I have an idea that is worth pondering and might later be worthy of acceptance rather than rejection. The idea is that the emotions of the nervous system may deal more with the question of what and the logical part of the nervous system with the question of which. The emotions may be more connected with "know" and the logic with "discern". As an example, there is a Bible passage in Isaiah, where it refers to "before he knew to discern".
Here is another example of what I mean. Emotions like fear or confidence don't seem to distinguish between how and why questions. But logically these distinctions are important in the course of action. Could it be that the emotions simply indicate whether we appear strong or weak? If strong, then we feel confidence. If weak, we feel fear. Could it be that the logical aspect then looks more at the issue of opportunity or threat?
If these hints are on the right course, then it could be that the emotions and logic deal with both parts of a SWOT analysis, and also in the same order chronologically. Strengths and weaknesses would be the concern of our emotional assessment and opportunities or threats would be the concern of our logical assessment.
So it may be worth pondering, whether in fact emotions do address more the question of what: strong or weak. It also may be worth pondering whether logic does address more the question of which: opportunity or threat. In the end, we'll find out one way or the other if these ideas are the strong and courageous or of a weak and shrinking kind. Happy pondering.
Sincerely,
Jon
Saturday, July 26, 2014
Communication Basics: My Common Sense Foundation and My Path to It
The foundation for my communication basics is in common sense that is not very technical, but my journey has taken me through some of the technical materials and I just want to share some of that journey that might provoke discussion among the specialist and the experts. The main thing is to follow the common sense argument. But before it developed, I learned quite a bit from the following teachers (only 2 -3 I never met or talked directly to) at higher levels of learning.
In the 80s, there was first John S. Piper, Tom Steller, William A. Smalley, Lois Malcolm, Donald N. Larson, and James Hurd. Later came B. Wayne Johnson, Claude Bowen, Dale Carnegie, Paul J. Meyer, and Peter F. Drucker.
In the 90s, it was Drucker (again), Daniel P. Fuller, Robert "Bobby" Clinton, Eugene A. Nida, Rick Warren, and Wooden. Later came David Schierenbeck, Robert Stein, Gary A. Smith, Thomas A. Schreiner, David Clark, and James Brooks.
In the 2000s, it was David Sulack, Galen Call, Rick Thoman, Roger Lutz, Millard Erickson, and Nils Friberg. Later it was Dwight Perry, Roger Buck, Tom Collins, Darrell Amacker , Steve Pedersen ,and Walter Kaiser.
Since 2010, it was Kaiser (again), Arnold Klukas, Allen P. Ross, Garwood Anderson, Stephen Peay, and Thomas L. Holtzen. The later remains to be seen the future. It will likely include Hopp, etc.
In 2010, I first began to use materials directly addressing the issue of emotions. Before that time, I was mostly familiar with Dan Goleman's book, Emotional Intelligence. In 2010, I began using the emotion wheel developed by Plutchik and even tried to develop my own emotional charts based on my logic tool that I learned over a period from the early 80s and began to use very frequently from 2004 forward.
Here is how I viewed the emotions in 2010:
[intentionally left out until after my book is published later in 2014]
Here is how I would chart them today:
[intentionally left out until after my book is published later in 2014]
It is in late 2013, that I realized the common sense level support for my ideas. It was November 18th, 2013 to be more exact. The idea is that the greatest words are in one sense the least when it comes to foundational support and that the least words are the greatest whose very high frequency we take for granted makes them the real basis especially for the logic of language, but also for the emotions.
For the emotions a great example is that of anger and our use of the words "let" and the words "not ... let". For any one of the emotions there are basic words like these that show the great importance of addressing not only the logic of the brain, but also its emotion.
So the next time someone says that this is all so simple, or why didn't I see it sooner, they need to consider sometimes you travel through the complex and high level to reach the simple and low level. I only hope that from this point forward more can find the simple and low level road first. I took the high road, but taking the low road first is the best way to learn. The other route nearly killed me a few times! Take care.
Sincerely,
Jon
In the 80s, there was first John S. Piper, Tom Steller, William A. Smalley, Lois Malcolm, Donald N. Larson, and James Hurd. Later came B. Wayne Johnson, Claude Bowen, Dale Carnegie, Paul J. Meyer, and Peter F. Drucker.
In the 90s, it was Drucker (again), Daniel P. Fuller, Robert "Bobby" Clinton, Eugene A. Nida, Rick Warren, and Wooden. Later came David Schierenbeck, Robert Stein, Gary A. Smith, Thomas A. Schreiner, David Clark, and James Brooks.
