Mohrt says "align yourself to CTEL/A ... This only looks perfect from exactly one spot." What's the objective definition of "looks perfect"?
pj <- think we've been here before
chgo
Stan posted another youtube---Subjectivity, Objectivity, and a little CTE
- Thread starter JE54
- Start date
pj <- think we've been here before
chgo
It has again become obvious that a civil discussion can not be had.
Some either do not understand the word objective as used in this context or they are just disingenuous in the discussion.
It seems that there are now levels of objective & levels of subjective in an attempt to make it 'okay' to still describe it as objective even though the core nature relies on subjectivity.
My apologies to you & all for allowing myself to be pulled into a pointless back & forth with a certain individual.
However that is one of topics of this thread along with its antonym, subjectivity.
If there are 6 on one side & one or two on the other side, the side with lesser individuals will have more posts as they are communicating with more individuals. Just as your post regarding me has caused my number of posts to increase.
Since you used the word 'estimate' when referring to the markers in one of your earlier post, it seems that you might have an understanding of its true nature.
Whether or not it is objective or subjective does not matter if it is working for you & others.
However, for those that it is not working that adjective can be of significance.
Also, individuals should not be entice to CTE by that description when the core nature relies on subjectivity. That is my only real concern.
I wasted a bit of time due to that adjective. Tom Ashworth has spent more that 6 moths with it & it is not working for him & there are others like him.
I understand that everything will not work for everyone. But one should not be enticed to try something by an inappropriate description.
I hope you can see & understand my points.
As I have said before, to anyone that is already invested in CTE & for those that will invest themselves into it, I wish all of them nothing but complete success with it so as to enhance their game.
Best to You & All,
Rick
Last edited:
It seems you wont give up until you bully people into agreeing with you.
I have never, ever made the claim that CTE is totally objective.
Your distortions & mischaracterizations make it rather difficult to ignore you as I think I & all others should do.
You were making a vague claim regarding the topic of subjectivity in CTE. I 'know' to what you were referring. So... I tightened up your vagueness so that it would not be misleading.
We're not discussing the subjective aspects of choosing a visual or a pivot that is subjective, or what ever else to which you may have been referring.
The subject has been whether or not the core nature of CTE is objective or subjective.
PJ is correct in that Mhort & some others have tried to 'redefine' the terms objective & objectivity for how they are used for CTE.
I understand Mhorts points but they do not go to the core nature that perception is not objective. When ones perception comes into the play then objectivity is out & subjectivity is then the main component.
I made this post to clarify. I have no intentions of participating in another one of your fiascoes but should you continue with them, I will have responses but they will be more of a one word variety or of a definitive nature. I have no doubt that you will continue, if for no other reason than to see how I will react. I wish you would compare yourself here on AZB to your former self before you went back & deleted all of your past posts. Did you totally delete them or did you save them on Microsoft Word or another program. If you did save them, I would suggests that you delete all of your current posts & re-post the old ones in some manner or form.
Last edited:
Post #88 for the most reason example. I quoted that part in red for you so you wouldn't forget you said it. Truth is easy to keep track of. It's your lies that you can't keep up with. Now go ahead and say that you didn't say it. blah blah blah.....
It has nothing to do with agreeing with me.
All it has to do with is a proper description so as to not entice individuals with an improper description.
If you would note this topic had pretty much died down for some time until this thread was started.
What is the definition of perception?
Balderdash!
Neil,
You make it extremely difficult.
You either are a compete troll or your command & understanding of the English language is extremely lacking.
How is saying that 'total objectivity is not the reason' that CTE works so well for some saying that CTE is totally objective?
Let's see if we can put this to rest.
Yes or No? Can we agree that CTE is not a totally objective aiming system?
Last edited:
Perception in general? or my perception of you? Should my answer be objective and on point, or random subjectivity.
