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.
"Art" can also be defined as a "skill at any human activity", which is what I would describe listening. If you'll notice, Jufa has already contradicted himself, first saying that listening is not an art, and then in Post # 5 saying, "I agree listening is an art, a survival skill..."
Some how you failed to present the clarification of what you say is my contradiction when you left out post #7:
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 POVâs should not be an issue.
Some how you failed to present the clarification of what you say is my contradiction when you left out post #7:
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 POVâs should not be an issue.
Oh that's very true. But I don't agree that the purpose of a dialogue is necessarily to "persuade the opposition". Often times dialogue with another person helps us to understand what we ourselves think. Have you ever been engaged in a conversation and found yourself saying something that you didn't quite agree with? Then you explore the thought further, with the help of the person you're talking to, and you discover to your own surprise that what you really believed was quite different from what you initially claimed to believe?
Jufa, light up a bit. Just want to be clear it was an obvious quote I shared. Why you consider that a horror?
I think you are taking all this too seriously, your edge of pretentious seriousness wonât help you find the answers you seek.
After all an answer to life is: In the end you die.
Enjoy your time living as much as you and your personality will allow you too. Donât take me too seriously and I promise not to take you too seriously.[/I] ps. Advocatus makes a great point I hope it made some sense to you.
Oh thatâs very true. But I donât agree that the purpose of a dialogue is necessarily to âpersuade the opposition". Often times dialogue with another person helps us to understand what we ourselves think. Have you ever been engaged in a conversation and found yourself saying something that you didnât quite agree with? Then you explore the thought further, with the help of the person youâre talking to, and you discover to your own surprise that what you really believed was quite different from what you initially claimed to believe?
Has not the dialogue been persuasive when
you explore the thought further, with the help of the person youâre talking to, and you discover to your own surprise that what you really believed was quite different from what you initially claimed to believe?
Jufa, light up a bit. Just want to be clear it was an obvious quote I shared. Why you consider that a horror?
I think you are taking all this too seriously, your edge of pretentious seriousness won't help you find the answers you seek.
After all an answer to life is: In the end you die.
Enjoy your time living as much as you and your personality will allow you too.
Don't take me too seriously and I promise not to take you too seriously.[/I]
ps. Advocatus makes a great point I hope it made some sense to you.
The seriousness comes from 'they say', which is a lie you have presented because you have not given your experiential thought to the subject.
Look Citizenchallenge, I am seeking only to communicate without trying to prove who right or wrong, for neither is achievable when seen through different eyes. If you want to be right, so be it. Now can we just have a conversation?
author "jufa" ) Now can we just have a conversation?
My irony meter just broke
Thanks Lausten.
author "jufa" ) The seriousness comes from 'they say', which is a lie you have presented because you have not given your experiential thought to the subject.
author "Citizenschallenge-v.3"). Actually it came from WIKI, tossed in as lubricant to see what might come of it.
author "jufa" 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{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.
Jufa, what did I say that has you feeling so hostile?
you have not given your experiential thought to the subject.
Hmmm, and I've been worried that I bring too much of 'my' experiential thoughts into these discussions.
you explore the thought further, with the help of the person youâre talking to, and you discover to your own surprise that what you really believed was quite different from what you initially claimed to believe?
What I'm saying is that we listen in order to understand what people are saying. This is not always easy because some people are not good at expressing themselves, because some people actually want to confuse and obfuscate, and because some people have such incoherent ideas that they couldn't really tell us what they think if they tried. For this reason we also have to listen to ourselves, because often we don't know what we think until we hear what comes out of our own mouths. For all these reasons, listening is definitely an art or a skill. If this is what you mean as well, we're on the same page.
I agree with most of what you said, AMH, except for "Listening is hearing, hearing is a sense. " Listening and hearing are different things. Hearing is physical. Sound waves hit your eardrums and your brain interprets them. Listening is active, and as such is a skill that needs developing. You canât listen to someone when youâre processing your response. You can hear them quite well, but that isnât the same as listening and thinking about what the person is saying. Is listening an art? Depends upon how you define art, I suppose. I call it a skill.
In Ken Burnsâ jazz history documentary, he has some nice interviews with Wynton Marsalis. In one he observes on listening, that listening to deep music (I think he cited Beethoven) one needs to trust that the mental attention given to the music will return rewards before one can truly appreciate it.
