Estimated reading time: 1 minute, 33 seconds

Maha, it seems an awful lack of imagination that even suggests neutrality is an actual stance on being. Even zero has a place and identity but neutrality is a falsehood or emptiness unbecoming of living beings to believe in. Neutrality disconnects from feelings and may seem advantageous as a kind of settling of conflict tool. Except by insisting on disengagement we can’t mature into admitting contradiction is something we should be able to work with. By saying we can’t know each other except by assigning numbers we fail in the business of humanness–and I wonder if this might be your objection to the quantitative method? That it doesn’t reveal any essential qualities of life yet claims to be a way of “knowing” that’s so artificial as to be irrelevant?

How can we say we can be detached and connected at the same time? I deal with medical people who disallow my emotions which allows them to deny the history that made me and then try to replace this damaged but still living thing with a list of proper behaviours from a fiction of respect they haven’t earned. Their judgement and the colorless world they paint is crushingly defeating. Neutrality as indifference or worse as erasure is their game and I won’t play it.