So, imagine if we knew the real reason for conversation and then used it more consciously rather than getting the fewer benefits subconsciously? Just like we are now more aware of why we eat and what we should eat means we can stop eating junk (if we want to) and eat more nutritious meals.
We could reduce our talking junk and get more real nutrition from our conversation.
I have been asking people for the last 30 years what is the real purpose of conversation and every time I seem to get a different answer. From “killing time” to “learning” or “understand each other” to “having fun”. Each one valid but if I asked people why we eat we might get similar type answers. Like from “for socializing” or “energy”, or “for the taste” or for “nutrition”, even though we may not be sure how we get the nutrition from the food.
I believe that the reason we have conversation is for nutrition also but we have to assess what information is nutritious and what is just junk food. So we use conversation to also assess the value of the information we are absorbing. How do we do that? Good question grasshopper. I believe that we assess the sincerity of the converser and the integrity of the information that they are sharing. And we can do this by listening for consistency and accuracy in the shared information.
Now knowing all of this and trying it out means we are on our way to being that much more aware and conscious when we are conversing. In a world of potential “fake news” we can now discern a little more consciously what and who we are listening to when we have a conscious conversation.
So, what is conversation really for or one of the main reasons?
I say conversation is for assessing. Assessing the sincerity of the person and the accuracy that they report any information. That is, also assessing ourselves and our own information during this process. Of course it should be enjoyable and it should kill time but I believe we were born to assess.
As long as assessing is an open ended idea we can go from one assessment to the next always improving……maybe.
Imagine if we had an agreement to apologize when we got angry, ignored the other, lied or made a false accusation. Not only an apology but an agreeable apology. One where the receiver would need to agree to the apology offered before it was accepted. This would revolutionize a relationship, in my view.
In other words the receiver, the one that is the victim of the perpetrator gets to decide that the apology they heard fit the crime as much as the perpetrator gets to decide what
their apology should comprise of. The apology is a shared event that involves both parties.
Agreeing to an agreeable apology procedure will also assists in this process. One I have with my brother is to say:
1. What I did
2. Why I did it
3. What I will do next time
And, providing the listener agrees with this explanation, it can be agreed to and ultimately accepted by both. If not then the receiver can explain why they do not agree and the perpetrator can try again.
Remember this applies to both parties.
I don’t know about you but I think conversation is for making sure, continually.
“Making sure of what”, I hear you say. Well, I think “conversation is for making sure that it is either true or false that we either agree or disagree”.
Now this is easy to see if it is true or false on whether you agree with me or not. Simply listen to any conversation in your orbit and you will see everyone making sure (to a lesser or greater degree).
But here is where it gets interesting. As with any intention there are always dissidents and recalcitrants so we get all forms, variants and perversions of “making sure”. Some have already made sure and now are trying to make other people conform to their so-called sureness. Some are so unsure that they will listen to anyone that seems to be sure and then there are the middle ground of people in their sureness making. All of us on some level of surety or unsurety.
And finally the most interesting part. By having an awareness (level of surety) of our surety seeking we can approach each conversation on a new plane and observe each other’s expression from this plane and open up our conversation to a new level of making sure……maybe.
PS. We can also protest or object to anyone that has already “made sure”, citing this post and your new level of awakening.
So in conclusion, in my view, people have a certain level of surety and a certain level of awareness of their surety, and put together, forms a big part of what makes us “us”.
I think some people marry to “make sure” and think that’s it. But maybe marriage should be about making sure everyday…..making sure that it’s either true or false that we either agree or disagree. No room for resting on our laurels….but does sound like a lot of work.
I think we have to be careful and not assume someone is lying just because it sounds outrageous, unbelievable or downright wrong. I think we cannot rely on our prejudices, presumptions and biases when it comes to accusing someone of lying as it is too serious an accusation. Unfortunately we have to do the hard yards of conversation if we really want to be “making sure” and ask the tough questions and wait for them to incriminate themselves.