StandingWater Creations

Earlier today Erin decided to open a conversation with me on the nature of God. This is a subject that was presented (as well as some hypothesis) and she wanted, from a philosophical viewpoint, to discuss this with me and come to some kind of consensus. The outcome: I am a very poor conversationalist in some areas, and that I change the topic of conversation almost without knowing it (and today totally unintentionally and at least three times over two different topics). We did, finally, agree on what we thought the nature of God is, I will not be sharing that here.

Of course, along with this, we discovered that I have a tendency to build a thesis of elements into topics of conversations I present. Specifically, when talking about a writing project, I present all sorts of data about the project and how I got to where I am about to start speaking and then I introduce the nature of the conversation. To the uninitiated, this could prove to be rather disconcerting, especially when you take into consideration:

a. I don’t talk about writing projects for personal reasons
b. I don’t share with just anyone the lead-up to the stories I do choose to write
c. If you’ve never dealt with that process you can get lost.

The outcome, from that topic (writing) and this one was an understanding and a consensus as to what we were talking about (even if we may continue to reside in different mental spheres of understanding, etc.), but neither situation was come to without additional discussion, concerted effort, and eventual verbal compromise. The outcome comes in the form of understanding that when entering into a topic that the other person may not, inherently, be interested in or capable of an ad hoc discussion about, a thesis of conversation is necessary to include where the conversation should be going.

Not sure that I’ve come to any real break-through on the nature of communication, though I know I can get my point across; however, conversation is, to be true conversation, two way and does require and has to allow for a drifting of the conversation once the thesis exists and ideas begin to be presented. You have to listen and speak, speak appropriately when it is your turn, and think about what is being said and then respond in a way that advances the conversation rather than detracts or alters its course – though I reserve that there are instances where this may be appropriate.

The outcome was a mutual understanding of how we might approach our communications with each other; and an understanding that sometimes non-sequitur comments are meant to be left either a) unspoken or b) un-responded to within the nature of the current thesis.

John Hattaway | smokingpen | Alicia Grey | Clockwork Princess | Cassandra West

Real Heroes Fly