if but when..
not a matter of what but how.. something was said to you.
in relationships, why people make mistakes regarding their responsibility to keep the relationship in good faith and in good form?
perhaps, the outlook or philosophy on relationships is seen in terms of ifs and whats
but not when and how.
share if you like, what your experiences and thoughts are on this slight but very powerful differences in how communication in a relationship is carried on?
best,
Dushwari
Re: Not a matter of ...
The relationship between a couple is a delicate one, the most delicate of all in some cases. I believe a great amount of flexibility and the willingness to learn from each other has to pre-exist. With that in mind, comes tolerance. This factor of tolerance is extremely necessary to the newfound 'feelings' to mold into a healthy bond. What is said, how it's said, what is done, how it's done in the process can have an impact on the overall turnout.
Often, as you mentioned above, the outlook indeed is based on 'what' and more frequently 'what if'. Certain shadows of the past always lurk around to make one that much more vulnerable to intolerant behavior. Sometimes it's needed to let the shield of distrust rest.
From my experience, the ability to keep your cool, think rationally, speak your heart but use your mind as well. When and How are the keys to prolonging a relationship and giving it the surviving chance. When things are good a couple talks of 'When this...When that....How are we going to this...and How that..', it is when their waters are tested that When and How seem to vanish, and 'What if' are often found in their place in dialogue. Only if that tolerance had time to mature, it would turn into trust, and trust often serves as a buffer to these alien thoughts that may otherwise put a wedge between two persons.
It is extremely important to always be willing to talk, share, be optimistic and know nothing is impossible it's just a matter of 'when' and 'how'. 'what if' is a state of doubt, and rarely leads to desired results.
best,
Teggy
Re: Not a matter of ...
thanks, teggy. i truly appreciate your candid sharing of how things ideally be approached.
you put it bueatifully and truthfully in words : 'Only if that tolerance had time to mature, it would turn into trust, and trust often serves as a buffer to these alien thoughts that may otherwise put a wedge between two persons. '
& that tolerence turning into trust is all the more essential, when some people create the planned rift between a couple. i pray to Allah swt that people can see it before they ruin the relation and doubt someone - one side, without any basis.
thanks again, for deciding to comment on the thread with objectiveness.
Dushwari
Re: Not a matter of ...
ur always welcome Dush. :)
best,
teggy
Re: Not a matter of ...
teggy or anyone else,
can you please share your thought on this: do you feel that there are times when through communication, if you are caring, you should not be misjudged.
for instance, if someone shared with you, that s/he would like to get settled, and when you later on quoted that, for her/ him, in a non critical manner, should that individual act out?
why is it that people create difficulty in understanding another person who very much, would want the best for them?
best,
Dushwari
Re: Not a matter of ...
I think i know what you mean, but can you elaborate on that please.
Cite a converstaion (even if make-belief) where it's used. So i know exactly what you mean....if at all possible.
best,
teggy
Re: Not a matter of ...
Teggy...wow! That was beautiful. I like the part of "shadows of the past lurk around to make one vulnerable to intolerant behaviour"
But how easy is it to practically apply some of these things which we can so easily discuss? From my experience, I would say pre-conceived notions determine how you interprete what is being said to you. So if I had an open mind, I would more readily accept what the other person is trying to mean. Otherwise I would twist his/her meaning to suit my pre-judgement of him/her.
Just today, I got a text saying "Please can you arrange to pick so-and-so from now" Now I spent a lot of time figuring out what the "please" meant...was it an apologetic kind of please as this was after a quarrel? or was this a sarcastic type of "please" as in please just leave me alone as it included the "from now"? My pre-judgement leads me to discard the apologetic theory. If I had an open mind would I have given him/her the benefit of doubt? Perhaps...?
PS Teggy...some things are impossible :(
And I know its really important to be able to communicate etc but what do you do when you have let neglected the communication till its far too late? Can you re-open the communication? How?
Re: Not a matter of ...
I don't think communication is ever closed.
As for your text, it can be interpreted any way you like. See i don't know your 'situation' so i can't tell how much of it was sarcasm, whether it was the 'nice' please or the 'for once do something' kinda please. hope that makes sense.
But you should give the other person the benefit of the doubt especially if he/she's been doing the deed for a while and asking that you do it from now on.
Some things seem impossible to do. Nothing really is impossible with the right mindset, know-how, and a determination. It becomes impossible when you (and you can be the other person as well) let 'your way', or your ego, or even sometimes your misunderstanding of the matter take over subconsciously.
As for too little too late, it's kinda like murphy's law of errors. One error leads to another, to another and nothing will be straightened till you go back and fix that first error that led to this chain of mistakes.
You should always be willing to re-commune, and make clear what you mean. Just as you may have pre-existing notions of phrases from past experience, it's very very likely that other person has had such experience in their life as well, so they may misunderstand what you meant. Sometimes the best of comments seem the rudest, only if u took the time to make them clear, they would achieve their desired effect.
Communication between two people is a must. I'm not perfect or anything but i've learnt that the door of communication is always ajar, never closed. It's whether you choose to adopt it often. So, communicate freely. Sometimes you have to lay it all on the table and be open as a book so the other person can see where you're coming from, and that enhances the understanding because then the other person knows what to say and how. Which further leads to a more healthy relationship because you're both aware of what each's been through, or the way each feels about certain things. Not all is achieved overnight ofcourse, it takes time. Be willing to have lots of patience and understanding even at times when you just wanna turn away. Stay, for it's better to hear what he/she has to say, than to leave not knowing what it could've been.
Restarting communication is quite simple. Just take the time best suited for both people, sit down and just open up. Be willing to listen, and tolerate even if some things are inaccurate because only after you've heard what the other person has said, you can fully insert or clarify that misunderstanding and wipe the slate clean.
Listen before you speak, and when you speak, keep the other person's perspective in mind so ur focus stays on the issue and not go from A-J-K-Z back to A. get what i mean?
Re: Not a matter of ...
Teggy thanks for your reply.
Firstly no I would not have expected you to interprete the text msg as obviously there is background to it...I just wanted to give a for example as to how misinterpretaion can occur.
Secondly i'm happy to see an optimist around :)
Thirdly communication can only happen when both parties agree to it. The impossibility of some situations is simply to try and get the other person to communicate with you...but I believe time is the greatest factor here for ego/pre-conceived notions and everything can be healed...just the wait can be pretty deceiving.
As for murphy's law...sometimes you even forget what was the first error....for example you remember that you argued but not why you argued...probly it was so trivial...have you ever experinced that?