Listening Skills

To receive the communicated message loud and clear,we have to be an active participant in the communication process. In the case of listening, this requires to understand and evaluate every spoken message, and to follow this with the appropriateaction – a response that confirms the spoken message. Unfortunately, what can happen is that, as listeners, we do the wrong thing, which is to actively work while the speaker is talking to us. Our thought speed is much faster than our speech speed, which can prompt ourr brain to start working ahead of the speaker. Perhaps we are simply considering the speaker’s next comments, or the answer to a question we feel certain will come up. Regardless of the cause,the outcome is the same: a miscomm -unicated message, which can lead to an inappropriate response or a wrong action - both of which can lead to serious trouble. Clearly, this also leaves the door open for unexpected delays setbacks even undesirable outcomes
The difference between hearing and listening comes down to semantics and listening is just the first part of the equation when it comes to customer service.Listening, if we will, is the preparation for hearing. Listening means we’re giving our attention – an excellent start. Listening means we’ve set up your modes of operation, and we’re receiving feedback. Hearing on the other hand implies a more deeper understanding – hearing is indeed processing that which we’ve just listened to.Anyone can listen. Many companies listen to their customers. They set up an “info@” email address, they invite comments on their blogs, they welcome letters sent through the mail and they provide toll free numbers where customers can leave messages. Technically, if we do all this as a company, you’re doing a good job of listening. But how’s our hearing?

Ok, so we’re listening. Great! But what are we doing with the comments our customers are making? Hearing involves giving true consideration to the conversation – regardless of who initiated it – we or our customer. we may know our product and our business inside and out, but our users, they are the ones we have to satisfy that everything is working right. Why? Because if they find a better product, they’re gone. If they love what you got they’ll shout it from the rooftops. But if they have issues, big enough that they’ve bothered to let you know about one way or they other and you don’t hear them…they’ll shout that from the mountaintops.I’m not saying we have to change our offering based on what our customers say. But if we don’t hear what they say, how will we know what may need some improvement? Opening lines of communication in the listening phase invites all kind of feedback – some worthwhile and some worthless. Part of hearing is weeding through it and picking out in a thoughtful way what is valid and what is not.Take away – listening is great. But really hearing what our customers have to say is what we should strive for, and more than that, making sure they know we’ve heard them is the key.

Two Great Philosophers

Plato and Aristotle are both great philosophers in their own regard. Both agree that the world has a purpose, and that it’s not just an accident. Both also hate materialists since in their (materialists’) interpretation of the world, value, choice, and freedom are not plausible outcomes, and so morality and rationality do not make sense. And both ask the same question, what does it take to be a good, moral person? Yet, even though Aristotle was a student of Plato, each philosopher develops his own view on things and a specific way of solving a particular problem. For example, Plato and Aristotle have quite different views regarding life. Plato is dissatisfied with sense and desire, which are nothing to him except a shadow of reality – his aim of philosophy is to die away from these things. The real, on the other hand, is unchanging, static, eternal. He aims to grasp the Forms and to contemplate the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, and to remain caught up in contemplation of these things. Aristotle has no such discontents, however. He likes life in this world, even though it is not perfect. He does develop his own view of the divine and how it is related to the world, but sees no reason why one would be driven to flee from life in the world. The various animals he studies are real things; philosophy to him is not to run away from them, but a way of comprehending them.

  Plato is committed to the idea that reality is ultimately rational. His Forms are definite realities made up and bonded together in perfectly rational ways, and together they make a perfectly systematic whole. For him, mathematics seems to embody the ideal of knowledge and reason is the only way to discover truth. But not even reason is sufficient – far enough up the hierarchy of Forms one has to “see” the truth with the “mind’s eye.” Plato is unable to describe what must be seen, so he explains what we cannot see through language using Myths of the Sun and the Cave. Aristotle has no problem expressing himself through language, however. He believes language is capable of expressing the truth of things, since that truth concerns the sensible world, and our view of it (the world) begins with our senses, hearing, touching, seeing, etc. Although the senses themselves are not sufficient to lead to knowledge, they are the only reliable entities through which we can pursue it.  The two philosophers also differ on what human nature is. Plato is convinced that the real person is the soul, not the body. Souls that inhabit our bodies are there, but are not dependent on us for their existence. They have knowledge of the Forms before we are even born and by being virtuous we can enjoy unity with the Forms after death. Aristotle’s main theme on humans is simple – man is a rational animal. There is no separate soul from man; a person has a soul that is special, but a person is still one unified creature.

