Ignorance is not always bliss

i do not determine that.
yet it can be "gathered".
therein would lie the learning.

lavender orchid wrote:

i do not determine that.
yet it can be "gathered".
therein would lie the learning.

Would comparing 'instinct' to 'gathered' be a true enough comparison or is it more spiritual?

Disappropriated wrote:

lavender orchid wrote:

i do not determine that.
yet it can be "gathered".
therein would lie the learning.

Would comparing 'instinct' to 'gathered' be a true enough comparison or is it more spiritual?

i am not into judgmental insinuations anymore.

lavender orchid wrote:

Disappropriated wrote:

lavender orchid wrote:

i do not determine that.
yet it can be "gathered".
therein would lie the learning.

Would comparing 'instinct' to 'gathered' be a true enough comparison or is it more spiritual?

i am not into judgmental insinuations anymore.

Considering that I am dumbfounded at what you mean by 'gathered' would you kindly throw me some rope?

considering the beginning of my being possibly drawn into some game with unequal access to necessary information, rather not.

Curiouser and curiouser...

no.
not even that.

Hello Disappropiated. I wanted to start a dialogue. I want to use reason. This may be weird,
but i'm going to possibly think of using two voices. One is LightSun. Another may be Loki.
This assumes you come back. The purpose is that you may have experienced something I did
at I.org. That is cognitive dissonance. I was not really understood at I.org. I felt like I was in the
twilight zone. I find it interesting for you to say, you may be INTJ or INFJ, depending on the time.
I want a dialogue of reason. I want to mutually understand an alien landscape. The purpose is
intellectual curiosity. I am open to other parameters. Of course I need your required and
contingent interest in the exercise. Hopefully, an exercise of mutual development as well as
cursory psychological interest.

Hellow everybody, here's my first and foremost post:

Hi Disappropriated, I understand what's going on here. You wrote:

Disappropriated wrote:

I think that that's one of the ugliëst ideas I've ever seen in writing. Concern shouldn't be placed on what offends the man, but why the man should be offended. To wilfully control one's speech in fear that it might offend goes against that most important principle of Freedom of Speech.

This is my opinion. First of all:

• You offend other people by saying that their post were ugly. then;
  
• You post your point of view, then;
  
• you don't explain "offend"

Offend can mean; critizing,
it can also mean: insulting.
- Which one do you choose?

OK, can you explain to me how criticism work?
In my opinion. First of all:

• you accept other's opinion, then;
  
• you give an appriopriate counter opinion

In real situation, critizing can be offending.
Everyone is insulted if he/she is wrong...

Lets say I'm criticizing you-
I may be offending you, but it is nicer than insulting.
I don't intend to offend you, but I'm free to do so.
- you can choose to take a criticism as an offence or as useful information.

Spoiler:

THIS is where freedom-of-speech lies,.... you're free to criticize, the hearer are free to interprete it as insult or as information, in any way, you won't be accountable for hurting this someone's feeling (provided that you're not plainly insulting). awesome right?
- I think Lavender is following an etiquette. Maybe she had sworn not to offend anybody, who knows. But that made her incomprehensible.
________________

OK.
Why did Lavender Orchid criticize your comment?.
What does "gathered" mean?

You don't want to accept everybody else opinion, you just want to criticize. Even if you criticize them, you did not do it correctly. In you post, you resort to insult first (you plainly express offence first), then you express your opinion without even considering the points given by the person you're criticizing. If you're willing to learn (and yet wanted to criticize), then you'd be following the correct etique of criticizing.

Thats quite a first post Peach1. Pretty good

dearlg1 wrote:

Thats quite a first post Peach1. Pretty good

Thanks,
In real life I like arguing. imo, accepting the opinion of others is the key to win an argument.

Peach1 wrote:

Hellow everybody, here's my first and foremost post:

Hi Disappropriated, I understand what's going on here. You wrote:

Disappropriated wrote:

I think that that's one of the ugliëst ideas I've ever seen in writing. Concern shouldn't be placed on what offends the man, but why the man should be offended. To wilfully control one's speech in fear that it might offend goes against that most important principle of Freedom of Speech.

This is my opinion. First of all:

• You offend other people by saying their post were ugly. then;
  
• You post your point of view, then;
  
• you don't explain "offend"

• Au contraire, the idea was ugly to me. I impose no offence on anybody by saying that, I imagine I would if I said that the idea was ugly absolutely.
  
