I guess you didn’t intend lack of valence or unintended negativity as relevant distinct possibilities, so that lack of the “(mean)” tag would be synonymous with “(positive)” in the intended reading. Without this assumption, you are leaving the other person without a method for communicating positivity, the protocol only supports expressing either negativity or an undifferentiated mixture of positivity and lack of valence, preventing communication of the distinction between positivity and lack of valence.
So the workaround more directly makes the point about still needing to communicate negativity (or its lack), not positivity, and I think the latter is the more curious part of the implication. For a statement of committing to see certain things in a positive light, this implication of its literal meaning conveys the opposite of the way this kind of sentiment is usually intended.
I guess you didn’t intend lack of valence or unintended negativity as relevant distinct possibilities, so that lack of the “(mean)” tag would be synonymous with “(positive)” in the intended reading. Without this assumption, you are leaving the other person without a method for communicating positivity, the protocol only supports expressing either negativity or an undifferentiated mixture of positivity and lack of valence, preventing communication of the distinction between positivity and lack of valence.
So the workaround more directly makes the point about still needing to communicate negativity (or its lack), not positivity, and I think the latter is the more curious part of the implication. For a statement of committing to see certain things in a positive light, this implication of its literal meaning conveys the opposite of the way this kind of sentiment is usually intended.