Conversations are interesting things, taking us to new worlds of ideas, countries, restaurants, sporting events, and the like. The interaction between two people discussing, agreeing and disagreeing, and otherwise hashing out ‘things’ is one of the most pleasurable activities humans have with one another. Humans. Plural. Indicating ‘more than one.’ But what about those conversations that involve only us?As in ‘me, myself, and I’ being the only pluralities included in the conversation? I’m not referring to ‘talking to myself’ in this case, although I am certainly guilty of that…. I’m talking about the conversations we have as we get ready for something ‘big’ like an interview, in which we practice what we might say if asked particular questions. Multiple times. A job interview, for example, is a big deal, especially if you’re hoping to move up, move to a better situation, or simply move to a different line of work. And because we’re unsure of what will be asked, the more questions you answer strongly, the better chance you will have of making a good impression on someone who is in a position to offer you the chance to do something different. In this case, however, I am touching on those conversations you have—yes, with yourself—in which you improve on the actual conversation that occurred in the past. In those awkward situations in which you were not your shining best, when you feel you failed, or felt a fool afterward, and it gives you a chance to practice what you should have said. In a meeting with the boss, your colleagues present, when your great idea was shot down, quickly and succinctly, and left only an uncomfortable silence in the room. Where you point out the advantages, in this case, of how this can benefit the company in multiple ways that are not being used at this time. And, of course, of your own role in implementing the plan, and how invaluable to the business this is. Those conversations. But, going deeper, those conversations when things have not gone well socially, either with friends and family, or with complete strangers you happen across in life. Recently, on the way home from work, I was waiting for a red light to turn green, which it did, and no one in front of me moved. Slightly irritated, I waited briefly, before flashing the lights at the car in front of me. No effect. A few more seconds, and I lightly tapped the horn. This time, the car in front of me jerked forward and sped up to catch up to the cars ahead, which had apparently moved when the light turned green. A short distance later, this car pulled behind, flashing its lights, and revving its engine. Then, it moved beside me, still revving the engine. This was starting to get a little scary. Finally, another red light stopped us both, and i noticed a young man, window down, talking in my direction. I opened the passenger window, wherein in was treated to an expletive-filled diatribe on what a jerk i was, he was at a red light, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. When asked ‘what the fuck is your problem?’ I simply said, ‘Sorry. I apologize.’ And rolled up the window. He soon pulled off to get gas, and I continued, thankfully, on my way home undisturbed by similar events. Yes, I might have been impatient. Honked inappropriately, etc. But I’ve replayed this conversation many times since then, to improve how I felt when moving on from the scene of our confrontation, but, at first, the words on my part were denigrating and caustic, turning to insulting, and finally to realizing I did the right thing by backing down from the situation. But this still goes through my head at times, and the more I want to be the ‘hero’ in this case, I still feel I did the right thing. In apologizing. Because sometimes, the best thing in strange situations is to step back, and step down, from being the ‘hero,’ and to simply be a human, open to others, and open to the fact that you both felt hurt, wounded, and defensive, and stepping away from the battle can be the best strategy.
Simplicity. As humans, we’re taught that simplifying things makes them easier to understand, so that we can convey our message to more people, with fewer complications that might confuse people. How easy is it though? And that, of course, depends on how we think as individuals. Someone with a mechanical bent might explain things in terms of the workings of a project or idea. Someone more theatrical might define things in the way people interact with one another. And yet another will illustrate that our journey through life will define how we see things. So, who’s right? And, of course, they all are right, whatever right means in this case. And I use ‘right’ in quotes because it is how we see the world that makes one answer make more sense to us as individuals. The trouble, if ‘trouble’ means ‘conflict’ in this case, means that while the workings of a project might define how plans are made to the mechanically inspired, they will mean next to nothing to those who are more spiritually influenced; this latter group will want to know how the ‘workings’ will motivate those more celestially motivated, and why we should get on board with things we don’t understand in ways that mean something to us. Herein lies the work of those organizing or managing such endeavors, to reach into ourselves and find those individual strands of mechanization, or spirituality, or theatricality, that we can take the ‘vision’, i.e. the project at hand, and create a way for everyone involved to support the central vision, and find a common way to create the desired result.