After I left Mormonism, I still held strongly to the Mormon worldview of God's interactions with humanity.
Namely: God calls prophets and gives them information to spread to help people live better lives.
One thing which caused me to give up this view, was realizing that I (and probably most people, even the very religious) have benefited far more from non-scriptural or even entirely secular books than anything in any scriptures, even one's I adore, like the Bhagavad gita. Even books that are written as commentaries on scripture tend to be more clear and insightful than the Scriptures themselves. It seemed that if God was working through prophets, his ideas were somehow inadequate to those of his creation, which seemed unlikely.
(I think even people who do not read books are still very much influenced by them. Most great ideas are first presented in books, which then spread to the general consciousness)
One book I have found particularly enlightening is 'Non-Violent Communication' If I were somehow in a position where I had to choose one book and make it required scripture for the entire world, this would be it. Since obtaining my copy, I have read through it many many times. (not straight through, but I pick it up and read a chapter here or there).
I have been reading through it again lately and reminded of how great it is. I guess what I am saying is: I recommend this book.
It is about so much more than mere communication. It can transform how one approaches the world, others and themselves in positive ways. Few things I can think of would have such a dramatic effect on positively changing the world than the ideas presented in this book. If I were rich I would buy a copy for every one I know.
Although I think everyone should buy a copy, it can also be read online.
Posts
5 comments:
I am trying to imagine a world in which you were in the position to dictate required reading to the world. I'm not saying that it would be a worse world than the one that most people imagine.
(We cannot grasp "the world" because we cannot see it. We can only imagine it. Though in the narrow sense, the world is "my valley", or rather that part of the valley which I encounter day to day.)
My copy of your recommended book would be hideously defaced and probably employed "for an unspeakable purpose" as they used to say in the days of polite euphemisms, until all its leaves were used up.
It's not that it says anything I am violently opposed to. I am just non-violently opposed to self-help books in general.
When it comes to communication, I prefer people to choose their own and not disguise its unfragrant undertones, as it were, with the artificial perfumes of correctness learned from a book.
If the author of this book were obeyed, every communication would have to be decoded. See for example page 53 where he gives two examples of communication at a meeting.
One person says "The problem is that these people are racist!" Another says "The problem is that these people don't respect law and order!"
To me, this is good communication. Each is saying what he thinks. Everyone else can judge where he stands, without decoding.
Ah, but you may respond that I am missing the point. They had been asked to express their own needs, not analyze the wrongness of others.
But the author himself is missing the point, say I. Communication's purpose is to say what I want to say, not what someone else wants me to think.
So it seems to me that his book is not about how to communicate at all. People know how to communicate. It is about how to think, how to be.
At least the scriptures have a long track-record in influencing people how to think and how to be. We can judge the track-record as a mixture of good and bad.
As you say, it is about more than communication. It's a book that tells you how to think and behave. Why should the author entertain the notion that the words of his book are worthy to override his reader's own autonomy and integrity?
What is the use of living, of accumulating personal experience, if someone is going to publish an instruction manual on how to live?
At least and to its great credit, the Bible doesn't do that. It mostly tells stories, and though it also contains instruction, there's enough material in the Bible as a whole to allow any reader to ignore any part that he doesn't like.
"It seemed that if God was working through prophets, his ideas were somehow inadequate to those of his creation, which seemed unlikely."
This idea is one worth developing, I reckon. Are you suggesting that God doesn't throw out ideas through prophets, or that this is merely a minor aspect of his communication?
Certainly there are many instances of violent communication in the old testament.
Vincent,
I may be wrong, however, based on your comments I have the impression you haven't made a sufficiently thorough reading of this book to make the judgments you have. What you have taken away from this book seems more based on your general dislike of 'self help books' than on the books actual contents.
I agree that people should speak as clearly, directly and accurately as possible and I think the author of this book would as well. This book doesn't teach others how to speak 'with the artificial perfumes of correctness' but rather, how to express themselves more clearly and more accurately.
I strongly disagree that 'If the author of this book were obeyed, every communication would have to be decoded.' Rather, I think the opposite is true. The way most people communicate requires decoding of actual feelings. This book teaches people how to recognize and articulate thoughts and feelings in more accurate ways.
I and the author would agree with your statement 'Communication's purpose is to say what I want to say, not what someone else wants me to think.'
The purpose of this book is to teach people how to more accurately and non-violently say what they want to so, not what someone else thinks.
You say 'People know how to communicate. It is about how to think, how to be.'
Of course people know how to use words and grammar. The purpose of this book is not to teach people how actually speak, how to do it effectively something many people do not do well and is the reason why a book like this is necessary.
(the example you give from page 53 illustrates this well. He asked people to speak about their needs and they responded by saying what is wrong with others. They didn't even answer the question! They are the ones whose words need to be decoded! Had they used Marshall's ideas they would have actually spoken of their needs. No decoding needed.)
I often have the impression you skim over something then come to strong conclusions based on previous experiences with related things rather than attempting to fully investigate the thing in and of itself. If you were to thoroughly investigate the ideas contained in this book I would be more than happy to debate it's merits.
As for your larger point against self help books, "Why should the author entertain the notion that the words of his book are worthy to override his reader's own autonomy and integrity?
What is the use of living, of accumulating personal experience, if someone is going to publish an instruction manual on how to live?"
If you feel this way, then why should anyone express any opinion, give any advice, or write anything other than fiction at all?
We all live our lives based on inadequate knowledge and some people have more knowledge in some subjects than others and thankfully many share that knowledge allowing others to benefit from it as well.
Some people are very bad at the art of living, others are good. Why should we not allow ourselves to learn from others how to be better people? How to perceive the world differently? How to see others differently? Of course we don't accept it all blindly, we investigate it, we consider it, we try it, and if it works we use it. I think the ideas in this book work and would work for others, so I use them and recommend them to others. But I, nor the author have any desire to force it on others.
You wrote:
"At least and to its great credit, the Bible doesn't do that(tell people how to live)"
Have we been reading the same bible? The bible very forcefully attempts to tell people how to live and does it with threats of eternal suffering.
Chris, thanks for taking such trouble to refute me. I think an impartial judge would award you the case with costs and admonish me for wasting the court's time.
You're right I didn't make a thorough reading of the book. It didn't arouse enough curiosity. My mind was too closed to the idea of a self-help book, as you suggest. Nevertheless I think the example I pulled out was a good one to illustrate my point, yours and the author's.
Obviously the book will be useful in situations where it is seen that mediation and non-violent communication is needed. the book will in other words be useful where it is of use.
My argument was pointed at your sentence "If I were somehow in a position where I had to choose one book and make it required scripture for the entire world, this would be it." I took this to mean that this book would help everyone, and from other things you said, that it might supplant the Bible in its beneficial influence upon the world.
I don't of course think you really would want to force it on others. Authors in general would like to sell lots of copies of their books. But I don't suppose any, apart from the late Chairman Mao, entertain thoughts of "required reading".
It's unusual for me as a non-Christian to be defending the Bible to a Christian or ex-Christian. So I thought it would be fun to try. My perception is that Bible readers invariably manage to skip or disregard any part which clashes with their own view. I don't think the Bible directly tells anyone what to do, except in the form "The Lord said to Moses, command Aaron and his sons to do this and not to do that ..." And because we know it isn't practicable to take a calf or a lamb for a burnt offering, when we live high in an apartment block, we simply disregard Leviticus altogether, unless instructed otherwise by our particular Church elders.
I may be wrong in anything I say and I don't want to waste your time. I admire your thinking. anyhow.
Furthermore I apologize for inexcusable rudeness about the book.
Post a Comment