I've already answered that question for you hundreds of times. Take notes if your memory doesn't work anymore. As to your first part.....if you don't know, get someone to explain it to you. I'm tired of responding to your nonsense, so go ahead and post whatever drivel you want to.
uttahere:It would be no different than say, lining up the CB/OB in perfectly straight alignment. Only one spot looks perfect. Same with CCB to OB edge. So with CTEL/A there is introduced an additional line, but same principle applies. With a little practice it becomes completely obvious. (as with the first two)
Last edited:
You can argue a technical definition all day, I'm only stating what objectivity means in the context of CTE aiming. If it doesn't perfectly fit the dictionary definition, then so be it. We know what is meant by it. This is no different than arguing the technical definition of empty when discussing ones soul. :wink:
If we throw out the whole idea of what is and isn't "objective" for a moment, and only address what is pertinent to the understanding of CTE, I think we can get somewhere. Trying to shoehorn ones words into what is and isn't "objective" sends us down a rabbit hole that is completely irrelevant to the understanding of CTE.
So with CTE, how can we come to an agreement in saying that a CTEL/A alignment is exact and repeatable (for any given CB/OB location)? I can only say that with a little practice it quickly becomes obvious. It is a bit different than traditional ways to align two balls, but not hard to grasp.
So with CTE, how can we come to an agreement in saying that a CTEL/A alignment is exact and repeatable (for any given CB/OB location)? I can only say that with a little practice it quickly becomes obvious. It is a bit different than traditional ways to align two balls, but not hard to grasp.
Never mind. It seems that you only want to play games.
I read you post in the other thread. My only real concern is for an appropriate description that can not be misleading, & when I say that, I am not meaning that any possible misleading was or is intentional.
Not knowing, your post sort of makes the point.
Your perception of me would be an opinion, which is subjective & is not the objective reality.
Best 2 You & All,
Rick
I've already answered that question for you hundreds of times. Take notes if your memory doesn't work anymore. As to your first part.....if you don't know, get someone to explain it to you. I'm tired of responding to your nonsense, so go ahead and post whatever drivel you want to.
That would be great.
Please don't ever quote me or respond to anything that I post, ever.
You've been mostly all civil to me & I think that you are sincere & genuine in what you are trying to do & I'm with you, but... that of which you speak is not the issue & deep down, I think you know that.
The issue is how can one objectively get 5 or more outcome angles while utilizing the same visual (& pivot)?
The answer is that one can not do so objectively.
It requires one to utilize their perception & that is not objective, but is subjective.
Therefore the core nature that allows it to work is subjective & not objective.
Therefore saying that CTE is an objective aiming system can certainly be misleading to many if not all.
So... how would you accurately describe CTE in a manner that could not be misleading.
When I say misleading I do not mean that any misleading was intentional. I just mean that it can be taken incorrectly.
As I have said, I wish nothing but complete success to anyone that has or will invest themselves into CTE. I just think it should be clear as to what they are investing themselves in.
Best 2 You & All,
Rick
PS The reason this is important is because of guys like Tom Awshworth (spelling?) that has spent more than 6 months with it to no good results & is still looking for objective instructions other than to move back & forth until you get the correct perception for the shot. I think He, as I initially did, took the description of an objective aiming system to be just that. I realized rather quickly that it is not what I thought it said to be but Tom has spent more than 6 months with it to no real benefit. I realize that everything does not work for everyone, but I wonder if Tom would have invested himself into it if he knew then what he seems to be realizing now.
Last edited:
You could describe that by saying "point this part of the CB at that part of the OB". You can't describe CTE "visuals" that way - if you could we wouldn't have this perpetual conversation.
pj
chgo
I think those propositions are incompatible. If the final aim alignment can't be described except by saying "you'll learn to know it when you see it", then you've described something that's common to all aiming methods, and none of them are "exact and repeatable".
I like the idea of using two reference lines together rather than just one (as in other fractional systems). That's innovative, but it doesn't "take you to" the final aim line - it just makes getting there easier. Too bad we can't discuss objective benefits like that without setting the forum ablaze.
pj
chgo
:thumbup2: