I have pulled from your copy this quote, "I think usually, if I swept the street in front of my house, no one would label me a "street sweeper", unless I made my living at it. But what if I made my living in many ways, including sweeping the street? Using any one label to describe me would misdirect, using many would just muddle the issue that I engage in many activities to make my living. I mean to say, I don't think you can observe a "street sweeper" (an abstraction), but you can observe the activity of someone sweeping the street." My response remains, If you swept the streets in front of your home and made a living at it, then by e-prime standards, people would still not refer to you as a street sweeper. If you had gave out a card as a symbol of your career choice that clearly defined you as a street sweeper, then people could accurately call you a street sweeper. If you engage in many activities and would like recognition for these activities, then you could tell people who observe you doing your tasks that in the morning I sweep streets, but by noon, I attend University as a student and in the evening I spend time with my wife and children. From your copy, I read two different issues. One based on labelling and the other based on the action of the label. I have addressed the labelling part. I believe if you accurately label a person, the action will fall into place. As for catagorical imperatives, it means 'absolute'.
Lets' continue to dialogue. Karen
|