In the 2000s, it was David Sulack, Galen Call, Rick Thoman, Roger Lutz, Millard Erickson, and Nils Friberg. Later it was Dwight Perry, Roger Buck, Tom Collins, Darrell Amacker , Steve Pedersen ,and Walter Kaiser.
Since 2010, it was Kaiser (again), Arnold Klukas, Allen P. Ross, Garwood Anderson, Stephen Peay, and Thomas L. Holtzen. The later remains to be seen the future. It will likely include Hopp, etc.
In 2010, I first began to use materials directly addressing the issue of emotions. Before that time, I was mostly familiar with Dan Goleman's book, Emotional Intelligence. In 2010, I began using the emotion wheel developed by Plutchik and even tried to develop my own emotional charts based on my logic tool that I learned over a period from the early 80s and began to use very frequently from 2004 forward.
Here is how I viewed the emotions in 2010:
[intentionally left out until after my book is published later in 2014]
Here is how I would chart them today:
[intentionally left out until after my book is published later in 2014]
It is in late 2013, that I realized the common sense level support for my ideas. It was November 18th, 2013 to be more exact. The idea is that the greatest words are in one sense the least when it comes to foundational support and that the least words are the greatest whose very high frequency we take for granted makes them the real basis especially for the logic of language, but also for the emotions.
For the emotions a great example is that of anger and our use of the words "let" and the words "not ... let". For any one of the emotions there are basic words like these that show the great importance of addressing not only the logic of the brain, but also its emotion.
So the next time someone says that this is all so simple, or why didn't I see it sooner, they need to consider sometimes you travel through the complex and high level to reach the simple and low level. I only hope that from this point forward more can find the simple and low level road first. I took the high road, but taking the low road first is the best way to learn. The other route nearly killed me a few times! Take care.
Sincerely,
Jon
Thursday, July 24, 2014
Communication Basics: Seeing the Unseen
I've got a great question: "How do I get people to see something that they don't see?" I'm not sure exactly what is the best way to make it happen. It gets at: "Why is it that they can't see and how is it that I came to see something that I previously did not see?"
How does that happen? It seems possible that analogies, similies, allegories, fables, and parables are ways it happens Could it be that the familiar (something we see everyday) can help us see something unfamiliar (something we miss everyday)?
Could that be why Jesus resorted so frequently to parables and to asking people to "behold" what they were missing in plain view? He said one of the reasons he came was to give sight to the blind.
It just might be that the best way to offer sight is to offer a good story that has all the elements of familiarity to teach us to see the unfamiliar. Who knows?
Sincerely,
Jon
How does that happen? It seems possible that analogies, similies, allegories, fables, and parables are ways it happens Could it be that the familiar (something we see everyday) can help us see something unfamiliar (something we miss everyday)?
Could that be why Jesus resorted so frequently to parables and to asking people to "behold" what they were missing in plain view? He said one of the reasons he came was to give sight to the blind.
It just might be that the best way to offer sight is to offer a good story that has all the elements of familiarity to teach us to see the unfamiliar. Who knows?
Sincerely,
Jon
Communication Basics: Being Clever in our Communication
A part of speaking well is to have a good catch phrase that captures the audience's attention. There is one that has caught on in Christian circles in recent years. It is memorable, so it is often quoted (though in the middle of summer, it is out of season). It is: "We need to put Christ back into Christmas". This statement is very clever whether true or false.
I can think of an opposing catch phrase for those who love Jesus more than Christians. They might say: "We need to put Christ back into Christian". That is equally clever. What might be even better is: "We need to put Christ back into Christianity". I have to agree with both of these statements personally.
I recently heard a Christian video series that wanted to eliminate the use of Christian, because it was a name from outsiders and because Christian was not defined. How can a word be better defined? Christ is the central part of the word Christian. He defined a lot of things as to what a Christian should be. Sometimes we can be a bit too clever.
So back to my point. We can be very clever in our communication by using catchphrases that are very memorable. I think that remains true whether or not the catchphrase itself is true. A few thoughts here to ponder, but don't miss the importance of being clever in a helpful way for our audiences.
Sincerely,
Jon
I can think of an opposing catch phrase for those who love Jesus more than Christians. They might say: "We need to put Christ back into Christian". That is equally clever. What might be even better is: "We need to put Christ back into Christianity". I have to agree with both of these statements personally.
I recently heard a Christian video series that wanted to eliminate the use of Christian, because it was a name from outsiders and because Christian was not defined. How can a word be better defined? Christ is the central part of the word Christian. He defined a lot of things as to what a Christian should be. Sometimes we can be a bit too clever.
So back to my point. We can be very clever in our communication by using catchphrases that are very memorable. I think that remains true whether or not the catchphrase itself is true. A few thoughts here to ponder, but don't miss the importance of being clever in a helpful way for our audiences.