  
• Indeed, I do post my point of view.
  
  
• Forgive for assuming that the knowledge of the meaning of 'offend' is commonplace.

Peach1 wrote:

Offend can mean; critizing,
it can also mean: insulting.
- Which do you choose?

That's a very nasty trap you set there, nice effort though.

To me nothing can be offensive in itself, only to those it offends. Thus 'offend', at least in my definition, is something which does not agree with the person.

Peach1 wrote:

OK, can you explain to me how criticism work?
In my opinion, First of all:

• you accept other's opinion, then;
  
• you give an appriopriate counter opinion

If you accept someone's opinion then it is moot to give an alternate opinion. Unless I'm being forgetful in my memory of the word 'accept'?

Peach1 wrote:

What I did here is to criticizing you.
Notice that; I extracted the essence of your post,
then... I express my counter-opinion.
I may be offending you, but in a nicer way.
I don't intend to offend you, but free to do so.
- you can choose to take it as offence or as useful information.

Really? I'm not seeïng it.
Really, I'm not seeïng it.
You are.
You're not, and I'll happily question why you think that there is more than one depth of offensiveness.
So I see.
My point entirely.

Peach1 wrote:

Everyone is insulted if he/she is wrong...
But you can choose not to.

Spoiler:

THIS is where freedom of speech lies,.... awesome right?
- Lavender is following an etiquette. Maybe she had sworn not to offend anybody, who knows. But that made her incomprehensible.

If you say I'm an idiot then either: a) you're right or b) you're wrong. In either case I cannot guarantee if I will be offended. And why would you talk your way out of an intended offence? If it was intended then there should be no need for an excuse.

Etiquette? I've seen personalities, but not etiquette. Though I suppose I don't go pattern chasing.
________________

Peach1 wrote:

OK.
Why did Lavender Orchid criticize your comment?.
What does "gathered" mean?

You don't want to accept everybody else opinion, you just want to criticize. Even if you criticize them, you did not do it correctly. In you post, you resort to insult first (you plainly express offence first), then you express your opinion without even considering the points given by the person you're criticizing. If you're willing to learn (and yet wanted to criticize), then you'd be following the correct etique of criticizing.

I described an idea as ugly. If that idea belongs to a person, then that's an external fact. There is a difference between saying: "Your cat is ugly." and "You are ugly.". You cannot jump from the first sentence to the second without a dash of blindness or speed reading.

Thus, I hold I insulted noöne.

I have considered the thoughts of the person posting, otherwise my opinion would consist of nothing other than: "LOLS U Suxx0r Nwb.", which is just pointless. If I didn't show that consideration in writing then there's a corruption in the transfer of information on somebody's part.

Thus, I hold I insulted noöne with full consideration.

On a side note, if there is any written forms of these rules of etiquette I suppose I may as well know how it would be more socially acceptable for me to act.

Peach1 wrote:

dearlg1 wrote:

Thats quite a first post Peach1. Pretty good

Thanks,
In real life I like arguing. imo, accepting the opinion of others is the key to win an argument.

Well, you presented some good points here. What topics are you intersted in?

Disappropriated wrote:

• Au contraire, the idea was ugly to me. I impose no offence on anybody by saying that, I imagine I would if I said that the idea was ugly absolutely.

In real life, someone can take a lifetime experience to came up with that idea. Then suddenly you said it is ugly! You know... they're not necessarily quoting from a book or anything dispensible, (I know this from experience), you can't just tell them "Sorry, it is ugly". It is painful. - but, I don't know the actual situation here, though...

Disappropriated wrote:

Peach1 wrote:

Offend can mean; critizing,
it can also mean: insulting.
- Which do you choose?

That's a very nasty trap you set there, nice effort though.

I didn't plan a trap, it is facts. If you remember your childhood, when the first-time you would like to say something controversial, you'd immediately think of these 2 thing first. Maybe your environment is liberal. I live in conservative family, everyone who live in this situation would definitely consider those 2 option.

Disappropriated wrote:

To me nothing can be offensive in itself, only to those it offends. Thus 'offend', at least in my definition, is something which does not agree with the person.

