Interpersonal Conflict (With edit for punctuation)

 Short fiction novel

A Cradle of Life

By

Principle author

Mark. G

Published 2011

National University of Singapore Press

John, English middle-aged, pretty, unassuming, mild-mannered, richly provided in every aspect of his life. He had in assets a precocious trophy wife, Casy: knowledgeable in every care of housewifery, fastidious about every of its perfection, who at once managed two honorable daughters who grew up to be equally competent and respecting; and a still blooming director’s career which seemed to define the man he was as much as it did the converse.

He took such an interest in his ship broker’s his life was almost fully given to it. Mainly he felt so alive. His other satisfactions came from meeting and working with myriad like-minded souls for a common objective, together with the solutions chartered he saw made a difference to the lives and organizations of the people around him. These, coupled with the success with which he went about such objectives, exerted such a stronghold on his psyche, it would haunt his other life.

He professed every so often to love his wife and daughters, but they could not feel one instance of real connection made by him with themselves, not since Ann and Susan graduated from high-school at Hartfields. Neither would Casy, his wife, complained if it had been occasional, but John had not taken Ann and Susan on weekend getaways at Randalls for too long to be even unfathomable.  When John in his right element would never so much as to turn down a chance to give an employee in distress his hand, you could not imagine him slighting similar requests of his closest kin in favor of personal interests; he did not even bother to show up for Susan’s 18^th birthday.

Once when the family would make dinner together every other day an affair of religion, John was always the picture of the perfect dad at the dinner table, engaging effortlessly, purposefully, in after dinner table discussions of any shape and length, in any topic of any suggestion; one who was never afraid to laugh at his own ideas and antics both with Susan and Ann, but especially Casy, his first love, or feel embarrassed about making them. A score year later now, he had completely lost touch with being a man around his daughters and had not expressed physically, emotionally, verbally, anything admirable, romantically, to his wife in almost any aspect of her excellent femininity in a long while.

John had even stopped telling Casy he loves her, because she would for some cognitive fault of hers she did not have in the genial marriage past, instinctively read the diametrical opposite or that he rather loved her; and where once the loving exchange came about very daily, easily and naturally from himself to herself and conversely, now it felt very obliging and almost awkward, for they both had a conscience clear the vagaries of their relationship had simply not lived up to make sense of a pleasantry it once could.

Even if John envisioned a new life together, he could not in practice right away because himself estranged, he could not least expect her similarly alienated being, the real evil, delicate and highly sensitized by virtue of her femininity, to not require to re-assimilate in bits, physically, mentally, emotionally, verbally, into the proverbial bliss of marriage.

While Casy’s misfortune may lay only in her delicacy, the bigger misfortune and the other evil on her part, so John thinks, were the thorough misgivings she had towards him in almost every aspect of every other volition, idea, disposition, in every possible domain of life since the abrupt estrangement, and even after he sought reparations through repentance and her emotional reassurance. That was much too irrational and unreasonable to comprehend sometimes it was easier for John’s faculties to think that she had been through a lot, than try to alienate her further by contending her charges. The only doubt: John is two-minded the easy way is the right way out of the dreadful dysfunction; but neither can Casy be sure John will never hurt her and her daughters again, to be less vindictive and more willing to overlook minor disagreements with him in the future.

The  marriage relationship, consequently, had reached an impasse; the worst for Ann and Susan, who both though passed eighteen, somehow still affectedly scrutinize every way of their parents', and might have been dealt unfair treatment for having been too early acquainted with the evils that exist between a man and woman, and prematurely robbed of their innocence thus. They have every chance to litigate if the situation does not absolve in some positive way, according to the unalloyed, young hope that is in them.

John and Casy used to visit me twice weekly for marriage counseling at NUS Wellness Center. What do you think I said to them? Any approximations for the kids too? Say it; say your piece.

Special thanks to John and his wife, and their 2 beautiful daughters, for allowing me to share this vignette of theirs. The problem though has been resolved and their 3rd child, Brad, is testament to new found love. Still, I want to know what you think in the form of interpersonal solutions to like problems.

Love

The Problems with Professional Communication (2)

The post is in letter correspondance format

Thank you Eunice for a most excellent post!

Here's what you said: "Let us use our lives to make an impact and encourage others by learning how to communicate well. Our reactions and dictions can actually be used to make each other lives a happier one."

Your statements are perfectly fine-sounding, but consider this my good Eunice: supposing others in various states of doldrum knew that you were trying to encourage and make their lives happier, might they be less encouraged and less happy than what you would expect precisely because they knew of your intent in the opposite?

I'm not sure if you have experienced it yourself or with others, but people somehow just don't like other people knowing they are unhappy, discouraged, angry, sad, dismay and many other negative emotions. I'm not sure why too, but it probably is due to some small or large pride of theirs. Even I myself experienced that before. If you are sad because of something, you surely wouldnt want the whole world to know right? You dont ever want to reveal weaknesses in your being/spirit/soul/psyche/nature/mind because we are socialized to know that weaknessess dont reasonate well with the people around us or get them uneasy, and in professional communication, the strangers that we will predominantly encounter. Hence if yours or my susceptibilities were somehow found out by others, which they would surely try to do damage control by rendering moral, mental, emotion support, we might be most unwilling to accept their goodwill if doing so MAKES SURE OF THEM---AND THAT IS EMBARRASSMENT TOO HARD TO TAKE FOR ANY HUMAN BEING!!!!!

Don't anybody see this subtle case in point? Communication is not as easy as ALWAYS making encouraging and positive impact on others' lives. Perhaps in most cases it may be in the past, but in today's modern world, people are getting more self-centered, self-concerned, self-aware; I would even say then that not communicating anything is sometimes the greatest communication of them all! That would be an antithesis to your statement, Eunice.

I would say that people in their doldrum today would expect you to know that they, appreciate of course, but would rather you not give all your tender loving care and minced sweet words to them, if only so their ego/pride isnt done further injustice. In other words, all the encouraging words will hasten their suicide rather than their restoration. I'm not saying this is always true, but the trend I observe INCREASINGLY in and around the spheres of my life in the past and present. I could be wrong, just as well as I am also living in an illusion.

So then if you know that others will know, not of your pretence on your part, but that of the possibility your love and care may cause them more shame, then you must know to also leave them alone, though not as despising, and at least for a while; I speak only of an understated benefit.

Many love

The Problem with Professional Communication (specifically body language, and can be extended to all the other verbal and non-verbal aspects)

The blogpost is in letter correspondance format

Thank you Eunice for a most excellent posting yet again!

But I'm not sure if anybody knew; body language isnt an absolute marker of communication. I would say it is something else, though I wouldnt be so sure if I would say it here as it is out of topic! But body language isn't everything in a communication, and sometimes it is almost nothing. For the best communicators can falsify body languages very well, how should you expect to think that body language can be a transient, much less absolute, marker of professional communication? That doesnt make the most sense!

