An Experiment

[Nick_A]

"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?"

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?

 

[RiverMoonLady]

"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?

Hello, this is RiverMoonLady, one of the least hostile people you will ever meet. I enjoy good discussions on nearly any subject. It should be a great experience to exchange ideas on this forum.

 

[earl]

A new member is always welcome here. It would appear you met her at a prolife discussion forum. I take it she has a different view than yours? If not, wouldn't be much of an experiment would it? Am looking forward to seeing how you do Nick with this given its apparent intent to encourage someone to so understand another's comments as to at least be able to voice them correctly back to the other. earl

 

[Nick_A]

A new member is always welcome here. It would appear you met her at a prolife discussion forum. I take it she has a different view than yours? If not, wouldn't be much of an experiment would it? Am looking forward to seeing how you do Nick with this given its apparent intent to encourage someone to so understand another's comments as to at least be able to voice them correctly back to the other. earl

No Earl, I met River on Beliefnet before the great Armenian Genocide dispute broke out and I was made aware of the realities of genocide denial. Some people there always argued abortion IMO in a nasty fashion and consequently the depth of the topic was never really explored.

RiverMoonLady though being far more pro choice then me always seemed polite and more open. So when I learned of Prof. Needleman's experiment, I wrote to River and asked if we could build on our understanding if we made the conscious intent to do so as described by Prof. Needleman.

This is not a setup of any kind Earl but an experiment she is willing to partake in. I see she has just joined the site and you can probably use more representatives of the earth religions here. I expect to see her introduce herself here shortly and you and anyone else should feel free to greet her.

I want to see if I can do it. Can I sufficiently put myself into her position to understand her views from both the emotional and intellectual perspectives without feeling the need to judge but as Prof. Needleman suggests: to let her in as though inviting someone in for coffee? The chess player in me enjoys the win and the philosopher in me craves understanding. I want to let the philosopher in me lead.

After the New Year, we will start the experiment just as described in the Neeleman video on a New thread dedicated to it. I still haven't figured out where yet but as of now, the Philosophy board seems the best alternative.

It is an interesting and meaningful idea and perhaps others in the future can try it as well with any controversial topic.

 

[Nick_A]

Hello, this is RiverMoonLady, one of the least hostile people you will ever meet. I enjoy good discussions on nearly any subject. It should be a great experience to exchange ideas on this forum.

Hi there RML.

I didn't see your post. I saw Earl's name and it never dawned on me to see if you had already said hello.

Yes neither of us is hostile and without an axe to grind which is why I believe we can make it work. Rather then getting annoyed or insulted, we'll just try and understand each other. No matter what the doubters say, perhaps a man and a woman can understand each other.

Being a musician, I have three jobs on New Years eve day and and night and one on New Years day. After taking some deep breaths, I'll try for Friday or Saturday. In the meantime we'll join everyone here in a happy and healthy New Years toast.

 

[wil]

Stephen Covey's short version....seek first to understand then to be understood.

I've found if that is the objective sometimes you no longer need to be understood. You can develop enough of an understanding to allow their perspective sit with yours amicably.

I think this process helps us to understand the potential of nonduality, no right no wrong, just differing perspectives.

 

[Nick_A]

Stephen Covey's short version....seek first to understand then to be understood.

I've found if that is the objective sometimes you no longer need to be understood. You can develop enough of an understanding to allow their perspective sit with yours amicably.

I think this process helps us to understand the potential of nonduality, no right no wrong, just differing perspectives.

Hi Will

If there is no right or wrong but just differing perspectives, the love of wisdom and the search for truth is meaningless.

Consider Simone Weil's love of wisdom and a quality of truth that is beyond the equality of our normal shared perspectives.

Excerpts from a letter Simone Weil wrote on May 15, 1942 in Marseilles, France to her close friend Father Perrin:

At fourteen I fell into one of those fits of bottomless despair that come with adolescence, and I seriously thought of dying because of the mediocrity of my natural faculties. The exceptional gifts of my brother, who had a childhood and youth comparable to those of Pascal, brought my own inferiority home to me. I did not mind having no visible successes, but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth.

I believe she had a love for wisdom that could never be content with just acceptance of differing perspectives without touching our conscience and allowing us to become open to our own innate inner morality.

The idea Prof.Needleman is getting at allows one to appreciate differing perspectives to try to reveal "meaning" that transcends them rather then to see them as meaningless and without the ability to reveal deeper understanding we are attracted to and that reconciles all perspectives.

If we are always caught up in debates and battles over subjective concepts of right and wrong, how can we ever become able to become open to inner morality or objective good and evil and its relationship to wisdom itself?

Suppose RiverMoonLady and I come to see that our differences are not mutually exclusive, now what? Yet I know that there are others I could never experiment with in this way since their heels are to firmly dug in to be open to allow another perspective to enter their psych.

My path has been ruthless with this towards me. Any animosity in me is my doing. Nothing is insulting; I can only allow myself to be insulted which is just an expression of temporary inner slavery. It is far easier said than done and I slip up but I do see the value in it.

 

[wil]

Now as I understand it you are doing the experiment differently.

You are to state your thoughts of her position as succinctly as possible. She is to correct you where you are wrong and you continue to restate her position until she says, Yes, you've got that right.

Then she does the same with yours.

 

[Nick_A]

Now as I understand it you are doing the experiment differently.

You are to state your thoughts of her position as succinctly as possible. She is to correct you where you are wrong and you continue to restate her position until she says, Yes, you've got that right.

Then she does the same with yours.

Yes Will, that is the idea. It is the way Prof. Needleman explained it. I tried to sum up what I believe to be RML's views. If it is wrong, she will correct me. The idea is to go back and forth in this manner.

 

[Nick_A]

Tao writes on the main thread

If i thought for one moment Nick was genuinely capable in this endeavour then I would never have posted but just look at his reply!! He only repeats what RML already states with absolute clarity and says "Do I understand you so far?"

I will however withdraw now as requested in the extremely unlikely event that it might go somewhere.

This is what we are up against. Only certain people are qualified to try this experiment and I'm surely not one. Who is? The dialogue will begin slowly as it must. River states a basic position and I show that I understand it and then I state a basic position and she shows she understands it. Then we can get into the details where we disagree and show that we understand them.

Most just want to argue without understanding another and Jacob Needleman is quite right in asserting how difficult it really is and why the difficulty exists.

Secular Interfaith IMO relies on trying to conceal differences or put them within a light where they appear not to exist. The intent on the listening experiment is to respect the freedom to be honest.

If RML says something and I am insulted it is my fault. Insult is just a reaction of my false pride that gets the better of the value of understanding. I can't take satisfaction in allowing insult to be dominant in me. If it happens, it happens, but I surely cannot justify it.

Putting oneself in the position of another is one of the oldest moral ventures. Political correctness only allows people to put themselves in the position of only "acceptable" others often thought of as "minorities." All others are not worth the effort. This experiment is not politically correct since all are listened to. There is no right or wrong but just the desire to understand the other. It offers an alternative to pre-judging since it demands being able to express understanding rather than denials

"Do I understand you so far" is seen as useless since it doesn't matter. All that matters is asserting ones position. Yet real dialogue can be built on it without having to say the "right thing" because honesty is respected rather than judged and condemned.

Who has the credentials to put oneself into the position of another? Perhaps Jesus was right when he said he who is without sin should cast the first stone. This implies that though the temptation is to accuse, with the desire to do so, the humility necessary to allow one to do so, along with the respect for honesty, could allow for meaningful dialogue.