Does "love" mean no disagreements?

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:41 pm

For years, man has tried to pin down the mysterious creature that stomps clumsily along the very edges of our collective subconscious like a crossdresser trying out a new pair of slingback pumps. And yet all we have to show for it is a few episodes of Leonard Nimoy's "In Search Of" and a blurry video of a guy in an ape suit (and don't tell us you can't see the zipper).

Until now.

YETI@Home is a scientific experiment that harnesses the power of hundreds of thousands of Internet-connected computers in the search for giant ape-like creatures (YETI). We, the YETI team members who founded this experiment, are experts in the field of cryptozoology (the study of animals that do not exist).

You can participate in this historic study by running a free program that downloads and analyzes video & sound captured from your very own backyard.There's a small but captivating possibility that your computer will detect the faint footsteps of a hairy monster.

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:59 pm

stuart wrote:uhh, I'd rather drink paint than watch baseball.

and, that aint no boa. It's a full length, ultra warm, fur coat named 'The Yetti'. Just ask the chicklet.

oooh, i love the yetti!!
who's chicklet?
can he/she/it confirm what i say about the coat?

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:01 pm

stuart wrote:uhh, I'd rather drink paint than watch baseball.

and, that aint no boa. It's a full length, ultra warm, fur coat named 'The Yetti'. Just ask the chicklet.

classic.

dana · Post by **dana** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 6:27 pm

Alright, this thread is starting to perk up a little! That's more like it. Sorry I missed you guys when the interest started hitting, (but I had stone to cut and no computer handy.) I figured a little pointed discourse would bring out the eplayans. A few responses:

Rob the Wop wrote:Geez Dana, for someone in love- you sure do disagree with a lot of people.

I thoroughly agree, (except with the 'in love part.')

"inherantly evil" I assume that might be in reference to the thing with Rian - It was kind of amusing with his post number at 666.

Sensei · Post by **Sensei** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 6:34 pm

dana wrote:..."inherantly evil" I assume that might be in reference to the thing with Rian - It was kind of amusing with his post number at 666.

Yeah, Rian's quite a guy...
http://images.burningman.com/index.cgi? ... _category=

dana · Post by **dana** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 6:43 pm

cowboyangel wrote:
dana wrote: Come on Stuart, surely that point wasn't too subtle for you. People with autism are basically out of the loop in terms of personality development. So they're not getting much from other people's normal feedback, not to mention any other source including 'self help' books. And no, you're definitely not at risk of developing autism - maybe something else, but not that. Why do you bother posting on a thread that you obviously hate?
woahh thar...just heard a story on "This American Life" (check their archives http://www.thislife.org/ )about an autistic woman from Seattle, who overcame her difficulties to go through the university system and earn a Ph.D
She was able to start making real connections with people after she had some incredible emotional exchange with a gorilla at the zoo she was working in. ( no jabs please) check it out

No jabs? Come on that's cruel. Interesting story, although in my experience it sounds pretty rare. I'm glad I don't have to deal with autistic kids too much - they're really quite sad to experience. (Although I did once do a five day raft trip with a high functioning autistic teenager. He was doing the kind of automatisms that were shown in the movie Rainman, repeating the same phrases over and over so that by the end of the trip most people were ready to choke him.) I suspect this woman would have to be of a similar state to the teen, ie. high functioning.

dana · Post by **dana** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 7:07 pm

Rian Jackson wrote:
hmmm.... i'd sure like a pillow fight with Stuie
Sweetheart, you're fuckin' brilliant.

let's design a playa game that involves physical combat and the debate of philosophy, sociology, or some other esoteric topic.

i prefer epistemology. or, really, epistemological philosophy.

soeone take me up on this:
Read Batesons' Angel's Fear and then duel me.

Are you serious? I'll check out the book. As Rob pointed out I like to disagree. My point all along is that there's a definite art to doing it well. Who was it several posts back - Rob and someone else talking about the end of a relationship - most likely taken apart piece by piece through disagreements done poorly. If those same disagreements are handled well, the love grows stronger. