Can we (or should we) ever say that 'something is', if it is not a permanent state of being? In Spanish, for the verb 'to be' we say 'ser' and 'estar'; essence and condition; identity and being; one is often more permanent than the other.
The verb 'to be' in the English language, however, has just one core manifestation.
Does this have the capacity to be most violent in communication?
Credit: Sally Gurteen
Sally's use of the term "violent communication" reminded me of the work of Marshall Rosenberg and I Googled to find a YouTube video of him explaining what he meant by the term.
I quickly found this little story - Ed you have a big mouth! which sums it up quite humorously.
It is interesting that it is so difficult to explain why someone annoys you without being critical or judgmental :-)
The way we habitually communicate is violent in nature as Marshall explains more fully here (Sadly he died in 2015.)