In fact, effective communication itself is all about falsifying body languages: hiding a tear here or masking a pout there! Consequently, body language really isnt so much about communication, if we defined communication to be an exchange of ABSOLUTE TRUTHS (in perfect honesty); rather it is much more about prevarication that is acting! But we know we are imperfect and we cannot be fully honest about honest things, much less dishonest ones, or isnt that so very true for all of us? When you do something morally wrong (some dishonest thing), you already feel some inhibition to admission---fear. In the same way, when you feel an honest emotion fill you after a depressive episode such as sadness or some frustration, you don't let it show in front of your professor or friends, not at least so soon and not without more mutual trust and connection developed for you to pour your heart out.

So it doesnt make sense to say we can communicate with our body language ( a point I didnt take up with Brad or anybody in class proper, because that would sound like I lost my mind) if we don't actually always, or at all, match our most honest (absolute truths about ourselves) emotions and feelings with the same most honest body language.

Look at lie detector tests. Nowadays, people can pass lie detector tests easily and that should really get people started on thinking body language and other verbal and nonverbal cues can be easily prevaricated. It shows the potential of human beings to mislead and deceive, both in well-intentioned as well as ill-intentioned ways, through body language and other verbal and non-verbal ways, as well as for further evolution and improvement in the prevarication.

One day, human beings will be so emotionally sophisticated nobody would ever be able to tell anybody else's true emotions, feelings and intentions! In short we would be the best 'liars' on of all time! Isn't that really where professional communication in this module is taking us to? If so, we better get out quick, and enrol in the class that teaches honest communication immediately! Hopefully Brad don't kill me for this haha...

Real effective communication looks at the heart/mind/spirit (internal, absolute intentions) rather than the external body language like facial expression, eyes, nose, ears, deportment, gestures, hair, smile or whatever. But the irony and somewhat the evil too, is, nobody is ever good at the former. No human being, at least not without some help of an external agent or otherwise, is ever tending to look through the facade of physical external appearance because we are just too excellently socialized (socialization as the evil) and thereby entrenched in the ways, or more accurately illusion, of our world. And those ways include being so hopelessly good at sizing up the illusion (external appearance and the like of people/things/objects) which begets even more of it, thereby further handicapping the other ability to read the heart/mind/spirit, and we fall into some sort of truncated state of living and life in which we think all is well and good! How wrong, so wrong! We need to get out of that limbo without delay!

Really, professional communication will only get us so far; but honest communication will get us further to some Paradise, in all certainty I say; because the former looks at things superficial, while the latter looks at things everlasting---the heart/mind/spirit.

I think the real professional communicators, the best (not as in PERFECT, but more next-best kinda HUMAN best) of them have to be some sort of honest ones as well; who have learnt to size the exteriors of appearance, of course, but also recognized and further went on to develop the more salient skill of internal mastery of FIRST THEMSELVES then others; and who though not necessarily always succeed in the latter, will always make the effort to undertake communication to involve the heart/mind/spirit, thereby half-removing themselves from the dangerously absorbing Matrix of our world, and providing some hope and direction for the rest of us wanting to learn TRUE professional communication.

With that, it also must logically follow that the same best communicators, who are professional in all ways honest, have themselves cultivated absolute moral values: purity, respect for life, self-discipline, moderation, humility, forgiveness, love, integrity and above all TRUTHFULNESS; and they are blameless with regards to these, if not in their own view, then ESPECIALLY in other's, with the latter the overall marker of a TRUE (HONEST) professional communicator.

*********************************************************************************

Just some clarification of my above stance in the post. It is not to say I can fully disregard having any sort of appropriate body language in respective settings of communication in life, just because the heart/mind/spirit is more important or internal than the physical external appearance. It does not mean I can be a total mop or slop on the outside because if people really knew they really should be looking at me inside. That is not the case, and not consistent with an honest professional communicator driven by the core values I've written in the final paragraph above.

Rather, the true professional communicator though he gives priority to his or other's inward outlook, still observes but doesn't place too much emphasis on his and other's exteriors; and later with time and age, has his exterior disposition presided completely over by his substance inward, which will allow him greater ability and wisdom to look at others' also more concretely.


Buenas

Magic and PC (Pre-assignment 2)

It was just like any normal weekend Saturday, only on this particularly one I was called as magician to a road-show for passer-bys along a section of Orchard Road for a youth charity organization. In slacks and fitting polo top, I stood under a severe mid-day glare amongst the endless throngs with a deck of cards and a few half-dollars and quarters soliciting for a 'service' unlike any other. It was so premium  passer-bys had trouble even beginning to understand why I would run barefaced into awkward encounters of the like----"sorry I have no time; please I really am not interested; now go away please I don't like magic," which seemed to put me in an undignified spot for all the rejection and embarrassment I would countenance. But whence there was toil, reward tended to follow, and my first spectator was all the relief and girl I had ever hoped for.

She had an incandescent smile, the bearing of a supermodel, and what seemed a well-intentioned heart by her compliance to a glib request of 'service'. She wore flawless flowing black hair and matching demure dress that at once seemed solemn and electrifying---to such I did not know what to feel (receive (nonverbal)) or think.  Many a time when that happened to me, trouble romped on the horizon because I would expect a wreck of incoherence in thought, speech and action, as any bewitched teenage boy would.

Here was an attractive lass----that had truly swept me off my two feet.

Sensing the trouble in me was going to burst its lid, I reminded myself  I had done this a thousand times over to different other attractive girls; I wasn't going to make a fool of myself by messing up the trick, and more importantly the communication that will deliver it straight to her heart and concoct upheaval in her gut.

I returned almost a blank stare to her unexpected compliance, noting in detail the spotlessly fair complexion she had. But I immediately followed up with a mental jolt in the form of the reminder which then manifested itself in first forms----professional eye contact with the girl any seasoned magician can summon, followed  by appropriate body carriage that assumed authority to facilitate clear instructions for the requirements of the trick to come, and not least some modulation of the nuances of voice forms, facial expressions and the topics of interests to break the ice and disarm her before the trick proper.

With all that done, I'd found out her name was Alice and she had just been in her early twenties. She loved roller-blading and had come to Orchard to purchase her dream pair of roller-blades. That was all I could probe with a few seemingly innocuous matter-of-factly questions couched in intermittent humor, and a deck of bright red Bicycle cards----which I imagined was what kept her interested in holding the conversation with me, a stranger, at all.

For she knew what was to come and the deck told every of that. Sensing the ripe of time for a memorable snag, I asked her if she saw a group of young teenagers playing with cards a few meters away under the shade; and I instructed her, beauty-laden, to go over and asked to borrow those 52 cards for only just a minute or two. Unsurprisingly, she weaved her magic just as well and the boys, spellbounded and tongue-tied, made her job easier and they meekly surrendered the cards without a meager query. She returned with the full deck while I visibly tossed mine out of the way into the opposite shade. I then emphasized that the cards she'd just gotten were not mine, neither were they gimmicked because she was holding every one of those in her hands as we spoke, and she had no reason to suspect anything was amissed---not me or the teenagers, nor the sun, day, cards or her person----she was mind-blowing, or didn't I established that already.

