Conference quark::human_relations-v1

>(you know what I mean :-))


	 Well, *I* have no earthly idea.

	 kath

    .1>  Well, *I* have no earthly idea.
    
         I second that.
    
    Eugene

>	Or does there exist objectives? (you know what I mean :-))

He probably means objectivity. 

Reminds me of the evening we had an older Physics professor (speaks
English, but not exactly like a native) for dinner. In the course of
the evening, the conversation turned to hereditary traits; he turned
to a demure young lawyer seated to his left and remarked that it all
depended on genitals. You should have seen her face...

Oh, well. These slips of the tongue always come to a happy
confusion. 

-- Ron 

� Is everything relative?
    
    Well, yes...relatively speaking, of course.   :-)
    
    Actually, after I visited family overseas, the burning question was
    "Is everyone (a) relative", but that's probably not what you had in
    mind.  
    
      - Larry

    Re .0, Yes.
    
    

    Yes, everything is relative.
    

	No, there are some absolutes.

    Jim,
    
    	Concerning objectivity in another note, I had to run and couldn't
    finish my thought.  One cannot talk about objectivity in absolute
    terms.  There are relative degrees of objectivity.  If there is
    any unknown variable that are not accounted for when the expectations
    are set up, then there is no absolute objectivity.  Objectives and
    objectivity are not synonomous.  During war the miltary has many objectives
    that changed all the time or at least the methodology of obtaining
    those objectives change.    In a relationship, the individuals may
    have differing objectives and approach these separate objectives
    "objectively" from different frames of reference, according to the
    importance  each individual places on their own objectives. At what
    level do or should these objectives be identical in a relationship?
    Sure, the house needs to be kept clean and the kids taken care of
    may be the primary level of an objective.  That broad, general goal
    probably can be agreed upon.  The problem would be in clearly defining
    what it means to "take care of the kids" or "keep a clean house." 
    Everybody has their own frame of reference in working toward the
    broad general goal.  I believe they are all judgement calls based
    upon our own environmental situations: How we were raised; our predisposing
    attitudes toward the environment while we were growing up all influence
    our perception of *objectivity" in setting up our own goals.  In the 
    broadest sense, "raising our kids" might mean having them flourish
    both mentally and physically."  This, at first glance might seem to be
    a goal that two people can approach objectively, right?  Especially if both
    people approach it from their own frame of reference with a lot of 
    assumptions that the other individual is approaching the goal from  the same
    frame of reference. 
    	There are a lot of unknown and arbitrary variables in the above
    broad general goal. What does it meant to flourish?  Each individual
    is going to have their own opinion of the meaning on flourish. 
    (assuming that there is a **mutual** agreement to the need for
    the kids to flourish.)  What if the parents agree on the need of
    the kid to  Flourish and also the meaning of flourish, but neither
    is capable of attaining this goal for the kids for any number of
    reasons?  Is it an objective goal if it is unattainable? 
    	Only at the broadest level can a goal maintain any sense of
    objectivity because any unknown variable can be discounted. At the
    broadest interpretation of a goal or objective, Methodology can
    be discounted because we fail to define the predicate of the goal
    in a clear manner.  In the above example, we fail to define the
    level of "cleanness"  or the definition of "raising the kids." Within
    our own frame of reference, our own context, we have that defined
    but we assume that the other individual has the same definition
    that we acquired while growing up- unknown variables.  Why should
    you or I believe that your or my definition of cleanliness is the universal 
    meaning?   Just because of what  I was taught while growing
    up?  Me thinks not. 
    	That is why I suggested setting up lines of communication between
    the two individuals in that other note.  If I enter a relationship
    with unknown variables (based on my own assumptions) and things
    don't turn out as I expected them to, then perhaps its time to fill
    in the blanks to make **my own outlook a little more objective"
    Believing someone should mold to my own assumptions, adapt to my
    own frame of reference is not an attempt at being objective. The
    other person's frame of reference is just as valid to them as yours
    is to you.  Therefore any attempt at objectivity must include as
    much of the viewpoints of the other person as possible, without
    giving up a large part of our own.  This usually entails negotiating
    our (and their) assumptions with the other individual in the
    relationship.  This is also why I suggested that a third, neutral
    party be involved:  It is difficult to let go of our assumptions
    concerning the goals and requirements of a relationship.  We generally
    tend to believe that our assumptions are undisputable laws from
    our own frame of reference and a trained neutral counselor is able
    to help us monitor our own assumptions and unconscious beliefs while
    we attempt to negotiate goals and methodology with our partner.
    
