WORDING – biggest, highest, what if, but

Did you ever realized that words do not roughly describe reality?

It may be a complete new perspective for you now but going a step beyond and analyse language it will become an eye opener to get a sense of human behaviour.

It’s not obvious first hand. Simple observation and sensitivity helps to become aware what situation a person is in.

See, Mehrabian taught us that human information transfer is set up by 55% of body language, mimic & gestures, 38% of tonality and 7% by the content itself. Our realization often is the other way round and we are not aware about all the information in addition to words which makes that impact or impression.

Take dog training as an example. There are probably two dozens of variations for the order „sit“. We say „SIT, SIIIIIIT, SIT, didn’t I say SIT, quietly, loud, bold, with moral pointer finger, without moral pointer, with exlamation mark, without exclamation mark, head up, head down“, and so forth. The reason why our dog is not listening is the fact it doesn*t speak and understands words. It understands energies and frequencies. In this moment we communicate everything but clarity. So it’s natural response is often the opposite we want to achieve with him.

Presence doesn’t need volume.

A more reasonable and effective way of communication for our four-legged friend is using „SIT“ for „SIT“ and naturally meaning it without any option of doubt or emotion.

Whenever you see emotion in form of high volume mixed with extreme gesture you can suppose a person is leaving his natural path and is missing all the sovereignty of his or her nature. Dog training is such a good example because you cannot fool nature. A dog is mirroring our personal gap of awareness.

Now let’s review another point here. Have you ever heard someone saying:“I am pleased to SEE you“?

Not only is there a message about some kind of joy SEEING you but also another 3 parts of information. Going with Friedemann Schulz von Thun there is always 4 levels of information (4 ear model) in communication:

  1. A factual level – the content itself
  2. A realationship level – the connection between both
  3. A personal statement about individual constitution – hidden reason for your thoughts or feelings
  4. A call to action – some kind of introduction for the next step from your counterpart

So it’s not only an

  • expression of good feeling in our example but also saying
  • „our relationship is open for another level of depth“ as well as
  • „I had so much heavy things to go with, that your visit lighten up the situation“ as well as
  • „Let’s have a good talk and information exchange“.

The puzzle comes together the moment we become aware of these different levels and energy states.

Human beings also uses VERBS and ADJECTIVES according to their type of sensing information from the outside world.

A musician potentially uses words like „listen, it sounds to me“ while a painter on the other hand may use words like „see, colorful, sight.“ Just by repeated observation you become aware human beings are in its fundamental essence energy and frequency states.

We often tend to mask our situation but it screams louder than we can hide it. Did you ever had a night long of party? Did you ever had that moment where you physical condition wasn’t able to absorb any more information? What is the natural reaction of your body? What is the natural reaction of your eyes?

You close them and fall into sleep. We are able to sense way more information as there is in words.

Whenever somebody is introducing his sentences by „when“ or „if“ his setting up conditions and is fencing the place. Just become aware we do that separation „game“ over and to

  • have security by control and
  • to find out about our true nature beyond.

(Unconditional) Love is fundamental but not in full expression in a conditional, limited, segmented, separated, lined field. All information outside of this barbwire is also LOVE. We use language as a pointer but it is just a pointer to an infinite truth.

It is the same using scaling words like the best, the worst, the most tasteful, the most anything combined with an adjetive. It doesn’t exist in nature. It is just a measurement for HUMAN BEINGS to communicate a value in polarity.

Can you see that?

By asking „regarding to what“ it refers always to an individual or global value system of HUMAN BEINGS. Any other BEING is not getting the point. So what we do here is creating language to approach nature. Leaving the door open for awareness and still see the whole environment helps us to stay in natural exchange.

Stephan

 

0 Kommentare

Hinterlasse ein Kommentar

An der Diskussion beteiligen?
Hinterlasse uns deinen Kommentar!

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert.