Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Negotiating Non-Negotiables


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Navidad said:

Not for us it isn't. For friends and family it is! We love it here and feel safer than when we were in Old Town, San Diego!

 

So you find "Disneyland Old Mexico" more dangerous than old Mexico itself.  Maybe try something that is NOT Mexico itself?  As a former San Diegan, I know Old Town well.

Link to comment
On 4/30/2023 at 7:09 PM, manol said:

It's really hard to pull the skin off a snake.  That snake will fight you something fierce. 

Yet another interesting linguistic usage.  I would tend to object vociferously if someone tried to skin me alive. 😉 But I am a bit old fashioned 🤔

Link to comment
On 4/30/2023 at 8:56 AM, Navidad said:

"Mexico is a dangerous place to live. We are fools for living here." - No debate about that.

CALLING ALL PARTICIPANTS!!! 😉

Does this mean that Mexico is dangerous OR that that Mexico is safe???

I vote for "dangerous" !

Navidad I think meant it was safe, as show in later posts.

Just trying to see if my built-in ambiguity seeker is defective. ;)

This is relevant to the thread because it appears to me to be to be a non- negotiable, by saying that there is "no debate about that" and that IS the topic of the thread!

And yet the apparent meaning of non-negotiable is confused in itself, making it negotiable 

THAT is my point.

EVERYTHING is negotiable because of the ambiguity of language 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And yet the apparent meaning of non-negotiable is confused in itself, making it negotiable 

I have no understanding of how we got here. I absolutely agree that the meaning of non-negotiable is confused in itself. That is one reason i asked for help in dealing with non-negotiables. I think of them in a very narrow sense. I think I also agree that most everything is negotiable in terms of ideology. Things related to safety and security are certainly non-negotiables.

My goodness, it is getting harder to post here. Once again it seems that we are divided by a common language. Perhaps I should have defined what a non-negotiable is in relationship to my question. I stipulate that I don't think of every possible interpretation and meaning is of what I am saying when I post. I enjoy posting here, but it is not a graduate class in etymology and semantics. Oh, and I tried to help by using quotation marks to identify what others say to me. . . not what I am saying. I don't think posts are meant to be duels "to the end." I also stipulate to the fact that I don't like duels. Sometimes they don't end well because someone or some relationship gets damaged.

 

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Just trying to see if my built-in ambiguity seeker is defective.

Perhaps, just perhaps it would be helpful if you tuned down your built-in ambiguity seeker just a little bit.  I can only speak for myself. I cannot live up to the degree of sensitivity of your built-in ambiguity seeker. For me it becomes a guilt-in ambiguity seeker. I am guilty of not living up to your "seeker" and you mock. I stipulate to that. Can we therefore just talk about things, relax, and put down the seeker/detector? 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Rain said:

I don't think that is true.  Last week I and some others were able to interview some refugees. They get the choice of what is shared (face shown, name mentioned, content etc) and where (books, videos, social media etc). We encourage them not to share if they don't want to. At any time they can call us and say they have changed their minds for any reason and we pull it.  Our consent forms make it legally non-negotiable for us to do anything they don't want. 

It is amazing the number of ways their story can be told without telling what is non-negotiable for them.  We can use aliases, film the back of their head, show their hands only, paint a picture, use audio only or written word only.  We can skip stories that cause trauma or see them in a bad light, but show how they started their own business, or learned to write, or the art they create.  And if they pull it all, the story is still in our heads and it changes who we are. 

When people have non-negotiables it just means they have differences from us and we work around that. It is how they handle the non-negotiables that usually make it difficult, not that there are non-negotiables. 

For example one of your non-negotiables is you won't get baptized in our church and the church's non-negotiable answer to that is that you can't then be a member.  That hasn't made the world stop. It hasn't stopped your interactions with members and attending church etc  It hasn't stopped you from learning from and loving each other. It just means many of those interactions are different than they would be if you were a member. 

I agree with everything you said in your reply. I would only add a comment to your last paragraph. Our position and relationship to the folks in the ward here is much more complex than you are making it. In many ways the world of our relationships with the ward has indeed stopped. Our attendance and the folks interactions with us have pretty much stopped. Except for uncomfortable hellos at the grocery or hardware store, the wonderful world of the last five years is pretty much over. I do agree with your last statement. Our "interactions are different than they would be if we were members." It seems there is no other box in which to put us. Just please understand, it is complicated, painful and requires some grief work.
 

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I agree with everything you said in your reply. I would only add a comment to your last paragraph. Our position and relationship to the folks in the ward here is much more complex than you are making it. In many ways the world of our relationships with the ward has indeed stopped. Our attendance and the folks interactions with us have pretty much stopped. Except for uncomfortable hellos at the grocery or hardware store, the wonderful world of the last five years is pretty much over. I do agree with your last statement. Our "interactions are different than they would be if we were members." It seems there is no other box in which to put us. Just please understand, it is complicated, painful and requires some grief work.
 

I have no doubt it is complicated and never meant to imply that it wasn't. I get the grief work and understand why you are feeling pain, especially since what you are describing to me sounds like there is more going on than I have read from you.  I suspect that many who are uncomfortable in the grocery store are grieving as well.  It's hard! It hurts! 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

CALLING ALL PARTICIPANTS!!! 😉

Does this mean that Mexico is dangerous OR that that Mexico is safe???

I vote for "dangerous" !

Navidad I think meant it was safe, as show in later posts.

Just trying to see if my built-in ambiguity seeker is defective. ;)

It looked to me like he was quoting other people he knows who think it is unsafe.  No debate in their mind.  

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

And yet the apparent meaning of non-negotiable is confused in itself, making it negotiable 

THAT is my point.

EVERYTHING is negotiable because of the ambiguity of language 

I ultimately agree with you, but many who lean more fundamentalist/literalist/black&white will disagree.  I think he simply was asking for advise on how to interact with people who do have what they perceive to be "non-negotiables".  

Despite knowing that everything is ultimately negotiable because of language and lack of perspective, I think we all inevitably accumulate non-negotiables despite knowing better.  

   

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Perhaps, just perhaps it would be helpful if you tuned down your built-in ambiguity seeker just a little bit.  I can only speak for myself. I cannot live up to the degree of sensitivity of your built-in ambiguity seeker. For me it becomes a guilt-in ambiguity seeker. I am guilty of not living up to your "seeker" and you mock. I stipulate to that. Can we therefore just talk about things, relax, and put down the seeker/detector? 

No.

All of these discussions are about the claims of the Church of Jesus Christ, which claims to be the only true and living faith.

Those are serious philosophical claims, requiring precision of language.

For the last 50 years, I have continually striven to follow Wittgenstein's maxim, and I am still persistently in pursuit of that goal.

Language IS reality as we know it, and to have any understanding of reality requires clear speech 

What can be said at all can be said clearly, and whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. - Ludwig Wittgenstein.

This forum is dedicated to clarifying how we think and therefore speak, about the Church of Jesus Christ.

This is " ordinary language philosophy" which already brings it down a peg from professional level discussion.

I consider this an important topic, in which precise language ought to be used.

There is also a social forum available.

We need to stop "dumbing things down,"  and not make it less relevant to real reason 

We need a Pundits forum as we used to have, for serious discussion 

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Navidad said:

 I cannot live up to the degree of sensitivity of your built-in ambiguity seeker. For me it becomes a guilt-in ambiguity seeker. I am guilty of not living up to your "seeker" and you mock. 

Oh my! I just cannot fathom....

I am officially boggled!  No words...

Ok.

No mas.  But I will reply to anything opposed to the church 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
46 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No.

All of these discussions are about the claims of the Church of Jesus Christ, which claims to be the only true and living faith.

Those are serious philosophical claims, requiring precision of language.

For the last 50 years, I have continually striven to follow Wittgenstein's maxim, and I am still persistently in pursuit of that goal.

Language IS reality as we know it, and to have any understanding of reality requires clear speech 

What can be said at all can be said clearly, and whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. - Ludwig Wittgenstein.

This forum is dedicated to clarifying how we think and therefore speak, about the Church of Jesus Christ.

This is " ordinary language philosophy" which already brings it down a peg from professional level discussion.

I consider this an important topic, in which precise language ought to be used.

There is also a social forum available.

We need to stop "dumbing things down,"  and not make it less relevant to real reason 

We need a Pundits forum as we used to have, for serious discussion 

 

You may not have noticed, but I consciously and deliberately did not set the table that this was about the LDS church in any way. In fact I prefaced the opening statement of my OP with "In another part of my life . . . " Perhaps you should couple precise reading with your yearning for precise language! I have a better maxim for you than that of Wittgenstein . . . how about "do no harm." I think that is nobler pursuit.

Edited by Navidad
Link to comment
30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh my! I just cannot fathom....

I am officially boggled!  No words...

Ok.

No mas.  But I will reply to anything opposed to the church 

And since I don't want any more of your targeted mocking, I will put you on ignore.

Link to comment

ZZZZZ.....

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...