I asked her a favour to shuffle the cards in any way she knew and as completely as possible, while I turned my back. When she was done, I came back around and requested she handed over all the shuffled cards. This was making sure I had complete authority over the minor procedures within the trick while not making it such a big deal. That is key because in a magic performance, you want not the authority of regality but that regulated by finely embodied interpersonal etiquette----that top-rated street magicians must master.

Having now shuffled the cards and handed back to me, she appeared a caricature of -----"So dude, what's next huh?", or so I clearly or unclearly inferred.

As if to muster a retort to an intangible form, I almost casually let slipped my tongue to a "shut-up." Fortunately, I made myself a second reminder and I was back on track----just like an expert.

I gathered the deck and squared into a neat pile, then spread face-down across the back between both palms so that a beautiful and evenly-spaced fan emerged. It was done so swiftly and almost habitually I got a 'wow' out of her the first time.

Next I instructed her to pick any card from the fan and to hold it tightly closed to her chest, making sure she knew she was not to allow anyone in on the identity of her card. I set aside the deck and started to patronize the heightened expectations, emotions and moods of her delicate being, and that required judicious use of professional communication skills at every opportune juncture leading into the climax----in the form of revelation!!

Immediately after she had seen her card and I set the deck away, I stood squared with her to evoke honesty and open-ness----manly traits scholastic research showed attracted and kept women. Then I went on to asked her to place the card away in her dress pocket and kindly and non-obligingly asked for both her delicate palms the same exact way a groom would in ceremonial marriage. Gently I held them, and all but looked intently at the back of her palms for a good few seconds and proceeded to make favourable comments about them, which got her giggling only infatuated girls in high-school would. With that I aced the communication at that level of interest and proceeded eagerly, with almost the same infatuated retinal shimmer, to the next level also the ensuing step in the impending climax.

I specifically requested that she looked right into my eyes for the remaining duration of the trick and thought only of her chosen card, while I all the time try to sense the card out of her using the electrifying touch that for now binded the nerves in our dorsum (and God-willing for eternity too) and, deep vision-induced telepathy.

She threw me a dubious look and refused to believe; I played along with an apothegm---"You know something Alice, I can even tell the amount of change you have in your purse right now!" She snickered so wildly and girlishly this time, I was sure my infatuation with her would last a lifetime and her phone number would be testament to that.

I have thus proceeded to ace the subsequent level of interest in the communication ladder by having created a deeper sense of connection and attraction within Alice, and there now remained just the final step.

I was supposed to get serious nearer the end of the trick, or so that was how I learnt it, but with modifications to suit my person. Accordingly, I tightened my back and extended forwards my chest to demonstrate I meant business as of now; and I threw her enthralled person with a few more reminders that she was to maintain eye contact with me at all times. At this time, even that had turned up a few notches sterner so that she would stop giggling and started flinching in place at what was to come. With that I aced the final step in the communication ladder for having expertly transported her, without complications, from state to state, with so much as a deck of cards and a school-boyish charm.

I only had to half-hesitantly mutter "The Queen Of Diamonds" in a haphazard manner complete with all sorts of occasional inflection, rhythm, pitch and tone to earn an endearing hug and a chance to see her reveling in disbelief in all her glorious girlish wonder, by which time I had long before begun taking interest in her and wanted to express it. Yet I knew I had to preserve the credibility and dignity of the magician's trade---which was to deliver the magic that hit hard with no strings attached (although there were cases where magic was legitimately used to get a head-start in the game of love and attraction, but I felt that was not for today and I had to let her go!)---because the magic is strongest when the person (spectator) is left alone, and the magician does not occupy any place in his/her actual life; which would in turn give him/her the chance to continually exult in the splendor of the magician, the highest desire of a true professional magician-cum-communicator.

Such is the legacy of David Copperfield.

Before Alice left and after we exchanged well-wishes and one more hug, I reminded of her obligation to place no small amount of consolation in one of the whoppers on display. I never knew its amount, only the impact my impromptu I had hoped made an everlasting trace inside her, as much as the identity of the chosen card even before she got out of bed that morning.



A Toss

Perspectives on dreams and implications for Profesional Communication (2)

The post is in letter correspondance format

For Brad:

"What one person means by a dream may be something else to someone else''

I am trying to verify the above statement with a few thought-of examples. You should help me too.

Supposing a boy dreamt to be a billionaire but he's only in his abject farm state at present. Another boy sees that and surmises of his dream as garbage, which follows that it remains a dream still, isn't it? Precisely because the dream of the former boy was deemed so very lofty and impossible by the 2nd that he recognized it was still a dream but found it fitting to replace it with garbage so as to incorporate the acute impossibility factor, or would that not be the case?

So really my point is, I am very confidently saying that most people if not everybody; if they have been through the proper and official ranks of socialization and communication from birth to childhood and adulthood in any country or society, know that all dreams share 1 similar fundamental trait----lofty and ungrounded or fluffy and impossible, and they can detect that trait off the cuff because they know what a dream is like having personally experienced it before, and they must have had one if not many dreams if they are human. Even a child can do so---dream, and KNOW that he is dreaming, therefore also tell the characteristics of dream common to all of mankind because he is of and from mankind. Therefore, I am saying that people (everybody) fundamentally know what a dream is but for some reason unbeknownst (and I don't know because I'm not God), tend to wilfully/deliberately/intentionally or unintentionally/unintendedly/uncontrollably/accidentally think of it as something else. Beats me!

If I will be right about all these above, it follows that the real issue why different people can and would think of dreams as different things is only because they are just confused---which is another word for mental/intellectual imperfection, or wouldn't everybody suspect too? In short, no mind/psyche/soul/spirit/nature is inherently perfect, and since all men are cursed by this imperfection, I have derived the ROOT/BASIC answer to Brad's statement on dreams above, because men are supposed to know that dream is dream and accord the proper respect to the dream protaganist, and not think dream as something else like garbage the 2nd boy in the above given example thought. The 2nd boy was simply confused/clouded/hindered/compromised by something.....( I cant say what the thing is because it is out-of-scope of the topic of professional communication and into religion! So you would have to guess!).

I would foresee people will say my above argument is unorthodox in the academic world because it is divinely derived, and that is all fine and good because people must somehow have an opinion about anything. But even if divine logic is taken out, wouldn't everybody agree that the thing that general clouds men's minds/psyches/souls/spirits/natures are self-centeredness (self-interested) and self-will(self-autonomy) which if anybody really knew, are human traits present in and dissected from that same single divinely prophesied trait I am not allowed to speak of. But since these 2 traits are more secularized, so I will use them to justify my argument.

