N
Nick_A
Guest
"Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity." Simone Weil
Are we capable of giving our attention to another by listening to another? Are we content to talk at one another during debates at the expense of truly comprehending another?
Prof. Jacob Needleman raises some deeply meaningful ideas in his recent book "Why Can't we be Good?"
It seems that people say one thing and do another but why must it be so? Prof. Needleman explains that we don't understand each other and do not put in the psychological effort to do so. We lack the "attention" and the attitude for it. We often fail to either put the effort into being understood as well as trying to understand. This is not a condemnation but rather an awareness of a psychological difficulty in putting ourselves within the position of another in order to understand rather than superficially judge.
Watch the following short segment of a longer video. Prof. Needleman goes into detail about this psychological truism.
Video: Jacob Needleman - Why Listen to Opinions You Disagree With?
He describes an interesting experiment he has done with students and I thought it might be interesting to try it here.
I've invited RiverMoonLady who I know from another forum to partake in this experiment described by Prof. Needleman.
Often on debate boards the idea isn't to understand but rather prove ourselves right and the other wrong at the expense of understanding another. The idea of the proposed thread is to make understanding another its primary goal rather than right or wrong. This is hard to do yet I think it is an opeing to morality as suggested by Prof. Needleman. So I thought why not try the experiment here and see what happens
Though we disagree on abortion, I will make the effort to sum up her position in my own words trying to capture the same emotional and intellectual meaning she wrote. Only when she agrees that I've done so will I reply with my own ideas after which she will sum up my vies in her own words. The idea again isn't to argue right or wrong but rather see if we understand each other.
Prof. Needleman sees this as a beginning of morality where we have the intent to listen rather than judge.
After the New Year I will begin a thread for RiverMoonLady and me to try the experiment. Obviously outside comments cannot be included on the thread but another thread could begin on abortion featuring the normal arguments for those wishing to expand on one thing or another. Our thread is not to express our insult but rather making the attentive effort to understand another to their satisfaction.
You do not know RML so you are without preconceptions which makes it better. It wouldn't be the same old same old but rather an effort in the direction of mutual understanding without feeling a need to lie so as to be acceptable. We may not agree with each other but we can at least make the effort to be open to the emotional and intellectual quality of their ideas. Hopefully by not debating for the sake of winning or proving our sophistication, we can be open to understanding.
I will invite RML to say hello on this thread and I know you will welcome a new forum member. If any secular benefit can seriously come from Interfaith, it seems obvious that becoming open to our psychological realities rather than congratulating politically correct statements can lead to greater benefits since it is the moral though difficult thing to do.
RML isn't the hostile type so it is a good beginning for me. Even though we differ on abortion, we are not extremists. At some point two others may want to try this experiment on any controversial topic especially if they have an on-site history of open hostility towards one another. How many would have the patience for it?
Are we capable of giving our attention to another by listening to another? Are we content to talk at one another during debates at the expense of truly comprehending another?
Prof. Jacob Needleman raises some deeply meaningful ideas in his recent book "Why Can't we be Good?"
In "Why Can't We Be Good?" Needleman identifies the core problem that therapists and social philosophers fail to see. He depicts the individual human as a being who knows what is good, yet who remains mysteriously helpless to innerly adopt the ethical, moral, and religious ideas that are bequeathed to him. - Cody's Books
It seems that people say one thing and do another but why must it be so? Prof. Needleman explains that we don't understand each other and do not put in the psychological effort to do so. We lack the "attention" and the attitude for it. We often fail to either put the effort into being understood as well as trying to understand. This is not a condemnation but rather an awareness of a psychological difficulty in putting ourselves within the position of another in order to understand rather than superficially judge.
Watch the following short segment of a longer video. Prof. Needleman goes into detail about this psychological truism.
Video: Jacob Needleman - Why Listen to Opinions You Disagree With?
He describes an interesting experiment he has done with students and I thought it might be interesting to try it here.
I've invited RiverMoonLady who I know from another forum to partake in this experiment described by Prof. Needleman.
Often on debate boards the idea isn't to understand but rather prove ourselves right and the other wrong at the expense of understanding another. The idea of the proposed thread is to make understanding another its primary goal rather than right or wrong. This is hard to do yet I think it is an opeing to morality as suggested by Prof. Needleman. So I thought why not try the experiment here and see what happens
Though we disagree on abortion, I will make the effort to sum up her position in my own words trying to capture the same emotional and intellectual meaning she wrote. Only when she agrees that I've done so will I reply with my own ideas after which she will sum up my vies in her own words. The idea again isn't to argue right or wrong but rather see if we understand each other.
Prof. Needleman sees this as a beginning of morality where we have the intent to listen rather than judge.
After the New Year I will begin a thread for RiverMoonLady and me to try the experiment. Obviously outside comments cannot be included on the thread but another thread could begin on abortion featuring the normal arguments for those wishing to expand on one thing or another. Our thread is not to express our insult but rather making the attentive effort to understand another to their satisfaction.
You do not know RML so you are without preconceptions which makes it better. It wouldn't be the same old same old but rather an effort in the direction of mutual understanding without feeling a need to lie so as to be acceptable. We may not agree with each other but we can at least make the effort to be open to the emotional and intellectual quality of their ideas. Hopefully by not debating for the sake of winning or proving our sophistication, we can be open to understanding.
I will invite RML to say hello on this thread and I know you will welcome a new forum member. If any secular benefit can seriously come from Interfaith, it seems obvious that becoming open to our psychological realities rather than congratulating politically correct statements can lead to greater benefits since it is the moral though difficult thing to do.
RML isn't the hostile type so it is a good beginning for me. Even though we differ on abortion, we are not extremists. At some point two others may want to try this experiment on any controversial topic especially if they have an on-site history of open hostility towards one another. How many would have the patience for it?