    Ernie
     
    
    

    re -.1
    
    But then again, there are objective degrees of relativity!

  Re: .9>  Therefore any attempt at objectivity must include as
      .9>  much of the viewpoints of the other person as possible, without
      .9> giving up a large part of our own.  This usually entails negotiating
      .9>  our (and their) assumptions .....
         
           Hopefully or Precisely   !?!
    
       Question: Is is not a *fact that it's easier to be subjective than
                 to be objective ? 
                 Have you played/heard the flip-side objectively yet ?

       Fazari.

    I've no idea how any one could answer this but I don't believe there
    are absolutes. So how about a quote from my favorite, ee cummings.

    Simple people, people who don't exist, prefer things which don't
    exist, simple things.

    "Good" and "Bad" are simple things. You bomb me = "bad". I bomb you
    = "good". ...Very luckily for you and me, the uncivilized sun shines
    on "good" and "bad" alike.

    Nothing measurable can be alive; nothing which is not alive can be
    art; nothing which can not be art is true: and everything untrue
    doesn't matter a very good God damn...

    And, relatively speaking, I agree with him. ;*) liesl

To try to answer this question seriously:

All human perception is subjective and therefore relative at some level,
but the reality itself does have absolutes.  There exists an external
objective reality which is independent of what you or I think.

If you jump off a tall building, you will fall to the ground.
If you burn hydrogen with oxygen, you will get water.
This is just the way things are.  Some might deny this and say
that these are relative too, but that really denies the concept
of objectivity.  As humans, we invented this concept to describe
something meaningful.

The "scientific method" is a process of trying to discover this
objective reality.  When two scientists disagree about the nature
of reality, it is often possible for one to convince the other
through the use of "compelling evidence".  Indepentently verifiable
and repeatable observations that compel one scientist to accept the
other's point of view as more valid than his previous one.

By developing and using complex technological tools like computers,
we have clearly accepted the products of science.  It would be ironic
to now reject its methods.

Our perceptions are limited.  Not everything can be known.
But we should not confuse tolerance for other points of view,
with denying the very existance of an objective reality.
I believe there is a difference between Discernment, which is to
see things the way they really are, and Judgement, which condemns
another's point of view.

- Peter

"One cannot talk about objectivity in absolute terms.  There are relative
degrees of objectivity."

I think your terminology is misleading.  In order to be objective one must state
the "context" in which one is being objective.  This is entirely different from
saying that there is only relative objectivity.  

For instance, saying 'you have a drinking problem' can be taken objectively or
subjectively.  If I am a tetotaler, I could be refering to the fact that you
drink at all as being a problem, when clearly your drinking does not have a
significant negative impact on your life.  If you beat your wife, stay out all
night, and are unable to hold a job, then 'you have a drinking problem' is an
objective description of the problem.

In the previous note, where a wife was supposedly unable to take care of four
children and a home, the question, 'should she be able?' can be asked and
answered objectively provided that we can assume some context in which the
question is asked.

Even if the context which we assume are false, that does not mean that there is
no objectivity; it means that we have errored in the information we are basing
the discussion on.  If the woman is spending all day with friends instead of
taking care of the children and the home, then that's obviously a problem to the
goal of having the children and home taken care of properly.  If she has some
debilitating disease that is also a problem, although she is somewhat less
responsible.  (although she would be responsible for taking what steps she can
to counteract the disease)  If she just plain doesn't want to do the work, it's
still objectively a problem.

This is quite a bit difference from the 'that may be true for you, but it's not
true for me' common statement of relativity.  What importance a clean home has
obviously differs from person to person, but whether or not a clean home is
possible should surely be able to be stated objectively.

"Objectives and objectivity are not synonomous."

I knew that... really...  by using the word 'objectives', I was trying to impart
the idea that yes some things are subjective, but that there are some ideas,
conclusions, judgement which can be make on an objective basis, hence a class of
'objectives'.

Jim.

    Jim,
    
    	You wrote the key word-- "context."   You mention a lot of "iffy"
    statements again.  a lot of general terms with very little
    clarification.  What is meant by "taking care of a home properly"
    mean anyway?  To be objective you must be able to define this phrase
    ina a context that is acceptable to everyone concerned, correct?
    If it cannot be clearly be defined to the content of all then who
    is has the authority in defining that phrase? 
    
    There is an assumption in the statement:
    
    "If you beat up your wife, stay out all night, and are unable to
    hold a job, then 'you have a drinking problem' is an objective
    description of the problem."         
        Yes, there is a likelyhood that drinking cause problems with
    spouse beating but...
    	This assumes that one only beats his wife if he has been drinking.
    it allows no pre-disposing attitude in the person who does the beating.
    perhaps he drinks in an attempt to modify his predisposing attitude
    but is not successful, is it the drinking or his predisposing attitude
    toward women and life?  Therefore I claim that your statement above
    is not an objective description of the problem.  Yes, there may
    be a situation in which a man might beat his wife, and yes there
    may be a situation in which a man drinks but it is not QED to infer
    that the man who beats his wife and drinks beats his wife because
    of a drinking problem.  Maybe there is an underlying co-dependence
    that encouraged the spouse beating and the alcohol only 'enabled'
    the situation.  other very stressful situations could also trigger
    the abuse.
    
    In order to be objective, every part of the statement or thesis
    has to be clearly defined.  "but whether or not a clean home is
    possible should surely be able to be stated objectively"
    This can only be stated objectively if all parties come to an agreement
    on the definition of "clean home."  One person may be an obsessive
    cleaner and his cleaning is interfering ith his relationship and
    social lfe while another person might like the home clean but somewhat
    untidy but have a successful relationship and social life. Whose
    standard of cleanliness would you use in this case? 
    To be objective, both points of view must be taken into
    account.  And if there is a "STANDARD" of cleanliness, both parties
    must accept that "Standard" as Valid, otherwise it no longer is
    a "standard."  In other words, both parties must contribute to the
    health or malady of a relationship.
     
    	Jim, You continue to defend your beliefs with "iffy" statements
    and broad generalities: 
    "provided we can assume some context in which the question was
    asked"  
    Go ahead and assume, but I would rather not, based on one side of
    the story that was given.  The context you presume is only viable
    within the one person's testimonial.  The Subject, predicate, and
    any object of a problem statement must be clearly define to the
    acceptance of all parties involved, before an effective solution
    can be reached that is acceptable to all parties.  Is this objective;
    perhaps not, but is it effective, most certainly so.  If both parties
    feel that they are making contributions to the relationship, that
    relationship will be much more flourishing.
     

"What is meant by "taking care of a home properly" mean anyway?"

To put it very simply, it generally means to clean what is dirty, and have
everything in it's where it belongs when it is not being used..  But even this
is a goal which very few people fullfill perfectly.  And it's not necessary to
in most cases.  As long as some reasonable approximation is being met, there
shouldn't be any problem.  Having dirty dishes in the sink for days is not
'taking care of a home properly'.

"To be objective you must be able to define this phrase ina a context that is
acceptable to everyone concerned, correct?"

Not at all.  That would result in "the lowest common demoninator", which would
hardly be objective, but more on the order of mob rule.  No, Objective means to
make a judgement based on the objective reality of the situation, rather then on
one person or more's wishes or whims.

"Therefore I claim that your statement above is not an objective description of
the problem."

It is quite a bit more objective then your reply :-) in which you go to great
lengths to disprove my assumption because you desire to disprove me, rather then
because it is objectively wrong.  In truth, the cause of the problem may not be
drinking, but it is an objective statement that there is a problem, and it is a
valid assumption on the information given that drinking is at the root.  It may
be incorrect, but to assert that drinking is not the problem is an even bigger
mistake.