 Plato seems to be very concerned about relativism and skepticism and devotes a lot of writing to proving those beliefs wrong. He thinks that skepticism and relativism killed Socrates, not the members of the Athenian jury. The views they have come to hold – that every opinion is as good as another’s, and that if one thinks something is good for them really is good for them – makes the case of Athens thinking it is right to condemn Socrates right for Athens. Plato knows condemning Socrates is wrong; so he knows that there must be standards that are more conventional. The Forms, the dialectic about Justice, and the subordination of everything else to the Form of the Good all reflect his view against relativism and skepticism. For Aristotle, though, such a problem never existed. One reason why could be because Plato did such a good job in proving the relativists and skeptics incorrect, so there is no reason for it to be done again. He sees the foolishness in believing that anyone’s opinion is equally accepted. So as a biologist he performs research and writes up the results, which constitutes knowledge in the sensory world. His only problem is to analyze the processes by which we attain knowledge and to set out the basic features of the realities disclosed.  On ethics Plato thinks that we are able to obtain the same kind of certainty in rules of behavior as with mathematics. According to him the ultimate vision of the Form of the Good will provide a single standard for deciding practical questions. Unfortunately only the few individuals who can make the hard journey through the Cave will be able to give a solution for all questions of value. Aristotle does not have the same view – according to him, we should not ask for more certainty than the subject matter allows. A normal person is able to make good decisions and to live a good life; one need not be an expert in ethical knowledge to practice it.

Gitanjali

The book, Gitanjali opens with the image of a ‘frail vessel’ which suggests the empty and destitute life of a man. The empty vessel of man longs for the rain of love, grace and sympathy of the Omnipotent God so that the empty vessel may overflow with new the fresh life: “This frail vessel thou emptiest again and again, and fillest it ever with fresh life.” Through this image the poet means to suggest that life without the grace or rain of God is as worthless as a pitcher without water. Unless God showers love to this empty pitcher, we cannot gain perfectness; we cannot see him face to face. Commenting on this opening image, lyengar observes: “The human body is the temple of the soul, the human soul is the temple of God. The human soul is naught unless it is inhabited or `filled’ by the spirit. Birth and death are but the feeling and the emptying of the soul by the spirit, and the individual-insignificant as he may seem to be-verily partakes of God’s endless life. His immortality.” The music that flows on the lips and breathes through the flute is nothing but God’s grace and love. It is God who provides this perennial source of music to the poor flute: “This little flute of a reed thou hast carried over hills and dales, and hast breathed through it melodies eternally new.” The image of flute reminds us of Lord Sri-Krishna who used to shower the rain of melodies on the bank of the river, Yamuna.

This book shows, apart from many other things a fine use of apt symbolism which is a unique blend of mysticism and music, religion and poetry. Suffused with mystical imagination and aided by the free flowing movement, the book creates a universe of haunting beauty that expresses God’s finite love and humanity’s deep compassion for all things beautiful. Though the poet is amply influenced by the rich symbolism and profound thoughts of the Vedas and the Upanishads, this thought had “its root in the ancient wisdom of his land, but it is as different from the roots as the blossom is from the roots of the tree on which it appears.” K.R.S. lyengar has also rightly observed: “The current coin of India’s devotional poetry is melted and minted anew by Rabindra Nath, but the pure gold shines, as brightly as ever, even though the inscription on the coin is in English. The image of lyre in Gitanjali is so beautifully woven into the fabric of the book that it always comes back and forth like that of Shakespeare.Tagore has used apt images and symbols to convey his thoughts and feelings.  W.B. Yeats observes ‘The work of a supreme culture, they yet appear as much the growth of the common soil as the grass and the rushes. Atradition where poetry and religion are the same thing, has passed through the centuries, gathering from learned and unlearned metaphor and emotion, and carried back again to the multitude the thought of the scholarand of the noble.’