Sincerely,
Jon
Communication Basics: Revising the Class Names of Dr. William A. Smalley and Dr. Donald N. Larson
When I was an undergrad, I sat under two geniuses. They both were very brilliant in their own respective ways. They both had their strengths. Dr. Smalley was able to mediate differing parties. Dr. Larson was able to make was seemed complex, simple. That is what their teaching colleagues at least said about them. I want to share a part of their genius again, but this time I want to make some improvements and make explicit why I think their genius was better than realized.
So let's begin with how I would organize their class names based on my ARWAT method (pronounced "Are what?")
Amounts
Continuity and Change
Relationships
Bond and Barrier
Wholes
Models and Theories
Actions
Rule and Freedom
Things
Sense and Nonsense
These classes in this type of arrangement were the core classes of their curriculum minus introductory classes and specialty classes. In my view, since no one who knew these gentlemen, who unfortunately are no longer available to question, can explain their class organization, I think the best guess is that they used the TEAR method.
TEAR is the technical precursor for my ARWAT organizational method. That is why I think my layout of their courses works really well.
I also think they got some of their ideas for these class names from anthropological materials. I think they may have especially relied upon Spradley and McCurdy's writings in anthropology.
So why do I think there needs to be some improvement? In American culture there are certain culture values that receive a great deal of positive press. Those words that have a positive connotation in our culture are: change, theories (since Thomas Kuhn), and freedom. There is a problem with two other second members of their grouping. Those do not fall into the category of positive values. They are: barrier and nonsense. So what I want to do is replace these two negatives with two positives to fit with the other three sets as far as establishing complete consistency. So here it goes. My attempt to improve on their brilliant work.
When it comes to bond and barrier, I think the American value or virtue that should replace barrier (not a virtue) is independence. You might even have heard of the Declaration of Independence. Independence is certainly a positive break from the negative of a barrier. Independence and liberty are both pretty well written in granite as positive values that Americans treasure. So in line with that value, I would like to change things to read, "bond and break". One of the reasons for my choice of break over independence is the same first letter of "b" pattern as a memory tool. But let's face it, break is a good synonym for independence.
When it comes to sense and nonsense, I cannot think of an American who would say that they value nonsense. In fact, they probably would say that they would prefer some common sense in place of nonsense. Did I just hear an "Amen" to that? I thought so. Education is a great value in the United States that is supposed to stamp out nonsense. We all know that it doesn't always do that. But its intention is certainly to give sight through knowledge to the blind through ignorance. So in line with education as a value, I would like to change things to read, "sense and school". I like school over educate again because of the agreement of first letters in each word. It gives it a more pleasant and memorable ring.
So let me re-chart all of their core classes:
Amounts
Continuity and Change
Relationships
Bond and Break
Wholes
Models and Theories
Actions
Rule and Freedom
Things
Sense and School
This is just another demonstration of how ARWAT can be used as one tool to make a lot of improvements. The other thing is perseverance. It took me a long time to realize the genius of Smalley and Larson's class names. Please ponder these ideas in your heart, if initially it does not make sense to you. Enough patience and its genius will finally show itself. It did for me. I owe both of those teachers more than I could ever repay. I hope I can sufficiently honor their legacies, if that is even possible. Take care.
Sincerely,
Jon
So let's begin with how I would organize their class names based on my ARWAT method (pronounced "Are what?")
Amounts
Continuity and Change
Relationships
Bond and Barrier
Wholes
Models and Theories
Actions
Rule and Freedom
Things
Sense and Nonsense
These classes in this type of arrangement were the core classes of their curriculum minus introductory classes and specialty classes. In my view, since no one who knew these gentlemen, who unfortunately are no longer available to question, can explain their class organization, I think the best guess is that they used the TEAR method.
TEAR is the technical precursor for my ARWAT organizational method. That is why I think my layout of their courses works really well.
I also think they got some of their ideas for these class names from anthropological materials. I think they may have especially relied upon Spradley and McCurdy's writings in anthropology.
So why do I think there needs to be some improvement? In American culture there are certain culture values that receive a great deal of positive press. Those words that have a positive connotation in our culture are: change, theories (since Thomas Kuhn), and freedom. There is a problem with two other second members of their grouping. Those do not fall into the category of positive values. They are: barrier and nonsense. So what I want to do is replace these two negatives with two positives to fit with the other three sets as far as establishing complete consistency. So here it goes. My attempt to improve on their brilliant work.