""but whether or not a clean home is possible should surely be able to be stated
objectively" This can only be stated objectively if all parties come to an
agreement on the definition of "clean home.""

Not at all.  They may disagree entirely, yet it might be obvious that one
person's standards are impossible to meet.

"Whose standard of cleanliness would you use in this case?"

Neither.  I would use an objective standard of cleanliness, and determine how
important it was that that goal is reached in what measure.

"To be objective, both points of view must be taken into account."

Again, this is not "objective", this is the lowest common denominator, in many
cases "mob rule".

"And if there is a "STANDARD" of cleanliness, both parties must accept that
"Standard" as Valid, otherwise it no longer is a "standard.""

If the standard of cleanliness is objective both parties should accept the
standard as valid, not the other way around.

"Go ahead and assume, but I would rather not, based on one side of the story
that was given."

Ah, but you are assuming, just as I am.  You are assuming the opposite of what I
am.  The difference is that I am quite aware that I am making those assumptions,
and I have no vested interest in those assumptions being correct or incorrect.
If those assumptions prove to be false, I would unhesitantly change my judgement
of the situation, yet it would still be objective.

"The context you presume is only viable within the one person's testimonial."

Not at all.  I am quite aware that we are hearing only one side in the
'housecleaning' note. I am quite aware that the other side may be quite
different, and have some measure of validity.  But regardless of what each
viewpoint is, there is an objective reality.  And the question of 'is it
possible to keep a clean home' is not based on any one view point.

Jim.

    .18
    
     "...To clean what is dirty (to whose expectations? E.W.) and have
    everything in it's place where it belongs when it is not being used"
     
    I maintain that it **would** be nice to have everything in its place
    when not being used. But should?  No way, I have more important
    priorities. 
    Whose goal is this, yours, right?  Why should it be mine?  Because
    you have set the standard?  Suppose I believe that the correct place for
    something is where it is at when I set it down as long as no one
    steps on it.  You have given us your expectations, your goals, So the 
    world should evolve around you?  Why are you trying to force us to
    accept your definition in **your**context and being very vague in your 
    definitions. what is meant by **dirty**?  Why is
    your definition the more correct one? because you have decided so?
     What is meant by "reasonable?"  Do I use my or your definition or do
    we come to some common definition?   What is the cut off point for
    leaving "dirty" dishes in the sink?  A few minutes? An hour? Who decides?
    There may be a consensus on this but that don't make it an absolute or 
    even objective.  I quite often leave dirty dishes in the sink for at 
    least a day before I have the time to wash them. I am a single person who 
    lives alone.  I rarely spend more than an hour at home when I am not 
    sleeping.  So I have to eat and run. And anybody who wishes to stay at my 
    house, will be expected to come to terms with me on this. And I AM willing 
    to negotiate, but I will not accept your or anybody elses opinion as to
    what is objective or correct or "should be." Again, why is it YOU who 
    decides what is "objective" or "should be?"
    	You might say I'm not being objective, but then again, you
    might be correct.  I've learned long ago that objectivity is a personal
    matter, depending on personal goals, the goals of whom  I wish to
    interact, and how the other party and I can come to terms that is
    **mutually** satisfying.  I or no one can be objective
    when dealing with other people, especially in the context you are
    referring to. I am not interested in objectivity per se, only in getting
    the needs met of all who is concerned.  That is more important to
    me than any sense of objectivity.  It is valuing the other person
    as an individual in his or her own right. It is giving worth and
    import to the thoughts and ideas of others.  
    
