Hearing and “hearing”
Frequently I am reminded that what I heard and what I do not hear compared to what others think that they are communicating to me or not communicating to me are often very different. Recently, I also was again reminded that what others “hear” political candidates saying is also very often very different than what I hear. Sometimes a phase which means one thing to me means something totally different to someone else. Despite the differences I have to assume or I choose to assume that there is no “objective truth” in either case. Some may, for example, think some Presidential candidates are speaking a truth, which needs to be heard even if that truth is not pleasant or comfortable. Upon hearing the same thing I may think that the Presidential candidate is making assumptions based on arrogance or failure to be able to put themselves in the shoes of another. Who is right? I have to assume that in terms of what we are hearing we are both right. In terms of what the candidate is saying I have no idea who is right. While some “truths” do not make sense to me those “truths” make perfect sense to some other people. Debates or arguments are normally about which truth is THE TRUTH. Sometimes the debate can become very comical and even silly. For example my partner at work or at home might say to me: “I told you X.” I say in retort, “You did not tell me.” You say, “You never listen when I say something. How would you know if I said something? I should have known when you showed up on the wrong day for our first date 30 years ago.” (If this is a heterosexual relationship, and the woman is the one most likely to bring up a 30 year old incident one has to wonder about the results of some recent research which indicates that women lose memory faster than men as we age!)
Obviously, the simple solution would be for the partner to say, “I am sorry. I meant to tell you. I must have just thought it.” Or for me to say, “I am sorry. I must have forgotten or was not listening as carefully as I could have been.” Then we could move on to problems solving or attending to whatever needs attention. Often our “egos” will jump in and not allow us to do that.
I was thinking of this phenomenon as I was reading the morning newspaper. Many of the articles in the newspaper were about various proposed solutions to the concerns which demand our attention: more guns or fewer guns, more collective responsibility or just bigger border walls, a stronger (more powerful) stance with Iran or an acceptance that treating another nation as less then will not result in justice or peace, more highways or more public transportation, more government or less government, more competition or less among health insurance companies, free market for pharmaceuticals or price controlled, death penalty or life imprisonment, more access to abortions or less access to abortions, more individual sexual freedom or more laws, more regulation for cabs or more options. Plainly even the way that I phrase these issues affect how one might “see” or “hear” them.
There was also an article in the morning paper about an announcement by NASA of a discovery. To wit:
“Using NASA's Kepler Space Telescope, astronomers have discovered the first Earth-size planet orbiting a star in the "habitable zone" -- the range of distance from a star where liquid water might pool on the surface of an orbiting planet. The discovery of Kepler-186f confirms that planets the size of Earth exist in the habitable zone of stars other than our sun.
While planets have previously been found in the habitable zone, they are all at least 40 percent larger in size than Earth and understanding their makeup is challenging. Kepler-186f is more reminiscent of Earth.” (Nasa.gov)
The article goes on to suggest that such a planet has possibility of having life forms. Of course, I am well aware that some very bright, educated people have maintained for some time that so called aliens already are present on this earth. In fact that are those who claim that Aliens have been working with a secret government of humans for some time.
One can only imagine what such aliens think if they are able to understand the languages used to communicate on Planet Earth. Let’s suppose for a moment that they can pick up the morning newspaper in any major city on the planet earth and read some of assertions about each side of the arguments/debates that I have referred to earlier in this blog. Perhaps they are even able to access the internet and read more about some of these debates or counter claims. What would they say about the arrogance of each side? What might they say about our use of weapons or our penal systems?
Another aspect of listing is deciding whether I want to listen with my so called “mind” or my “heart”. Although I know that the sound waves enter my body through my ears or the light waves enter through my eyes it makes a huge difference whether I am focused on “winning” the debate or argument or open to loving the other whose words are as valid as mine. Am I more concerned about winning/being right or about honoring the sacredness of the other person? Is it possible that I am listening with a patronizing attitude?
Earlier this morning someone I love and respect used a word which I always have difficulty hearing or understanding. I decided to again look up this word. This search led me to thinking about the changing meaning of words from one time and one culture or sub culture to the next. This then led me to explore the many possible translations of a passage from the book of Ezekiel. There are translations by various Christian scholars by Jewish scholars and by many other learned people. Who is right? While I have the sort of mind, which can have great fun with exploring all the possibilities, how much does it matter? It matters a lot if I am using certain words or documents to decide who is worthy of our love and God’s love and who is unworthy.
What if I accept that I am not in possession of THE TRUTH on any subject? What if I always allow for the possibility that I am wrong or in possession of a partial truth or it does not matter who is right? What if I took this approach in the personal and my professional parts of my life?
What if I could teach my six-year-old friend, Sam, to approach all learning in this way? What if the goal of education was learning the art of critical thinking rather than memorizing facts and doing well on tests? What if I did not need to be “right” with my boss or my partner or my close friends? What if I could, without being patronizing, actually listen with an open mind and an open heart?
Well, first of all I would have to be honest about the fact (this is a fact) that listening with an open mind and heart does not come naturally to me. If I am going to practice I might have a lot of bite marks on my tongue. I might have to frequently remind myself, “Breathe in, breathe out.” I might find myself smiling a lot as I very slowly released the tension, which I carry around while I try to prove to you that I am “right”?