When the 2nd boy in the above example refuted garbage to dream, he is really operating from these 2 secularized traits of self-centeredness and self-will, DESPITE being a very good friend of the 1st boy ( a point of information I forgot to add in my original example above). Self-centeredness caused such a remark from him because he would rather have the dream for himself, or so I would suspect in such a case for what else could it be? Following which self-will also caused his abrupt remark because given the choice to give an altruistic or favourable response to the 1st boy and one that is self-interested or self-centered, self-will will ALMOST ALWAYS pick the answer IN FAVOUR OF self-centeredness/self-interest, or don't anybody see this case in point? That is just the way ALL unrefined, even REFINED human agencies behave, because that is the most NATURAL AND INTUITIVE human modus operandi; AND, rest assured I AM one of these agents I am speaking of, so is everybody else on earth.

That should adequately, or so I think, solve any of the subjective issues surrounding opinions of different people.

Which also follows that in the very beginning of time ( this is obviously vague but I shall not attempt to explain it away because it again goes out of scope of professional communication into you-know-where) there was absolutely no artful perspective in PC, only absolutely ones! In short, PC was once exclusively an exact science if there was even such a thing as PC then. The only reason PC evolved to what it is today is because men are now more confused/clouded/imperfect than in the past back then, and with that came along an infinite multitude of perspectives which should only really be one but for trouble in interpreting and responding to verbal and non-verbal cues.

In simplistic terms, men are imperfect are confused because they are living in an illusion driven world constituted by the illusions that they are. More specifically, the minds/psyches/natures/spirits of men are the most original illusions which then produce the illusion inherent to every single object we see in the material world, because the material world is the imprint of a plethora of minds/psyches and if the latter is illusion, so the former is also.

I'm not expecting anybody to fully understand everything or even anything. I just thought I should lay down what I think I've got in me is all.

2 Tosses

A letter response to implications of a specific genre of POP culture---music

OMG, why are such crass material contents discussed in a straight-laced academic forum? I would appropriately find these in Temasek Review or Stomper? Not to worry, I have nothing against such material here, was only trying to make it a big deal, but maybe Brad has other thoughts!

Having said that, I am completely bewildered Eunice doesn't know the answers to her own questions in the above post she made. For why else would anybody ask a question if the intend isn't almost always to get a straight answer?

"Imagine an 8 year old watching this video, will this teach them good values?"

Oh mine, you couldn't say you didn't know the answer to this question do you, Eunice? Even if you already knew the answer and posted the question just to enquire about our views, you couldn't have thought that we as intellectuals didn't already know the answer, or has an answer completely different from yours, right? (Presuming your view is that the video doesnt teach 8 yr olds good values). I thought you couldnt have been serious to ask the obvious, unless you were expecting something drastically different from that, but I do not think anybody here thinks the video teaches good values to 8 yr olds; which then brings me back to what puzzles me: Where are you getting at with your question!

Or perhaps it is really the case where you knew the video doesn't teach good values to 8 yr olds, but wanted to know how it is the case, and therefore approached us with this question of yours. That----would make a whole lot of better sense, or don't you think so? If thats the case, then I'll proffer my view.

Profanities and expletives used in the video tend to give off some form of bad vibe, not so much any actual wrong value, for would you agree that the video (or any other profanity-laden one) could have professed some noble value such as familial love or patriotism (these are only examples, not sure if the video above has these because I haven't seen the video and don't intend to)? So if there are ultimately good values taught in the video, you could say the video above does teach good values. The answer to Eunice's question would be a resounding YEAH!

However, I'm sure the fundamental spirit of Eunice's question is quite a bit different than what she mistakenly wrote, or so I think she has might/mightn't have done so. For as I said above, the profanities and vulgarities aren't the value/virtue per se, they are more like the vibe. On that basis, and if you subscribe to my argument, you have to now think that the video not only teaches good values BUT it ironically used the wrong means----profanities and expletives, to teach those values, or can anybody see it is the case? The video may have an altruistic message only it was couched in lewd egoism which then prevents the message from being revealed to a cognitively underdeveloped 8 yr old, thereby destroying the whole point of the video if it is to bring about edification through some value it professes. Hence, you couldn't say the child learned any value or un-value, because they have been stupendously masked by painfully obtuse language. The only thing the child has been taught concerns the use of language which possesses no value in and of itself if not allied to some more entrenched morality or otherwise, or don't anybody think so?

The answer to Eunice's question is not really a straight answer, as a result. Rather the answer extends from Eunice's question with the answer that rather than the child being taught good values, he has been brain-washed with bad language! He hasnt been taught anything because he couldnt read any values from the video, and values are the only thing that can be taught. Teaching the boy how to ride a horse is really about teaching him some sort of value, or wouldn't you say so? This works for any kind of learning, wouldn't you say so again? Yet I forsee people may argue that since you can teach language, it follows I should have classified language as a value--- that is true. However, the boy isn't PROPERLY learning bad language the way he would learn French or Spanish in his 2nd grade elementary class, isn't it? And that the reason bad language isnt officially taught in his school is because it has been filtered by society as junk or lacking in value, or wouldnt you say the same? So since these 2 above criterias for a value-add language are not fulfilled, bad language cannot be classified as value or un-value, which reiterates my point above that the boy couldnt have been taught bad language through the video. He could only have been brain-washed or severely violated. The profane words didn't got voluntarily 'sucked' in by him, for no mentally sound 8 yr old kid can rationally do that; instead, the words hedged him in.

Those are your probable answers above I suppose, or wouldn't you agree?

Finally, and a point I postponed until now; bad language used to teach some value (something that has value (fundamental) must only be good) abruptly undermines both the efficacy of the medium of instruction as well as the value itself. That is why the boy couldnt have learnt a single value if there is one in the video. Unless value (fundamental) can incorporate something perverse, then if bad language is used to teach that value, the boy could likely master it. For instance supposing stealing is a 'value' (non-fundamental), and a badass comes along and spouts profanities as a means to school the boy in stealing, the boy will likely learn the pickpocketing trade in no time. But if you would asked whether good langauge has any effect on bad values taught, the answer is negative. That is the only combination of language/value that does not undermine both the medium of instruction and the value being taught itself.

Also there might be a chance you would think the boy couldnt be brain-washed or infiltrated with those profane words simply because he is too young to know they are profane words, and many people think that should be the case. But that is hardly so. Conversely, he is too young to not admit those profane words, precisely because having less developed hard-wire in his brain, the only lesson he brings away is one in pyrotechnical verbose garbage, or dont you think it so too?

I call my case hereby.