If you want people to listen, then you must not hurt their feelings. When I was a kid, I must think about this alot. Now... I can just-talk straight to the point (emotionless like Steve Carrel in Get Smart). hmm.... you definitely have forgotten your childhood! imo, if you got a pHD it is OK to just-talk, but if you don't, you may as well need to approach the listener first. Then you must choose your word carefully.

Disappropriated wrote:

Peach1 wrote:

OK, can you explain to me how criticism work?
In my opinion, First of all:

• you accept other's opinion, then;
  
• you give an appriopriate counter opinion

If you accept someone's opinion then it is moot to give an alternate opinion. Unless I'm being forgetful in my memory of the word 'accept'?

Do you believe in truth? what is the criteria of truth? -truth can survive rebuttal, right?

*this is difficult for me to say* If you discover truth from hands-on experience, you'll discover alot of misconception. True, you'll get lost alot, but in the end you'll reach the truth. So... the truth evolve from those misconception. If you know the truth (already), then you can easily attack the misconception at its weakpoint. You can, because you know it all.

To accept other's opinion is to be empathetic to their ideas. If you believe they're wrong, then it must be one of many misconception. You just need enough information to know which one. If you've never heard about it, then you just don't know about it. You're not God. It's better to treat it with respect. In both case, you need to accept the differing opinion.

Disappropriated wrote:

If you say I'm an idiot then either: a) you're right or b) you're wrong. In either case I cannot guarantee if I will be offended.

Hmm... that's true, I've experienced those thing in a real argument. I refuse to accept the meaning of "idiot", hence I'm free of pain (I dodge the bullet).

In real life, people use context to justify the meaning of "idiot", "stupid" or "worthless" (and it works). But during argument, we always thought we are right all the time, therefore "idiot" is not justified. But Why said it at all? clearly the speaker wishes to stab you (even if it fails), clearly it is offensive. But Why intend to be offensive at all? (Why did he shot the 9mm at all?)

I think the blame is on the TV, word like "darn" has other meaning nowadays, it means; excited, energetic, *something less offensive but fun*. Maybe idiot has evolved too, so do ugly. Does ugly mean not cute? isn't ugly mean UGLY!? (How come people smile with a words like idiot?)

Disappropriated wrote:

I have considered the thoughts of the person posting, otherwise my opinion would consist of nothing other than: "LOLS U Suxx0r Nwb.", which is just pointless. If I didn't show that consideration in writing then there's a corruption in the transfer of information on somebody's part.

I'm sorry if I did.

But you was asking about Lavender, remember? so, I express my opinion, that's all. I have no intention to view your post as an insult, but I need to take that position. You know... like the devil's advocate. No offence intended. Sorry...

dearlg1 wrote:

Well, you presented some good points here. What topics are you intersted in?

You compliment too much, I guess. ( )

I like simple things,
like;

• bees. If you saw one on your carpet, kill it (and throw it away), or just throw it away?
  
• plastic surgery. Is it a sin to do plastic surgery?

lol

Everything is discussable, as long as the members share the same problem. But the discussion will eventually end abruptly when ONE of the members start using technical-term unheard of by any other discussant, (ONE whom reads too much).

Shared experience and language is the key to creating (any kind of) discussion. What does everyone on this forum share about? There should be a discussion forum about this things first. Everyone hardly knows each other.

I don't want to talk bees with you guys/girls!

Peach1 wrote:

In real life, someone can take a lifetime experience to came up with that idea. Then suddenly you said it is ugly! You know... they're not necessarily quoting from a book or anything dispensible, (I know this from experience), you can't just tell them "Sorry, it is ugly". It is painful. - but, I don't know the actual situation here, though...

The fact I have seems to show I can. If you're talking about having some restraint by considering other's feelings, then I'm afraid you won't find empathy in me that extends that far.

Peach1 wrote:

I didn't plan a trap, it is facts. If you remember your childhood, when the first-time you would like to say something controversial, you'd immediately think of these 2 thing first. Maybe your environment is liberal. I live in conservative family, everyone who live in this situation would definitely consider those 2 option.

I wouldn't know how to classify my family. I don't even think they've influënced this aspect of me.

Peach1 wrote:

If you want people to listen, then you must not hurt their feelings. When I was a kid, I must think about this alot. Now... I can just-talk straight to the point (emotionless like Steve Carrel in Get Smart). hmm.... you definitely have forgotten your childhood! imo, if you got a pHD it is OK to just-talk, but if you don't, you may as well need to approach the listener first. Then you must choose your word carefully.

