> 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
> 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,
> deeply, identity-dissolving) encounter. The actual successful encounter
> 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