to be on

[Monticello]

Originally Posted by konungursvia

I've always seen the phrase "You're on" the way David is describing it. To me, it calls up the image of a stage or camera, an invitation to perform, a colourful way of saying "Show me" or "let's see this." I have also heard it used in non-confrontational situations, but I feel such usages are by extension, and have always felt the expression well chosen when some skepticism is present in the demeanour of the person using it.

I have never seen a confrontation over its use, until today. Glad I'm not really a part of this war. It's so much more fun to give peace a chance.

And since when, Dear konungursvia, is discussion or debate synonymous with war?

[konungursvia]

I agree those two words are not synonyms, and yet I chose the word "war" to express my emotional subtext, my feelings regarding the tenor of the exchange above. Indeed, we human beings are incapable of using language to denote objective states of affairs without colouring in our own judgments, beliefs and values. So I cannot supply the requested date, with apologies, Monty.

[Monticello]

Originally Posted by konungursvia

I agree those two words are not synonyms, and yet I chose the word "war" to express my emotional subtext, my feelings regarding the tenor of the exchange above. Indeed, we human beings are incapable of using language to denote objective states of affairs without colouring in our own judgments, beliefs and values. So I cannot supply the requested date, with apologies, Monty.

hmmm ..., Monty ... I rather like that.

Generally speaking, it would be a mistake to transfer one's subjective feelings to another's objective behavior. After all, unless one is clairvoyant or has some key insight(s) based upon past observance, one cannot ascribe one's subjective feelings to the circumstances of another's behavior with any genuine confidence. (Psychology, as you may already know, refers to the act of harboring such ascribed feelings as: projection.)

As for your unfamiliarity with the phrase "You're on." to convey consent, please see: this link on idioms.

[konungursvia]

There's an excellent Chinese saying: 旁观者清 ! It means "The view from the sidelines is clearest."

And I'm still quite happy with my word choice, so by my own criteria, there has been no mistake.

And yes, I did have some key insights based upon past observations, as you know.

And yes, you're right, I am aware of the psychological concept of projection. I am sure I was not projecting my own feelings onto another's behaviour: some of the participants told us how they felt, which I observed.

Lastly, you may have misunderstood the original sense of objective, objectivity, and objectification. Wilhelm Dilthey coined the term in the context of the sciences of the mind, and defined it in a manner consistent with the Chinese saying above: relying on another's perspective in order to attempt to eliminate some of the subjectivity involved in in perceptions of matters in which one is personally involved.

There's a great Jewish saying as well: "If everyone says you're drunk, you'd better lie down."

So go get some rest, eh? "Peace out."

A last thought: you may not have intended it, but using references through web links, when the correspondent hasn't asked for them and is in any case likely capable of finding them as needed, sometimes strikes the reader as aggressive, even demeaning. I'm sure you didn't intend to hurt David's feelings, but I feel quite sure he felt badly when you began doing so, as they did appear patronizing and denigrating. From the onlooker's point of view. My suggestion is to do so with less frequency and more economy. And perhaps to limit them, for the most part, to helpful replies to learners who are unaware of them, rather than "shoving the nose" of other helpful teachers into them. Again, I'm sure it's unintentional, but please take it into account.

[Monticello]

Originally Posted by konungursvia

There's an excellent Chinese saying: 旁观者清 ! It means "The view from the sidelines is clearest."
...

And yes, I did have some key insights based upon past observations, as you know.

Thanks for the Chinese saying.

Am I now supposed to follow that, based upon such wisdom, together with your own sense of objective criteria (-isn't that a logical contradiction of terms?), you are now a self-professed impartial onlooker?

Please.

Your haste at such self-profession, together with your own past posts, belies any possible claim to your being unbiased here.

Originally Posted by konungursvia

... you may have misunderstood the original sense of objective, objectivity, and objectification. Wilhelm Dilthey coined the term in the context of the sciences of the mind, and defined it in a manner consistent with the Chinese saying above: relying on another's perspective in order to attempt to eliminate some of the subjectivity involved in in perceptions of matters in which one is personally involved.

How can one possibly misunderstand that which has not yet been (re)defined? Until one has asked for, and received -- by mutual agreement (i.e., not by imposition) -- definitions of key terms, the common language shared by those engaged in discourse is (of course) assumed. In this specific instance, the word (and its forms) in question here is:

objective SYLLABICATION:ob·jec·tivePRONUNCIATION: b-jktvADJECTIVE:1. Of or having to do with a material object. 2. Having actual existence or reality. 3a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See synonyms at fair1. b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal. 4. Medicine Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected. 5. Grammar a. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb. b. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case. NOUN:1. Something that actually exists. 2. Something worked toward or striven for; a goal. See synonyms at intention. 3. Grammar a. The objective case. b. A noun or pronoun in the objective case. 4. The lens or lens system in a microscope or other optical instrument that first receives light rays from the object and forms the image. Also called object glass, objective lens, object lens. OTHER FORMS:ob·jective·ly —ADVERB
ob·jective·ness —NOUN

If one wishes to narrow this commonly accepted definition to some other specific academic meaning, then, in all fairness, shouldn't such redefinition be stated upfront? ( - or does this newly imposed (re)definition absolve one of any such considerations???) Are you still claiming objectivity here? Surely, you cannot be serious.

Once again, as in many previous posts, I will ask you for the courtesy of not changing the context mid-way through an argument, and then using the new context to support your argument. (- If you take away anything from this post/thread, then please let it be this request!)

Originally Posted by konungursvia

And yes, you're right, I am aware of the psychological concept of projection. I am sure I was not projecting my own feelings onto another's behaviour: some of the participants told us how they felt, which I observed.

When it comes to subjective feelings, I, myself, regard with suspicion any self-assuredness that is based upon such feelings alone -- whether they be someone else's or my own. After all, where is the line to be drawn between a healthy self-assurance and mere smugness or self-deception?

Experience is the best teacher here. The balance can only be maintained by objective feedback. If one wishes to ignore this advice (or seeks to cloud the issue through a quibbling that employs a redefinition of terms in mid-discourse), then: so be it. There is an old adage, its venerability derived from its proven wisdom: Pride goeth before a fall.

Originally Posted by konungursvia

There's a great Jewish saying as well: "If everyone says you're drunk, you'd better lie down."

So go get some rest, eh? "Peace out."

I see.

So now, correct me if I'm wrong, but please let me get this straight now. I am to understand and believe in: (1) your self-professed objectivity as an impartial "view[er] from the sidelines;" (2) your omniscient ability to know another's internal thoughts and motives based simply on your "objective" (which here now assumes a newly imposed definition to suit your argument) viewpoint; (3) your ability to be not just omniscient but also, by implication, metaphorically "everyone."

I am to believe and understand all this based simply on your "objective" say-so? Surely, Dear konungursvia, you can't be serious. If you wish to continue with such muddled thinking, no one can stop you. -Just forewarn you and try to help you back on the path of "the rational."


P.S. The links that I include within my posts are never intended to patronize or denigrate anyone! Such links are provided as a means for appealing to objective sources and criteria in support of the points I offer here in the threads of these forums (fora?). Such information allows viewers to exercise their independent critical judgement and reasoning in regard to the veracity of any issue that may be at hand.

[Tdol]

I'm turning this thread off as it's producing more heat than light.