>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > [It is useful to be] constantly being open to new data and new
> > > concepts. For
> > > example, maybe we often skip a poster which our theory predicts
> will
> > > waste our time. BUT, my point of the orignal post was, when we
> > > occaisionally read the post, do so with an open, fresh mind, like
> you
> > > just met them, not be tied to the past and your prior evaluations
> of
> > > them, and see if what they write today, the words in themselves,
> in
> > > the CURRENT post, have any value.
> >
> > For example, if we have the view in our mind, prior to even reading
> > a post, is that, "This poster is full of Sh*t. They only post BS,
> > play games, distort and swims in logical fallacies." then guess
> > what we will find in almost any post they make: i) BS, ii) games,
> > iii) distortions, and iv) logical fallacies. The search for such
> > often overwhelms any points of merit in the post.
> >
> > My suggestion is to simply turn off the voices of past theories and
> > hypotheses about the poster, and ones apprasial of their motives,
> > and simply read their words without any prejedice -- aka pre-
> > judgement.
>
> I think I'm pretty good at that, actually. In my
> experience, no poster (here or elsewhere) is *always*
> full of shit, etc. I'm more often disappointed to
> *find* the same old shit, etc., in a post than surprised
> to find something of value in the post--i.e., finding
> something of value in a post from someone with whom I'm
> frequently in conflict doesn't surprise me, from which
> I conclude that I'm not *expecting* to find the same
> old shit. And when I do, it's a disappointment rather
> than a fulfillment of expectations.
I am not saying everyone does this. (Or, while perhaps we all do it to
some degree, sometimes, not all do it pervasively or even often.)
Its sort of "if the shoe fits" type advice. And no one but a person
themselves can really say if the shoe fits. Some tty to diagnose
others mindsets, worldviews, motives, inner hypotheses, etc. But it
really can't be done with much accuracey, IMO, particularly among
"strangers" that is people who have never met,and only know a small
slice if life of another.
And editors, and/or people that review a lot of text for others -- not
necessarily formally an editor, I find are often adept at getting into
others POV, and are thus less tied to a particular POV.
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
SPONSORED LINKS
| Maharishi university of management | Maharishi mahesh yogi | Ramana maharshi |
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.