    Jim, the idea of being objective according to your definition is
    relatively irrelevant to my needs and purpose in life. Your kind
    of objectivity seems to ignore the individual and his or her own
    values.  Attempting to define objectivity in one's own terms is
    a sub-conscious attempt to control a relationship. This implies that 
    the other person has no value since he or she is not being "objective"-
    that is, following the controlling person's  arbitrary guidelines.  It is
    an attempt to manipulate the other person based on some external
    standard, not the needs of the relationship; a set of standards that may 
    or may not have anything to do with the needs of the TOTAL RELATIONSHIP.
    Standards tend to be ideals, seldomly attainable in the world of human 
    interaction.  Especially ideals that are instilled as guidelines for the 
    other person to live up to.  
    	Jim, you may be correct in saying that objectivity is possible,
    But I think it is only possible and necessary when observing and
    describing non-human objects,  Things that have no intrinsic value
    in and of themselves. Objects don't have the ability to acquire their own 
    values So we are at liberty to set values for these objects;  Human being 
    can and do set their own values, what ever they might be. It is not up to 
    us to place value on one another by how they live up to our own
    expectations except in unusual cases where our right to life and liberty 
    might be infringed upon. Even these concepts vary from society to society.
    By attempting to place objectivity on a relationship one attempts to 
    reduce the other to the value of a non-human object.  Objectivity has 
    little relevance when human volition comes into play, except within very 
    broad guidlines as discussed earlier.

	Thank you Jim, you helped me to not only better understand the 
    impossibility of objectivity in human relationships, you also helped me 
    realize that objectivity could better be defined as the mutual setting of 
    a goal by those involved in a relationship.  Thank you for helping me 
    understand that the subject, predicate, and any object must be clearly 
    defined and accepted by all parties involved, not to be objective, but to 
    meet the needs of that particular relationship.  And the tenants of that 
    relationship has no bearing on the goals and principles of any other 
    separate relationship.
                                           
    Thanks again,
    Ernie
    

"I maintain that it **would** be nice to have everything in its place when not
being used. But should?  No way, I have more important priorities."

Perhaps you do have different priorities, and there is not problem with that.
The problem is when you start believing that however you choose to keep your
house is clean.  "clean" is an objective standard, how you choose to keep your
house is a subjective standard; don't confuse the two.

"Whose goal is this, yours, right?  Why should it be mine?"

I haven't said it should be your standard.  What I have said is that you should
realize what your goals are, and not merely label your goals as the standard.

"Suppose I believe that the correct place for something is where it is at when I
set it down as long as no one steps on it."

There is more to being 'put away' then having stuff where it will not be stepped
on.  What if your chairs are full of books?  Can you use the chairs to sit in?
What if your desk is covered with papers you aren't using?  Can you work at your
desk?

"Why are you trying to force us to accept your definition in **your** context
and being very vague in your  definitions. what is meant by **dirty**?"

I've defined what I mean more then you have.  Why don't you do some definitions
as well?  I'm not trying to force anyone to accept my goals.  I only insist on
'calling a spade, a spade'.  Perhpas it seems like I am doing too much
definition because you are not doing any?

What is meant by "reasonable?"

Give me an example and I'll tell you if it's reasonable to me.  I don't expect
your sense of reasonablity to mach mine, I merely wish that you realize at what
point it is that you are.

"What is the cut off point for leaving "dirty" dishes in the sink?  A few
minutes? An hour?"

A few minutes after a meal is reasonable.  A few hours is reasonable if you have 
an important appointment and you are rushed.  There is still a big difference
between a few hours and days...

"Again, why is it YOU who  decides what is "objective" or "should be?""

You keep insisting that it is "I" who is deciding what 'should be'.  Yet, I do
not.  I merely insist that when your home is dirty, that you not refer to it as
'clean'.  What 'should be' is not decided by me, it is decided by the objective
reality of the situation.  I can only accept reality, or try to deny reality.

"I've learned long ago that objectivity is a personal matter, depending on
personal goals, the goals of whom  I wish to interact, and how the other party
and I can come to terms that is **mutually** satisfying."

You are speaking of subjectivity, not objectivity.  It is very difficult to
carry on a conversation with someone who does not know the difference between
objectivity and subjectivity and other opposites.  I am quite capable for
knowing and acknowledging when I am being subjective.

"I or no one can be objective when dealing with other people"

What better place for a 'meeting of the minds' then reality?  Certainly it's
easier to come to an agreement based on a reality which all can sense, then
having each person off in their own little dreamland and redefining what they
say and the words that they speak to mean whatever they wish.  Calling black,
white, and subjectivity, objective and confusing the terms is inhibits
communication quite a bit.

