[From Bjoern Simonsen (990703.09:55 EU time)]
[From Bruce Gregory (990702.0957 EDT)]
Examine your experience to see if the following is not consistent with it:
You cannot communicate successfully with someone whom you do not respect and
admire. If you can accept this observation, the following test (small “t”)
is appropriate. Before attempting to communicate with someone, get in touch
with your feelings of admiration and respect for the person. If you cannot
accomplish this, don’t even bother to try communicating.
Let us talk PCT.
Bad feelings and no admiration for a person is a disturbance. Then you act to make the errorsignal zero.
Trying to turn your back to communicating may be one and your acting.
Do you think it is possible to walk one step further than
From [ Marc Abrams (990702.1040) ]
I agree, but would take a slightly different tack ( at least initially ). If
the discussion or person were important to me ( for any reason ) I would
try to pinpoint why I feel the way I do and see if my feelings were
modifiable. If I thought they might be, I would try to open a dialogue
with the person to see if in fact that respect could not be established. If
it couldn’t I would stick with your advice.
and choose to communicate with a person even if respect isn’t established.
I am talking about reorganization.
I find it possible from Bill’s two last sentences in
[From Bill Powers (990702.0923 MDT)]
I like this, because it puts responsibility where it belongs. If I can’t
get along with someone else, then I’m kidding myself if I think I really
want to. In any relationship, it’s not what the other person does that’s
important, but what you do. That’s the only thing you have control over,
surprise, surprise.
but I don’t understand his first sentence telling me that this would be kidding myself.
Scenery for this letter is
the real world examples where NATO is communicating with Milosevics and prime minister Tony Blair is communication with the protestants in North Ireland.
Bjoern
I manage what I choose
E-mail bsimonse@c2i.net