2 Tosses

The truth about J.K Rowling (4)

The post is in letter correspondance format

Oh yes Brad, you cannot be closer to the truth. I wouldn't deny that one should put oneself in another's shoes, but it is for nothing if one does not follow it up by getting to the point of the aim of using PC to engage someone in a social setting, which is get into their minds/psyches/souls/spirits and persuade and get it to listen to your point of view. If I did position myself above Rowling (if at all), at least I made sure to position myself above her AT THE CORRECT TIME AND SPACE! (no pun intended), which is after I have gained her trust and respect through PC, and not before---which is the sense of the 'above' that I think you are referring to---the arrogant and callous type. By this reasoning, wouldnt you say professional communication is about trying to get above others, although no communicator expert ever say that. But that is really the philosophy of all of professional communication; to try to get above others WITHOUT seeming like trying to get above, isn't that right? Would anybody argue otherwise? That is why I argue that it is very appropriate and encouraged to get above another after empathizing, because that is the truce period when the other's defenses are sufficiently disarmed!! Getting above is fine as long you DON'T GET FOUND OUT, which means you DO IT AT THE CORRECT TIME in the social interaction. If you can't find the correct time on the same day, you wait days, months or years. Maybe it would help if I made a simpler example, but it is really simplistic and used only because I want to get straight to the point. It goes as such: you can commit a crime, just make sure you don't get found out! Just to clarify again, I'm not saying PC is a crime or corrupt just because your ultimate aim is a contrived one--- to finally get above the other at the end after all the small-talk and role-playing. Rather I am only trying to simplify matters by using the example solely to show you the similar philosophies between the 2 belief systems. The philosophy is the only thing similar, everything else is different.

I think that is the essence of PC, would anybody disagree? (I'm fine with disagreement). You want to get across AND into the mind/psyche/soul/spirit/nature of another. PC is used to get across, but it ends there. Not that you don't need any more PC after you have felt you gained the trust and confidence of the other; you still do, but you do not need as much PC once you get across or connected with the other's minds/souls/psyches.

Besides - what is the core principle of respect? Isn't it to do something good unto the other? You do not actually do any obvious good thing unto the other when you respect, such as helping to carry a heavy bag of groceries for an elderly woman, because that is caring. But caring and respect nevertheless share the same core principle of doing good unto others. I think everybody only ever understands respect to be UNSPOKEN, UNDEMONSTRATED care or good unto others. I think everybody also understands what respect is but has the tendency to misread it as OBLIGATION! When a school-going child greets his teacher along a school corridor, it isn't immediately clear whether it is obligation or respect. In fact the child himself wouldn't have a clue, but deep down within his heart/psyche/mind, he is greeting from one of the 2 values that is a function of societal, cultural and familial values he has been exposed to. Therefore there is DISTINCTION in trying to show, in PC, respect in a SPOKEN AND DEMONSTRATED way (that is of course presuming you know how to do it, and you do it correctly), if anything so that everybody clearly knows and sees RESPECT in action and not obligation because you only just met the other not long. If saying or giving opinions to Rowling in writing here or in speech face-to-face with her does only GOOD ( your sense of good obviously, which of course is debatable but I will not talk about it much here. That's complicated!) to her being/person/mind/soul/spirit/nature/psyche, and you are pretty sure it is good (I'm not trying to say I'm pretty good though, because that would be a big turn-off, and I really mean it with all my heart), then you have shown the highest level of respect demonstrated and spoken to the other which is different from the type of respect we are used to. In a word, you have shown active respect, which distills to love-in-action. When you merely empathize with another, you only respect his physical agent, because you are role-playing only to his senses, reactions, feelings, outward vibes, body language/posture. And although these physical indictors came from a mind/soul/spirit/psyche, you are not tackling the mind/soul/spirit/psyche PER SE. You are only tackling the proxies of the mind/soul/spirit/psyche which presents themselves in the physical fleshly form. You overlook the chance to do any good at a deeper level in his psyche/mind/soul/spirit, and that is the respect that I am so concerned with, because it is a respect (or good done unto the other) that hits right at the core. It is the same with effective solutions. Effective solutions are long term solutions that hit right at the root of problems, not their borderlines. But I'm not saying respect during the initial stages of professional communication in empathizing is redundant; I would say it is the gateway to a GREATER and more honourable type of respect ( of love!) that you can show to the other, that of which hits right at his core/soul/mind/spirit. But this is preconditioned upon the fact that the professional communicator knows what he is doing (what is 'good' and 'bad' for SOMEONE ELSE!!!) , what is 'correct' and 'incorrect' and knows how to do it properly, and is also pretty sure he is RIGHT! (That is not to say you are to think I am right about anything, if at all). And in fact the Greek and Latin root word of respect follows closely to the definition I gave, that of which to do good unto others.

I have no issue if Brad thinks I have belittled Rowling either due to a misread of the text and the deeper message of love and care, or some objective or subjective assessment based on his experience in professional communication, because everybody is entitled to opinions, especially a well-known professor!

Neither do I hate Rowling for that cannot be consistent with my message of love that I mentioned above. Didn't I mention in other posts that professional communication must be about consistency? Also, when I said in my previous post that people who love Rowling do not really know what they are really in love with (a monster---I presumed people would think that because I didnt fill in the blanks!), people, especially fans of Rowling here, naturally get incensed and start making assumptions that I have something against Rowling and call for my 'death' the same way they thought I called for Rowling's death. But I think that is the challenge of PC which is to 'see' beyond individual words and paragraphs into the deeper meaning of the text I wrote, thereby allowing you glimpses into my psyche/mind/soul/spirit/nature.

It actually borders on the impossible to be able to accurately size up a deeper meaning or the mind/psyche/soul/nature of someone that the point of human fraility is indomitability.

To Rowling,
Forever with love

Perpsectives on dreams (1) (The what, why, where, how, who and when)

The post is written in letter correspondance format addressed to a friend.

Oh no Edwin, please do not be sorry to share your thoughts with me. Why should you be? I am also a student like you. You should instead feel sorry to rebut Brad. I demand that you continue to stick your leg in my conversations, if only beca...use Brad would love it!

“I think that it... is not very right or appropriate to call Eunice's 'dreams' fluffy or ungrounded.”

“anyway, dreams are meant to be fluffy and ungrounded”

You mentioned the first statement and that is all well and good as an opinion, but then you made the 2nd statement almost immediately after the first which fell me, because you agreed that dreams are fluffy and ungrounded after all. So then you (and Yu Tian who similarly felt dreams are fluffy and ungrounded) are living justification and proof, unconsciously, that dreams are meant to be both fluffy and ungrounded. The reason why me or anybody would say that dreams are fluffy and ungrounded, consciously and unconsciously, is because we are psyched by a lifetime of exposure to fact and fiction, which then condition us to be able to tell truth from gimmick, real from unreal, realistic from ideal. Yet dreams are not obsolete for being too ideal. They are somewhat part of a blueprint for success by virtue of the hope it promises which is its real essence, not so much the actual idealism that it conveys. If there is hope, there is similarly progress because people will almost certainly try to align, both consciously and unconsciously, their goals with that hope, the outcome of which any progress made is deemed a success story! Does anybody disagree?

Dreams are then some sort of symbolic perfection, representative of the imprint of an entire psyche/mind/soul/spirit/nature, and they are peculiarly conceived. Consequently dreams have to be fluffy and ungrounded because they are inherent characteristics to a perfection. Does anybody disagree? Is it then any surprise when I or anybody says that dreams are fluffy and ungrounded. In my post to Eunice above, I clearly was not attacking the notion that dreams-as-fluffy were wrong, rather, I was attacking the act of overly indulging in dreams, or failing to manage your emotions and desires. It beats me as to how anyone could read otherwise. Maybe I should also clarify a little on the type of dreams I am referring to in all that I wrote above.

