How (and whether) I interpret things is MY choice: Mindful Communication

I had a conversation last night that had the potential to turn into something even more unpleasant than the situation that had prompted it. The details are fairly personal, but were prompted by a situation that involved a conflict that goes back a few weeks.

I'd sought out the conversation because I'd become aware that the other person involved had things they felt they hadn't been able to say, and for the sake of a mutual friend, I wanted to give them a forum to say what they felt needed saying.

I'd decided up front that I wanted to approach the conversation mindfully. Before I made the call, I sat down and decided what I hoped for it to achieve, and listed any points I wanted to make if the other person wanted me to do anything other than listen and hear them; and any responses I wanted to be able to give to any points I suspected the other person would make themselves, if they wanted responses. At the top and bottom of the of the list, underlined and in bold, I wrote my purpose in calling: to provide a forum for the other person to say what they wanted to say, and most of all, to *listen*.

I acknowledged to myself that I was specifically not calling to mend fences, or try to make everything OK, or make the other person feel better. I let myself really experience the fact that I was *not* attached to the outcome. My task was simply to hear, stay calm, and walk away afterward.

So I did all this preparation, only to find that when I called the other person at the time we'd agreed to discuss the issue, that they'd asked a third party to put across their point of view for them, so it wasn't actually them I was talking to.

That came as a surprise, and I became aware that there was a part of my mind (something off behind a gauze curtain somewhere, that I could just see a shadow of from the conscious part of me that was actually *having* the conversation) that was working - semi-consciously, on how I was going to choose to interpret that.

One interpretation was that the other person, who'd apparently told a number of mutual friends that they thought I owed them a huge apology behind my back, wasn't willing to make the effort, even when I gave them a forum for it, to face me themselves and ask for it.

Another, just as valid, was that the other person didn't trust their own ability to stay calm and rational; and because they wanted the discussions to be productive, and to avoid making them even worse than they were now, they'd chosen to ask for help in communicating.

Or yet another interpretation was that my communication skills were so bad, and this person thought of me as being so scary that they were terrified to speak to me on their own.

There were, of course, other interpretations available, but those were the three that came immediately to mind. One of them directly supported my goals in seeking the conversation in the first place, and, perhaps not coincidentally, was something I would find myself having to respect in the other person. The second interpretation? Well, it allowed me to feel 'right', but really didn't have a lot else going for it. And the third somehow at once made me feel powerful and yet hurt / misunderstood.

Now, in the past, I would have felt a need to decide on which of these interpretations I wanted to work from before I felt ready to carry on with the conversation (always assuming that I'd even been mindful enough about the communication situation to acknowledge that there *were* multiple interpretations of the other person's action available). And I would have expected to judge myself on how easy I found it to accept the interpretation that best supported the goals of the conversation.

But interestingly enough, that's not what happened.

What happened, there behind that gauze curtain in my mind, was that the part of me that was looking at the various interpretations available stopped, said "Huh. Look! There are multiple ways we can look at this." And then it shut up, and let me get back to the conversation.

I realised I didn't have to know which of the interpretations was "true" to continue listening, and even saying what I needed to say at various points in the conversation. All I needed to do was hold in mind the fact that multiple interpretations were possible, and that I didn't know or need to know which one (or combination of ones) was true.

And it helped that the person I did speak to had excellent communication skills himself - it was actually a huge relief not to have to be the sole voice of calm that was responsible for keeping the conversation on track. So from that point of view, the discussion really was far more productive than it probably would have been had I spoken to the other party in the conflict. It might well not have been, however, if I'd either consciously or unconsciously chosen either of the less helpful interpretations for why I was speaking to him, and then taken part in the conversation working from that filter.

There are a lot of lessons I'm taking from this. But one of the most vivid right now is that being mindful of my interpretations of another person's actions or words can make all the difference when it comes to constructive communications.

Thoughtful blessings




Starfire