Methodology in Understanding Quran (1)
-
That's why I don't call people spreaders of falsehood as you do...
You can disagree if you like, I won't call you a 'spreader of falsehood' like you do anyone who refuses to talk to you.
You seem to like repeating this accusation. I note the interesting progression in your accusation though first it was calling you a spreader of falsehood, then it was calling "people" such, now its "anyone who refuses to talk to me".
If I were to ask you for evidence for the above three accusations, and you were unable to provide it, would that make you a 'spreader of falsehood'?
Yes/No.
Once you state "yes" or "no". Please provide the evidence of quotes.
- demonstrate how an intra-quranic exercise shows what's a NOUN and what's a VERB.
- demonstrate how an intra-quranic exercise shows how a yafta3la form is used.
You won't be able to do either (despite your LIE about the corpus) but at least number 2 has a possibility. Number 1 is a non-starter.
Number 1 is a "non-starter" because you (i.e. Mr "I'm against authoritarianism) have already rejected the terms in question when you said "Nouns and verbs are categorisations which DO NOT come from the Quran." thus in order to find X in Quran we have to define and agree upon X first. This is basic logic.
When I use the terms "noun" and "verb" I am using the English dictionary definition of these terms. I know you like to make up your own meanings for words, so perhaps you mean something else, if so, please let us know.
And as for 2, you said "The nujum are for us to be in 'yahtadoon' mode. (16/16)." To which I said "As a side note, according to corpus.quran.com "yahtadoon" is verb form 8 reflexive meaning "guide themselves". Feel free to actually read what I said. My point in highlighting this was you seem to be taking it other than what corpus says, which is fine, but I like to point it out for the reader so they know exactly the "quality" of evidence you bring.
And then you said "despite your LIE about the corpus" - what "LIE"? Rather than unevidenced ad hominen statements, please cite evidence.
You then asked "WHY is it fallacious? "
Again I am using the dictionary meaning of "fallacious" which is "based on an incorrect or misleading notion or information.". If you are implying your mate Dave who knows Arabic is correct and we should accept such a source, then simply state so.Once again, intra-quranic comparison works fine for me. What doesn't work is when you project your artificial classifications ONTO the text. The text doesn't agree what's a noun or what isn't. It does however use words in repetition and that similarity is for us to explore and gain insight from. We build the norms from clear meanings relative to us.
Thanks for clarifying once again that "intra-Quran comparison" works fine. You said you learnt Arabic from Arabic speakers, learning Arabic involves learning to differentiate nouns/verbs/prepositions, use of syntax etc, and you said you compared this learnt Arabic to "Quranic norms", in other words, you compared their use of nouns/verbs/prepositions, syntax etc to Quran's use of such. Ergo, you can use "intra-Quran comparison" as a guide to determine such things.
The logic is simple.
The problem is, you do not see you are doing what I'm saying........ what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
-
You seem to like repeating this accusation. I note the interesting progression in your accusation though first it was calling you a spreader of falsehood, then it was calling "people" such, now its "anyone who refuses to talk to me".
If I were to ask you for evidence for the above three accusations, and you were unable to provide it, would that make you a 'spreader of falsehood'?
Yes/No.
Once you state "yes" or "no". Please provide the evidence of quotes.
No I cannot as the thread got buried. Therefore I will call on you to swear by Allah that you did not call me a spreader for falsehood. We will see if you dare do this )
-
Number 1 is a "non-starter" because you (i.e. Mr "I'm against authoritarianism) have already rejected the terms in question when you said "Nouns and verbs are categorisations which DO NOT come from the Quran." thus in order to find X in Quran we have to define and agree upon X first. This is basic logic.
Brilliant. Please define them and show me how they come from the Quran.
-
And as for 2, you said "The nujum are for us to be in 'yahtadoon' mode. (16/16)." To which I said "As a side note, according to corpus.quran.com "yahtadoon" is verb form 8 reflexive meaning "guide themselves". Feel free to actually read what I said. My point in highlighting this was you seem to be taking it other than what corpus says, which is fine, but I like to point it out for the reader so they know exactly the "quality" of evidence you bring.
Yes but you made a positive statement (according to corpus.quran.com "yahtadoon" is verb form 8 reflexive meaning "guide themselves). Now kindly PROVE your positive statement. How amusing that you call me evasive when you can't even produce ONE verse to show this so-called 'reflexive' quality.
