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)  
                                                                                                                               
==========================================================