Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
This is what my epiphany was about. On a very fundamental level, we're looking, thirsting for the other party to say "yes, you are correct. I agree." ... we need to see the truth in our own minds reflected in the world around us and by the people with whom we interact.
... If I could have posed my arguments to my friend while simultaneously not expecting him to adopt them (or even consider them, for that matter), perhaps I could have been at peace with myself while performing that menial task at the end of the day...
On rare occasions people will ask how I feel about something, but I think you're correct in that many just want validation that what they think has worth. Who can blame 'em?
So in some instances I believe we're looking for a validation (or a social permission) of a point of view that we can use to self-identify more than simply someone to say, "you are correct."
On a very fundamental level, we're looking, thirsting for the other party to say "yes, you are correct. I agree."
Perhaps it goes even further - "not only do I agree, but I now see the folly in my own argument, and will subsequently adopt your superior point of view."
If I could have posed my arguments to my friend while simultaneously not expecting him to adopt them (or even consider them, for that matter), perhaps I could have been at peace with myself while performing that menial task at the end of the day.
Well, some say were trying to convince others. I think we use that to try and convince ourselves. Life is duality if you will. Between that duality is where we are.
So conversations go three way for me.
1. I want to be validated
2. I want to be discredited
3. I accept Everything or nothing
and since we know everything and nothing at the same time, all thats left is to listen and perceive. Validation after that is primitive. Besides i think listening is the only importance because it helps me remember what I dont need to validate.