-
You then asked "WHY is it fallacious? "
Again I am using the dictionary meaning of "fallacious" which is "based on an incorrect or misleading notion or information.". If you are implying your mate Dave who knows Arabic is correct and we should accept such a source, then simply state so.Thanks for your definition but I don't need a dictionary parrot, Wakas. I asked you WHY it's fallacious. I readily accept how Arabs use Arabic IF it fits Quranic norms which I discern. You called this fallacious. WHY is it fallacious?
-
Thanks for clarifying once again that "intra-Quran comparison" works fine. You said you learnt Arabic from Arabic speakers, learning Arabic involves learning to differentiate nouns/verbs/prepositions, use of syntax etc, and you said you compared this learnt Arabic to "Quranic norms", in other words, you compared their use of nouns/verbs/prepositions, syntax etc to Quran's use of such. Ergo, you can use "intra-Quran comparison" as a guide to determine such things.
Really? I know Arabs who speak perfect Arabic yet have no idea about nouns and verbs. The Middle East has some of the HIGHEST illiteracy rates in the world yet people speak Arabic there.
Of course you WOULD think that because that's how you copy-paste Arabic. Arabic is a fluid language which people speak without needing to know your artificial grammar stuff. Instead of actually thinking on HOW AND WHY they theorised it, you swallowed it whole. UNCRITICALLY and FAR FROM Quranically. Then you have audacity to call your analysis QURANIC and everyone else 'interprets'.
-
The problem is, you do not see you are doing what I'm saying........ what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
That's actually not true. I do not presume to be an authority and accuse people of spreading falsehood like you do. Secondly, I readily acknowledge my subjectivity and I am here to undermine and refute your pretence of objectivity and assumed authority. I have looked at your articles and see , while they have a small measure of truth, they are largely inadequate and should never be called 'quranic' , more like 'qawameesic' or 'nahwic'
-
Here are my six questions again
So I await SIX things now
- any accusation I failed to answer
- the demonstration of how to discern nouns and verbs from the Quran
- the demonstration of how to discern yafta3la form from the Quran
- the REASON my approach is fallacious
- the answer to the question 'did you check all occurences of raas'. If you did , how did you not know about raas al-maal? If you did not, how did you call your 2/196 write up as 'critical thinking'.
- whether or not you wish to discuss if your AMAH analysis is detailed. To me it failed to be detailed in point one itself
-
Can we now proceed to MY thread. I am most eager to see how your new definition of 'quranic grammar' works. I have answered your question now kindly keep your word.
-
No I cannot as the thread got buried. Therefore I will call on you to swear by Allah that you did not call me a spreader for falsehood. We will see if you dare do this
"swear by Allah"? - and you call me dramatic. ;D The burden of proof is upon the claimant/slanderer. I do not recall calling you such. The only thing I can think of you are referring to is an indirect theoretical implication of what I said. That is rather different to literally calling you such directly.
In any case, allow me to repeat
When asked to provide evidence for your repeated slanderous statements, you conveniently said "the thread got buried", i.e. you cant find the evidence to back-up what you said. YOU are the admin of the group in which our discussions took place, and have access to all threads.
Please see free-minds.org forum rule 3
"3] Respect other users of the forum. Language and/or material of vulgarity, obscenity, harassment, profanity or insulting nature, whether it is direct or suggested, will NOT be tolerated. Any messages containing such language or material will be moved to the trash section or deleted, without notice and may result in disciplinary action being taken against the offending member."
You will be well aware you have repeated your slanderous comments in Facebook groups (of which you are admin). Further, you have made other slanderous statements about me, e.g. in these two threads.
It is expected of you that if you cannot provide evidence for your multiple slanderous statements, you publicly retract your statements and apologise.
Slander may be allowed in Facebook groups you are admin of, but we do not tolerate slander here.
If you are indeed a student of Quran and its application, you may wish to consider what it says about slander if it is a good or bad thing, and act accordingly.
-
swear by Allah"? - and you call me dramatic. The burden of proof is upon the claimant/slanderer. I do not recall calling you such. The only thing I can think of you are referring to is an indirect theoretical implication of what I said. That is rather different to literally calling you such directly.
