Male-Female/ General/ Communication

[phithx]

[THIS CONTENT HAS BEEN MOVED FROM THE CORONA AND THE ECLIPSE THREAD TO ITS OWN NEW THREAD. ANY SUGGESTIONS FOR A DIFFERENT THREAD HEADING WELCOME - @DGForum ]

Appertaining to the male-female conversation immediately here above (not the thread heading)

Generally speaking:

Very often males have a hard time understanding each other's communication; especially with the multitude of diffrences between them, but given the similar logic approach they could get somewhere? Similarly with female to female communication.

But consider the almost impossibility of males and females understanding each other (let's say fully understanding each other), especially when "in no way is the male like the female" ... "no way"!!! Nothing; zero!!! That's quite a bridge to cross.

King of kings' Bible Sura 3:36. When she was delivered, she said: "O my Lord! Behold! I am delivered of a female child!"- and God knew best what she brought forth- "And in no way is the male like the female. I have named her Mary, and I commend her and her offspring to Thy protection from the Evil One, the Rejected."

And The Way home or face The Fire (3:111) says that they are complete "OPPOSITES" (exact quote of the capitals) of each other, if I interpret it correctly.

[Note: The Way home Book should be read in its entirety to get the full very-enlightening context, plus the message that no-one on Earth is innocent!! including moi (french for me).]

So, what to do, apart from the obviously excellent advice in The Way home Book, because the divergence from the words of wisdom in It seems to amount to mass anarchy here!!

The simplest analogy that I've thought of is the opposite sides of the human body (with God in the middle? - Luke 17:21).

They're mirror images/ opposites (to different degrees) of each other.

But in the vast mjority of humans the one side is more dextrous [Def: showing or having skill] than the other (I've heard of some people who are ambidextrous). Here on Earth it's mostly right handed/ footed etc.-ness (don't know about other planets).

And the dextrous side equates to maleness with the less dextrous side equating to femaleness.

But note, the dextrous side obviously functions hand in hand with the less dextrous side to accomplish very many human tasks; survival basically, and creation!

And, as far as I can tell, they don't argue with each other. They just accept their roles and get on with their respective functions. The dextrous side leads and the less dextrous follows, and all indications are that they like each other ... well, generally speaking, of course, because we know this planet is a human+Being nut house, and the humans might have been driven a bit (more?) crazy by the Beings inhabiting them?

Seems to the simple way of thinking that it would be a bit of a miracle at this stage if people in this world would do the same.

So for the ladies, because even I haven't understood the female conversation:

Simple Minds - All The Things She Said

Simple Minds - All The Things She Said

Lyrics:

[Verse 1]
Don't you look back on a big lost world
(Crying out tomorrow)
Don't you look down like the heroes say
Come tell me all about it
Take me to the streets where the bonfires burn
Take me in your arms and I'll fade away
When I hear you say what you got to say

[Chorus]
Anywhere you go, you know I'll still be waiting
All the things she said, she said
Little darling close your eyes, there'll be no compromising
Of all the things she said, she said

[Verse 2]
Throw me to the street where the heartbeats beating (It's beating)
To the peaceful revolution
And the perfect wave, surround me
Tell me 'bout the ocean moving in slow motion
I see it glitter in the sun
Then it's freezing in the moonlight
Never look back, never look back, never look away

[Chorus]
If freedom comes and goes, you know I'll still be waiting
All the things she said, she said
You've fought the fight so long, no surrender to temptation
Of all the things she said, she said

[Break]
Stars will fall out for you
Luck will surrender
I'm calling out to you

[Bridge]
Oh, to be near you in the first morning light
I'd be with you, I dream about you
If I could leave here, I would leave here tonight
I'd be with you, I'd stay with you tonight
Tonight

[Chorus]
Anywhere you go, you know I'll still be waiting
Of all the things she said, she said
When I look into your eyes, I see a new day rising
Of all the things she said, she said
Through the eyes of love, and to never know what hate is
Of all the things she said, she said
She said, this is our time, she said, this is our place
This is the space my heart wants to be
Little darling close your eyes, there'll be no compromising
All the things she said, she said

[Gareth]

Cats and Dogs

[Gareth]

Remember, a mirror only works if there is light

[Ayesa]

Very interesting thoughts @Phitx, but perhaps they are already far too profound.

What we (unfortunately) see in this thread is called a classic communication disorder. Many will probably have heard of the "four-ears model" of communication according to Schulz von Thun, also known as the four sides of a message, according to which the sender of a message speaks with four mouths and the recipient can receive this message with four ears.

According to this model, every message contains
a) factual information (what the sender is informing about),
b) a self-disclosure (what the sender reveals about himself),
c) a relationship indication (how the sender relates to the receiver)
and d) an appeal (what the sender wants the recipient to achieve).

For example, men are said to communicate predominantly on a purely factual level ("There's red up ahead."), while women prefer to hear the relationship level („Do you think I'm too stupid to drive a car?").

Even this trivial everyday situation contains all four sides of a message:

On the purely factual level, the man simply wants to draw his wife's attention to the fact that there is a red traffic light up ahead. As an announcement of himself, this message may contain the worry of being flashed. On the relationship level, the husband may actually have identified his wife as a bad driver. And on an appeal level, his statement may contain a request to drive a little more carefully.

Depending on which mouth the sender of a message speaks with and which ear the receiver listens with, serious misunderstandings can occur.

Written/electronic/digital messages are further complicated by the fact that essential elements of communication between people, such as facial expressions, gestures, posture, volume, intonation, etc., are missing.

To cut a long story short, communication can only succeed if all parties involved filter out the purely factual information from a message according to relevance and accuracy, as they would do with a letter from an insurance company or a public authority, for example.

Anyone who reads aggression out of a message here in this forum shows that he or she is also making an emotional assessment of the message, i.e. listening with a different ear. I can't imagine us being unfriendly to each other here in front of our Father.

[Gareth]

"I can't imagine us being unfriendly to each other here in front of our Father."

I can. When armies aint fighting in wars they usually end up fighting amongst themselves

[phithx]

@Gareth

Cats and Dogs

Yes. In some cases they get on famously and in others they don't.

@Gareth

Remember, a mirror only works if there is light

Yep, "In the beginning ..."

@Ayesa

What we (unfortunately) see in this thread is called a classic communication disorder. Many will probably have heard of the "four-ears model" of communication according to Schulz von Thun, also known as the four sides of a message, according to which the sender of a message speaks with four mouths and the recipient can receive this message with four ears.

According to this model, every message contains

and more ...

Thank-you. Very interesting, and yes this seems to describe the main mode of communicaiton on this planet.

Interesting solutions too!

@Gareth

"I can't imagine us being unfriendly to each other here in front of our Father."

I can. When armies aint fighting in wars they usually end up fighting amongst themselves

Yep, and that's why the ASK is basically a back-to-school: kindergarten, guide.

[Ayesa]

@phithx

Thank-you. Very interesting, and yes this seems to describe the main mode of communicaiton on this planet.

Interesting solutions too!

TWH 12:54

[cybe]

@phithx

Very often males have a hard time understanding each other's communication; especially with the multitude of diffrences between them, but given the similar logic approach they could get somewhere? Similarly with female to female communication.

I would say that very often males understand each others communication perfectly, especially when they both use clear and logical communication and the topic is rather straight forward, such as for instance the questions raised in this topic.

Do you believe that we understood the above sentence the same, or do you see any possible problems, please?

@phithx

But consider the almost impossibility of males and females understanding each other (let's say fully understanding each other)

In what kind of circumstanses? What kind of communication? About what? Daily issues and activities? Put the glass on top of the table? Put it under the table? Fire the rocket inside the sun, at the sun, in the general direction of the sun?

@phithx

And The Way home or face The Fire (3:111) says that they are complete "OPPOSITES" (exact quote of the capitals) of each other, if I interpret it correctly.

I believe that you are interpretting it incorrectly. The word "they" in 3:111 refers to serving God and vs a women's libber and does not refer to men vs women.

@phithx

And, as far as I can tell, they don't argue with each other. They just accept their roles and get on with their respective functions. The dextrous side leads and the less dextrous follows, and all indications are that they like each other ...

