What to write about?

 

talking, listening

Is it everybody's responsibility to advice. If everybody starts advising, who will be listening. If anybody advises, will everybody listen or will anybody for that matter listen. Will people listen to persons with authority. Will people generally listen. Listening is a capability like many other hard to obtain ones. Talking is easy. That too talking about others mistakes and ones own successes is very easy. It is difficult the other way round. It is very rare people talk on the other side of the spectrum. So, you think people will listen when you tell them that something is wrong and something is right. You dont want them to do the wrong and you would like them to do the right which you thought is right. Do people really care about your opinion. And, are people ready to talk to others regarding the right and wrong. There are plenty of people who know much rights and wrongs and beyond that. But they cant talk, or not interested to talk, or when they talk they cant get their points across, Or they try to simplify it so much that it becomes a procedure and not that higher level thought. Is talking important or the listening. Which ability will make you understand more. There are people who when talk and see the response and decide whether what they talked was right or wrong. Why after so much of human civilization we lack the basic premise of our societal existence, communication.

Why is it so complicated. People want to listen to more of what they know. They may listen to somebody talking about a wrong which the listener himself has classified as wrong. This will cement the wrong in the listener but the same cannot be talked about the person talking. But it does not work the other wary round. The person talking might give up seeing the response. There are situations where people dont want to hear anything which is out of their belief/knowledge system. If somebody has identified a wrong, is it his responsibility to communicate it to the world. Will the world which knows it might be wrong but continue to do so listen to him. Or the person talking has only the responsibility of talking without gauging its effect. Is his responsibility over once he has made his statement. I in many of configuration posts put up a disclaimer relieving myself of all the dangers of my actions which are to be copied by others. Is this right. Thought my statutory responsibilities are over, are my moral responsibilities met.

Much of the research on communication has concentrated and suggested better listening skills. Are these skills to compensate for the bad talking skills. Are we humans better at talking and bad at listening. Why not we concentrate on how well we talk so that we can relieve the pressure on the listeners. Since there is more pressure on the listener to "really" understand. The presenter should prepare well so that the listener gets it. But again, full responsibility on the presenter does not augur well for the communication. But, the presenter is in focus. He wants or commands the limelight. If you have to be special, then your preparation has to be special. As for the listener pressure is definitely there to assimilate as much as possible. But, he is large in number and it is very difficult to gauge who has understood how much. But the presenter will b judged by all the listeners. This gap between the person talking and the person/s listening is broadening day by day as humans gain more insights and form their own "understanding". It is becoming hard to convince people of what is wrong and right. Both the sides have their own argument but both cannot communicate enough to prove the other wrong. If, so, the communication is a continuous debate, which will never be won......Will it....

Is writing more valuable than talk

Why is writing more valuable than talk? Why are we more interested in that hard copy than the person talking the same in front of us. Is it because we dont value the person in front of us. We are in awe of previous scientists and writers. The present generation of innovators are always met with grudge and disdain based on the mental capability of the onlookers. In that specific period we burn the great but few generations down the line we will be revering it as one of the greatest works.

William shakespeare's works contain nearly all the words in use in the English language except the derivative or the LOLs. Was he revered in his time. Naaa. There is no record as such. Today, No literary specialist can be called so if he cannot recite his sonnets and bisect their meaning.

Is writing like wine matured in wooden casks from wherein there comes a distinct color, texture, smell and taste which makes it more desirable. Why is listening to the same content of the book desirable by the author. Is it because we cannot rush through it or change pace. A recording can be paused but live talk, Not possible. Do we bisect and dissect talk as we do with the contents of a written material. No. We may do that with certain portion of it, But a written book can be dissected word to word.

The court of law depends more on the certified hard copy than the vocal certification. Talk tends to change over a period of time, though the body and format may remain the same. Playwrights try to accommodate as much recent tastes as possible in the same format and body. Macbeth, the original is still the same, but their renditions bring in spontaneity and current affairs, thereby adulterating the original(is it?). The standard does not change. Interpretation is simply talking about the original. There are as much renditions of the Bhagavad gita as the renderers.

A writeup can be concise as well as elaborate. Talk can be either or neither. Talk may drop a thing or two. The validity of the writeup depends on the time taken for the same and also on the iterations of the work before bringing out a copy. There area a lot of things conveyed with body language during a talk. A writeup dont have this luxury except when explicitly stated.

Talk can coerce the listener to think as per his perceptions but a writing is immune from this. The reader can perceive and fill up the blanks as needed to complete the picture. Are science, mathematics and legal writings the same as general writing. Are they not open for scrutiny, Are they not open for perceptions/improvements. Yes, they are. The are all iterations getting better. Departing from the general by every iteration.

Are we just obsessed with the written word than the spoken? Are we comfortable with holding a book rather than an audio or a video recording? Is the probability of finishing a written book more than an audio/visual? Is the printed two dimensional page capable of answering and explaining multiple dimension of space and perceptions.