This explains a fair bit, I don't always want people to listen, nor is the opposite true in those cases. I doubt I would've forgotten my childhood a year before adulthood.

Peach1 wrote:

Do you believe in truth? what is the criteria of truth? -truth can survive rebuttal, right?

I don't believe in truth. Things are or they are not.

Peach1 wrote:

*this is difficult for me to say* If you discover truth from hands-on experience, you'll discover alot of misconception. True, you'll get lost alot, but in the end you'll reach the truth. So... the truth evolve from those misconception. If you know the truth (already), then you can easily attack the misconception at its weakpoint. You can, because you know it all.

It's difficult to understand, but an instinctive tug tells me I do.

Peach1 wrote:

To accept other's opinion is to be empathetic to their ideas. If you believe they're wrong, then it must be one of many misconception. You just need enough information to know which one. If you've never heard about it, then you just don't know about it. You're not God. It's better to treat it with respect. In both case, you need to accept the differing opinion.

Then you give all opinions value, and thus make them worthless. And respect must be earnt, not doled out in humanitarian heaps.

Peach1 wrote:

Hmm... that's true, I've experienced those thing in a real argument. I refuse to accept the meaning of "idiot", hence I'm free of pain (I dodge the bullet).

Good example, but not what I said. If you called me an idiot, then I either am or am not. Regardless of that, I may or may not be offended.

Peach1 wrote:

In real life, people use context to justify the meaning of "idiot", "stupid" or "worthless" (and it works). But during argument, we always thought we are right all the time, therefore "idiot" is not justified. But Why said it at all? clearly the speaker wishes to stab you (even if it fails), clearly it is offensive. But Why intend to be offensive at all? (Why did he shot the 9mm at all?)

If this is a stab, then at least hit your victim: it was full of intent. Intent to express my opinion, not intent to offend. A great and important difference.

Peach1 wrote:

I think the blame is on the TV, word like "darn" has other meaning nowadays, it means; excited, energetic, *something less offensive but fun*. Maybe idiot has evolved too, so do ugly. Does ugly mean not cute? isn't ugly mean UGLY!? (How come people smile with a words like idiot?)

Ugly means ugly yes. I didn't think the meaning of the word came into call here.

Peach1 wrote:

I'm sorry if I did.

But you was asking about Lavender, remember? so, I express my opinion, that's all. I have no intention to view your as an insult, but I need to take that position. You know... like the devil's advocate. No offence intended. Sorry...

Just look at what you're apologising for. For making a statement. It is that which I said was ugly, to consider others in one's speech. You have no need to apologise in my eyes.

Disappropriate wrote:

If you're talking about having some restraint by considering other's feelings, then I'm afraid you won't find empathy in me that extends that far.

IMO, it is not an obligation to take care of everyone's feelings, but it is the most elegant way to send message across. The fact that politician, psychologist and body gesture analyst taking soo much effort in creating and identifying such way to convey message, is the proof of its intellectual value.

If you ask me... Should I do it?
IF I can do it, then I'll definitely do it. It is such an intellectual pride!

Disappropriate wrote:

I wouldn't know how to classify my family. I don't even think they've influënced this aspect of me.

So... make some comparision! hear how your parents talk to each other- about other people.
Or... you can understand what they like to talk about, and therein, understand their point-of-view. i.e. In scientific family, their parents talk about material stuff (news and ecademic things), in social family, parent talk about people (moral and criticism), each one branches into several other classification.

What you saw depends on what you already know. i.e If your parent were a dissident, but you don't comprehend the non-dissident part yet, then you won't see the classification.

Disappropriate wrote:

This explains a fair bit, I don't always want people to listen, nor is the opposite true in those cases. I doubt I would've forgotten my childhood a year before adulthood.

To get connected, someone must start first. Once you accept his point of view, he will accept your point of view. It is M.A.D, Mutually Assured Discussion.

By the way, I don't think adulthood start at 18... when I look at my 18, I'm still empty.

Disappropriate wrote:

Then you give all opinions value, and thus make them worthless. And respect must be earnt, not doled out in humanitarian heaps.

Not just values, but gradients of values (not just "black and white"). No one in their right-mind would gave everyone an 'A+'!

