The Beginning
There are many words that people speak today that they hardly comprehend; for instance, take the word "respect." Respect is a thing that very few have much of, in regards to nearly everything. Respect for themselves, respect for others, respect for authority... the list goes on. Respect for a person is knowing not to act in a hurtful manner towards them. Respect is the very opposite, in fact: it is a perpetual state of giving and kindheartedness directed towards that which the One respects. Respect for oneself is not vanity, nor narcissism; no, respect is not these mere trifles, but is rather a state of mind in which one refuse to do disservice to onerself. Respect for authorities is merely a simple problem of recognizing a person's position of power, and seeing to it that one does not cross them. Power denotes an ability to levy punishment, and such authorities will see fit to punish those who fail to not only recognize their position of power, but of the protection they more often than not provide through their position. Surely as we are human, we cannot be expected to be respectful (of eachother and ourselves) all the time, but this is when we must learn the true meaning of the next word.
Accountability. Another word often spoken over lips which will praise the virtues of the word one day, and then foist their accountability upon a scapegoat the next day. These people are the very enemies of accountability. When the One acts in a manner that is hurtful, whether intentionally or not, he or she is accountable for the action even if "the Other" is the one making it a hurtful thing. The logic to this argument is that the Other is largely ignorant of the One's perspective and meaning, and thusly the One is accountable for making him or herself clear in his or her actions. The Other has no responsibility to rationalize what has been said or done beyond the surface or the perceived intentions (read: context). Accountability is taking upon oneself the burden of being misunderstood, and realizing that misunderstanding is not born of a lack of communication, but rather a lack of clear communication. If the Other is hurt by the One's words or actions, it is indeed the Other's problem; however, in being misunderstood, it becomes the One's problem as well. In this manner, the One must take accountability for being the initiator of the misunderstanding and clarify the offending statements or actions. Doing otherwise is dropping the problem squarely on the head of the Other, and is essentially foisting the responsibility for being hurt solely upon them. In most cases, things are more complex than as I have detailed above, but unless the Other takes something far out of context (another misunderstood and misappropriated word) then the problem lies with the initiator of the misunderstanding; in this case, the One.
The third word I will define here is context. Context is not merely the mood, or when in a timeline something is said; in truth, context is everything the One and the Other have experienced in interactions up to this very moment and beyond. Given that context is defined by experience, then it is safe to say that context varies greatly from the One to the Other. In rationalizing the previous statement, the One must conclude that his or her own context is not the context of the Other. Another facet of context is its ability to define meaning in an action or in a statement. Context overrides all insinuations and implications, as context is, in and of itself, an insinuation and implication of a much grander scale. It is because of this that the One must be understanding of contextual variations from person to person, and take accountability for the context that has been developed by the Other through experiences with the One. Contextual misunderstandings are not altogether uncommon, but they can be grievous and offensive to those that experience them. To assert that one's own context is the correct context is a logical fallacy; furthermore, such an assumption would lead to no end of hardships for those who take the idea to heart.
I think I might develop this further and start a bit of a book or something. Please, read and offer me some constructive criticism. I'd love to hone and improve it.
Accountability. Another word often spoken over lips which will praise the virtues of the word one day, and then foist their accountability upon a scapegoat the next day. These people are the very enemies of accountability. When the One acts in a manner that is hurtful, whether intentionally or not, he or she is accountable for the action even if "the Other" is the one making it a hurtful thing. The logic to this argument is that the Other is largely ignorant of the One's perspective and meaning, and thusly the One is accountable for making him or herself clear in his or her actions. The Other has no responsibility to rationalize what has been said or done beyond the surface or the perceived intentions (read: context). Accountability is taking upon oneself the burden of being misunderstood, and realizing that misunderstanding is not born of a lack of communication, but rather a lack of clear communication. If the Other is hurt by the One's words or actions, it is indeed the Other's problem; however, in being misunderstood, it becomes the One's problem as well. In this manner, the One must take accountability for being the initiator of the misunderstanding and clarify the offending statements or actions. Doing otherwise is dropping the problem squarely on the head of the Other, and is essentially foisting the responsibility for being hurt solely upon them. In most cases, things are more complex than as I have detailed above, but unless the Other takes something far out of context (another misunderstood and misappropriated word) then the problem lies with the initiator of the misunderstanding; in this case, the One.
The third word I will define here is context. Context is not merely the mood, or when in a timeline something is said; in truth, context is everything the One and the Other have experienced in interactions up to this very moment and beyond. Given that context is defined by experience, then it is safe to say that context varies greatly from the One to the Other. In rationalizing the previous statement, the One must conclude that his or her own context is not the context of the Other. Another facet of context is its ability to define meaning in an action or in a statement. Context overrides all insinuations and implications, as context is, in and of itself, an insinuation and implication of a much grander scale. It is because of this that the One must be understanding of contextual variations from person to person, and take accountability for the context that has been developed by the Other through experiences with the One. Contextual misunderstandings are not altogether uncommon, but they can be grievous and offensive to those that experience them. To assert that one's own context is the correct context is a logical fallacy; furthermore, such an assumption would lead to no end of hardships for those who take the idea to heart.
I think I might develop this further and start a bit of a book or something. Please, read and offer me some constructive criticism. I'd love to hone and improve it.