No, swearing by Allah (qasm billlah) is a Quranic concept like in 5/53 which perhaps you have not 'comprehensively' studied yet. I swear by Allah that you accused me of spreading falsehood. I have said it in numerous threads in fb and you never challenged it until the thread was safely buried. How convenient. So I call on you to swear that you never accused me of spreading falsehood.
And perhaps you could tell us what this 'indirect theoretical implication' is all about. Expound on it please.
When asked to provide evidence for your repeated slanderous statements, you conveniently said "the thread got buried", i.e. you cant find the evidence to back-up what you said. YOU are the admin of the group in which our discussions took place, and have access to all threads.
In fb, I doubt Zuckerberg himself has access to all threads. I do have records of me asking you to tone down attacks on my forum members which you refused.
You will be well aware you have repeated your slanderous comments in Facebook groups (of which you are admin). Further, you have made other slanderous statements about me, e.g. in these two threads.
It is expected of you that if you cannot provide evidence for your multiple slanderous statements, you publicly retract your statements and apologise.
Slander may be allowed in Facebook groups you are admin of, but we do not tolerate slander here.
If you are indeed a student of Quran and its application, you may wish to consider what it says about slander if it is a good or bad thing, and act accordingly.
I will never retract those statements because I have seen them for myself. However, I wish to lodge a complaint to you about you where you called me 'Mr I'm Against Authoritarianism'. This is an actual ad hominem, attacking the person and not his action. I never called you 'Mr Falsehood Spreader' or 'Mr Delusional Authority' or 'Mr Context Ignorant'. I simply criticised your ACTION, not your person.
And btw, slander is NOT allowed in my fb groups yet you got away with it in NUMEROUS occasions. And you accuse me of hypocrisy
-
Now lets be clear FOR ALL TO SEE (love that phrase). Did you accuse me of SPREADING FALSEHOOD? Yes or no. Be a man, Wakas. Own up and we will move past this
-
And please don't forget my 6 questions
- any accusation I failed to answer
- the demonstration of how to discern nouns and verbs from the Quran
- the demonstration of how to discern yafta3la form from the Quran
- the REASON my approach w.r.t. to my Arab mate 'Dave' is fallacious
- the answer to the question 'did you check all occurences of raas'. If you did , how did you not know about raas al-maal? If you did not, how did you call your 2/196 write up as 'critical thinking'.
- whether or not you wish to discuss if your AMAH analysis is detailed. To me it failed to be detailed in point one itself
And of course, your next response to my thread. Kindly keep your word. That's also a Quranic concept (in case you haven't comprehensively studied it yet).
-
Farouk,
Even though I underlined and made bold "multiple" in "multiple slanderous statements" you only commented on one, without evidence.
The following is a list of your slanderous / false / misleading / derogatory statements
- That's why I don't call people spreaders of falsehood as you do
- when we search for 'interpretation' posted by Wakas, EVERYONE interprets but you
- You don't examine context, themes, shifts in language or even pronoun moods.
- My reading isn't meant for people who claim to reject hadith yet swallow what lexicographers tell them.
- Oh sorry, you keep on about your 'comprehensive' study of 2/196 in facebook
- You use the word Quranic grammar to pass off your opinions as authoritative
- In the aya which you failed to include in your 2/196 analysis (despite its amusing claim of comprehensiveness)
8 ) you can have that for your work and claim its 'detailed' and 'comprehensive' and accuse people of 'spreading falsehood'. - It depends on the thing which you (by your own admission in QRAC) cannot comprehend CONTEXT.
- However, since YOU stand by the meaning given by corpus ABOUT Form 8
- You UNCRITICALLY swallowed it. (i.e. corpus.quran.com).
- I don't reject intra-Quran comparison, you do.
- Your 4/34 analysis goes a long way to show your REAL furqan are the dictionaries and grammar books.
- You ignore occurences of words which don't suit you and proclaim the big joke that your work is 'detailed' and 'comprehensive'.
- I won't be accusing people who disagree with anything.
- Dont LIE about corpus again please.
- I even invited you to be part of the Quranist matrix but you want to pretend objectivity even there.
1 In my group, I allow every kind of quranist opinion whilst you BLOCK people who disagree with you - the fact that your furqan is Arabic lingustics doesn't mean I would call you a speader of falsehood like you accused me of
- You on other hand ATTACK those who refuse to talk to you.
- It's a shame you need to be DISHONEST to make your point.
- It's not trapped within dead texts which you read (well you don't really, you read TRANSLATIONS of the real CADS dont you,
- And you consider CADs' authoritative?
