Is listening a art?

To this writer listening is not an art. It is, from what I can tell, an activity of living, and, when dealing with the human perspective, what men speak upon is always subjective because of the objectivity of personal bias of that which has been indoctrinated into their human minds of prattling interpreters of idealism. All idealism is an extension of the ‘sentient Id,’ whose birth child is the human Ego.

A good listener mostly turns out to be an excellent speaker, and discerning of rhetorical prattling.

Can we learn to listen better?

Yes. Most people hear what another is saying, but do not listen to what is said. The art of conversation is a two way street.

Listening, registering what you’re hearing requires you actively engaging the incoming information.
Not only an Art, but I’ve found it to be survival skill.
Listen, pay attention, learn. . .

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
I've been repeating that sentence - I'm sure I don't understand it. Can you explain it?
Listening, registering what you're hearing requires you actively engaging the incoming information. Not only an Art, but I've found it to be survival skill. Listen, pay attention, learn. . .
Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
I've been repeating that sentence - I'm sure I don't understand it. Can you explain it?
I agree listening is an art, a survival skill, and the secret behind being "a penny wise, and a pound foolish." Listening is not always vocal. It takes discerning wisdom to hear what a person writes without injecting personal attitudes about character and meaning. Moreover, with people of all educational backgrounds and cultures posting on forum, grammar, and punctuation should not be an issue. If ones style of writing bothers one, they should stop reading them, or exit a thread, or do the best they can to understand what is being said should they continue to participate in a discussion. But attitudes should be left at the door when dealing with a multitude of people. My signature stems from a person experience, and should not be, and is not an issue in this thread.
To this writer listening is not an art. It is, from what I can tell, an activity of living, and, when dealing with the human perspective, what men speak upon is always subjective because of the objectivity of personal bias of that which has been indoctrinated into their human minds of prattling interpreters of idealism. All idealism is an extension of the 'sentient Id,' whose birth child is the human Ego. A good listener mostly turns out to be an excellent speaker, and discerning of rhetorical prattling.
Yes, and we know who the absolute master of rhetorical prattling is. Prattling, lying and accusing.

Everyone lies, and prattle, it is the rigorism of the human thought pattern when ego is involved, and ego is always involved in conversations on open forums. So it is to be expected.
Here we know a dialogue is very different from what we normally call a discussion or debate, for in a dialogue the purpose is to persuade the opposition to adopted definite points of view and to convince each other or compare their outlooks. So change of mind concerning POV’s should not be an issue.

My signature stems from a person experience, and should not be, and is not an issue in this thread.
hmmm, what does "issue" have to do with it. You put it out there, I was just asking. Pretty straightforward I thought. No tricks or agendas up my sleeves, simple curiosity.

I don’t know if it deserves to be called an art but if so, it is an art most of us lost a long time age.

My signature stems from a person experience, and should not be, and is not an issue in this thread.
hmmm, what does "issue" have to do with it. You put it out there, I was just asking. Pretty straightforward I thought. No tricks or agendas up my sleeves, simple curiosity. You Deros have stated it precisely, which is nothing, for it is not a part of the context, nor contents of the topic. So stick to the topic.
You Deros have stated it precisely, which is nothing, for it is not a part of the context, nor contents of the topic. So stick to the topic.
Wow. That's two in a row. You're going to have trouble making friends 'round here.
You Deros have stated it precisely, which is nothing, for it is not a part of the context, nor contents of the topic. So stick to the topic.
Wow. That's two in a row. You're going to have trouble making friends 'round here. Is this what the forum is all about, making friends? This topic has nothing to do with friendship, it is seeking dialogue for discussion. Is this incomprehensible. Is it to much to ask those who enter this thread to stick to the topic? If my signature is of interest, than state a topic concerning it.

Uppity little fella are we. :smirk:
Alrightie than, back on ‘topic’
Is listening an art?
art is where you find it.

Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), expressing the author's imaginative or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power.[1][2] In their most general form these activities include the production of works of art, the criticism of art, the study of the history of art, and the aesthetic dissemination of art.
You Deros have stated it precisely, which is nothing, for it is not a part of the context, nor contents of the topic. So stick to the topic.
Wow. That's two in a row. You're going to have trouble making friends 'round here. Is this what the forum is all about, making friends? This topic has nothing to do with friendship, it is seeking dialogue for discussion. Is this incomprehensible. Is it to much to ask those who enter this thread to stick to the topic? If my signature is of interest, than state a topic concerning it. You're going to have trouble seeking dialogue 'round here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g2S3goIWs0 :cheese: :kiss:

