TOWARDS A BETTER FUTURE
The Works of Manfred Davidmann
Reports and teachings relevant to today's problems
Manfred Davidmann is an internationally well-known and respected scientist and consultant, and author of a number of books and reports which have had and are having considerable impact, playing their part in improving the quality of life and the standard of living, worldwide. His work usually breaks new ground and opens up new understanding and is written in meaningful and easily understood language. Outstanding is that his work is generally accepted as factual, objective and unbiased.
More than 6,7 million copies of his reports have been downloaded from the Solhaam website so far, and have changed and are changing the way in which people live, think and behave.
Books by Manfred Davidmann
You can support and help us to provide and keep this exceptional website free of charge by buying Manfred Davidmann's books.
Theme of the Week (Current Events, Current Problems)
It is important that the other persons understand what we want them to understand, that they understand the intended meaning.
Hence for effective communication the sender must use words which have the same meaning for sender and receiver.
Most common cause of misunderstanding arises from assuming that the word (a label) is the object. Two people can then be arguing about something, referring to it by using the same word, arguing because this word means something different to each of them.
So to be meaningful, words must establish the same thought in both the sender and receiver of a communication.
Words vary considerably as regards their value for communication. They differ in their level of abstraction. The greater the level of abstraction, the less meaning do they have.
Levels of Abstraction
I listed the word 'truth' as an example of a label for a meaningless abstraction. Surely 'truth' ought to be more than a meaningless value judgement, so let us look at this in more detail.
Consider two media reports of a current event. Each reports the same event, each apparently telling the truth, each report giving its viewers different impressions of what actually happened.
How come? Can there be more than one truth?
Such reports may tell only part of what happened, may report only what seems relevant to the reporter, may then be selecting what seems to support the particular viewpoint of those who prepared the report.
Compare these 'truths' with that demanded from a witness in a court of law: 'The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.'
Which means that what is required in a court of law is the truth with nothing taken away and nothing added.
If we agree on this as a definition, then the word 'truth' has become more meaningful.