- Mate, if I were you, I wouldn't worry about going Wahabi on people all the time.
- You give so little credence to the text it's appalling that you say your view is 'from the Quran'.
- Re article on al masjid al haram. Farouk "However, the comprehensiveness fails at point one even."
Whilst "comprehensiveness" is in part subjective, Farouk cited nothing more comprehensive. - I won't call you a 'spreader of falsehood' like you do anyone who refuses to talk to you.
2 You won't be able to do either (despite your LIE about the corpus) - What you're doing is a kindergarten approach. Simply a sing-a-long to whatever grammarians say
- You simply took whatever the corpus guy told you and deem that's true without ever checking the Quran itself.
- Perhaps then you won't be a blind follower of what they say
- I do have records of me asking you to tone down attacks on my forum members which you refused.
- And btw, slander is NOT allowed in my fb groups yet you got away with it in NUMEROUS occasions.
- I never called you 'Mr Falsehood Spreader' or 'Mr Delusional Authority' or 'Mr Context Ignorant'. I simply criticised your ACTION, not your person.
The above are just examples from these two threads, not facebook groups.
From http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8177.0
Please see free-minds.org forum rule 3
"3] Respect other users of the forum. Language and/or material of vulgarity, obscenity, harassment, profanity or insulting nature, whether it is direct or suggested, will NOT be tolerated. Any messages containing such language or material will be moved to the trash section or deleted, without notice and may result in disciplinary action being taken against the offending member."
It is expected of you that if you cannot provide evidence for your multiple slanderous / false statements, you publicly retract your statements and apologise. Same for any misleading / derogatory remarks.
We do not tolerate slander, and persistently false/misleading/derogatory remarks here.
-
Peace dudes,
I have been skimming this thread on and off.
One of the things I notice when two people discuss/debate around scriptures is the approach to win the argument. There is no winning here, nor loosing.
The truth comes to the one willing to let go the own arguments (surrender - remember?)
Another one is, translators, most, forget the state of being one should have to appreciate the inner beauty of the Inspirations the Prophet received, thus get stuck and lost on the tool, rather than living the completeness of existence.
Quran opens up to the level the reader's heart is opened up.
Thus, the word choice becomes melodic issue when one knows the meaning that comes from the Presence of the One.
Remember that the language is the sprinkle of Reality.
And the complete knowing comes to the Complete Being.
When you are complete, there is no need. When you are complete then you are in peace. When you are complete, you are surrendered.....completely.
I know not arabic, but I know what I am talking about.
Peace, and Praise be to what makes the heart see.
R.
-
NO CHANCE, Wakas. I stand by everything I say. I did not lie about anything nor mislead. If you feel I did, let us debate each point. If you don't tolerate 'slander, and persistently false/misleading/derogatory remarks here', you shouldn't tolerate it from YOUSELF either, hence I also wish to lodge a complaint against you about YOUR breaking the rules. I will use your criteria above, ok? Namely, that you said
-
Your request seems to imply you have little idea as to how to show a word in Quran means what you think it to mean. This is unusual for a person who blogs on Quran. Perhaps you should highlight this on your blog' <- I consider this an INSULT (using your criteria above).
-
You seem to claim you have no idea what I mean by the above and regardless, you have no clue of your own thinking how to show a word in Quran means what you think it to mean.
If your view is it is impossible to determine what a word means based on Quran, simply state so for all to see. <- I consider this an INSULT (using your criteria above).
3.So you understand fine on the one hand, yet require a demonstration on the other hand. Contradiction.<- I consider this an INSULT (using your criteria above).
-
My questions are not difficult, but answering them often is.<---- implication that I'm stupid (using your criteria above).
-
You may have forgotten since it seems a while ago since I asked.
Perhaps readers should compare your responses to my questions with mine to yours. I answer every question in the very next reply on your thread. You on the other hand evade, stall and obfuscate........... and then reply.... maybe.<----- this is a BIG LIE. I only asked for clarification. You on the other hand DID NOT keep up your end of the bargain. -
Or will you opt to evade yet again? <----- big LIE. I never evaded. I sought clarification and the onus was on you to clarify.
-
Let me repeat my question for the nth time<---- big insult. You did not provide clarifcation to justify this RUDE comment.