Do you feel that I'm arguing or leading in this discussion? And if arguing do you mean that I should just accept our roles and get on with our respective functions?

I do not believe that a rather straight forward discussion such as this can be somehow explained and put to rest with what you have written.

@Ayesa

four-ears model

I believe that I in my discussions here on the forum should verify that I've put in more of things like b) and c) and d) and explaining my point of view and where i'm coming from in order to minimize the risk of being misunderstood and others jumping to wrong conclusions about me.

@Ayesa

Anyone who reads aggression out of a message here in this forum shows that he or she is also making an emotional assessment of the message, i.e. listening with a different ear.

This depends entirely on the contents of the message, of course as per se agressive messages do exist on planet earth.

When one is at peace and hooks up to the master computer and let's it interpret it one is listening with the correct ear (TWH 3:34)

It sounds like you are saying there cannot be agression (or threats, name calling, and other nastyness?) in the messages on the forum, and continue by saying:-

@Ayesa

I can't imagine us being unfriendly to each other here in front of our Father.

That's quite surprising. No need to imagine; have you not witnessed plenty of unfriendly interactions on the forum?

[Ayesa]

@cybe

I believe that I in my discussions here on the forum should verify that I've put in more of things like b) and c) and d) and explaining my point of view and where i'm coming from in order to minimize the risk of being misunderstood and others jumping to wrong conclusions about me.

I don't think you need to change too much. It is enough if you are aware of points b), c) and d), then the risk of misunderstandings is automatically minimised. The sender bears the main responsibility for successful communication.

I would classify you here in the forum as a Mr Spock-like figure who tries to talk about things largely without emotion. You seem to be an expert in many fields and have a great penchant for truthfulness and attention to detail. Such people are perceived as know-it-alls and their communication style can often be tiring and irritating. Nevertheless, the whole "team" can benefit from this.

[quote="cybe, post:8, topic:6108“]
It sounds like you are saying there cannot be agression (or threats, name calling, and other nastyness?) in the messages on the forum
[/quote]
My statement referred exclusively to this forum, which I consider a sacred and protected space and where I assume all participants are motivated by the two Great Commandments. That's why I wrote, "I can't imagine us being unfriendly to each other here in front of our Father.“

[quote="cybe, post:8, topic:6108“]
That's quite surprising. No need to imagine; have you not witnessed plenty of unfriendly interactions on the forum?
[/quote]
You're right, unkind things have been and continue to be seen here, but firstly you could just consistently ignore them and secondly it's unfortunately quite „normal“.

Wherever people come together as a group or team, be it at work, at a seminar, in a political party or even in an online community, the same group processes always take place.

Just like an individual, teams go through certain phases of development: It always starts with an initial or orientation phase (forming). All participants are still reserved and uncertain and are looking for their own role and appropriate behaviour. They are friendly and careful with each other. Harmony takes centre stage, conflicts are still avoided.

Then comes the next phase (storming) and things get a bit stormy. Individual group members clash, aggression rises and arguments increase. The willingness to address disruptive behaviour increases. Different ways of thinking and acting clash.

Over time, the team enters a phase in which goals, tasks and roles are made transparent and distributed (norming). A sense of togetherness develops, cohesion, co-operation and constructive feedback emerge. People no longer clash with each other, only points of view.

Once all of these phases have been completed, in which there may also be setbacks, the group finally puts all of its energy into working together and solving its actual tasks (performing).

Tuckman's team development clock is well known and everyone can form a personal opinion of what time it is in our group.

[phithx]

@cybe2

@phithx

Very often males have a hard time understanding each other's communication; especially with the multitude of diffrences between them, but given the similar logic approach they could get somewhere? Similarly with female to female communication.

I would say that very often males understand each others communication perfectly, especially when they both use clear and logical communication and the topic is rather straight forward, such as for instance the questions raised in this topic.

Agreed.

@cybe2

Do you believe that we understood the above sentence the same, or do you see any possible problems, please?

The same.

@cybe2

@phithx

But consider the almost impossibility of males and females understanding each other (let's say fully understanding each other)

In what kind of circumstanses? What kind of communication? About what? Daily issues and activities? Put the glass on top of the table? Put it under the table? Fire the rocket inside the sun, at the sun, in the general direction of the sun?

Didn't consider it too much ... "generally speaking".

@cybe2

@phithx

And The Way home or face The Fire (3:111) says that they are complete "OPPOSITES" (exact quote of the capitals) of each other, if I interpret it correctly.

I believe that you are interpretting it incorrectly. The word "they" in 3:111 refers to serving God and vs a women's libber and does not refer to men vs women.

Understood.

@cybe2

@phithx

And, as far as I can tell, they don't argue with each other. They just accept their roles and get on with their respective functions. The dextrous side leads and the less dextrous follows, and all indications are that they like each other ...

Do you feel that I'm arguing

I suppose by definition, yes, but I was speaking generally.

Argue definition: give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view:

@cybe2

or leading in this discussion

Yes.

@cybe2

And if arguing do you mean that I should just accept our roles and get on with our respective functions?

No, I think each should just be who they choose to be in each moment.

[NancyDrewberry]

Thank-you for starting this new thread titled: Male-Female / General / Communication. That it began on a thread titled Corona and The Eclipse may not be a coincidence.

I do have a question, if I may, please? As found in TWHOFTF:

3:109 Men are SUPPOSED to love God first, and women second; keeping women under control and teaching them, by setting them a good example, as well as by words and advice (1st. Corinthians 11:3 & 1st. Timothy 2:11-12).
3:110 THAT is why God said, from the beginning, that women can NEVER be equal to men, until they EARN their own right to be a man (Gen. 3:16)(1st.Cor. 11:1-3)(Sura 2:228 & 4:34). Read the Gospel (truth) of Thomas in log 114:20-26 / King of kings’ Bible, Thomas ch.16. - End of excerpt.

Naturally the body is male or female and the being is placed in the one that it has earned and the one that will benefit its spiritual lessons best. TWHOFT goes on further to explain that more in detail. But, my question or inquiry is, the being (soul) who we really are is neither male or female (?). Those beings that are in a male-body have more privileges due to their higher spiritual status (if that is the correct word). However, if they misuse those privileges or abuse those privileges by listening to their "self" / ego then regardless of their male-body, they are not so elevated. In contrast, the female-bodied being who is acting from inner prompts not from the "self", but rather from the Creator or The Good Voice within, then those actions that proceed forth are beneficial. So, is it not more important the Source rather than the human-body from whence it comes? Yes, women are vulnerable; but, male-bodied souls are easily fooled too. As the 'beings' that we are, we are all one from the same Source - Father, though each very unique and special. So, while there are reasons for the body one is in, we are not our bodies, but rather something much higher.

[Gareth]

The language we are talking in here has no masculine or feminine like some do.

I like what phithx says about arms and i always saw the non leading arm as the one which keeps the balance

[phithx]

@NancyDrewberry

So, is it not more important the Source rather than the human-body from whence it comes? Yes, women are vulnerable; but, male-bodied souls are easily fooled too. As the 'beings' that we are, we are all one from the same Source - Father, though each very unique and special. So, while there are reasons for the body one is in, we are not our bodies, but rather something much higher.

Yes, agreed and interesting question.

I would say it seems to boil down to what one really believes or knows (as a fact/ implicitly?) in ones heart, as opposed to what one thinks intellectually. Although the thinking/ studying (see below) seems to lead one towards more knowing.

From The Way home again:
"The reason they were naked was, because, instead of being their Spirit-Being inside of and clothed with a human body, suddenly they were the human, outside of their Spirit-Being and clothed with nothing, and thus naked. “For as a man thinks in his heart, so is he” (Proverbs 23:7)."

So the ASK/ Yodas study material etc. seems to be a programming guide, amongst other, to get everyone promoted up a rung or more? So stick around patiently and see what comes up.

[phithx]

@NancyDrewberry

Naturally the body is male or female and the being is placed in the one that it has earned and the one that will benefit its spiritual lessons best. TWHOFT goes on further to explain that more in detail. But, my question or inquiry is, the being (soul) who we really are is neither male or female (?).

Yes, agreed.