When somebody says---“I dream of having a car or wife like that---(image in his mind),” he is really talking about expectations. He should be able to pull out the closest ad/picture containing the closest approximation of his dream car or wife, which for instance could turn out to be a Lamborghini or a Heidi Klum in swimsuit respectively. That is adequate concerning overall outward physical appearance. For the internal structure which would be the overall ‘feel’ and heart/mind/agency/soul/spirit/psyche/nature of a car and woman respectively, it would be more difficult to approximate because no 2 hearts/minds and ‘feels’ are the same. But he could probably describe to you what a dream heart/mind/soul wife would be like, and if he does it well and he truly knows what a ‘beautiful’ woman is all about, you should image Mother Theresa in your mind, so that his dream woman has the exquisite beauty of Heidi and the enormous heart of Mother Theresa. So far, the dream that I am referring to is conscious dreaming or more accurately adjusted expectation or goal-setting. Dreams of the sort you conceived while in RAM sleep are not the dreams I am referring to, because while they are dreams, you have no direct control over it, which means you didn’t consciously act to think of something bigger, better or more pleasurable, something which you do in goal-setting! When ads write “dare to dream big”, they really mean “dare to THINK big”, so that you know that dreaming CAN be thought as conscious thinking, or don’t anybody know? The dreaming in deep sleep is as uncertain as Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. You never know what dream to expect before you sleep every night. Therefore, one shouldn’t pay too much attention to such dreams. Again, would anybody say otherwise? Probably yes, because it is only natural for people to have opinions about as many things as is possible.

Moving on, if you revisit my previous post, I mentioned about the dream university that Harvard is. On a similar note, and a long while back, there was a photo-banner advertisement specifically targeted at graduating high-school students waiting to enter college. It showcased Harvard students from cocktail backgrounds, casually seated on what I thought was a painstakingly manicured lush verdant lawn overlooked by an 18th century Baroque-styled edifice, interacting with their Harvard mentors and amongst themselves. I was especially taken aback by the noteworthy finishing because it really made the picture come out of its element into the ambience where its effect can be at its strongest because it is ready-made to be experienced. It was so corporeal I had thought the foyer where I saw this photo-banner was actually the lawn itself, the imposing porch on the 2nd level the Baroque-styled building, and the gorgeous girl seated nearby a few metres away one of the female students speaking with her professor, the former of whom I had obviously grew an uncanny liking for, but of which I failed to pursue further, because the effect of the picture was such as to take the sting out of my X-factor. In short, I forgot that I exist or existed. LOL.

But therein lies the power of an image or word/phrase/sentence (because you think of images when you think of words/sentences/phrases), to fire your imagination which is the prerequisite for a dream. The picture was to me so all-encompassing, transcendent, larger-than-life, that it forever created an imprint in my mind; such that every once in a while when I sit on my resident veranda to sip iced-mocha and steal a quiet moment for myself, I find my thoughts inexplicably and with no conscious manipulation, in the eye of the picture every now and then.

That---is a conscious dream stemmed from seemingly innocent but powerful beginnings. A lofty dream it is also. I had also been conscious and fully awaked throughout the dream process and had full control over my senses. Who can say I hold a grudge against Dream? Dream says she is on my side; and she reiterated her love for me only just.

Toss

A friend's confidance and implications for professional communication

A fellow coursemate of mine, Eunice, found it hard to reconcile exceeding expectations with ground reality of university life and communication in Singapore. She was incredulous to such an extent that she was undecided if communication or other factors caused her discouragement and lost of faith in an education system known to value ends rather than means-to-an-end. Below is a letter correspondance addressed to her.

Hi Eunice, you need to tell us what your dream of university was founded upon? I presume your dream was some sort of imagery? In fact it can only be only be imagery because dreams reside in minds and only minds can image.

Was your dream too idealistic? Dreams of your type tend to be really fluffy and ungrounded. You probably saw an engaging classroom photo advertisement depicting diverse Harvard students smiling and chit-chatting with their Havard Professor in an 18th century Baroque-styled edifice, cuz honestly that was what I saw too and mistakenly took it as a paradigm of university communication and life in general! Now I know better, but not that I do not yearn for such a wonderful university setting, rather I make sure not too overly indulge in my emotions and expectations.

The thing is the whole world is in our minds, and our minds are made up of imageries and expectations derived from the world in which we live. This means our minds are filled with the language of our world---specifically the media world. The pictures we see in magazines/WWW/books/movies; the words we read in captions/books/subtitles/notes/news-reports/advertisments/pamphlets, and the real words and pictures (which themselves originate from the media world) we receive in speech from real-life people (for instance, and to get straight to the point for simplicity's sake; girls often style/beautify themselves to various sorts of make-up dos-and-donts which themselves are popularized by the media world, isn't it? In cases where girls/artists came up with their own make-up styles, surely they didn't just got it from out-of-nowhere, right? They were at least guided by existing principles of make-up in our world of which becomes portrayed by the media or otherwise), are very often a misrepresentation of the actual reality on the ground. As intellectuals, we ought to recognized that and learn to cope not with the different circumstances (images) of life, but with the different and raging emotions/expectations within ourselves. I think that is how Professional communication is, isn't it? It is about learning to cope with your emotions and to manage your expectations so that you project the right markers of an expert interpersonal professional communicator, isn't it?

And that would mean, Eunice, that until you FAIL to find anything lacking in university life/communication in NUS, and instead start finding lots of extras, plus-points and even LOVE in university life/communication in NUS as compared to Harvard, Princeton, Brown, Cornell and Yale, you are only almost-there as an expert interpersonal professional communicator!( assuming my gut-feeling is accurate, if you see what I mean!!). For that can only be CONSISTENT! As I mentioned in one of my older posts, one of the key tenets of professional communication must be consistency.

Toss

Education systems in perspective and implications for professional communications

Brad mentioned in class that the education system in the 18 and 19th century were much more effective because students who wanted to learn a trade had to learn it as a way of life. In short, they had to live, eat, breathe and sleep the trad...e. Today, Brad laments that the education system has gotten colder and more distant, seemingly out of reach of modern students, and therefore presumably LESS effective. But I think that is just misguided sometimes, and Brad's or anyone else's who thinks the same really just feels a sense of nostalgia for quaint customs and are predisposed romanticizers!! But I'm not saying romanticizing is wrong; rather I am saying that evolution has made human beings adaptable and no matter the circumstance of education, people will ultimately find their own means to make education or the education system work for them!

If you place a child long enough in a foreign environment, he or she will naturally find the means to adapt to the rubric of society; thats socialization. If a man lives long enough at an altitude of 3500m, his or her body will naturally adapt to the oxygen dearth; thats acclimatization. When you place a prey animal-group long enough in a wild life reserve, it will naturally find better means to better evade its predator; thats evolution.