-
Unfortunately, your answer seems to be confused. Let me refresh your memory in response to your blog post on 2196 I wrote a critique, and in this critique I wrote<---- calling me confused, big insult.
-
A future tip when engaging in discussion try not to stall so long that you actually forget what the original question was. <----- INSINUATION that I stall. Perhaps check your debate skills which are woeful.
-
So, to clarify for readers, you seemingly based your view on a metaphorical use of the word in Quran, and this magically allowed you to understand the word in another metaphorical way not referenced in Quran.<------ VERY INSULTING, calling it 'magically'. You did not even ask my method. When I provided a reason later, you didn't comment. How rude is that?
-
Please note, since you reject intra-Quran comparison you cannot use that. Do tell us. <---- big lie designed to mislead. I do NOT reject intra-Quran comparison. I reject your artificial grammatical system.
-
When cornered into being exposed as contradictory/hypocritical, he now says
Farouk I don't reject intra-Quran comparison. It's actually one of my key principles.<---- calling me a munafiq. Nuff said.... -
Thanks for telling me what I accept/reject Mr "I'm against authoritarianism". <---- direct ad hom attack.
-
Farouk There's nothing quranically determined about your work. Oh sorry it PERTAINS to the Quran yes but it's validated by the Arabs and their linguistics.
Wakas Just like your singular/plural was validated by Arab speakers and their linguistics.
Multiple Double standard / hypocrisy / contradiction.<------ another time. Brilliant -
You seem to ramble much, spout ad hominens, but evidence little. I dont mind "ad hominens", as it shows you have no credible argument hence resort to fallacious argument. ;D
<---- ramble and spout are very RUDE words. I don't like them at all. -
When asked for evidence to back up what you said, you've got none. A bit like your Quran understandings. I'm sensing a pattern.<----- big insult. Who's to say the fault lies with YOUR understanding which functions in a limited way?
-
Tell us Farouk, how did you determine "Quranic norms"? And remember you cannot use "intra-Quran comparison".This should be interesting. <---- unnecessary snide remark.
-
I guess I could have been like you and said "to determine the grammar, I ask my mate Dave who is an Arabic speaker, and what he says if I think it works that means its true". rotfl Of course, I would not take such an approach as it's fallacious.<----- rude way of describing my method and claiming fallacious but NEVER giving the reason.
I can go on you know, but it gets boring.
So how do you wanna play this, Wakas? You want to apply the same rules on yourself as you will on me (as per 4/135 and 4/5 and remove yourself from admin (does that sound familiar. hehe) ? That is probably why, I suspect, you wanted to come to FM to begin with. When you can no longer answer the questions and they expose your pretensions of being 'quranic' (valided by, in this context), simply suppress the opinion by levelling mickey mouse charges. You will then be judge, jury and executioner and remove me from repeating my questions to you. It would definitely tally with your previous attitudes of harassment. I can see why you avoided a face to face debate when we had the chance. It's hard to be on camera when you try to pull stuff like this.
Or why not give your version of the story, Wakas?
Did you or did you not liken yourself to ibrahim destroying the false idols of other QD members?
Did you or did not belittle aastana group by claiming it's good thing their group is small (which is ironic considering they're now FAR BIGGER than your group now, btw)
Did you or did you not shrug off a warning by me politely asking you to tone it down?
Why don't you expound on these issues here FOR ALL TO SEE (love that phrase)
Oh and my questions please. They require tending to.
My advice is, dont pretend to be objective or quranic. Your work has many shortcomings and is far from detailed. Don't attack those who don't follow your unquranic (because its not validated by Quran) sources of language. Maybe they follow a different road which you're not aware of yet. Don't think you got all the answers. It's FAR from the case. And most of all, don't harass those who don't even wish to discuss with you. Maybe you're not up to their level yet (not true in my case, I am way below your level. I didn't wanna engage with you simply because I don't like your attitude).
I leave it up to you
-
-
Peace dudes,
I have been skimming this thread on and off.
One of the things I notice when two people discuss/debate around scriptures is the approach to win the argument. There is no winning here, nor loosing.
The truth comes to the one willing to let go the own arguments (surrender - remember?)
Another one is, translators, most, forget the state of being one should have to appreciate the inner beauty of the Inspirations the Prophet received, thus get stuck and lost on the tool, rather than living the completeness of existence.
Quran opens up to the level the reader's heart is opened up.
