My Engagement Proposal

 

(Here is the context of this discussion)
PO, Instead of me complaining at the end of a relationship/friendship, after they finally get to know how I prefer to be treated and they then realise that I was not suited to them as a friend or possible partner,
I propose that I put my preferences, of how I would like to be treated, upfront.
This means making my implicit demands for relating more explicit.

If anything it could save a lot of time and heart ache and who knows, I may have discovered/recovered a way to find my soul mate. Here are my preferences or explicit demands and I will be practicing using them in this discussion.

The rules of engagement that I prefer to interact with are, 6 words/concepts beginning with A. I would prefer that someone speaks to me with Adjustable, Accountable and ultimately Acceptable language.

That if/when someone fails to achieve this with me, I will try notify them using Appreciation, Acknowledgment and Apology (speech in defense).

*Please note: Any members that participate in this discussion should be aware that although I am not expecting, demanding, or imposing this framework upon them, I reserve the right to practice this framework in any posts and when someone uses what I consider non-adjustable, non-accountable or unacceptable language on me, I will try inform them using appreciation, acknowledgment and apology.

Sorry for any inconvenience this may cause you and if you do not wish to participate I will understand.

Tags: Agreements, Engagement, Parallel, Talking

Views: 610

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kim Jones on September 1, 2011 at 10:38
My question was neither rhetorical or leading. It was a request for information: a true "fishing question" - I have no deep emotional need to presuppose any particular answer. And you still haven't answered it. After you get your proposal up it then gets passed and then you impose it so I am asking you if you have yet gotten thus far. The trivial difference between proposing and imposing can be overlooked. I am looking for an interesting and persuasive case history.
Permalink Reply by Desmond Sherlock on September 1, 2011 at 11:13

Thanks Kim for the contribution it really has allowed me to see more clearly why it was so important for me at the time, and a chance to explain it now.

As I mentioned when you rephrased your question willingly to "propose" as opposed to imposed, you can speak with my brother.

KIM "OK, so what's the longest you have been able to propose 3A logic during human interactivity in the past? How's that?"

and my reply then as it is now is the same ask my brother Steve who is now a member.

DES "I will ask my brother Steve to get back to you on this as we have been working on this for some 20 years now. I use him as the sounding board and test subject."

So I did answer it.
I think your question was rhetorical and because of the importance of semantics here,
once a framework is agreement to, "we" impose it not just me.
So I don't agree with you that there is a "trivial difference between proposing and imposing" or that it can be "overlooked".

When "we" impose something on each other, I think there is a huge difference than one person imposing an idea or concept on another.

For example Franis's concept that objecting to answer a question "doesn't work because it doesn't enhance communication" was never agreed to by me and so by saying I "should know better!" is imposing it on me, I think.

So to me, this difference between proposing and imposing is the difference between chalk and cheese. But due to all of our participation it is made much more apparent to me anyway, so thanks again.

Permalink Reply by Kim Jones on September 1, 2011 at 12:08
What you choose to overlook can say as much about you as what you choose to notice. I would say your inability to not notice certain things in human transactions can legitimately be seen as the measure of your obsession with them. Freud would love you.
Permalink Reply by Kim Jones on September 1, 2011 at 12:15
What you guys are into is "meta-discussion". In other words, you get your kicks by discussing the discussion. In fact you don't discuss anything much at all. From what I can see, you just enjoy taking issue with just about anything at all. Discussing the discussion does nothing to further the discussion. It is horribly tedious and meta-discussion is banned in many learned discussion lists. If I had my way I would ban it here too. The whole world may get down on bended knee and treat you exactly as you would want but what difference have you made to the world?
Permalink Reply by Desmond Sherlock on September 1, 2011 at 12:30
Entitled to your opinion Kim.

But please read the what is the context of this discussion.

If you wish to persue some other form of discussion there are plenty on offer.

If you want to ban this particular discussion that would seem a bit unfair to me.
Permalink Reply by Kim Jones on September 1, 2011 at 12:33
Why thank you, brother Des. And I must say you are guaranteed yours by libertarian rastafarian me
Permalink Reply by Steve Sherlock on September 1, 2011 at 11:30
I'd like it better when we give our "point of view" as opposed to, seemingly "speak factually".

the way i look at it is that using language like "i think", "in my view", "seems to me" etc etc is more than just semantics - I think its good way to keep "a discussion as a discussions", rather than allowing it to lurch into argument.

for example:
* "i have no deep...." could be: "i think I have no deep..."
* "You did object...." could be: "in my view you did object..."
* "you should know better..." could be: "I reckon you should know better...." or "I have a different view"
* "and then you impose it..." could be: "and then I feel like you impose it..."

So I thinks its to be appreciated that expression is done (examples above), even if the language seems factual. i.e. better than not saying anything. Though, I reckon the more perception based our language is, the more deeply a topic can be explored. The contrast seems to be argument (i.e. ego vs ego).

to quote EDB "a discussion should be a genuine attempt to explore a subject rather than a battle between competing egos" & if he'd started the sentence with "I think" then that would be even more to my liking ;-)
Permalink Reply by Desmond Sherlock on September 1, 2011 at 12:24
I think you point is a very good one.

"From now on can we have moderators act as per the following framework..."
as derived from a future discussion maybe you could start it Adonis and I will contirbute.
Permalink Reply by Kim Jones on September 1, 2011 at 11:41
Why not simply assume that if you are about giving your point of view you also think you are doing so. Indeed, you could do nothing much without mentally conceiving of it beforehand. This strikes me as a needless complication in human affairs. And you probably might like me to rephrase that somehow?
Permalink Reply by Asa Jomard on September 1, 2011 at 11:44
Well, lets assume that you are a split personality, or born in May or June . .:-)
Permalink Reply by Steve Sherlock on September 1, 2011 at 12:08
"This strikes me..."
"And you probably might..."

Sounds ok to me. If you said "this is a needless complication" then I think that would be something quit different i.e. absolute type language.

In the end Kim, of course you can express yourself however you like and I'd try to appreciate the effort even if I didn't agree with the delivery or content.

But also, in the end, I can choose to let people know how I prefer to engage with little expectation that they will actually engage that way. Just merely considering what I have said (which you seem to have done) is appreciated.

But I guess the point here is that when we are under pressure, and feel defensive, perhaps our ego kicks in & then it gets harder to be disciplined with our language. i.e. we might resort to accusation, innuendo, sarcasm, factual language etc and then the collaboration pretty much stops.

But all would not be lost, as I could own up to my ego trip. So if you ever spot me using accusation, innuendo, sarcasm, factual language - please let me know and I'd be very confident I'd put my hand up and/or apologise.
Permalink Reply by Desmond Sherlock on September 1, 2011 at 12:19

Well Kim if you had of used "I think.." at least you would not end up falsely accusing me that I had not answered your question when I had.

A false thought might be easier to own than a false fact.

It might allow you to simply say "oops, sorry Des I thought wrong."
and a bit less humiliating than "oops I was wrong".

Now, because you did not preface your statement it looks like you will simply gloss over it as though it was not mentioned but it is plain for all to see.

 

RSS

© 2013   Created by Administrator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Sign in to chat!