One day two men went to the court to resolve a dispute that arose between them. Just got the first expounded his views and now the judge said: "Yes, you're right."
"What?" Protested the other, "She has not heard what I have to say and gives me wrong?". "True," replied the judge, "Speak."
When the second man had finished his present its case to the judge ruled: "You're right."
At this point another man who was there and had witnessed the scene intervened: "But judge, how can he give a reason for both?". And the judge, nodding, " is true, you're right!"
Often the world we live in a world where you do not want to give wrong to anyone and not to give wrong no one ends up giving reason at all. But this is just one of the worst things you can do: by doing so you kill the dialogue, the people are reduced to ideas and relationships, real food for human growth, we stop in front of a politically correct that has very little to correct (at least in terms of relationships).
The judge (and our society, which is the image) is not the reason someone's decrees, but the death of comparison, the atrophy of the man on his position. That's what happens in many television talk shows: I'm lucky not to attend many of these shows the relatedness of human carnage, but sometimes the misfortune of running into these screaming launched to overcome the voice level of the counterparty that occurs in these cases, unfortunately, is not a dialogue in order to understand how my thinking and that of the other can come together, but rather we want to provide viewers (an idea about the discussion, whatever it is, already have it, although not well structured) some arguments with which to support its point of view, attacking each other. And so you do not grow! It's like trying to grow a plant with only the light of the sun: the only result will be that he will die of thirst.
Sometimes you hear someone who does exactly the same mistake, that trying to impose their ideas hiding behind the false tolerance of those who think like him, this tolerance, however, it always ends where the other point of view intersects and its challenges: "I'm not racist, are also Arabs to live in Italy," they say, but then just feel the smell of couscous on the landing is no longer the same idea: "A child has the right as the Roma others to go to school, " but if he is classmate of her son and the two become friends, which ends this same man so open to other cultures raises the transfer of the Chamber for their child or Barred from attending; "Everyone has freedom of thought and expression", but what if the Church, as religious authority, ethics and morals, expresses an opinion or an opinion on any law or the court on a certain costume is angry.
The goal of the agent so it becomes to maintain their point of view as the sole and undisputed. But he does not realize that this is not possible. In fact it is a bit 'as if each of us had a lens through which to look at the world and the way to see through this instrument is different to change the lens. Be confronted with someone with a different lens should not throw refuse into his way of seeing the world, but stimulating to see the world through a new lens that not only understand their own, also including the other. And so the lens grows, you will discover new aspects of the world, unpredictable, that did not previously know each other. That's how you can understand a new way of being with others, because they see the same things. This does not mean to deny your weak or what you see through it, just need to not just look at things through their glass limited, but open new perspectives.
Thanks to Andrea Zaniboni: things written here (including the early history) have been said by him or were raised by reflecting on his words. The beautiful meeting today was very interesting and enriching! At least now I have a lens more ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment