blog traffic analysis
This is http://www.essayz.com/a9407102.htm Previous-Essay <== This-Essay ==> Following-Essay Click HERE on this line to find essays via Your-Key-Words. {Most frequent wordstarts of each essay will be put here.} ========================================================== %PROFESSIONAL OBJECTIVE STANDARDS IDEAL VALUES+940710 %DOUBLE BIND CLEAR WORD MEANING CONTEXT DEFINITION 940710 When seeking to set objective professional standards, compulsively objective scientists find themselves in double-binds, and must use the word "objective" with different meanings in different contexts; but they are not free to clarify what those different meanings are. Scientists who are primarily concerned with objects as impersonal things --- which are not complicated by spiritual relationships --- treat such objects objectively with detachment and lack of personal concern or interest. Objectivity in this context carries connotations of detachment, personal indifference, personal disinterest, not personally caring about consequences; so that conclusions can be drawn without prejudgment and bias. Objectivity is highly valued, an ideal. When scientists seek to define professional standards, they naturally seek to encourage objectivity as one of the standards by which to transcend bias. They thus seek to define objective standards which are free of personal biases, and transcend the special interests of individual members of the profession or special interest groups within the profession. This generates a double- bind, because those who have the power to set such standards are themselves the people who are most likely to be held accountable for living up to the standards that they set. It is logically impossible for them to regard the setting of professional standards objectively in the same way in which they regard impersonal objects which are manipulated in the course of their objective research. The double-bind is not easily resolved. Compulsively objective scientists are bound to try to be objective in all that they do, including setting the objective, professional standards. How can they be objective in clarifying the meaning of the word "objective" within the two different contexts: (1) In pure objective research, (2) In setting objective standards? The natural way to resolve the objectivists' double- bind is to enter into collusive games of mutual self- deception, wherein the pretense is maintained that the word "objective" is being used consistently within different contexts. Such a pretense is obliviously dishonest, but the dishonesty is preferred over engaging openly and honestly in overtly reflexive behaviors which are taboo to compulsively objective scientists. The confusion --- which is engendered by compulsively objective scientists --- is facilitated by the pre- existing pattern of multiple connotations of words which are cognates to "object" and "subject". The confusion is suggested by the following statements: "I object to your leaving the object which you own on the path between me and my objective. I, as King, do not want my subjects to subject me to the inconvenience of objective barriers to my objective progress over the path. I will subject disobedient subjects to objective punishments which they will experience as subjectively painful. Do not change the subject of this conversation! My problem is not a subjective problem, it is an objective problem with your object, which is objectively blocking my objective progress." There are probably ways to talk about other subjects which would illustrate other ways of using the words "subject", "object" and their cognates in yet other ways. It is clear that compulsively objective people have not been preoccupied with eliminating any of this confusion; for eliminating this confusion would expose their collusive games of mutual self-deception to the reflexive light of open and honest dialogue. (c) 2005 by Paul A. Smith in (On Being Yourself, Whole and Healthy) ==========================================================