Uppity little fella are we. :smirk: Alrightie than, back on 'topic' Is listening an art? art is where you find it.
Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), expressing the author's imaginative or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power.[1][2] In their most general form these activities include the production of works of art, the criticism of art, the study of the history of art, and the aesthetic dissemination of art.
Let me go a little deeper than generalization of that which you have copied and pasted from a book, and which is hearsay to you. The object of a finished work of art is for the purpose of the observer to see what the artist comprehended. And in comprehending, expressed in matter of materialization. That is the illusion of art, whether written or placed upon a canvas. No one sees or feels that which culminated as the written word or painted image of experience through the eye of the artist's comprehension. The viewer or reader becomes selective in relativity points which are relative to their personalized eye of comprehensive living and evaluation. The reader or viewer has accepted or rejected something they do not comprehend. And thus, they have become the greatest liars, for they have deceptively lied to themselves. They have accepted or rejected what someone else has lived and experience, when their only responsibility was not add nor take away from something which is incomprehensible to them.

Actually it came from WIKI, tossed in as lubricant to see what might come of it.
Now we see you fleshing out your thoughts and I’m not particularly impressed, feels to me like you’re trying to squeeze the world into a nutshell.

Let me go a little deeper than generalization of that which you have copied and pasted from a book, and which is hearsay to you. The object of a finished work of art is for the purpose of the observer to see what the artist comprehended. {What if the artists' object was simply to keep themselves busy with work they enjoy doing, with no further expectations?} And in comprehending, expressed in matter of materialization. That is the illusion of art, whether written or placed upon a canvas. No one sees or feels that which culminated as the written word or painted image of experience through the eye of the artist's comprehension. {Isn't that basically true of everything. Read a history book, you don't see the history the author see as he tried to capture bits and pieces of his understanding, etc.} The viewer or reader becomes selective in relativity points which are relative to their personalized eye of comprehensive living and evaluation. {Is that a bad thing?} The reader or viewer has accepted or rejected something they do not comprehend. {How do you know they don't comprehend it. What is the it? To comprehend art must you comprehend the reason someone created it? Isn't genuine art often an expression of emotions and tensions the 'artist' doesn't understand and is grappling with?} And thus, they have become the greatest liars, for they have deceptively lied to themselves }[color=purple]{as opposed to straightforward lying to oneself? {This sounds totalitarian - What's the point? Art is in the eye of the beholder, liars, self-deceivers, what a harsh world you must inhabit.} They have accepted or rejected what someone else has lived and experience, {Really? Accepted or Rejected? - What about simply appreciating the thing for itself. } when their only responsibility was not add nor take away from something which is incomprehensible to them. {So many rules, so much rigidity, such base hostility even. Why is the viewer of art responsible for anything beyond gathering personal impressions of what the art means to them?}
I for one constantly find beautiful art in nature, the "creator" has no particular purpose*, and expects nothing of me. For that matter I can walk down an alley and find beautiful art that no one created, it has no particular purpose, and expects nothing of me, but I see an interesting tableau that grabbed my attention for a few moments. Where does that leave the relationship between then artist and the viewer? * Although guess there's a wormhole, or two, hiding in that claim.

<![CDATA[

Uppity little fella are we. :smirk:
Alrightie than, back on ‘topic’
Is listening an art?
art is where you find it.

]>

[not a link in the thing and the SPAM NAZI refuses to allow me to fix a couple typos.] :roll:
Good point Advocatus
[but this I could edit. Perhaps Mr. Spam uses a dice to decide. Further, incursions and investigation will reveal all.]

Actually it came from WIKI, tossed in as lubricant to see what might come of it. Why would you paste and copy something which is not of you? What if is the question of the ages. Did not ask for an unknown answer, the question is asking for direct experience of knowledge to the question
" Is listening an art?
" We, who is this We? Can't We speak for them self? Your thoughts about what you think I am trying to do has nothing to do with the issue. Did you not say you were going to speak on the topic? Now you go to the:
"{What if the artists' object was simply to keep themselves busy with work they enjoy doing, with no further expectations?}
. Have you not been paying attention? Let me illustrate it this way so you will be sure of what I am saying
"in attempting to make myself as clear as words of relativity can be make clear about what I am saying. We quote poets like Frost who states " a poet is entitled to whatever response he gets from his poems." In a sense this is true, but a poet can only get from his poem what it was that inspired him/her to pen the poetry. Once the poetry is complete, another's interpretation of that works belongs to the interpreter, not the poet, unless the poet accept another's interpretation as his own. But the reality of this is as the interpreter has no Entitlement of Cause to say what is the reason behind the penning of the poem, so also the poet has no Entitlement of Cause as to the reasoning as to what belongs to the interpreter for the reasoning given above." - jufa
What I have just submitted also covers the rest of what you are projecting, so, in a nutshell, there is no further need for my input concerning this particular post. Thank you! Now we see you fleshing out your thoughts and I'm not particularly impressed, feels to me like you're trying to squeeze the world into a nutshell.
Let me go a little deeper than generalization of that which you have copied and pasted from a book, and which is hearsay to you.