PAULO COELHO

PAULO COELHO is not only one of the most widely read but also most influential writers in the world today.He have been honored with over a dozen international awards over the past several years. Why is it then that some critics opposed his election to the Academy or the selection of his works as some of the best examples of contemporary Brazilian literature? Some critics simply disparage Coelho’s narrative simplicity—a very powerful technique that he has continually mastered over the years. The Alchemist, for example, employs a fablelike language that has won the authorrecognition around the globe. He seldom uses complex alle-gories, metaphors, or idioms. All his work is simple, and, style captures not only the imagination but also the hearts of his readers. His message is also very simple and millennial: happiness lies in finding our-selves. Simply put, Paulo Coelho is an author in search of himself, a trait that epitomizes his literary truth. This Brazilian phenomenon, as he has come to be known,has been very consistent not only in his personal quest but also in becoming one of the most important writers of our time—perhaps to his own mother’s amazement, since she always discouraged him from taking up a profession that often offers very meager financial remuneration in countries like Brazil. It seems the more he writes, the more he earns the acclaim of important critics, like Umberto Eco, and of an ever-increasing number of readers around the world. To date, some 43 million copies of his books have been sold in 150 countries and in 56 languages, according to information found on hisWeb site. That places Coelho as the second most-read contem-porary author, based on a poll taken by the French magazine Lire in 1999. The body of his work consists of thirteen books (nine novels, three short-story collections, and two adapta-tions) Paulo Coelho’s coming of age as a writer is marked by his confirmation as the newest member of the Brazilian Academy of Letters, despite all the controversy surrounding his nomina-tion. Glauco Ortolano Nobel Prize winner «e Kenzabur» once said that Paulo Coelho had discovered the secret of literary alche-my. There are younger writers interested in learning about these secrets. Paulo Coelho The average print run for a novel in the United States or France is about three thousand copies—the same as in Brazil. Literary criticism has neither the power to sell nor to impede the sale of books. The reader, on the other hand, observes reali-ty more closely and buys whatever reflects his or her state of mind or the status quo. Consequently, two factions have emerged: those who want to relive the past in the present (many academics are still tied to a series of old traditions) andthose who truly live in the present (the readers).

“The Portrait”

Huxley’s message of this story is to not let others mock you, you should be well-educated and open-minded person, what should give a person independence and confidence. At the beginning of the story we see how easily Mr. Bigger sneers at frivolous and arrogant customer. He tells him obvious ironies, makes the Lord of the Manor dance after his pipe and disports himself with telling him a false story about the cheap picture looking like a piece of Venetian Masters of the 18th century. Another victim of Mr. Bigger is a poor young artist, who painted this picture. He is rather clever boy, but he is also as ingenuous as the customer is. Mr. Bigger sells his picture for such a high price, but gives him practically nothing for his work. From this story it is clear, that you should be smart and careful if you want to be prosperous. The main hero of the story is Mr. Bigger. It is an ingenious art-dealer who perfectly knows how to sell and what to sell. His main interest is money, what can be seen from his thoughts about the reason of his customer’s material welfare, asking a high price for the picture and his fraud at the artist. His name itself reflects his behavior towards the customer, showing us a person, who knows everything and who can give a proper advice. Mr. Bigger produces an impression of a reliable person and the customer easily falls for this impression.
The most interesting thing about this story is the dealer’s tactics, which shows us a brilliant psychological skill of Huxley to portrait the personages’ inner world and the process of communication sidewise. The story can be divided into several stages. First stage describes us how Mr. Bigger evaluates a customer from the first sight. The author inputs the dealer’s thoughts indirectly. The next step in Mr. Bigger’s strategy is an agreement to everything what the customer says, to make the Lord of the Manor feel what he wants – superiority. To produce such impression, Mr. Bigger uses flattering and tries to make the customer feel comfortable. The next stage is the penultimate episode of clearing all the consumer’s doubts. To achieve this goal, the dealer sublimates the consumer’s fine art instinct. In the last stage he led the consumer to the apogee of the despair, what is shown with the help of the phraseological unit “burst into tears”. Now Mr. Bigger wants to produce the opposite effect, conceding that the consumer is quite intelligenced in art. This is a flat flattering. But that helps the consumer to “feel himself on safer ground” and more important.
The Lord of the Manor wants a historical piece of art. And a sly art-dealer invents such story just on the fly, like a fairy-tale for children at night. He speaks very confident, calm, serious, on a low voice. All that makes an effect of the picture’s significance. He doesn’t hurry, making pauses to whiff to produce an impression of luxury and to make the consumer feel suspense, leading the consumer deeper and deeper in lies, love and history. The final stage is the purchase. After convincing the customer that this picture is exactly what he needs and that he has wonderful gift of “natural instinct”, tactical Mr. Bigger celebrated his triumph.This story is told in rather optimistic tone, with raft of ironical notes. But the thing which Huxley showed in the story is rather tragic. We see two awfully selfish people with money as the highest value. Nor customer, neither dealer has that special sense of art tingle as the real artist has when he makes an oeuvre. Both men are not sincere and conformable. They will never tell you if they are wrong. Because the superiority is put higher than the truth, humanism or the aesthetic sensitivity. Huxley always tried to criticize and ridicule such people and such society even in his very first essays. But it is very sad, that after reading this story people continue lying, pretending, playing a double game and making tricks and frauds at each other. This leads the society to degradation and makes people suffer. But who ever tried to listen to the poets or to the artists? We trust only to prophets and to politics allowing them to make us blind, not-available to think and analyze, to make serious decisions and actions stupid crowd.