IMHO thatâs a pretty good way of thinking about listening in general, not just to music. And in general, like in music, it does seem like people generally donât provide that mental attention to unfamiliar subjects if they donât have to. That is definitely a frustration of many musicians who are trying to further that art.
Trombone, do you think we need to be encouraged to concentrate on outstanding aspects of daily living. I do. We have so much distraction, it's too easy to let the beautiful aspects not be fully appreciated.
Maybe. It depends on the person. I think that many people don't have major problems finding reasonably enjoyable ways of living. I think it's more of an issue that people simply are not very open to new experiences, as a general rule, even if those experiences can be amazing. People don't generally seek them out.
Yes, I think so too. That is why I'm thinking more effort may help those who travel in very local circles to find interest in thinking out side of their box.
I used to think that too, but over the decades I've learned that the vast majority of people who don't think outside the box aren't interested in doing so. They do not want to think outside their own boxes, so they create arguments clever enough to delude themselves their beliefs are true. They deliberately ignore facts to maintain their ideologies. That's what we're up against.
We fail to see what is being dealt with here is someones idea. Idea has no value of truth beyond the thought and acceptance of it. Because the majority attach themselves to it does not mean it is so. And because in one circle of living one is considered intellectually super, does not mean their idea is the defining evidence of what is being discussed universally.
To this writer it is about being Sacred, or true to ones self without attachment to without to a church, organization, community, country, or nation which project an idea which ones soul cries upon becoming aware of. cry because ones soul knows if such projection and ideas were the truth of what is sacred and holy, then the tumults which has constituted wars and financial upheaval in the world today could not exist. What is sacred is what brings peace and harmony to an individuals life, and that harmony is absorbed by all who come into contact with such a being, and practice that harmony with the knowledge that such practice has changed the world around them for the better.
Is listening a art, that is perspective individualized.
From my perspective one must stop listening to what they are saying, and say what they are listening to. Figure that out.
Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
To my point we need to exert more effort to help others to reexamine their box. There are ways to interest others in the concept of social imagination ang self awareness without getting on the atheist/theist soap box. Or giving up on others In their self imposed box.
I'm interested in hearing how we can help others develop their social imagination. I've tried and failed many times.
âI donât have a good understanding of what you are talking about, sorry.â
Thatâs okay AMH, for in reality you canât understand I am saying, just as I cannot understand what you are saying, for we are speaking either from intellectual book knowledge, or experience. Our output on intellectual book knowledge is based on our assumption of what has been, in correlation to what we have experienced, which is really a guess as to what is being said from the writers position. And our experiences are based on our five senses, and for some a six sense. In either case we pit our idea of hear-say, and our experiences up against deductive ideals of determinism of what the collective mass assume, and so, we add to both to enhance our ego. Nonetheless, what can another person understand about my touch, taste, smell, hearing, and sight that is exactly as I have experienced it? It canât be done. And thus, if I want to stay true to the reality of me, it doesnât matter whether an individual seek to prove me right or wrong, as long as I know I am the captain of my ship.
So the gist of the question is what is listening to you, and how will it expand the discovery of you?
That's okay AMH, for in reality you can't understand I am saying, just as I cannot understand what you are saying, And thus, if I want to stay true to the reality of me, it doesn't matter whether an individual seek to prove me right or wrong, as long as I know I am the captain of my ship.
In reality jufa I can understand what a lot of folks say, even LoisL, just not you. Have you ever been a captain of a ship? I have.
We fail to see what is being dealt with here is someones idea. Idea has no value of truth beyond the thought and acceptance of it. Because the majority attach themselves to it does not mean it is so. And because in one circle of living one is considered intellectually super, does not mean their idea is the defining evidence of what is being discussed universally.
To this writer it is about being Sacred, or true to ones self without attachment to without to a church, organization, community, country, or nation which project an idea which ones soul cries upon becoming aware of. cry because ones soul knows if such projection and ideas were the truth of what is sacred and holy, then the tumults which has constituted wars and financial upheaval in the world today could not exist. What is sacred is what brings peace and harmony to an individuals life, and that harmony is absorbed by all who come into contact with such a being, and practice that harmony with the knowledge that such practice has changed the world around them for the better.
Is listening a art, that is perspective individualized.
From my perspective one must stop listening to what they are saying, and say what they are listening to. Figure that out.
Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
I don't have a good understanding of what you are talking about, sorry.I don't think that JUFA has a good understanding of what he's talking about! :)