selckiku wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > I think that one can be affectionate with something that > > does not reciprocate. > > > Ta'o, this adversarial format isn't actually appropriate for sensitive > subjects. It would generally be considered appropriate in such a small > group situation to say something kind before criticizing someone else's > work in such a manner and I think we'd do well to adopt such a custom here > as well.
I agree. I was not and have never tried to he adversarial toward/with you or any other jbopre, but I can see how you could feel that way (actually, this relates to the discussion at hand: intention is not always realized). I will strive to always express myself in a more respectful and courteous manner. Additionally, I will try to follow the self-imposed rule (toward at least you) that always express a positive response to a proposal before saying anything negative against it; I will literally follow the addage of not saying anything at all unless slI have something nice to say. I think that such practice will go a long way toward building up friendlier interaction between us (at least, explicitly) and it will clarify my opinions. I have actually always admired your work and held you in the highest esteem. However, I think that I have had a negativity bias in my interactions with you and perhaps with the community in general: I have been much quicker to point out where one is wrong, to point out potential issues, then I have been to point out where one is right, to point out the good qualities of the spirit of their work. But those latter aspects are almost always present and I recognize them in my head. For example, I like this word and think that it is quite useful; I also find it pleasing to read and say; in fact, I upvoted it immediately. But you would not know any of this because I failed to mention it, which is a large fault of mine.
> Ta'onai, it's possible to feel that you are being xrotu with something or
> someone who doesn't actually experience being xrocni, but it's a > misperception. For instance to do something that's actually harmful to > someone isn't to be in xrotu with them simply because you feel that you > intended to be. > > This is important to me because what I'm centrally discussing is real > encounter, real moments of relationship. The related emotions and > intentions are secondary to the actual mutual symmetrical (or rather, more > deeply, identity-dissolving) encounter. The actual successful encounter of > xrotu is what the emotions and intentions are about, what they're based > upon. To merely intend that encounter is different from and less > fundamental than truly mutually experiencing it.
I understand better now, thank you. I was not intending to critique so much as wondering what your goal/understanding/intention with/of this word was. I do find this contrast and utility to be real-life important and beneficial.
|