Part one: On negative dynamic between two people:
From time to time a conflict is being created between two people; someone gets hurt. Someone is accusing and so on. And then there are arguments, and it seems that they are relevant and to the point, but they are almost never the real problem, if the problem would be indeed a substantive argument
or technical or practical – it could be solved quiet easily, but the problem grows very large when there is a negative dynamic; a dynamic of a conflict, (which carries elements of hostility or anger) – then the smallest problem becomes a cause for a third world war… but when the negative dynamic fades away – suddenly everything is all right again, and what looked terrible just few minutes ago seem now even ridicules. Suddenly the technical problem itself is lacking the explosive element it had just now when there was a negative dynamic.
And a positive dynamic gets contaminated and turns to a negative dynamic- when one of the two speakers takes something in a personal way; gets hurt, insulted and the like.
Therefore, the way to deal with communication problems that disguises themselves to be substantive, (but have at the root of them a negative dynamic) – is similar to how we treat a person who got electrocuted; first he needs be separated from the electric current, and in negative dynamic in communication – is to separate the accuser or the one being hurt from the negative dynamic (by changing the subject, or taking a break of an hour or so), and the moment the negative dynamic stops – the positive dynamic is present. It is interesting, for there is no need to create a positive dynamic, it is always there, all which is needed to be done is to neutralize the negative dynamic, and immediately the positive dynamic will appear.
And then, when the two are safe in the protected area of the positive dynamic – it is possible to examine all problems, which will return to their true size.
In a negative dynamic –anything the partner will do about the quarrel, or the conflict – will escalate the fight even further, and here is a wonder; the moment the two are reconciling, whatever they will say or do will not bring about the same anger or hurt.
The most destructive thing in communication is not what the other will do or say, it is a prolonged negative dynamic which will cause the most damage.
Through the prism of the negative dynamic – the partner to this dynamic is perceived as the devil incarnated…
Part two: consciousness and communication:
In the end there are two important things in one’s life: to learn to be conscious and to learn to communicate. None of them is given just by the fact that we exist, no one gets conscious just because he is alive and no one knows how to communicate just by that that there are people around.
And in the same way that there is a difference between automatic reaction and responding from consciousness – so there is a difference between just talking and conversing, and between hearing and listening.
In fact, in order to communicate one needs a certain level of consciousness.
There could be consciousness without communication, but there could not be communication without consciousness.
Communication at its best is to know what is happening and to use it consciously in order to reach the best possible dynamic with the partner. But the problem in communication is that people think that they already communicate consciously. The first goal towards conscious communication is to face the fact that one reacts automatically and mechanically, this is the difficult beginning; to understand that we are not listening, and the next step is to understand that instead of transmitting messages we hide what we don’t want that might cause problems.
Communication and consciousness are the two greatest gifts that one could get in his life. There is hardly something more satisfying then to have a real conversation, from heart to heart, soul to soul, consciousness to consciousness.
Part three, the important principle in communication:
An important ingredient in communication is to consider the distress and anxieties of the other, because through them, through what is weak and broken in the other, the deepest connection could be made.
There Is communication and there is anti-communication, communication is to put the other in the center, ant-communication is to put your ego in the center, and a double anti-communication is to put the dominance of the ego in the center.
To what an extent do we communicate when the distress of the other is in the center of the communication? And to what an extent our own interests are in the center?
In most cases we are not that interested in the distress of the other, for we are too involved in our own interest. When one does not communicate in the real way, then he is using the other as a tool for his interest. In communication it is very much a matter of black and white; either there are personal interests or there is consideration; either it is me who is in the center or it is the other.
Usually, when the other is not the center, then there could be power struggles, and power struggle happens when the partner does not allow you to be dominant and to have control over him.
Part four: communication and human relations:
Communication is a skill, not a characteristic. To be sociable is a characteristic, a sociable person creates a social contact quickly, and a person with communication skills can terminate a conflict by transferring the dynamic from negative to positive.
Another skill is to be able to create a dialog, one of the greatest problems in communication is that the monologue takes over, and the one who carries the longest monologs is usually the dominant one in the communication. People are not willing to exchange roles between transmitter, and receiver, the transmitter is the dominant role, and the receiver is waiting for the transmitter to allow him into the communication. And if the receiver (the listener) is dominant, he will 'still' the role of the transmitter in the first opportunity.
If one is a good listener, usually it is not being appreciated, instead the speaker will take the first opportunity to continue with longer periods of carrying his monologue.
When someone has long monologues, the partner wait for him to finish the subject he is talking about and to switch roles, but he finishes the subject and brings another one and so on.
In a true dialog there is a transference between the roles of the talker and the listener, when there is no rotation of roles – the relationship are stuck.
The transmitter is usually considered to be more important in the conversation, but who's role is really more meaningful? It is the receiver. The transmitter is responsible on the level of information and knowledge, all he can do is pass in information, he cannot pass on an intention, intention and meaning only belongs to the receiver, he is the one who decides about the information what intention and meaning does it cause in him, but if he is not allowed to give feedback about how is receiving the transmmition, then the conversation remains flat, with no depth, just the information of the transmitter.
Originally, the role of the transmitter is to pass information, the role of the receiver is to listen, give feedback about what meaning does he associate to what is being said.
What does the transmitter needs to do in order to be a good transmitter?
To be clear, short and exact, transmitters generally make long speeches, but they often leave out the essence, the main thing. When people need to explain how to get to a certain place, usually they skip important details, for they are Shure that what they know is obvious to the receiver.
What does the receiver needs to do in order to do his job the best way?
Does the receiver know his job? Not really, instead of listening they are concentrating in what they would say if they were the transmitter.
Accept listening he needs to be able to give a feedback, what is a feedback? A feedback is a content return to the speaker that comes to show him how the receiver is understanding the intentions of what he says. And why this feedback is important? Well, because the speaker is Shure that his words were understood according to his intentions. If the receiver does not explain how he understood the intention behind the words then the speaker is Shure that he was understood correctly.
In communication nothing is obvious, and if there is a possibility of misunderstanding – it will come about.