- Jan 5, 2018
- Reaction score
Essentially, quid pro quo can be seen as literal reciprocation.
I used that example in summary response to both Stephen Fry, and your lesser self.
"Can be seen as" and "means" are very different.
That is subjective, the langauge allows for the difference, as does the interpretation.
To you the interpretation means one thing, to me another.
So I will say again.
"People would prefer to be right than be effective".
Your arguing a moot point, your subjective opinion and mine are different, neither are wrong to us.
To argue the point is neither right, nor effective as the difference of opinion comes from percieved understanding.
You are extrapolating a more complex langauge (English) onto a limited langauge.
One can derive meaning, but not intent or subjective rationality of langauge only when one understands both in entirety.
Thats without taking into account the spoken word, a dialectic amalgamation of langauges and phraseology which surpasses most modern documented langauge, never mind the historical.
Neither of us can be right as we don't understand the context and the subjective thought process behind them.
So why bother trying to be right, just be effective and understand that we don't know sh** apart from the limited knowledge our tiny minds have allowed us to remember, reflect and play with.