Thus, the word choice becomes melodic issue when one knows the meaning that comes from the Presence of the One.
Remember that the language is the sprinkle of Reality.
And the complete knowing comes to the Complete Being.
When you are complete, there is no need. When you are complete then you are in peace. When you are complete, you are surrendered.....completely.
I know not arabic, but I know what I am talking about.
Peace, and Praise be to what makes the heart see.
R.
Salam Ustahi, the purpose of me putting myself through this intellectual equivalent of pulling teeth is because I'm formulating a theory of Quranic language. Wakas stands on the fundamentalist strand of what I call 'lingocentric quranism'. He believes CADs has a measure of authority over the text without factoring the ontology of language. I needed to test out my ideas against his view and so far, it's going as I expected.
About 'winning' or 'losing', I agree with you. Ultimately we each need to practice what we discern from the Quran. This is the problem I see with the lingocentrists, they have cut off language from the stream of Being, hence consigning their linguistic experience to dead texts. They are no different from Traditionalist Muslims in terms of claims of authority to interpret. The only difference is, the format of the information. Traditionalists indirectly infer meaning through narratives, these guys do it through dictionary entries. Same difference.
Knowing Arabic helped me a lot but more and more I see how the socio-political millieu of the time influenced lexicography in a big way. I wouldn't worry about knowing Arabic. I think it's more important to know yourself and intuit the meanings through internal states. I see Quran now as a mirror and act of polishing it enables us to see ourselves.
-
Did you or did not belittle aastana group by claiming it's good thing their group is small (which is ironic considering they're now FAR BIGGER than your group now, btw)
Quite Amusing. May I ask for a small elaboration on this? Not that it's a big deal and it certainly has no bearing on the progress and accomplishments of Dr. Qamar and Aastana. Just curious that's all.
Damon.
-
Sure, when the Aastana folk first turned up in my fb group early this year, they quite naturally caused a furore with their novel and outlandish views. A few people (including Wakas) were quite hostile to them despite the positive environment we try to promote where people should disagree in peace. Ironically, the Aastana folk also claim to be upholding true meanings and grammar of the Quran like Wakas is.
Wakas made the comment that he was happy their group was tiny which I warned him was very insulting and unnecessary. However, he was reluctant to retract. And yes, it's very amusing that the Aastana folks are now a big group of 280 ppl with a vibrant atmosphere and now they've opened a branch in the UK. We will be promoting their works at the Quranist Network conference in December. Not that I agree with them much but the questions they raise are very helpful, I think.
It's a pity that while the quranist movement is still in its embryonic stage, we have fascist attitudes with each other. We should be promoting each others' works and encouraging each person to think for himself. The Traditionalists missed this point completely by forging authorities to interpret religion. Now some quranists wish to do the same....
-
Thank You for the clarification.
As I already said, that sort of remark doesn't have any affect on Dr. Qamar or The Aastana Group. And I am not the least bit surprised either.
I am not so arrogant and closed minded to refuse to read the works of anyone other than Aastana and Dr. Qamar Zaman. I try to learn from whatever sources I can. However, I find Wakas's latest article on Sujud and Al Masjid Al Haram to be seriously lacking in evidence to support his conclusions. And his translations of the Arabic verses border on the ridiculous.
As far as this particular debate goes, the four things that I wish to say from my point of view are
1). Translations are NOT the way to engage The Qur'an. I have come to the conclusion that The Qur'an is absolutely untranslatable.
2). If a person REALLY wants to know the contents of The Qur'anic Text, then he or she MUST learn Arabic.
3). It is almost fruitless to focus on the definitions of root words and derivatives that we find in the Lexicons and Dictionaries, but rather we should try to absorb and internalize the Concepts that the definitions are presenting.
4). Actions speak louder than words!! We can all go back and forth and play word games with one another until we're blue in the face. In the end, we are no better or different than any other group of people who seem to show content in Intellectualizing and playing word games. Essentially we are nothing more than petty armchair scholars by doing this.
One last thing I could add to this. I have grown to learn (and I mean I really had to LEARN) that it is 100% IMPOSSIBLE to be totally objective. We can try to be and we can even try to convince ourselves that we are objective. But I know now with absolute certainty that it is impossible for any human being to be totally objective. We will always harbor some sort of subjectivity no matter how much we try to convince ourselves otherwise.
This I had to learn the hard way over the last few years.
Regards,
Damon.