Frequently I am reminded that what I heard and what I do not hear compared to what others think that they are communicating to me or not communicating to me are often very different. Recently, I also was again reminded that what others “hear” political candidates saying is also very often very different than what I hear. Sometimes a phase which means one thing to me means something totally different to someone else. Despite the differences I have to assume or I choose to assume that there is no “objective truth” in either case. Some may, for example, think some Presidential candidates are speaking a truth, which needs to be heard even if that truth is not pleasant or comfortable. Upon hearing the same thing I may think that the Presidential candidate is making assumptions based on arrogance or failure to be able to put themselves in the shoes of another. Who is right? I have to assume that in terms of what we are hearing we are both right. In terms of what the candidate is saying I have no idea who is right. While some “truths” do not make sense to me those “truths” make perfect sense to some other people. Debates or arguments are normally about which truth is THE TRUTH. Sometimes the debate can become very comical and even silly. For example my partner at work or at home might say to me: “I told you X.” I say in retort, “You did not tell me.” You say, “You never listen when I say something. How would you know if I said something? I should have known when you showed up on the wrong day for our first date 30 years ago.” (If this is a heterosexual relationship, and the woman is the one most likely to bring up a 30 year old incident one has to wonder about the results of some recent research which indicates that women lose memory faster than men as we age!)
Obviously, the simple solution would be for the partner to say, “I am sorry. I meant to tell you. I must have just thought it.” Or for me to say, “I am sorry. I must have forgotten or was not listening as carefully as I could have been.” Then we could move on to problems solving or attending to whatever needs attention. Often our “egos” will jump in and not allow us to do that.
I was thinking of this phenomenon as I was reading the morning newspaper. Many of the articles in the newspaper were about various proposed solutions to the concerns which demand our attention: more guns or fewer guns, more collective responsibility or just bigger border walls, a stronger (more powerful) stance with Iran or an acceptance that treating another nation as less then will not result in justice or peace, more highways or more public transportation, more government or less government, more competition or less among health insurance companies, free market for pharmaceuticals or price controlled, death penalty or life imprisonment, more access to abortions or less access to abortions, more individual sexual freedom or more laws, more regulation for cabs or more options. Plainly even the way that I phrase these issues affect how one might “see” or “hear” them.
There was also an article in the morning paper about an announcement by NASA of a discovery. To wit:
“Using NASA's Kepler Space Telescope, astronomers have discovered the first Earth-size planet orbiting a star in the "habitable zone" -- the range of distance from a star where liquid water might pool on the surface of an orbiting planet. The discovery of Kepler-186f confirms that planets the size of Earth exist in the habitable zone of stars other than our sun.
While planets have previously been found in the habitable zone, they are all at least 40 percent larger in size than Earth and understanding their makeup is challenging. Kepler-186f is more reminiscent of Earth.” (Nasa.gov)
The article goes on to suggest that such a planet has possibility of having life forms. Of course, I am well aware that some very bright, educated people have maintained for some time that so called aliens already are present on this earth. In fact that are those who claim that Aliens have been working with a secret government of humans for some time.
One can only imagine what such aliens think if they are able to understand the languages used to communicate on Planet Earth. Let’s suppose for a moment that they can pick up the morning newspaper in any major city on the planet earth and read some of assertions about each side of the arguments/debates that I have referred to earlier in this blog. Perhaps they are even able to access the internet and read more about some of these debates or counter claims. What would they say about the arrogance of each side? What might they say about our use of weapons or our penal systems?
Another aspect of listing is deciding whether I want to listen with my so called “mind” or my “heart”. Although I know that the sound waves enter my body through my ears or the light waves enter through my eyes it makes a huge difference whether I am focused on “winning” the debate or argument or open to loving the other whose words are as valid as mine. Am I more concerned about winning/being right or about honoring the sacredness of the other person? Is it possible that I am listening with a patronizing attitude?
Earlier this morning someone I love and respect used a word which I always have difficulty hearing or understanding. I decided to again look up this word. This search led me to thinking about the changing meaning of words from one time and one culture or sub culture to the next. This then led me to explore the many possible translations of a passage from the book of Ezekiel. There are translations by various Christian scholars by Jewish scholars and by many other learned people. Who is right? While I have the sort of mind, which can have great fun with exploring all the possibilities, how much does it matter? It matters a lot if I am using certain words or documents to decide who is worthy of our love and God’s love and who is unworthy.
What if I accept that I am not in possession of THE TRUTH on any subject? What if I always allow for the possibility that I am wrong or in possession of a partial truth or it does not matter who is right? What if I took this approach in the personal and my professional parts of my life?
What if I could teach my six-year-old friend, Sam, to approach all learning in this way? What if the goal of education was learning the art of critical thinking rather than memorizing facts and doing well on tests? What if I did not need to be “right” with my boss or my partner or my close friends? What if I could, without being patronizing, actually listen with an open mind and an open heart?
Well, first of all I would have to be honest about the fact (this is a fact) that listening with an open mind and heart does not come naturally to me. If I am going to practice I might have a lot of bite marks on my tongue. I might have to frequently remind myself, “Breathe in, breathe out.” I might find myself smiling a lot as I very slowly released the tension, which I carry around while I try to prove to you that I am “right”?
RSS Feed