I’m clever, but not wise. It’s enough to cause a lot of trouble, if I put my mind to it.
It’s kind of a problem.
I want to get better at navigating this world. To do that, I have to understand the connections. To do THAT … I can’t really go looking at my own place in things in an unrealistic way.
They say that achieving real understanding is kind of like coming full circle: returning to a simpler way of looking at things, but with a broader perspective. That’s what I want.
In the end, that’s what it’s about: understanding my place in the world.
Of course there is. In order to understand the context of observations, you have to be able to understand the observer as distinct from those observations. Otherwise, you’re tainting the data. It’d be like trying to use calipers to measure how wide the calipers are: no matter how hard you try, you can’t open them wide enough to contain themselves.
Ah, wouldn’t that be nice: to be able to do a scientific study of one’s self, with control groups! I think that might get me into some trouble with CONCORD though.
Yeah, kind of permanently working on that. But I can’t take myself out of the world all that well. Particularly, doing that removes my main method for testing hypotheses.
And that is a hostility, Ms. Tsukiyo.
Pretty much I would reply to you with a lot of unpleasant words if you’d say that about me, and I think you’d do the same if that would be said about you.
Ms. Tsukyio, it wasn’t really about my eyes, it was just a hypothetical situation to try to show why this claim is hostile.
Basically, any assumption about any other person made in public, that they might consider negative, is a hostile behavior. If I do that on accident (which, unfortunately… happens… I am jsut a human and thus I make a lot of mistakes…) - I bring apologies. If I do that on purpose - well, that’s treatment for people whom I am going to kill anyway.
If you want to help other person, I’d recommend doing it with their consent and in private, so any information that anyone might consider sensitive or depicting in negative light, would remain just between you two.
In the midst of a great flood, a woman clinging to a log reaches her hand to another who has just struggled up on shore. The woman on shore, seeing the other’s distress, leans and reaches out, as far as she can, over the raging floodwaters, and their fingers just meet. But the woman on the log doesn’t release it, and before her face can even fully register her shock, the woman on shore is pulled into the water. Still clinging tight, the other helps her flailing companion to reach the log.
“Why?” splutters the woman who had reached the shore as the current sweeps them both away from the bank and out into the torrent.
The other shrugs. “This seemed like so much fun,” she says, “and I didn’t want you to miss it.”
That’s how I perceive your offered assistance. You’re the one who needs rescuing, but you can’t see it, and you’ll happily pull me back in after you.
You’re kind of someone who makes me wish the Achura had a concept of heresy, but, we don’t. As it is, you’re just … lost. And I will be, too, if I listen to you.
Is… is that really something you need a parable to contemplate? Do you view her attempts to ‘rescue’ you as hostile or not? Is she motivated by hostility, or by a potentially misinformed but sincere desire to help? Are your responses to her motivated by hostility, or by a firm, but non-malicious belief that she’s not in a position to help?
Hostility shouldn’t really be something you have to equivocate about. Either you’re hostile, or you’re not. I mean, you don’t have much question about when I’ve been actually hostile and when I haven’t, do you?
