Absolutely. I neither stated nor implied that it wasn’t.
I may approach something with ‘emotion’, but discussing things such as we have been doing and in different topics with others in the forum is a different level of the application of emotion. That others regard my text narrative as emotional, or any other state for that matter, is no proof that such is my core makeup. Think of the psycholigist’s fallacy as noted by William James where he:
“…insisted repeatedly that it was fallacious to assume that the research participant’s experience was to be understood in terms of the readily-available categories of the researcher. The psychologist’s fallacy (of which all researchers concerned with experience may fall foul, not only psychologists) involves a confusion of the standpoints of the researcher and the researched.”
In the last sentence of your last posting, you state: “You may start co considering me as some kind of helper , objectively speaking , and possibly start in earnest getting somewhere honestly and with objectivity.”
Who is to to say what or whom is earnest? Who is to say I’m not being honest nor displaying objectivity? Your ‘standpoint’ is not necessarily my standpoint. You may consider yourself a helper, and that’s nice enough. But not necessarily when it’s wholly based on your own, readily-available categories.
Look at the social media (forums among them) world that we witness at the present. It’s overly-saturated with people defending their standpoints even against the most obvious of facts. It’s like Descartes’, “I am”, on steroids and ready to rumble. I’m not saying you’re one of them, I’m just pointing out the field we’re in. Advocacy or not is your call as likewise it is mine.
I just think that you and I, us and others, we’re on different frequencies. And if regardless of all of that defending we are able to communicate and enjoy what basic understanding confers, that’s cool. Better that than being paupers and delusionally regarding ourselves as kings.
Cheers