\u25ba\u25ba\u25ba WHY read this? In a more and more complex world, communication becomes ever more important.\u25c4\u25c4\u25c4<\/p>\n\n\n\n
You listen to someone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This someone talks about all kinds of things.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
You know what it’s about.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
You understand what that person is saying.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But that is not enough.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Do you also understand the deeper layers?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If you look straight at it, you can see the surface<\/p>\n\n\n\n
and then you say, “I understand.” But what do you understand?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
With a broader view, you see the totality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A very, very big difference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is ‘AURELIS coaching.’<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Is it statistically normal? Nope.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Is it special? Yes indeed!<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Is it magical? Nope.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To communicate = to unite. It’s what the term itself means, where it comes from (in Latin).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Every course in communication begins (and ends, actually) with this. There is a sender who sends and a receiver who receives. After a while \u2013 seconds, minutes \u2013 the sender becomes the receiver and vice versa.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That is simple. Therefore, it’s not true because<\/p>\n\n\n\n
[see: “Complex is not Complicated<\/a>“]<\/p>\n\n\n\n Time and time again, people look at human affairs as if the stakeholders are not complex. So, time and time again, we run into trouble.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big trouble. Unfortunately, a person who stands ‘nearer to complexity’ is prone also to stand nearer to really big trouble. He’s in a maddening situation and can effectively go mad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As an intern in psychiatry, I have seen this in action in real-time. For instance, in the case of acute psychosis, communication breaks down unless you can follow symbolically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n unless you put people in boxes where they don’t belong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In real life \u2013 even in a madhouse \u2013 senders send through<\/em> receiving, and vice versa. Only then do people unite and communicate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Note that this is about much more than a sum of sending and receiving. This is my reason for ‘through<\/em>.’ Once you get this, you can start an exercise that never ends. Your communication becomes one from deep to deep<\/em>. On the surface, it may appear less clear and concrete.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The opposite is true<\/p>\n\n\n\n but you have to Listen to hear it. [see: “Deep Listening<\/a>“]<\/p>\n\n\n\n The whole world direly needs this!<\/p>\nThere is no sender and receiver<\/h5>\n\n\n\n