In a message dated 2/16/2000 1:36:29 AM Pacific Standard Time, kpj@sics.se
writes:
<< Both statements point at the same phenomenon (have the same denotation)
but may generate different emotional overtones, subjective interpretations,
socio-cultural values, and ideological assumptions in humans reading them
(have different connotations). >>
In a message dated 2/16/2000 7:23:48 AM Pacific Standard Time,
QueeneMUSE@aol.com writes:
<< It is not inappropriate to judge the character of the person giving the
idea,
as well as the so called "rationale" behind it. If I find that a person's
thinking is rude, rigid, uninformed, or perhaps just unskilled at
"interpersonal communications" I will think that they are not a good source
-- or that their argument is based on personal bias. >>
I want to add one more thing:
If I find that a person has not had the *same* life experiences than me, and
is not at all interested in considering mine - before they begin to
"convince" - or denounce my thoughts, that is also a reason not to want to
partake in the discussion. I am always open to theirs.... highly interested
in fact!!!
Much of what I learned, I learned by listening (or in this case reading) of
other people's learning and life experiences. IMO, if someone is not
interested in looking at the world in many ways, even if just to speculate on
"what it might be like" to think differently, they are not well rounded.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:03:49 MDT