So the thing is the education system today may not be fancy or even deplorable, but that is LIFE! We do not always get what we want right up to our expectations because the business of life is imperfect. Life doesn't look out for our expectation and or ever tries to match our desires, we play that role instead. And that is why there are students who CAN be successful in boring education systems with mundane lectures simply because they have found the most effective means to achieve in a boring education system. In a word, they are adaptable! And isnt adaptability a VIRTUE/VALUE in professional communication?? So it would mean that you can only become an effective professional communicator if you can effectively EMBRACE the current boring education system, because the adaptability of professional communication is the same one as that used to embrace boring education systems!!!

The key point is you do not only practice professional communication in professional communication, because thats hypocritical!!! In order for you to really be a good professional communicator, you have to make sure you practice the VIRTUES/VALUES of professional communication IN EVERY ASPECT OF YOUR LIFE! If you expect to be a good business manager in the workplace, you had better first be a good husband to your wife, fathers to your children, and son to your dad, because these things are consistent with each other. You can tell a good fisherman by his quiet, calm and patient demeanour; in science, you can predict cell mortality simply by looking at cell integrity, and we are able to do all this because consistent across-the-board values allows us to do it. Therefore professional communication MUST be a WAY OF LIFE. It CANNOT be TRUELY effective, if it is meant to be used in a specific setting and at a specific time. Of course, there is the possibility that we could be perfect actors and role-players and be able to enact the correct markers of professional communicators at a certain time and place, but that is NOT the highest level of professional communication.

The true challenge of professional communication is consistency!

 

Cheers

The truth about J.K Rowling (3)

A blog response to a facebook post @ http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/Blackstones-World-Without-Walls-ES2007S/160623160652040

 

Having said the worst of everything about Rowling, she does make one good quote and I will not deny that!

J.K., says "Some failure in life is inevitable. It is Impossible to live without failing at something, unless you live so cautiously th...at you might as well not live at all, in which case you fail by default."

The quote is classy, not cliche. While I understand what her definition of 'to live' may mean, I am not sure what she is living for is worth the definition, if her living continues in the shadows of darkness!

 

Regards

The truth about J.K Rowling (2)

A blog response to a facebook page @  http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/Blackstones-World-Without-Walls-ES2007S/160623160652040

The issue with J.K Rowling is not that she writes well. The issue is the dark (unwholesome or morbid) content that is associated with her! It is the dark content that enslaves, not the good writing. The good writing can attract attention wh...ich is to captivate, but it does not enslave which is bad because there is something dark about enslavement, or don't anybody knows? This kinda enslavement isn't much different from tobacco/porn enslavement! And because these enslavements are dark that is also why it ensnares, because anything not dark cannot possibly enslave and hence neither can it ensnare! When something ensnares or enslaves, it abnormally preoccupies your psyche and senses to an obssession, and dark content in Rowling's series possesses the power to do that.

People do not sense this dark magnetic pull either because the dark contents have been too ingeniously packaged in measured quantities, or a case of mistaken identity---in which case the dark contents are deceptively 'white' ( or wholesome). And people who are heads-over-heels in love with her works or worst her person----nature/psyche/mind/soul, do not really know what they really are in love with!

A professional communicator who claims to be expert must logically be able to tell from Rowling's dark works something amiss in her nature/mind/soul/spirit/psyche or that her nature/mind/soul/spirit is dark, or so I think it has to be the case!! Because professional communicators are supposed to be equipped with the tools to 'see' beyond the verbal (in this case Rowling's written dark works) and non-verbal (in this case the deeper and darker motivation of Rowling's works!) cues to what goes on in the soul/spirit/psyche/mind of a person, isn't it? The highest level of professional communication is the ability to size up the mind/psyche/soul/spirit/nature of a person and communicate directly to their minds/souls/psyches, altogether bypassing the need to enact proper verbal and non-verbal cues appropriate only to interaction without full knowledge of every aspect of a person's psyche/nature/mind/soul.

And if people argue that dark contents do not necessarily imply a dark mind/soul/spirit/psyche, they have been misled! Simply because, dark content/works can only stem from dark anchors from within a dark mind/soul/nature/spirit/psyche, unless Rowling is deranged, in which case she is dark by default lol!

But jokes aside, to be able to write such dark contents on such a grand scale needs a certain sort of CLEAR DARK CONVICTION on top of clear planning/editing/choreographing/directing/scripting. Notice that the conviction is not only DARK, it is also so CLEAR, and this is presented in the great pull of her works. Such conviction also speaks volumes about the inner psyche/nature of Rowling and the sorts of things that drive Rowling (things which are obviously also dark!), her predispositions, sensibilities, inclinations, allegiances and affiliations!! You can't tell the nature of a man by the profession he is employed in, but you can almost certainly tell every of the nature of a man by the stuff he writes (or don't you see my nature/psyche now?), both the content that preoccupies his thoughts and the way he expresses those thoughts in writing---which is not so much skill as conviction ( because there is a difference between a convicted and skilful writer, though the 2 tend to be conflated).

Any expert professional communicator who can tell all the verbal and non-verbal cues in Rowling's works are dark and STILL resolutely chooses and desires to immerse himself in it are blameless as expert professional communicators. But if the communicator fails to see through the facade of colorful and youthful illustrations coupled with seemingly innocuous plot and storyline of Rowling's works, and mistakenly thinks white rather than dark, or bravo rather than boo, he needs a thorough reassessment of his professional communication credentials!

Cheers

The truth about J.K Rowling (1)

A blog response to a facebook post @ http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/Blackstones-World-Without-Walls-ES2007S/160623160652040

J.K rowling captivates her audiences? You had to be kidding me! You really meant she ensnares and enslaves her audiences? Cuz that is the only way she ever captivates ( in a bad way)! Something that captivates in a good way almost always ha...ve something edifying about and around it; something that captivates in a good way does not spellbind/enslave which in turn causes the ensnaring of your psyche/soul/mind/spirit. On the contrary something that captivates in a good way liberates your mind/soul/psyche/spirit; for instance watching a panaromic vista over a mountaintop! Enjoying a view most certainly does not enslave you isn't it? Neither does it ensnare you by the fact it doesnt enslave you, isnt it? It opens up the gates of your soul/mind/spirit/psyche instead; in a word it gives you freedom, isnt it? And the freedom in the sense of being able to choose NOT to be addicted/obsessed/enslaved to the vista precisely because the vista captivates differently (in a good way) than the Harry Potter books. You do not desire (obsessed/addicted) to see a vista the same way you would desire to read the next book in the Harry Potter Series, isnt it? The former kinda desire is clear-headed as glass and therefore detachable, the latter kinda desire is perpetual and therefore pathological because it withers the strength of your mind/soul/spirit/psyche. Or maybe I am just an idiot....

Steve Jobs Stanford commencement speech

A blog response to a facebook post @ http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/Blackstones-World-Without-Walls-ES2007S/160623160652040

Steve Job said ‎"sometimes life's going to hit you in the head but don't lose faith". Steve Jobs---you gotta be kidding me!!! That doesn't make sense in the way I think it is intended.

