Interesting...
I recognize a trend these days, the act of indirect communications by individuals reasserting their views of certain subject matter so to speak, is very prevalent in this world of blogging.
The notion of becoming more inexpressively vocal individuals and also the desire to avoid direct confrontation has led to this "war of words". This "war" in fact has its own benefits and of course also its own disadvantages.
One could argue that in the light of avoiding direct "face to face" confrontation, we would greatly reduce the chances of getting physical. In the same light, we would feel less of a need of being evasive to the problem but the choice of words used are by and large more direct and straight to the point. Unless, of course a general exception to the rule is me, whom writes with underlying meanings which one has to decipher from within.
One could also argue that, a blog, is a channel of expression for us, in this oppressed world. I would term it as a "publicized diary". It is in such channel of expression, other and on top of the hardcopy diary which one would record his/her deepest and darkest secrets of all time, that shows much truth about a person's character.
No doubt many would find to the contrary to my arguments above, most people would regard what they read off a blog as non-substantial. it is a irreliable source of information and nothing is even near an inch to facts and truth.
It is commonly argued that in a "war of words", it is not this channel that is contested against but rather the words used. It is often the choice of words one uses, that results in a misinterpretation of it that leads to deeper misunderstandings.
And also, do problems actually get resolved through the use of indirect communication? Apparently, to me it is a way of avoiding the subject matter directly. There could be many reasons for this avoidance.
1stly, a head-on collision will result in 2 effects, one, an elastic collision, whereby all energies will be transferred to each other and both move off in the opposite direction. This analogy occurs when both parties fail to come to a mutual understanding and thus in avoidance to this kind of effect, the cause would be to prevent a head-on collision. Two, an inelastic collision, whereby energies transferred are somehow lost or changed amidst it and both parties end up going in an unknown direction after collision. The final direction after collision, largely depends on the impact of it and the forces implicated by both sides. That means to say that, in an inelastic collision, problems might not be resolved but actually amplified to a different magnitude.
2ndly, one might had tried the former method of communication to no avail and thus resort to this indirect means, it is then through the latter means, that they found out that they can be better expressed in words and therefore adhere by this methodology.
I strongly believe that NO ONE is in a position to judge whether this method is correct or wrong. It is just a different avenue for expression to different people thats all. An analogy would be that, I tell you that the sales line is very profitable and experience enhancing and everyone should have a hand at it, but it is not in your nature to be in the sales line, so when you turn down my idea of doing sales, does that mean you are WRONG? Definitely not.
On a personal basis, I would try to the best of my ability to reduce the chances of engaging in a "war of words", but more often than not, I would end up in the indirect approach.
One could argue that I'm taking the easy way out, I would not deny thee but sometimes in life, taking the easy way out, might just be the best way out, Does everything in life has to be so explicit? If yes, then in my personal opinion, you are leading quite a sorrowful life, its time to put certain things down and move on. If not, then take it easy, life goes on anyway.
The notion of becoming more inexpressively vocal individuals and also the desire to avoid direct confrontation has led to this "war of words". This "war" in fact has its own benefits and of course also its own disadvantages.
One could argue that in the light of avoiding direct "face to face" confrontation, we would greatly reduce the chances of getting physical. In the same light, we would feel less of a need of being evasive to the problem but the choice of words used are by and large more direct and straight to the point. Unless, of course a general exception to the rule is me, whom writes with underlying meanings which one has to decipher from within.
One could also argue that, a blog, is a channel of expression for us, in this oppressed world. I would term it as a "publicized diary". It is in such channel of expression, other and on top of the hardcopy diary which one would record his/her deepest and darkest secrets of all time, that shows much truth about a person's character.
No doubt many would find to the contrary to my arguments above, most people would regard what they read off a blog as non-substantial. it is a irreliable source of information and nothing is even near an inch to facts and truth.
It is commonly argued that in a "war of words", it is not this channel that is contested against but rather the words used. It is often the choice of words one uses, that results in a misinterpretation of it that leads to deeper misunderstandings.
And also, do problems actually get resolved through the use of indirect communication? Apparently, to me it is a way of avoiding the subject matter directly. There could be many reasons for this avoidance.
1stly, a head-on collision will result in 2 effects, one, an elastic collision, whereby all energies will be transferred to each other and both move off in the opposite direction. This analogy occurs when both parties fail to come to a mutual understanding and thus in avoidance to this kind of effect, the cause would be to prevent a head-on collision. Two, an inelastic collision, whereby energies transferred are somehow lost or changed amidst it and both parties end up going in an unknown direction after collision. The final direction after collision, largely depends on the impact of it and the forces implicated by both sides. That means to say that, in an inelastic collision, problems might not be resolved but actually amplified to a different magnitude.
2ndly, one might had tried the former method of communication to no avail and thus resort to this indirect means, it is then through the latter means, that they found out that they can be better expressed in words and therefore adhere by this methodology.
I strongly believe that NO ONE is in a position to judge whether this method is correct or wrong. It is just a different avenue for expression to different people thats all. An analogy would be that, I tell you that the sales line is very profitable and experience enhancing and everyone should have a hand at it, but it is not in your nature to be in the sales line, so when you turn down my idea of doing sales, does that mean you are WRONG? Definitely not.
On a personal basis, I would try to the best of my ability to reduce the chances of engaging in a "war of words", but more often than not, I would end up in the indirect approach.
One could argue that I'm taking the easy way out, I would not deny thee but sometimes in life, taking the easy way out, might just be the best way out, Does everything in life has to be so explicit? If yes, then in my personal opinion, you are leading quite a sorrowful life, its time to put certain things down and move on. If not, then take it easy, life goes on anyway.
posted by The Custodian at 8:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home