wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], anon_astute_ff <no_reply@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], t3rinity <no_reply@>
wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > Please note that my post was
> > > > more about the two followup posts of Vaj about the peculiar
FFL
> > > > scene which he doesn't have the guts to call by name.
> > >
> > > Again, you are on the slippery slope of imputing motives. As Dr.
> > > Pete has said (though not always practiced), no one can tell
what
> > > the inner state or motives of another are.
> >
> > Nobody can know, obviously, *for sure*. But one can
> > often make a damn good guess based on observation of
> > past behavior and knowledge of a person's perspective.
> >
> > To suggest we should never impute motives because we
> > can't know for sure is kind of absurd.
>
> I am suggesting that imputing motives not very interesting or
> productive -- in terms of advancing ideas and the discussion. That
> its also is pretty iffy -- and often tells us more about the
> "motives-outer" than the original "motivee". When motives are
> imputed, many get diverted off the ideas of the discussion and
> start explaining why the stated motives are not their motives and --
> btw -- why the "motives-outer" is such a dumb-ass for saying so.
You mean, like you just did to Trinity?
> Whoa boy, then we really have a GREAT dynamic set up for discussing
> ideas.
I agree, sometimes such a discussion can get sidetracked
when it focuses solely on motives. On the other hand, in
my observation the nature of a person's motives can be
quite revealing as to why they hold particular
positions.
> > Some feel that those who
> > > impute motives often are telling us what they would do in such a
> > > situation, and chastizing poster for the imputed motivations
> > > they fear in themselves.
> >
> > This is one of those facile generalizations that
> > folks tend to take as a given because it sounds so
> > learned.
>
> I am not trying to sound learned. Its my speculation based on
> observations of many posts. I am sorry that you personally feel my
> observations are facile. On this, I guess we will disagree.
Oh, I could have sworn you said "Some feel that..." as a
preface to what you now say is your personal speculation
based on observations of many posts. Obviously I've
heard others suggest that people impute motivations
they fear in themselves (on this very forum, in fact,
but elsewhere as well). They're referring to the
phenomenon known as "projection."
If I had known your "some people" was just you, I would
have phrased my comment differently. As it was, I was
not criticizing you but suggesting that you might want
to think more deeply about the applicability of the
generalization you had (as I thought) heard elsewhere
and accepted as a given because it sounded learned *to
you*.
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
