Chapter 1: On Communication
There is a problem of communication in the world.
“To communicate” is “to make something common” (i.e. “to convey information or knowledge from one person to another in as accurate a way as possible.”)
In a dialogue, two people are going to be making something in common, not something they already think they know.
“But of course such communication can lead to the creation of something new only if people are able freely to listen to each other, without prejudice, and without trying to influence each other.”
“Thus, if people are to co-operate (i.e., literally to “work together”) they have to be able to create something in common, something that takes shape in their mutual discussion and actions, rather than something that is conveyed from one person who acts as an authority to the others, who act as passive instruments of this authority.”
Analogy of dialogue with people as well as the one a scientist has with nature. The scientist believes in some theory, but when observed in nature it results to be different, so now the scientist can create something new with the contributions of nature, and so on. The same happens with people as they share different meanings, and in these differences they might be able to create something new and in common to both parties. In we want to achieve something like this, we must not “block” communication by defending our assumptions.
“This might be of great significance for bringing to an end the at present insoluble problems of the individual and of society.”
“To communicate” is “to make something common” (i.e. “to convey information or knowledge from one person to another in as accurate a way as possible.”)
In a dialogue, two people are going to be making something in common, not something they already think they know.
“But of course such communication can lead to the creation of something new only if people are able freely to listen to each other, without prejudice, and without trying to influence each other.”
“Thus, if people are to co-operate (i.e., literally to “work together”) they have to be able to create something in common, something that takes shape in their mutual discussion and actions, rather than something that is conveyed from one person who acts as an authority to the others, who act as passive instruments of this authority.”
Analogy of dialogue with people as well as the one a scientist has with nature. The scientist believes in some theory, but when observed in nature it results to be different, so now the scientist can create something new with the contributions of nature, and so on. The same happens with people as they share different meanings, and in these differences they might be able to create something new and in common to both parties. In we want to achieve something like this, we must not “block” communication by defending our assumptions.
“This might be of great significance for bringing to an end the at present insoluble problems of the individual and of society.”