(This is not short. Please be warned.)
It?s said that there are three ways of listening.
The first way involves agreeing with the speaker.
When you are agreeing with what is said, you are nodding your head (at least inside). You are also doing much more ? you have already judged what is being said, and have decided that you agree. In essence, you have decided that you already know.
The second way involves disagreeing with the speaker.
When you are disagreeing with what is said, you are shaking your head (at least inside). You are also doing much more ? you have already judged what is being said, and have decided that you disagree. Again, you have decided that you already know.
The third way involves simply being with the speaker.
Not judging, not comparing, not testing ? just being with the other person. There?s plenty of time for all of that later ? as if you haven?t spent most of your life doing it already ? so be in the moment now. Many of us are incredibly judgmental of others, because we are so smart and they are so stupid. This attitude causes its owners to miss out on an awful lot ? wisdom is where you find it.
There is nothing wrong with any of the three ways of listening. However, it?s only by using the third way that anything new is ever learned. Until we get there, we are still stuck in what we know, not available for what they are telling us.
When we have an agenda ? when we have something to prove ? we judge everything that comes to us against its value towards our cause. The people we are debating are not valued individuals to us ? they are foils, extras in our movie, just places for our brilliant arguments to happen. When they fail to perform their role as we have envisioned it, we can justify many things in the name of getting our agenda back on track. And of course, we are justified in doing that, because we are right ? we have the ?facts? on our side.
Some of us want to engage in a particular style of debate ? tough, no-holds-barred, sort of a ?Jane, you ignorant slut? approach - with the justification that it?s OK, because we are going after the ?facts?. (The word ?facts? seems to be a functional replacement for the word ?truth? ? something interesting to note.) If the debate we seek is not engaged in by the prospective opponent, we decide that they are not ?intellectually honest?, or that they lack some ?courage of their convictions?. Apparently it is then proper and justifiable to goad them with personal attacks, insinuations, and other forms of disrespect ? since they refuse to do battle, it seems they are not worthy of respect.
I was recently told that on a particular project ? a very expensive and extremely sensitive manufacturing process ? that if there was a mistake, it didn?t matter why ? there just had to be no mistakes - the facts of the matter were paramount, and feelings only got in the way. My reply was to ask if the person speaking could operate this large, complex process alone. The answer was ?no?. I pointed out that in that case, ?why? might be important to some others that are an essential part of the process. Ignoring how others feel in order to get at the facts actually reduces the effectiveness of the entire operation. If we are concerned with effectiveness instead of being ?right?, the game changes.
We can become very attached to ?facts?. Often it?s because we feel that if we know the facts of the matter, we can make sure that we are not fooled (again). If our search for truth (or ?facts?) is overriding ? if our commitment to the idea of truth and its defense is what drives us ? we have lost sight of some very valuable things (one of which being that you are going to be fooled again).
For one thing, how we go about the search for truth matters. The facts in and of themselves are not the only result that matters. If you are defending what you see as the facts of the matter, and your behavior in doing so creates enemies, resentments, and the like, have you really defended truth? Or have you simply defended your position? It?s an old saw, and it may not seem cool or scientific, but it?s accurate none the less ? no one cares how much you know until they know how much you care. Relationships are the best way to make a difference in the world. Focusing on being right can be one of the worst ways.
For another, facts are a poor way to move people to action. People move because of how they feel ? inspired, angry, hopeful, afraid - not because of facts in and of themselves. The facts may create the experience of a feeling? but how you present those facts had better be oriented towards the real-live person being addressed, not focusing on your personal agenda ? because, honestly, no one cares about your agenda but you. (Also, the actual feeling they may have is ?this guy?s an ass? ? which does not advance the cause of truth, even if you are an ass.)
But the most significant reason is a bit metaphysical. Back in pre-Socratic Greece, two concepts struggled for primacy ? the True versus the Good. Those in each camp acknowledged the importance of the other ? but each wanted to make their value the winner. This is discussed in a popular manner in Robert Pirsig?s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, and an article on it is attached below (it's not too long, but it's not short either - be warned). Suffice it to say that when pursuing the True, anything goes (it seems), and when pursuing the Good - what is excellent, what is ?right thought? and ?right action?, the means and the end are all part of a whole.
When one engages in a vendetta against anything, one should be very careful. Mother Teresa, an effective agent for a more peaceful world, once said: "I was once asked why I don't participate in anti-war demonstrations. I said that I will never do that, but as soon as you have a pro-peace rally, I?ll be there." Defining yourself by what you are against is a tricky business, and is very limiting, compared to committing yourself for something.
Let?s use the WTS as an example. Many seem to have a vendetta against the WTS. Much work has been done debunking their theology, illuminating their translation biases, bringing hidden actions to light, and exposing direct harm done to unfortunate individuals. Some have stated that their goal is to topple the WTS and to expose it as irrational and untruthful.
I have a very different goal. If the WTS did not exist, the mind of man would invent another crackpot religion that would offer the same need-filling crutches that have propped up the Watchtower for so long. However, people do leave the WTS, and they choose to leave (or take actions that result in their being tossed out because they unconsciously are not committed to staying). Why? Not because they have become intellectually developed enough, but because they reach a point at which they are emotionally strong enough to believe that they can exist without the WTS. Until a person feels valuable enough, strong enough, capable enough, to exist as an individual rather than as a Witness, they will never leave, regardless of what ?facts? are placed before them. They?ll just ignore them ? just like many of us did until we were ready.
But assist and support people in being happier ? feeling truly capable, loved, valued, powerful, talented, and all the rest ? and they will be more effective in making the world a better place. Judging them as ?brain-dead morons? is a lousy way to get them to do anything, much less get them to leave a religion that requires as much courage to leave as the WTS. Supporting people in being fulfilled, capable, and successful makes the entire world a better place ? whether they do it my way or not. It?s also a safe bet they won?t stay Witnesses for long after making their lives better, in my humble opinion. Valuing the Good just a bit higher than the True allows us to make a bigger difference in people?s lives. Valuing the True over the Good demeans ourselves and other humans ? but it does allow great advances in synthetic fibers.
So when it comes to battles, I go to battle, not to be right, not against others. I go to battle with myself ? to every day be the best person that I can be ? to really connect with someone, regardless of their station in life ? to give to others without comparing myself to them and judging them as a result ? and to be respectful of other human beings as I want to be respected. I want to bring forth that arête, that excellence, that is inside every one of us. I see that as the greatest difference any of us can make in the world.
The best revenge against the WTS is to live a fulfilled, happy, and successful life ? and inspire others to do the same. When I?m doing that, I have no time for, no energy for, and no desire to engage in wars of words with those who don?t respect individuals, and don?t want to ? well, unless they prove themselves as worthy intellectuals ? and I have no patience for those who want to call me purposely offensive names because they think anything that draws me into debate is justified, because they already ?know? they?re right - or those who don?t listen in the third way worth a damn, instead always looking for points to attack in every word and every line. That?s not co-operation, that?s not respect, and that?s not a way that anyone can ever rise above the modes of thought the WTS taught them ? even though they?ve abandoned the doctrines. Being right about the WTS, but not seeing in other people the Good, the excellence, the amazing capabilities they have and opportunity their very existence represents ? that?s a terrible price to pay just to be right.