Of course, those logs that one chose to make public could be channeled into what appeared as different blogs for the rest of the world. But I wouldn't experience it like that. I'd just log stuff in my logging application.
And it would open the door to a different way of presenting or interacting with such logs. I mean, if each one logs the evolution certain subject, which maybe now is done, I'd like better ways of dealing with that sequence of events as a whole. It wouldn't just be an abandoned blog, but simply the log of a finished project.
People do put stuff like that on their blogs, but it might be hidden between lots of other things. A log of remodeling my garage is a perfectly valid and complete project. Doesn't have to either hide between posts about totally different things, or be a very short lived and abandoned blog.
If one keeps a log of actually going somewhere, trying to accomplish something, it also invites additional functionality to give the full picture. A project or a quest isn't just a series of equally important log entries. Some things will be more important than others. There will be key discoveries, reevaluation of priorities, ups and downs, a growing body of knowledge.
As one example, one might have a wiki-like area, functioning in parallel with the log, in which one puts the more permanent record of what one has learned or accomplished, the subject matter of the log. And maybe its versions would be synchronized with the log, so that one could see the evolution of the more permanent part. At the point of that particular log entry, how did the list of links look? How did it look the week after that?
It ties in with a project I'd like to do, but which I haven't carved out enough time for yet, which is to structure environments for particular purposes. Dynamic webpages that are structured so as to support what one is trying to do. A brainstorm takes a different structure and different tools than does a research project or the process of starting a new company. Each one involves some combination of logs, notes, permanent records, links, lists, outlines, ordering, sequencing, randomity, and more. If you don't use an environment that supports what you want to do, it doesn't work so well. A blog or a wiki or a forum do different things and inspire different kinds of behavior. The right constellation of interdependent tools can accomplish something more precise in a more appropriate manner.
This post here could be said to be a log entry in the project of building such things. But putting it right here doesn't help me much in keeping a record of my progress. More >
|
|
|
|
9 Jan 2008 @ 22:45, by ming. Communication
Somebody asked for permission to use my old graphic here in a training course for field epidemiologists in Kazakhstan. Which is kind of funny. And I don't remember if I ever posted it here, so why not. Below is the article that goes with it. Although I thought it was kind of well hidden on the net, I do get these kinds of requests from time to time. ... And now that I notice it, this is actually the #1 "I feel lucky" entry for "Communication Model" in Google, which I can't complain about.
There is always a sender and a receiver in communication. At least there is an intended receiver. In the diagram above A is the sender, B is the receiver.
A and B have different personal realities. They each have their own world formed by their experiences, their perceptions, their ideas, etc. They will perceive, experience, and interpret things differently. The same event will always be perceived a little different by each of two people.
For the consideration to communicate to appear at all there must be some kind of shared space. The participants must have some kind of concept of each other's location and of a possible channel of communication existing between them. They must agree sufficiently on these to agree that communication is taking place.
The sender will have some kind of meaning she wishes to convey to the receiver. It might not be conscious knowledge, it might be a sub-conscious wish for communication. What is desired to be communicated would be some kind of idea, perception, feeling, or datum. It will be a part of her reality that she wishes to send to somebody else.
Something will be transmitted across a distance in the shared space. We can regard it as an object, a particle, or as a wave, or flow. It might be sound vibrations, rays of light, words, pieces of paper, cannon balls, body language, telepathy, or whatever.
Between humans there will be several layers of the message being sent. There will often be a verbal portion, something that is being expressed in language, spoken or written. And there is also a non-verbal portion, covering everything else, most notably body language. Sometimes the verbal and non-verbal messages don't agree with each other, they are incongruent. If they do agree we say that they are congruent.
Based on what the receiver perceives, and based on her interpretation of the verbal and non-verbal input, she will form a concept in her reality of what the meaning of the message is. It will mean something to her. It might or might not be what was intended by the sender. In successful communication the perceived message will approximate the intended message to the sender's satisfaction. However, the sender will only know that if she receives a message back that is congruent with what she had in mind.
One can never take for granted that the receiver has the same reality as the sender. One can never take for granted that the receiver will interpret the message the same way as the sender intended it.
Communication is not an absolute finite thing. Particularly, communication with language is always vague and misleading to some extent.
If A says a word, like for example "trust", she has a certain meaning attached to it in her reality. She has had certain experiences with the subject matter, she has made certain conclusions about it, and she has certain perceptual filters concerning it. The meaning of the word is all the stuff it is associated with in her reality. However, because words also have nice, finite dictionary definitions it might appear as if the word is something very precise.
What travels across the communication channel is NOT all the associations that A made about the word, and NOT the intentions she had with using it. What crosses the distance is symbols.
When B hears the word or sentence she will interpret it based on her experiences, perceptions, and opinions. She might supplement the verbal information with non-verbal information such as body language. She might also hallucinate what it is supposed to mean. In one way or another she arrives at the meaning she assigns to it.
There is wide agreement, at least within a particular culture, on what common physical objects are. When you say "car" or "refrigerator" most people will have an understanding very close to yours. But if you say words for abstract qualities, like "trust", "love", "right", "wrong", and so forth, then there is wide variance on what people mean.
To have effective communication one needs to take all the factors into consideration. The different realities, the space the communication takes place in, verbal as well as non-verbal messages, the intended meaning versus the perceived meaning. More >
|
|
|
|
  26 Oct 2007 @ 08:09, by feecor. Communication
HERE SOME QUESTIONS:
Is there a “store of knowledge" which we learn about, and jointly explore, share, and apply ??? - see the context, the frame, and the why we should learn? and what??
Should we use Signs, and Symbols, Images, Analogies, Maps and Models and Puzzles to help us digest and share what we know about the world?
See here the http://www.zeit.de/2007/44/Kanon-Auftakt and the themes in our German ZEIT Magazin.
So how to come to shared references or "order" ? as a pile of stone is not a house or canon. How about making use of Intelligences, Minds, Reason, ? and see them as one and combine them - because it is hard and misleading to be one-eyed and self centered only, leaving levels, times and others "out of the picure" instead of comming "down to Earth"?
Pls. see also below regarding grounding and purpose and responsibilities the question to Al Gore about "up to the moon" ? or "down to Earth" !
I hope the texts and references in the "corpus" below make sense and help us to make what we can know more real and shareable. More >
|
|
|
|
 10 Sep 2007 @ 02:45, by jhs. Communication
Just a few words on some words that have been usurped by various parties in order to confuse or diffuse the clarity of people's thinking:
Originally, pronoia denotes the knowledge (noia) of the inner working and the way things are going, in Hermetic Ifa the knowledge of the Odu, the 256 fractal components of the Multiverse.
Epinoia denoted in gnostics the 'knowledge of the center', resulting in the 'pleroma' effect or, if super-charged with the Girapoli process in a peakstate specific to the polarity invoked.
Paranoia originally was the 'knowledge of the beyond'. Of course, for any modern scientist this would equal craziness and so it has been coined successfully. Congratulations to all those twisters for rendering a sacred term to being the equivalent of lunatic.
Morphonoia, much less known, is the knowledge of the Multiverse via its intrinsic structures, some say 'sacred geometry' as if there would be also an 'non-sacred geometry'. In Hermetic Ifa we explore/exploit this knowledge systematically via Skywork.
I admire Wikipedia, but the terms above one got messed up badly, so don't even bother to look it up there unless you're psychiatrist (that means literally a 'sad soul', hmm) in need of a justification to prescribe some more pills for some more invented 'disorders'...
In a nutshell, if you'd call me 'paranoic', I certainly would feel honored. More >
|
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Older entries >> |
|
