Passion for Communication

One of the surest expressions of love is the sharing of thoughts and feelings. Loving others is to want to understand how they think and how they feel about themselves and the world they live in. Where words fail, it's comforting to realize how many other vital and eloquent ways we have of communicating with each other.

It seems to me that if there is ever going to be peace among humans, we can't wait for total agreement-we're going to have to settle for coexistence. Since truth is so often percieved differently by each of us, it can be no other way. for all those who have good reasons for a nuclear freeze, there are as many who feel it would be a political suicide. Thousands feel that one candidate for public office is a savior, and as many are certain that he or she will lead us to ruin. I am certain that if someone were to ask us the color of a red rose at which we were all looking, there would be some who would see it not as red, but wine or purple or magneta, and be willing to argue the point to the bitter end.

Such minor disagreements can be responsible for losing friends, breaking up marriages, and on a more frightening scale, bringing on world conflicts. why do we have to fully agree with people in order to continue to love and respect them? After all, an opinion about something or someone is simply an opinion, a unique way of viewing the world. Each of us has a very personal world view; but no matter how we see something, we as people have more intrisic value than any single opinion. In fact, I make a point of seeking friends who have diverse opinions. They are the ones who are most often responsible for my changing attitudes. They keep me continually evaluating my beliefs. They are the ones who most challenge my mind and encourage my growth.

It is well to remember that a loving relationship need not be an agreeing one. We can contonue to coexist in love as long as we keep dialogue going. Perhaps if you see something as white and I see it as black, there is a meeting point, a grey area, upon which we might begin to agree. From this point we can extend the parameters of agreemenet. In the end we might never fully but we can come to understand that there are many ways of seeing things.

One of the traps we frequently fall into is the idea that arguments are either won or lost, that right or wrong can always be clearly defined by force of argument. When we dig in and argue the truth, we are mostly looking only for confirmation of our truth. Uncertainty becomes weakness and saying that the other guy might be right becomes unthinkable when we are convinced of our own rightness.

We tend to adopt fixed attitudes in ceretain areas. We cling to the rightness of our views as if they were inscribed on tablets; and in the process, confine ourselves to the limits of our own experience. I've heard arguments between people escalate to ridiculous proportions simply because they refused to acknowledge the possibility of being wrong-as if such an admission would compromise their worth as human beings-as if the maintanance of a healthy ego required constant vindication of their views. Ironically, the opposite is true. People who work hard at being infallible will inevitably learn the price of their insistence.

When we unburden ourselves of the responsibility of being right all the time, we are free to learn from others. Just the simple admission that "I might be wrong," or "You might be right," can work wonders in communication. Instead of standing alone in rightness, we can draw closer to each other by discovering common beliefs and looking for a basis for agreement. Having the strength of conviction ceases to be positive attribute when it interferes with people trying to find truth in their common experience. Besides, what does it profit you if you are right and you have won, but have lost a friend?

Complex disagreement may not be easily settled, but it is well to start negotiations free of assumptions of right and wrong. Better to start with possibility that there is a little wrong in the most right of us and a little right in the most wrong of us.