You made a straw-man fallacy: you think everyone who accept opinion as an idiot. Try ask me; "Are you an idiot?" (no) "Then Why would you accept everyone's opinion like a robot?" (I'm NOT an idiot remember??)

Disappropriate wrote:

If this is a stab, then at least hit your victim: it was full of intent. Intent to express my opinion, not intent to offend. A great and important difference.

"Idiot" has no other meaning than to offend. In real life, you use it to push people away. But Why would anyone NEED TO offend an anonymous person across the internet (whom his/her opinion had no effect on your life) at all?

I understand... we all likes to say "idiot" for expressing-disagrement (instead of offence), it is human (I'm too), but it is a corrupted piece of information. Think twice what you really want to say, be smart.

Disappropriate wrote:

If it is too much of an effort to be understood, it is suicidal to be understanding. It is base and ugly, and has no form to be felt.

You could have written the colored-text^ above, instead of just written "ugly".

See what I meant by elegant communication? See what I meant by "be smart"? (*rhetoric question*)

Quote :

For making a statement. It is that which I said was ugly, to consider others in one's speech. You have no need to apologise in my eyes.

I like language to be precise. If you say something, then I have hundred more possible meaning for it (*just a figure of speech*). Be precise to avoid misrepresentation and misunderstood.

i would just like to think of so many (perhaps single) parents
being totally exhausted and mostly overtaxed
with the upbringing of their kids

i would just like not to think of so much unruly behavior
expressed by those egoes
all set for a rather mindless competition

i would just like to thank each and everyone
making the effort
to return to our true selves

lavender orchid wrote:

i would just like to think of so many (perhaps single) parents
being totally exhausted and mostly overtaxed
with the upbringing of their kids

That's true...

When my mother, my father, my sister and I, were all in the car together, I can hear my mother talking to my father. I also hear them talking when they have dinner, (I'm not on the same table, I was watching TV). My mother is talkative (but not to me, but to my father). At least I can hear them talk. I learn some of their value nonetheless.

Peach1 wrote:

lavender orchid wrote:

i would just like to think of so many (perhaps single) parents
being totally exhausted and mostly overtaxed
with the upbringing of their kids

That's true...

When my mother, my father, my sister and I, were all in the car together, I can hear my mother talking to my father. I also hear them talking when they have dinner, (I'm not on the same table, I was watching TV). My mother is talkative (but not to me, but to my father). At least I can hear them talk. I learn some of their value nonetheless.

ah well, being talkative in a showy environment can leave you more desolate than anyone wants to admit.
somehow, i never managed to escape to fantasy land. had to face it.

Peach1 wrote:

THIS is where freedom-of-speech lies,.... you're free to criticize, the hearer are free to interprete it as insult or as information, in any way, you won't be accountable for hurting this someone's feeling (provided that you're not plainly insulting). awesome right?
- I think Lavender is following an etiquette. Maybe she had sworn not to offend anybody, who knows. But that made her incomprehensible.

To criticize is to find fault. There are two components to most criticism: the content, and the manner. The content may be accurate or inaccurate, as in criticizing a student's solution to a math problem; or may be simply a matter of taste ("that shirt is too baggy"). The manner may be gentle and kindly, objective and direct, or crude and disrespectful. What in this spectrum of possibilities comes across as offensive will vary from person to person. Some people take offense even at accurate, objective criticism delivered in the most respectful and kindly manner imaginable. Others refuse to take offense to much of anything. I tend to look for direct, objective criticism supported by facts. It is fine to tell me I am wrong, as long as you can support your assertion, and show me how I really have made an error. I actually appreciate this kind of criticism, since I do not like to be wrong, and this allows me to learn and to improve my understanding.

We need not continually censor our speech so as to avoid offending anyone, but we should be aware of what things might cause offense. This will be at most an educated guess, since human behavior is so subjective. Armed with this information, we can choose how to communicate. I prefer to communicate in a way that is direct, concise, but reasonably courteous. Some people will still be offended by the absence of chatter and small talk, the occasional empty spaces in the conversation, the directness of responses, but this is not something I feel compelled to accommodate, as long as I am observing common courtesy.

Finally, there is a difference between acknowledging, accepting, and agreeing with someone's statement. If you say the sun revolves around the earth, I can hear and acknowledge your statement, but I neither accept nor agree with it. If you say chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream, I can accept that this is your opinion, even if I disagree and prefer some other flavor, since this is a matter of taste rather than fact or logic.

