|
Post by laughter on Mar 25, 2015 13:48:52 GMT -5
I'm asking questions attempting to understand the ideal of objectivity which you mentioned. The context in which it is used and who it applies to. Right, and my answer was, no. the ideal of objectivity wouldn't apply only to others comments and not to one's own. Looking backward in this dialog, an apparent contradiction likely emerges based on the notion of "adherence". Maybe the error is in my thinking that you are applying that understanding to the use of the word "vague " and "not so vague" in my comments? Objectively speaking, it seems to me that every detail one shares about their own mind in a dialog makes the dialog that much more about them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2015 14:02:39 GMT -5
I'm asking questions attempting to understand the ideal of objectivity which you mentioned. The context in which it is used and who it applies to. Right, and my answer was, no. the ideal of objectivity wouldn't apply only to others comments and not to one's own. Looking backward in this dialog, an apparent contradiction likely emerges based on the notion of "adherence". Maybe the error is in my thinking that you are applying that understanding to the use of the word "vague " and "not so vague" in my comments? Objectively speaking, it seems to me that every detail one shares about their own mind in a dialog makes the dialog that much more about them. So, wouldn't your response to my much more about me post, also be much more about you? Kinda like "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 25, 2015 14:09:24 GMT -5
Right, and my answer was, no. the ideal of objectivity wouldn't apply only to others comments and not to one's own. Looking backward in this dialog, an apparent contradiction likely emerges based on the notion of "adherence". Objectively speaking, it seems to me that every detail one shares about their own mind in a dialog makes the dialog that much more about them. So, wouldn't your response to my much more about me post, also be much more about you? Kinda like "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" It's only like that if I answer no to your first question, and I'm not gonna' do that. You forgot the "that" in front of "much", and in my perception, it kinda' leverages the phrase.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2015 14:14:49 GMT -5
So, wouldn't your response to my much more about me post, also be much more about you? Kinda like "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" It's only like that if I answer no to your first question, and I'm not gonna' do that. You forgot the "that" in front of "much", and in my perception, it kinda' leverages the phrase. You don't have to answer no to the question because you've already stated that it applies to everyone's comments.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 25, 2015 14:18:12 GMT -5
It's only like that if I answer no to your first question, and I'm not gonna' do that. You forgot the "that" in front of "much", and in my perception, it kinda' leverages the phrase. You don't have to answer no to the question because you've already stated that it applies to everyone's comments. Well then, objectively speaking it would seem that the question was unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by zin on Mar 25, 2015 14:24:36 GMT -5
L: "Objectively speaking, it seems to me that every detail one shares about their own mind in a dialog makes the dialog that much more about them."
Apart from this specific conversation, is this something usually unwanted? Maybe there can be a decision beforehand but things don't usually go like that..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2015 14:25:35 GMT -5
You don't have to answer no to the question because you've already stated that it applies to everyone's comments. Well then, objectively speaking it would seem that the question was unnecessary. Well, where should we go from here?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 25, 2015 14:46:36 GMT -5
Well then, objectively speaking it would seem that the question was unnecessary. Well, where should we go from here? "Should"?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 25, 2015 14:50:29 GMT -5
L: "Objectively speaking, it seems to me that every detail one shares about their own mind in a dialog makes the dialog that much more about them." Apart from this specific conversation, is this something usually unwanted? Maybe there can be a decision beforehand but things don't usually go like that.. That would depend on the individual. Some peeps do write quite a bit about themselves and then offer up quite a bit of resistance when those details are then referenced later on in the dialog. The obvious solution is simply not to write about oneself or to not resist the subsequent use of those details by others. Now from the other side of the fence, the most respectful thing one can do is to maintain the ideal of objectivity when handling those details.
|
|
|
Post by zin on Mar 25, 2015 14:56:18 GMT -5
L: "Objectively speaking, it seems to me that every detail one shares about their own mind in a dialog makes the dialog that much more about them." Apart from this specific conversation, is this something usually unwanted? Maybe there can be a decision beforehand but things don't usually go like that.. That would depend on the individual. Some peeps do write quite a bit about themselves and then offer up quite a bit of resistance when those details are then referenced later on in the dialog. The obvious solution is simply not to write about oneself or to not resist the subsequent use of those details by others. Now from the other side of the fence, the most respectful thing one can do is to maintain the ideal of objectivity when handling those details. I was thinking about stating the state of mind at the time of talk. You say something different, some long term thing.. OK.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2015 15:12:48 GMT -5
Well, where should we go from here? "Should"? My should is a dimensioned could.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2015 15:21:47 GMT -5
L: "Objectively speaking, it seems to me that every detail one shares about their own mind in a dialog makes the dialog that much more about them." Apart from this specific conversation, is this something usually unwanted? Maybe there can be a decision beforehand but things don't usually go like that.. That would depend on the individual. Some peeps do write quite a bit about themselves and then offer up quite a bit of resistance when those details are then referenced later on in the dialog. The obvious solution is simply not to write about oneself or to not resist the subsequent use of those details by others. Now from the other side of the fence, the most respectful thing one can do is to maintain the ideal of objectivity when handling those details. Objectively speaking, by others you mean you.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 25, 2015 20:17:53 GMT -5
That would depend on the individual. Some peeps do write quite a bit about themselves and then offer up quite a bit of resistance when those details are then referenced later on in the dialog. The obvious solution is simply not to write about oneself or to not resist the subsequent use of those details by others. Now from the other side of the fence, the most respectful thing one can do is to maintain the ideal of objectivity when handling those details. I was thinking about stating the state of mind at the time of talk. You say something different, some long term thing.. OK. Sometimes what peeps say they want out of correspondence on this forum and what they invite in the course of the dialogs are two very different things, but sure, someone making some statements along those lines, even if they're conflicted about it, can always be useful, and if they don't, one can always read between the lines.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 25, 2015 20:19:45 GMT -5
That would depend on the individual. Some peeps do write quite a bit about themselves and then offer up quite a bit of resistance when those details are then referenced later on in the dialog. The obvious solution is simply not to write about oneself or to not resist the subsequent use of those details by others. Now from the other side of the fence, the most respectful thing one can do is to maintain the ideal of objectivity when handling those details. Objectively speaking, by others you mean you. No, that would be speaking neither objectively nor subjectively which puts a very distinctive quality to what is heard in the speech.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 25, 2015 20:20:48 GMT -5
"Should"? My should is a dimensioned could. Then the sky's the limit!
|
|