The village school master

Goldsmith’s portrait of his former school master is a tour de force of depiction. He manages to make fun of the schoolmaster’s idiosyncrasies while maintaining reverence and admiration for him. The forte of the poem lies in the way in which Goldsmith has neither idealized nor trivialized the school master. On the other hand, the school master brush stroked to make him more humane.The village school master ran his little school in a small village. It was situated next to the irregular fence that fringed the village path with full blossomed, beautiful but ornamental furze. He was not only a very strict disciplinarian but also a ferocious person to observe. He was familiar to the poet and all other truants because they had endured the master’s rage. His face was a thing of careful scrutiny. The trembling pupils would gaze at his face to sense his present frame of mind. The day misfortunes were written on his forehead or in between the eyebrows.The school master was a contradiction. Although he was stern, he was kind and good-humored. He had a store of jokes. When he told them, the children burst out in fake laughter, under the pretext that the jokes were awfully hilarious. If the children observed a frown on his fore head, they circulated the gloomy news throughout the classroom in an undertone. But he was in essence a kind man. If at all he had any fault, it was his intense love for learning. He wanted his pupils to become genuine scholar and hence, he had to be demanding with them.The villagers were unanimous in their opinion that he really was an erudite man. He without doubt could write and also work out sums in arithmetic. He could also survey land, forecast weather and tides. Besides, he was able to measure the content of a vessel .The parson approved of his skill in debate. Even if defeated, the school master would keep on arguing. He would become more fervent and would fling booming words at his adversary. The uncomprehending villagers would be convinced that the school master was establish ing his standpoint very thoroughly. They stood round the two debaters and witnessed the verbal duel. They were awestruck when they heard the high-sounding and incomprehensible words used by the school master. They gawked at him and wondered how his small head could keep that enormous hoard of knowledge.
This poem is a simple vignette of a village school master. The school was in a small village at Lissoy, an Irish village where the poet himself had studied. Mr. Thomas Paddy Byrne was the village school master. This poem has become one of the classics of literature because of the ring of genuineness. As the poet himself was a pupil of this school master, he is able to create an authentic aura to the poem. With a fleeting allusion to the site, the poet starts to describe the man. The school master’s fluctuating moods, the situation in the class room and reactions of learner are described in this poem. It is amply obvious that Goldsmith looked upon the teacher with the mixed feelings of fear, respect and humour.The poet gives an amusing sketch of the teacher’s character with a deep sympathy for him. He analyses of the nature and capability of the school master. The teacher was a taskmaster who took his students to task if they played truant. The poet, as a student, was very aware of this facet of the school master but he valued his stand and came to love and respect him. The harsh steps taken by the teacher had a soft and virtuous purpose behind them as he wished to see his pupils turn in to learned people.The school master’s is recognized as a great scholarly person by the entire village and even the parson recognizes his skill in debate. The oratory of the teacher leaves the rustics gazing in admiration. The poem ends on a note of humour. The teacher is not to be taken as a sheer sardonic sketch. Besides, his academic affectations, he was remarkably kind and compassionate . The scowl on his face often masks a heart brimming with love and consideration. He has smattering of useful information which he puts to good use with the illiterate and ignorant villagers. Thus he creates a larger than life figure of himself before them. He has a view on every subject and loves to engage in debate above all with the village priest. He knows that in the eyes of the villagers the conclusion of the debate depends more on noise than on wisdom. Hence he keeps arguing even if he is defeated.