@NancyDrewberry

Those beings that are in a male-body have more privileges due to their higher spiritual status (if that is the correct word). However, if they misuse those privileges or abuse those privileges by listening to their "self" / ego then regardless of their male-body, they are not so elevated. In contrast, the female-bodied being who is acting from inner prompts not from the "self", but rather from the Creator or The Good Voice within, then those actions that proceed forth are beneficial.

Agreed.

[Nam]

@Ayesa

I can't imagine us being unfriendly to each other here in front of our Father.

Thank You

It would be nice if we all practiced replying nicely to each other.

[NancyDrewberry]

@phithx

the ASK / Yodas study material etc. seems to be a programming guide

Yes. Absolutely. Perhaps just a matter of semantics, but I would remove "seems" from that statement and replace it with "is", and instead of "programming", it is "deprogramming".

[cybe]

@Ayesa

I don't think you need to change too much.

@Ayesa

I would classify you here in the forum as a Mr Spock-like figure who tries to talk about things largely without emotion.

Should we not all strive to become Spock-like figures, as explained in TWH 12:54

..."uses logic (spiritual) and NOT human-animal
emotion; and he has perfect control over his human half, and its emotions. "

@Ayesa

Such people are perceived as know-it-alls and their communication style can often be tiring and irritating.

Tiring and irritating to the "self" of the Being?

@Ayesa

Nevertheless, the whole "team" can benefit from this.

Glad to hear it.

@Ayesa

My statement referred exclusively to this forum, which I consider a sacred and protected space and where I assume all participants are motivated by the two Great Commandments. That's why I wrote, "I can't imagine us being unfriendly to each other here in front of our Father.“

Yes, of course, we're talking about exclusively this forum, did I mention some other?

I believe the word should is missing from your sentence, otherwise you are contradicting yourself as you yourself agree that unkind things have and continue to be seen here.

Yes, we should be motivated by the two Great Commandments, but unfortunately it doesn't seem that way always.

@Ayesa

You're right, unkind things have been and continue to be seen here, but firstly you could just consistently ignore them

I believe that things like these should be pointed out and rectified, as gracefully and logically as possible, not ignored. Especially on a special forum like this with more potential for understanding than elsewhere.

@Ayesa

and secondly it's unfortunately quite „normal“.

Appeal to Normality. This fallacy occurs when someone justifies or dismisses a behavior simply because it is considered "normal" or typical, rather than evaluating the behavior on its own merits or consequences. Essentially, it is an argument that suggests something is acceptable or doesn't need addressing because it is commonplace.

@Ayesa

Wherever people come together as a group or team, be it at work, at a seminar, in a political party or even in an online community, the same group processes always take place.

@Ayesa

Tuckman's team development clock is well known and everyone can form a personal opinion of what time it is in our group.

The question that arises in my mind is whether we're talking about human+Being (inmates) strictly or also free Beings.

Is what is outlined in this Tuckman's clock what we are seeing in this thread? Especially the part about nuclear bombs into the sun, and not the meta discussion we're having now?

@phithx

I suppose by definition, yes, but I was speaking generally.

Argue definition: give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view:

Well, I've been looking at the definition of argue and argument for quite a while and I believe I might use the word discuss or debate more as the words argue/argument can be interpreted in two ways, and I prefer to do the first one, not the second:

1. give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view.

2. exchange or express diverging or opposite views, typically in a heated or angry way.

[phithx]

@cybe

@phithx

I suppose by definition, yes, but I was speaking generally.

Argue definition: give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view:

Well, I've been looking at the definition of argue and argument for quite a while and I believe I might use the word discuss or debate more as the words argue/argument can be interpreted in two ways, and I prefer to do the first one, not the second:

1. give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view.
2. exchange or express diverging or opposite views, typically in a heated or angry way.

Yes agreed. I was also thinking about it. The meaning of the word argue seems to have acquired an emotional content, unlike discuss or debate.

[phithx]

This video study-guide might help somewhat?

The Argument Skit

[Daily YODAs available in the ASK disk

]

[Gareth]

Piers Morgan DEMOLISHES Woke Activist with PURE FACTS (Gets Heated)