Ok, talking about motives. Going after one preference over another means that someone would be making the selection because of getting a certain payoff from it, right? No matter what the payoff, correct? The payoff could be a paragon of personal martrydom or another one of the rainbow of motives. It's whatever gets you off, so to speak. Different strokes for different folks. The payoff is still some sort of a motive that drives the definition of value of making the selection.
To be honestly self-referent, the payoff I get from writing about thinking is immense, actually. I don't know why this is true, but it motivated me to learn to write in order to do this very thing I'm doing now.
The medium is important, not the massage, ah..er.. the message. The WAY something is done is often overlooked. If I wanted to pound in a message the way DonL likes to pound in his message of how arrogant and self-deceptive the "I" "I" "I" "I" "I" action is, it would be that one. But I don't like to pound, because I regard repetition as a disrespectful tactic of advertising. Guess that is also why I find it distasteful to "sell" what I feel is valuable.
Why can't people just GET that these things are valuable and take the value of what I have to offer them? Why do I have to SELL what I feel is valuable? Why don't people just look at me and figure out they could be as deliriously happy as me if they'd just...
I guess because people would never otherwise have a clue that the value even exists.
The connection between the medium being congruent with the message defines the level of effectiveness. If they match, the message is related in a much more powerful fashion. (This is, in a nutshell, what is the defintion of ART for me.) The way the selection process is communicated (or imposed on others) is important - not the content of the selected value.
Gawd, I feel like a salesperson sometimes when I write this stuff.
For me, putting "I" before something or using qualifiers such as IMHO, etc. means that it's coming from just little old me. That what is being said not the BIG TRUTH with a CAPITOL "T" - I'm not puffed up into wanting to define the nature of life, the universe and everything.
Funny, huh? I regard the use of "I" to indicate a directly opposite evidence that of how DonL regards it. Don believes that writing without the "I" is evidence of less egotism. For me, the humble use of "I" implies a lack of arrogance, a lone voice in the wilderness speaking from the point of view of one person's experience - one person who speaks only for themselves and not the Royal WE of those who have empowered me to represent them.
Because one person talking doesn't imply the puffed-up importance of defining the absolute FACT of The Way Things Are. That's how it comes across to me when the "I" is left out of what is being expressed. I think that it deceptively hides the content as if it is "fact" when it is only merely someone's opinion.