"I am not interested in objectivity per se, only in getting the needs met of all
who is concerned.  That is more important to me than any sense of objectivity."

So, you do not care whether someone has a right to rob me, as long as his needs
are met?  What about my needs?  What makes someone else's ends more important
then my needs?  Often people's needs conflict each others.  At that point, you
need to ask who has a right to what?  A Sense of Justice requires a sense of
objectivity.  You can't merely rob peter to pay paul, and say, ' he needs, give
him what you have worked for'.

It is true that we can't ignore the needs of other people. I've been called
uncharitable because I prefer not to let others do my charity for me.  In order
for charity to have any value, it must be done in a sense of charity.  Paying my
taxes for welfare gives me no sense of charity.  Someone proclaiming that they
have a right to money I earned has no sense of recieving charity.  It must be
done in a sense of freely giving if the giver is to recieve the graces which
charity brings.  It must be done in a sense of thankfully recieving.

"Your kind of objectivity seems to ignore the individual and his or her own
values."

Not at all; see previous.

"Attempting to define objectivity in one's own terms is a sub-conscious attempt
to control a relationship."

I wonder what attempting to define subjectivity as objectivity signifies?

I have a good sense of when I am right.  And I am strong enough to admit when I
am wrong.  I do know that every time someone has tried to pull this 'why does it
have to be on your (sic, not mine, but objective) terms?' complaint, they were
trying to pull something over on me.

I also know how to compromise.  But I cannot compromise with someone who cannot
tell the difference between 'yours, mine, and ours', and insists on basing the
relationship of an ever shifting set of rules.

"This implies that the other person has no value since he or she is not being
"objective"-"

Hardly...  if the other person had no value, then why bother trying to argue
with them?  This implication is in fact, *yours*, that if I insist on being
objective, that *I* have no value, that *I* am a controlling bastard.

Jim.

    "Give me an example and I'll tell you if it is reasonable to me.
     I merely wish that you realize at what point it is that you are
    (reasonable EW). " 
      Again, you want me to follow your guidelines and standards. 
    All I'm saying is that it must be give and take on both our parts.
    You and I must come to terms.  
    And you are going of on tangents by putting thoughts into my head
    by saying I am allowning you to be robbed by someone else.  Why
    can't you read what is written!  All I said is that you must come
    to terms with and negotiate your relationship with anybody.  That
    implies nothing except that objectivity is not based on only one
    person's view point, if indeed objectivity exists at all.   
    
    Jim, you are attempting to do what you have tried in the other notes:
    Attempting to manipulate the contents of my replies to meet your own
    needs(forcing me to your standards), by reading things into them
    that does not exist, and by stating generalities and implying
    particulars. From what I have seen in this note and  your responses to
    other notes, There doesn't appear to be a desire on your part to learn from
    this conference.  This in my opinion is not being "objective," unless
    your objectivity only extends to bullying others to bend to your
    own expectations.
                                                             
    Ernie
    
    

""Give me an example and I'll tell you if it is reasonable to me. I merely wish
that you realize at what point it is that you are (reasonable EW). ""

That is not an accurate quote.

"And you are going of on tangents by putting thoughts into my head by saying I
am allowning you to be robbed by someone else.  Why can't you read what is
written!  All I said is that you must come to terms with and negotiate your
relationship with anybody."

What I am saying is that you can't negotiate with someone who is way out in left
field to start with.  You can't negotiate with a robber because no matter how
you negotiate, he's going to have his way.  You must have some reasonable/ fair/
objective standpoint to start negotiations from.  otherwise, the best that you
can do is just say 'no thanks' and walk away, except that's not always possible.

"Attempting to manipulate the contents of my replies to meet your own
needs(forcing me to your standards), by reading things into them that does not
exist, and by stating generalities and implying particulars."

Funny, I could have said the same about you.  Clearly there's some
misunderstanding here.  Perhaps you could give some particulars to avoid doing
right here what you are accusing me of doing?  Sheeash!  At least I don't
misquote you.

Jim.