August 29, 2005
Intentionally not listening? (To history?)
Si vis pacem para bellum. (If you want peace, prepare for war.)
- Roman Maxim.
Not believing in force is the same as not believing in gravity.
-- Leon Trotsky
In an earlier post, I was bothered by hidden implications I saw in the phrase "willingness to learn." The idea that "learning" should be redefined to mean not so much learning, but actually agreeing with people strikes me as such a distortion of the definition of learning, that I thought I should, er, learn more! (I mean, there were -- and still are -- places where people are sent to learn how to agree called "reeducation camps.")
These concerns were on my mind as I stumbled onto an entirely new method of learning which is based on Intentional Communication (IC):
Intentional Communication is a dimensional tool for self-reflection, offering training support for effective conflict transformation across the divides of perception. It is dimensional in the sense that it includes the complexity of human development in its assessments. When we communicate with each other, we take into consideration our ability to be present to the exchange based on a combination of identity factors on the personal, social and cultural levels.Hmmmm.... Does that mean if you don't subscribe to the above communitarian jargon, you're not communicating "intentionally"?
More probably, they'd say it means I'm intentionally not listening. Because, of course, we cannot intentionally communicate unless we intentionally listen. Here's the definition of Intentional Listening.
Intentional Listening offers training to explore the intention of our listening to one another and to self, leading to enhanced awareness about responsible choice and action.We develop the skill to stay present and examine supportive conditions for good listening in the physical, emotional and mental realms.OK, folks, is that clear?
Remember, in order to intentionally listen, you can't just open your ears; you must open your heart, and listen to another person's heart:
Letting Youth Have a Voice in a Silencing WorldHad enough yet?
The film -- which purports to be an "educational effort" replete with seminars and teacher training -- actually originated with a group of anti-war activists who considered themselves snubbed by Laura Bush. (I suspect that the First Lady failed to intentionally communicate, failed to intentionally listen, and worst of all, failed to open her heart to provide the requisite "safe voice space.")
What bothers me about all of this is that they're marketing this antiwar film as unbiased. Of course, if you disagree with them, I'm sure they'd think it means you're not listening.
I watched the film, and it failed utterly to convince me that war is always wrong, that war is never the answer, or that problems can be solved by "intentionally communicating."
Query: didn't Neville Chamberlain try intentionally communicating with Hitler? Didn't he listen with his heart?
I think their fundamental mistake is in forgetting that most wars start not because of the mere presence of an aggressor, but because of a lack of preparedness for war. (As MacArthur said, "undefended wealth.") Which means that if you aren't capable of self defense, you're a likely target for attack. (Hitler, of course, thought he could get away with it.)
As I say the above, I realize that this is my opinion, and even if it is shared by such modern figures as MacArthur as well as the ancients, that does not make it right.
Opinion is not fact, and I don't offer my opinion as fact -- no matter how much I might believe in it, or how much support it finds in history.
But the promoters of "Voices in Wartime" don't seem to understand the difference between fact and opinion. Instead, they behave as if their view of war is some sort of inherent truth.
Perhaps they should try a little intentional listening to the other side, because a good argument can be made that they're actually encouraging the very thing they claim to oppose.
The bad guys -- the aggressors -- would then attack. Which means war would have been triggered by naive attempts to prevent it.
posted by Eric on 08.29.05 at 09:25 AM
Search the Site
Classics To Go
See more archives here
Old (Blogspot) archives
A knee sock jihad might be premature at this time
People Are Not Rational
No Biorobots For Japan
The Thorium Solution
Radiation Detector From A Digital Camera
This war of attrition is driving me bananas!
Attacking Christianity is one thing, but must they butcher geometry?
Are there trashy distinctions in freedom of expression?
Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood