I think it's important to have principles. I don't think it's particularly important to judge others by them. In fact, I'd say that's pretty damn unimportant. But it's important to be able to talk about them! It isn't really "common sense" for a lot of this stuff, so I think people need to kind of share it up a little. Maybe learn a thing or two in the process!
That's why I'm always spouting off about mine. It's not a judgment, just a plain statement of principle. We can't all be cowards!
But see, a lot of the time, instead of the inclusive "we" I use up there, I'm using the indefinite you. Now I'm dead clear on the indefinite you, its uses and implications, but sometimes I think certain other people aren't. They think it is the specific you. Which is ridiculous - like I mean it applies to them only. Why even bother stating a principle that only applies to one dude? Waste of time! Yet some people react like that's how I meant it. So I find that sometimes, I guess I might somehow be creating a wrong impression.
I do hate to create a wrong impression, but I'm really not sure how else to do it, here. What are my options?
The inclusive we just sounds pompous in a lot of constructions. And the first person singular just sounds weird! Doesn't it? It just sounds kind of weird to say: "I can't just go around this-a-thissing somebody's that-a-that!" It sounds weird. To say "I can't," there. It's like, "I can't go around murdering people for wearing fedoras!" Well what am I, a robot? Is this prohibition part of my esoteric programming - does it apply to me only? Well, no. And that's clearly not how the statement is intended. I'm making a statement about what I feel is right in general. It doesn't apply to me only. That's what the indefinite you is for! It applies equally (but only generally) to the whole indefinite you of the world out there: "you can't just go this-a-thissing somebody's that-a-that!" Damn right you can't. Or I'll know the reason why!
People really should know what that indefinite you means, and how to take it. It is almost always real clear from context. It's meant to apply broadly, and any exemptions know who they are, why it doesn't apply to them, and they can exempt themselves out for good cause. I mean, if I say "you can't just jump out of an airplane without a parachute," Superman knows he's excluded from that particular "you" - for good and sufficient reason.
The surest sign of a crippled mind is the refusal to accept that generalizations can be valid. People don't need to go around saying "everybody except Superman can't just..."! Superman, and other exceptional cases, know that we're not judging them just by the fact that we don't feel the need to enumerate every freak exemption whenever we make a valid general statement.
I don't judge, anyhow. My mind is wired with a missing connection, it seems, because the indefinite you never really connects back to any specific you to whom I might be talking. I can talk about this and that, talking about how I feel about this or that, and I'm never really relating it directly back to the person in front of me in the slightest - except to invite them to chime in and/or set me straight with a sweet, clear, new perspective. After all, if I'm the one speaking - I am only talking about my principles and convictions, with 100% respect that mine don't override theirs. Which...unless their spine is made out of suet, they damn ought to already know.
But yeah, I have this weird disconnect there, as if while I know the world in general maybe can't just go around that-a-thissing people's fedoras, I make no such judgment as to the person right in front of me. That's just my natural mode and assumption, to allow as it's completely possible that the person I'm talking to might have a good and sufficient exemption, a reason why they think they can just go around. Doing that.
But if so...I'm still waiting to hear it.
That's why I'm always spouting off about mine. It's not a judgment, just a plain statement of principle. We can't all be cowards!
But see, a lot of the time, instead of the inclusive "we" I use up there, I'm using the indefinite you. Now I'm dead clear on the indefinite you, its uses and implications, but sometimes I think certain other people aren't. They think it is the specific you. Which is ridiculous - like I mean it applies to them only. Why even bother stating a principle that only applies to one dude? Waste of time! Yet some people react like that's how I meant it. So I find that sometimes, I guess I might somehow be creating a wrong impression.
I do hate to create a wrong impression, but I'm really not sure how else to do it, here. What are my options?
The inclusive we just sounds pompous in a lot of constructions. And the first person singular just sounds weird! Doesn't it? It just sounds kind of weird to say: "I can't just go around this-a-thissing somebody's that-a-that!" It sounds weird. To say "I can't," there. It's like, "I can't go around murdering people for wearing fedoras!" Well what am I, a robot? Is this prohibition part of my esoteric programming - does it apply to me only? Well, no. And that's clearly not how the statement is intended. I'm making a statement about what I feel is right in general. It doesn't apply to me only. That's what the indefinite you is for! It applies equally (but only generally) to the whole indefinite you of the world out there: "you can't just go this-a-thissing somebody's that-a-that!" Damn right you can't. Or I'll know the reason why!
People really should know what that indefinite you means, and how to take it. It is almost always real clear from context. It's meant to apply broadly, and any exemptions know who they are, why it doesn't apply to them, and they can exempt themselves out for good cause. I mean, if I say "you can't just jump out of an airplane without a parachute," Superman knows he's excluded from that particular "you" - for good and sufficient reason.
The surest sign of a crippled mind is the refusal to accept that generalizations can be valid. People don't need to go around saying "everybody except Superman can't just..."! Superman, and other exceptional cases, know that we're not judging them just by the fact that we don't feel the need to enumerate every freak exemption whenever we make a valid general statement.
I don't judge, anyhow. My mind is wired with a missing connection, it seems, because the indefinite you never really connects back to any specific you to whom I might be talking. I can talk about this and that, talking about how I feel about this or that, and I'm never really relating it directly back to the person in front of me in the slightest - except to invite them to chime in and/or set me straight with a sweet, clear, new perspective. After all, if I'm the one speaking - I am only talking about my principles and convictions, with 100% respect that mine don't override theirs. Which...unless their spine is made out of suet, they damn ought to already know.
But yeah, I have this weird disconnect there, as if while I know the world in general maybe can't just go around that-a-thissing people's fedoras, I make no such judgment as to the person right in front of me. That's just my natural mode and assumption, to allow as it's completely possible that the person I'm talking to might have a good and sufficient exemption, a reason why they think they can just go around. Doing that.
But if so...I'm still waiting to hear it.
Comments