I find it interesting that you imagine having signaled so much in yesterday's exchange.
Things always look different from different sets of moccasins. We have our own frames of reference and we infer patterns based on them. Had you been on my wavelength, you would have seen my signals pretty much as I sent them. But you weren't and you didn't. Just as I wasn't on your wavelength and didn't signal in a way designed to be clear to you. Had I been more sensitive to your mood and less to my growling stomach, I would have been clearer. But I wasn't.
If you had said "Just for speculative purposes
Instead of directly inviting you to speculate, I had been prodding you to get out of the box. Same basic idea but neither direct nor clear. Yes, I could have been much more clear, had I known then what I know now. Had you known then what you know now, you could have countered with "I'm not stuck in a box, I'm merely not interested in engaging your flight of fancy" rather than repeating for the umpteenth time your mantra about being socialized at our mothers' knees.
As discussions proceed, our thoughts about what we're trying to accomplish develop as our POV about the subject congeals. I did not know when I entered the discussion that I wanted to explore with you a society that eschews blame. All I was doing at the onset was challenging your assertion that there is a duty to apologize.
As I mentioned in a post to you several days ago, it would be better if we could stop for a moment and tell each other what we are hoping for and what we expect. But it seems to be the nature of these things that we don't do that. Things are not planned. They evolve. And they get away from us. Had I been planning this speculation as an exercise, I would have put the matter on the table just that way. But it didn't start out that way and the recognition came to me slowly, developing out of my observations of your comments. Throughout we both expressed frustration that the other didn't understand our POV. It's clear we didn't understand each other's purpose, either. I still don't know what yours was. Defending tradition against infidels, I assume, because that's my general impression of your modus operandi after all this time. Is it correct? Probably not, but it's the best I can do looking at the totality of your work from the perspective of my moccasins. This venue really isn't conducive to developing understanding between people who don't understand each other instinctively. We all need to be mindful of that. |
