july

I hate it when people try to explain the complex in a simple way, but inadvertent and accidentally flatten the nuance out of existence like someone squeezing a sandwich so hard all the meat and stuff that goes in the sandwich falls out

creating and destroying; flying cars, roc.camera, july.rocks

🐵 ← 🙈🙉🙊 → /phil →  phil.cockfield.net, db.team →  
ƒ(🌳) →  🧫 /sys  ←  @cell <T> 🧠🐦‍⬛, 100% human cartoon

On your original point, I keep coming back to the old Alan Kay chestnut of "it takes almost as much creativity to understand a good idea, as to have it in the first place" which for me puts this on the two-way street that any authentic dialogue is.  

There is the speaker, that may indeed be overly squeezing the sandwich to contorted shadow of the real idea...but you also have the problem that the reciever may simply not be "creative efforting" enough, or is choosing to not lean in, to meet you in the field of understanding - and one needs to say enough to convince them that there is a worthwhile field of connection out there to meet on.

I struggle with this one a lot.

In many different contexts - one I'm thinking through now is the challenges of working with a gifted psychotherapist who knows (and sees) plenty I don't, BUT ALSO does not see, or acknowledge, important complexity within a nuanced creative perspective.

It's so fascinating, because in that context, I'm starting to feel out where this might be "dangerous" (lightly or dramatically depending)...on whether a delicate, easily extinguished, (and also potentially straight-up wrong) idea might be "forgotten" when an agreed upon authority can't/won't see a perspective in a trusted relationship.