It should read "sometimes life's going to hit you in the head, so go ahead and lose faith!!!"

Why would I ever say that?

When life hits you in the head, that is trouble! What is trouble? It is some sort of a life trial; it is hard to swallow and you may find yourself in a pit helpless and lost; trouble invariably accompanies a sense of desperation. In short, trouble activates your rudimentary flight-and-fight system defense designed with an eye for overall comfort and pleasure. To obtain ever more comfort and pleasure, your system defense needs to be exposed to ever more troubles to come up with ever more sophisticated solutions from which you obtain pleasure and comfort. Through these higher level processes, your fight-and-flight system gets refined so that the fight-and-flight systems of men in Stone ages are different from the ones in our modern world. With regards to these, Steve Jobs statement is clearly correct. BUT he needs to be more articulate about what happens before the stage-process of 'dont-lose-faith' in a human trial; because when trouble first hits any normal human being, he or she doesn't smile and immediately regains his faith in whatever it is that he has faith in, am I right? Only a divine being can do that, because the first response of any human being ( assuming he doesnt face the same exact trial multiple times in a row and therefore gotten wave of the trajectory of the trial and as a result know what to expect every step of the way) in a trial IS a lost of faith or some faith. That is to be expected, because the subject is human and humans are affective beings. But then the lost of faith accompanies a deep sense of reflection, stock-taking of trial, risk assessment/projection, and any other forms of mental/physical/spiritual calculation needed for recovering both your faith and confidence again. In other words, the lost of faith is a crucial and I dare say memorable interlude out of trouble. How could Steve Jobs overlook this tiny but significant detail? Maybe its a different Steve Jobs that took to the pulpit lol, kiddin..

Unless Steve Jobs was talking about the same old familiar troubles and trials of life, his statement presents problems. But I do not think he made a speech just to tell people answers to mirror trials that people themselves would know the answers to. He was clearly talking about unchartered territory and a challenge. And there is no challenge in facing the same old trial.

Probably the final statement should read "sometimes life's going to hit you in the head, so go ahead---lose faith, lose a little more, and come back stronger!!!"

Cheers

Schools kill creativity and implications for professional communication

A blog response to a facebook post @ http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/Blackstones-World-Without-Walls-ES2007S/160623160652040

 

Everyone says 'schools kill creativity', but why doesnt anybody OVERWHELMINGLY say, kids or their parents fail to create and innovate? That kind of the point in my exposition at the end in the above post.

In news articles, almost everyone ...says when a teenanger goes sexually astray---'schools fail to teach about the birds and the bees', but nobody says that parents fail to teach that or that the teenager refused to listen.

Im talking about personal accountability here but I'm not saying that talks, articles, news reports glaringly fail to preach personal accountability for they probably do and that is well and good. But they do not EMPHASIZE personal/individual accountability; that is the problem. The key point here is that everybody, every institution, every organization is responsible for its own success and demise, and if they can be individually and PERFECTLY accountable and responsible for their actions, would you agree that this world would be PERFECT WITHOUT PROBLEMS AND ISSUES? But of course that is not possible because humans are not perfect in every sense of the word, and so are their institutions and statutes. However, that does not mean we SHOULD NOT strive to achieve that sorta perfection, isnt it? The true achievement is NOT in the perfect end-state; the true achievement is in the STRUGGLE to achieve the perfect end-state. Just as in the true value in the quadrennial Olympics is in the participation (the process/means), rather than the victory (the ideal ceremonial ending), isn't it?

Similarly in professional communication, even the greatest communicator has flaws, though not so obvious ones, because that communicator is human. But the greatest communicator is the one with the GREATEST SPIRIT OR STRENGTH OF SOUL TO STRIVE FOR PERFECT COMMUNICATION. In short, it means the greatest communicator is the one who THINKS HE IS THE POOREST COMMUNICATOR, because logically only the poorest communicator will ever strive as hard for perfect communication. What else could be more true?

Consequently, professional communication is professional humility! Therefore if we have the latter, we not only have the former but we would also possess the strength of soul/spirit/mind to strive for perfection and if we have that, we minimise problems and issues of the genre of schools-kill-creativity type because individual accountability goes up a few notches

 

Cheers

What Professional Communication means to me (Assignment 1)

Brad demands that I make comments on his blog!  I love making comments about anything if comments are purposed to bring about some good end to the other party, such as a praise or 'reprimand'. But I do not usually do the latter whether in writing or speech because I do not think I have the interpersonal repertoire nor the confidence to do it yet. That is the reason why I took up ES2007S, so that I can learn to 'reprimand' without least coming across as 'reprimanding'! Sounds wrong? But that's because I was only kidding!

Some people often wrongly conclude that I'm shy to give comments in writing or speech, but the truth is quite the contrary. Like I mentioned above, I love to give feedback and comments of the genre other than that of a 'reprimand', only because it is easier to do so. To give a 'reprimand', 'refutation', negative comment, or advice in common parlance, and then to garland it with all sorts of professional/conciliatory/empathetic/sympathetic verbal and non-verbal cues is a high calling. And that is why I am in the course! In retrospection, what I have mentioned above, I and probably everybody else really did take up ES2007S to learn to 'reprimand'; only nobody, except me I presume, knew this is what they REALLY were in for!  Also by some corollary, I would say everything about ES2007S is about 'reprimanding', learning to receive or handle 'reprimands', and arbitrating 'reprimands'---which is the highest level I supposed, and a position that Brad at first glance has deservedly achieved!!

If Brad thought I was shy and timid only because of my seeming silence during the inaugural lesson, that is probably a misjudgment or illusion of appearance! Professional communication is also about taking a back-seat and listening intently, and I was precisely trying to do just that! Besides would everyone agree that restrain is a virtue in professional communication? Giving off correct verbal and nonverbal cues stem from properly exercised restrain, is that right?  Therefore, shouldn't my restrain through silence be a marker of a professional communicator or professional communication in practice? With that, shouldn't I be yet more silent and shut-mouthed in the next class session and subsequent sessions, if the more silence produces more positive markers of professional communication and therefore an A+ grade at the end of the semester? If I can't get anybody to believe that (and I wouldn't too), at least I have adequately demonstrated that----professional communication contradicts itself; which is a thesis fit for a 20 page write-up!

Professional communication is the business of life, and where it is concerned there are always contradictory answers because life is not perfect! The solution to the contradiction(s) must be a balance between the contraries. But first what contradiction(s)? For instance both restrain and initiative are contradictory virtues in professional communication and each used apart from the other will fail to achieve the holistic aim of communicating professionally. Then the solution to the contradiction(s) is clearly a balanced mixture of both restrain and initiative, because both virtues (not restricted to only 2 virtues, there may/can be more than 2, but they must finally all be well-balanced with regards to each other) work in tandem to keep professional communication in MODERATION. Therefore where there is moderation in professional communication or for that matter any thing/value/virtue/person in life, there is excellence!!

Professional communication is both moderation-is-excellence and moderation-in-excellence!!! What else could be more true?