When it comes to bond and barrier, I think the American value or virtue that should replace barrier (not a virtue) is independence. You might even have heard of the Declaration of Independence. Independence is certainly a positive break from the negative of a barrier. Independence and liberty are both pretty well written in granite as positive values that Americans treasure. So in line with that value, I would like to change things to read, "bond and break". One of the reasons for my choice of break over independence is the same first letter of "b" pattern as a memory tool. But let's face it, break is a good synonym for independence.
When it comes to sense and nonsense, I cannot think of an American who would say that they value nonsense. In fact, they probably would say that they would prefer some common sense in place of nonsense. Did I just hear an "Amen" to that? I thought so. Education is a great value in the United States that is supposed to stamp out nonsense. We all know that it doesn't always do that. But its intention is certainly to give sight through knowledge to the blind through ignorance. So in line with education as a value, I would like to change things to read, "sense and school". I like school over educate again because of the agreement of first letters in each word. It gives it a more pleasant and memorable ring.
So let me re-chart all of their core classes:
Amounts
Continuity and Change
Relationships
Bond and Break
Wholes
Models and Theories
Actions
Rule and Freedom
Things
Sense and School
This is just another demonstration of how ARWAT can be used as one tool to make a lot of improvements. The other thing is perseverance. It took me a long time to realize the genius of Smalley and Larson's class names. Please ponder these ideas in your heart, if initially it does not make sense to you. Enough patience and its genius will finally show itself. It did for me. I owe both of those teachers more than I could ever repay. I hope I can sufficiently honor their legacies, if that is even possible. Take care.
Sincerely,
Jon
Communication Basics: Classical and Cutting Edge (the story of Scott Canon)
My freshman year of college I had a roommate who everybody questioned how we got along. Actually, it was a very good match. He stretched me in one cool way in particular. He had a really good receiver, a great turntable, and an awesome speakers. But his equipment wasn't the only cool thing.
Cooler yet, he listened to classical music in the morning and edgy rock and roll at night (or do I have that backwards?). The same holds true for me today. When it comes to communication, I think we need to read the classics in rhetoric in the morning and read the best communication research of the 21st century in the afternoon. Or you can reverse that if you like. Neither one alone is cool enough!
So when you read my comments on communication, sometimes I'll be reading something from B.C. and other times something from A.D. I hope that means we can still get along as classmates of communication. I think it just might stretch you like Scott's music stretched me.
Stretching by the way is a good way to avoid injury. But also don't overstretch. But that is another story. .
Sincerely
Jon
P.S. This entry is dedicated to Scott Canon, who stretched me and strengthened me. We still are getting along just fine, based on my last conversation with him a few years ago.
Cooler yet, he listened to classical music in the morning and edgy rock and roll at night (or do I have that backwards?). The same holds true for me today. When it comes to communication, I think we need to read the classics in rhetoric in the morning and read the best communication research of the 21st century in the afternoon. Or you can reverse that if you like. Neither one alone is cool enough!
So when you read my comments on communication, sometimes I'll be reading something from B.C. and other times something from A.D. I hope that means we can still get along as classmates of communication. I think it just might stretch you like Scott's music stretched me.
Stretching by the way is a good way to avoid injury. But also don't overstretch. But that is another story. .
Sincerely
Jon
P.S. This entry is dedicated to Scott Canon, who stretched me and strengthened me. We still are getting along just fine, based on my last conversation with him a few years ago.
Communication Basics: The Ability to Ponder not just Accept or Reject as Shameful
I wish I could recall the quote from Aristotle in full. The basic gist was that the ability to wonder or ponder about something rather than to accept or reject as shameful is a virtue.
I recall here the story of Joseph in Genesis in which Joseph's brothers reject his dream and its interpretation as foolish, but Jacob his father pondered these things in her heart. I believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus, also pondered some of the things said about her son. In both cases, neither parent immediately accepted or rejected what was said about the future. Rather they pondered them so that later they could either accept or reject what was said. In both cases, these parents both accepted what was said in the end.
So when someone communicates with you, don't think you must reject something just because right at that moment you cannot accept it. You have another option. You can instead ponder over what you cannot immediately accept. So ponder away when acceptance or rejection is premature. Are you now pondering what I have said?
Sincerely,
Jon
I recall here the story of Joseph in Genesis in which Joseph's brothers reject his dream and its interpretation as foolish, but Jacob his father pondered these things in her heart. I believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus, also pondered some of the things said about her son. In both cases, neither parent immediately accepted or rejected what was said about the future. Rather they pondered them so that later they could either accept or reject what was said. In both cases, these parents both accepted what was said in the end.
So when someone communicates with you, don't think you must reject something just because right at that moment you cannot accept it. You have another option. You can instead ponder over what you cannot immediately accept. So ponder away when acceptance or rejection is premature. Are you now pondering what I have said?
Sincerely,
Jon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