Romana,

for a community developer, these are sound and reasonable words rendering you honest and trustworthy.
a sober and fair spirit conveying a secure aura.

given all the universe's blessings upon this forum, i41 should be honored to work with you.

Peach1 wrote:

IMO, it is not an obligation to take care of everyone's feelings, but it is the most elegant way to send message across. The fact that politician, psychologist and body gesture analyst taking soo much effort in creating and identifying such way to convey message, is the proof of its intellectual value.

If you ask me... Should I do it?
IF I can do it, then I'll definitely do it. It is such an intellectual pride!

Black and White, White and Black, White and Blue, Green and Black: it's easy to read. Throw in a 32 bit palette and an artist and it becomes almost unreadable.

If David Attenborough and a slew of other Zoölogists spent their time researching the Fairy, it might prove an intellectual value but I heavily doubt it would provide an actual and meaningful one. And I doubt there is pride in such, but let the relationists have their way.

Peach1 wrote:

So... make some comparision! hear how your parents talk to each other- about other people.
Or... you can understand what they like to talk about, and therein, understand their point-of-view. i.e. In scientific family, their parents talk about material stuff (news and ecademic things), in social family, parent talk about people (moral and criticism), each one branches into several other classification.

What you saw depends on what you already know. i.e If your parent were a dissident, but you don't comprehend the non-dissident part yet, then you won't see the classification.

Ok then. I'll go for working class with protestant morality but no actual commitment to faith.

Peach1 wrote:

To get connected, someone must start first. Once you accept his point of view, he will accept your point of view. It is M.A.D, Mutually Assured Discussion.

By the way, I don't think adulthood start at 18... when I look at my 18, I'm still empty.

I acknowledge it's existence, I don't accept it's value. This aids I trust?

Peach1 wrote:

Not just values, but gradients of values (not just "black and white"). No one in their right-mind would gave everyone an 'A+'!

Yes, just black and white. And someöne in their right mind might give everyöne an A*, but only if they were all to the same high standard.

Peach1 wrote:

You made a straw-man fallacy: you think everyone who accept opinion as an idiot. Try ask me; "Are you an idiot?" (no) "Then Why would you accept everyone's opinion like a robot?" (I'm NOT an idiot remember??)

Where did I say that others who accepts opiniöns are idiots? There's a fallacy.

Peach1 wrote:

"Idiot" has no other meaning than to offend. In real life, you use it to push people away. But Why would anyone NEED TO offend an anonymous person across the internet (whom his/her opinion had no effect on your life) at all?

I understand... we all likes to say "idiot" for expressing-disagrement (instead of offence), it is human (I'm too), but it is a corrupted piece of information. Think twice what you really want to say, be smart.

Idiot has no other meaning than is intended. The fact that you find it offensive is chance, I'm sure there are people who would find it complementary, or just an empty term. I don't know, why would someöne need to offend A.Nonymous? In a more direct way, was there evidence of a need?

I'm glad you think you do. But it's not a relevant issue. And I need think once only what I want to say, time's wasted if I think about it again.

Peach1 wrote:

You could have written the colored-text^ above, instead of just written "ugly".

See what I meant by elegant communication? See what I meant by "be smart"? (*rhetoric question*)

I could have, but why in one sentence when you can in one word?

And no, I don't see what you mean by elegant communication other than appearing to confuse 'elegant' and 'sly'. Honesty is a virtue. Beating around the bush with more idioms and synonyms than English cares to have appears wasteful and inefficient.

And again no, 'be smart' is a dummy (in the linguistic sense) phrase as far as me.

Oh, and thanks for assigning my signature some notability. When you get one I'll try to return the favour

Peach1 wrote:

I like language to be precise. If you say something, then I have hundred more possible meaning for it (*just a figure of speech*). Be precise to avoid misrepresentation and misunderstood.

I like language to be precise too. Let's be friends.

If I say something, I mean what I say: it is impossible to do otherwise. Whether you read it as it is meant is your responsibility, not mine.

behind the seeming logic, a purpose and intent is forcefully pushing a rather ego-driven agenda which itself is not disclosed.

imho.

Is there any form of communication that does not have an ego driven purpose?

Or is the problem in its failure to disclose its purpose?