Being heard

Subject: Being heard.

What does it mean to be solitary. Is it a bad thing or a good thing to be on ones own.
Is the solitary position the natural position or are we meant to be combined with another or a group who we think we identify with.
I remember setting off traveling in the company of someone else and eventually travelling further afield on my own, the two events were quite different, the one locked in the bubble we created, the other quiet naked to events and the anxiety of coping without the backup of a discussion. Which was best, was it more fulfilling to share with another person or more thrilling to have, not only to make your own decisions but to find other people, complete strangers to talk to and more importantly, make friends with.
The bubble was good but it left you with that extra sense of responsibility and the inevitable compromise to suit the others needs. On your own the responsibly for yourself could be taken quite lightly on the basis of the optimism you had that something good would turn up and if it didn't, too bad. There was no need to compromise since the conversation was with yourself, if you get into an argument with yourself, your in trouble.
This reminds me of the refrain "your not listening or letting me speak" it's the response of the person who is frustrated and finds their thoughts blocked by the other person who also has another point of view. 
The rules of debate tend to avoid this impasse but of course in real life we are not debating we are struggling to be heard. Everyone has opinions which they feel important to hold, sometimes they clash with the ideas of a friend  but if the friendship is worth anything the disagreement is not lasting. The respect you have far outweighs any sense of misalignment and if it comes from a friend or relative (they can be your friend too) they usually have your best interests at heart anyway. 
Our ideas and the way we form our perspective on life is a slow maturation, it's built up over our lifetime, childhood and adult experiences and even more the exposure to the lives of others and their opinions. 
Do our opinions count sufficiently enough for us to risk having an argument or should we navigate a path around the ideological roadblock into area where we can find agreement. Is it important to have principles which dictate the degree of whither or how far you will bend or are the consequences of a rift just too damaging. 
The person who always feels they are right is not generally liked but is the person who works on through the dialog and explains the principle by which they have arrived at their opinion not in a better position to set out their stall at all times, others then when they don't much value the individual with whom the disagreement has sprung up in which case they don't bother.  In fact it could be said that the higher you value the person you might, perversely disagree with them more often and are likely to stick and try to win them over and if not win them over, at least to leave with them with a clear understanding of why you feel as you do. 
Of course our own standpoint might be on shifting sand, changing by the hour modifying itself to fit in with what ever is presented.  The opposite of this is dogma.  Principles laid down by an authority as being incontrovertible true. Religious dogma comes to mind. But if, after acknowledging the potential suspect-ability of ones source material and the tools provided by ones background to interpret the material then surely each of us with an independent voice is worth hearing. 

Sent from my iPad