Spelling and Grammar Q&A

[Merkin]

Sorta like 'Don't do as I say, but do as I do'? Des, it just won't work that way. We can't base social order on each of us deciding what the other person actually means based on our "analysis" of that person. Just as gaydar doesn't work for everyone, neither do our perceptions--or our own internal stockpiles of wisdom and insight. No, we will have to continue to rely on what the other person says, and take the meaning of his words at face value. As our court system and our contract law discovered long ago that is the only testimony that counts.

[DesDownunder]

Sorta like 'Don't do as I say, but do as I do'? Des, it just won't work that way. We can't base social order on each of us deciding what the other person actually means based on our "analysis" of that person. Just as gaydar doesn't work for everyone, neither do our perceptions--or our own internal stockpiles of wisdom and insight. No, we will have to continue to rely on what the other person says, and take the meaning of his words at face value. As our court system and our contract law discovered long ago that is the only testimony that counts.

I'm not explaining this very well it seems. Understanding the psychology behind the meaning of the words can provide a number of insights into the author's statement. My contribution was meant to be one analysis. Others are welcome.

Nevertheless, the psychophysical influences behind the natural desire to self-exposure is I think self-evident, and indeed my point was that it is inherent in the objective form of the sentence.

I am at a loss to understand the notion that I am imposing a do as I say, or do, decree. Neither is their any 'analysis' of a particular person. The analysis is strictly psychological in the wider context of observable objective anthropological behaviour. We are not dealing with a court case here to determine social order. Rather, we are observing a much earlier, more primitive influence on our behaviour as we evolve in our current culture. Understanding the genetic origin of that behaviour is what interests me, as it directly affects how we relate to each other in a myriad of different ways. My analysis of the sentence is my attempt to shed light on the meaning that I suspect was behind the author's intent. In that I'm freely willing to be confronted with a different approach, but not to the underlying evidence of our male desire to display ourselves, even if age has dimmed our own realisation of why we do that.

[Camy]

We can't base social order on each of us deciding what the other person actually means based on our "analysis" of that person.

But isn't that what each and everyone of us does all the time? You meet someone new and within seconds, based on their dress, accent, and apparent wealth, peg them into a social strata.

[Cole Parker]

But isn't that what each and everyone of us does all the time? You meet someone new and within seconds, based on their dress, accent, and apparent wealth, peg them into a social strata.

Well, sure we do that, decide what class they belong to and superimpose values on them based on our own understandings and prejudices concerning that class. But that wasn't what James was saying. Ignoring our prejudices, ignoring our assumptions, he said we must listen to their words to know what they mean. And this is so true. We've all been struck with the reality of this. When someone at school we didn't expect much from sitting in the back row and never joining class discussions got called on and was forced to speak and suddenly showed a depth of knowledge and profundity we never imagined to be there, when some kid who had an accent that was barely intelligible and didn't bathe all that regularly got an essay returned to him and we saw a large red A on the front along with the words, 'Great work, as usual. I love your use of imagery and satire', we realized that if we wanted to know these kids, we had to talk to them, listen to what they were saying, to really understand them and who they were.

[Jeff Ellis]

Perhaps the omission of a clarifying word was itself a Freudian Slip, revealing the author's subconscious uncertainty about his own right to masculinity... The basic alienist question is...Is masculinity only for the Jung? Over my dead body it is!

[DesDownunder]

Fromm the Jung to the old,

Masculinity is for the bold.

[Merkin]

Groan. You're both Adlerpated. Gives me a complex, it does.

[DesDownunder]

At least you didn't claim that we had Freud your brain.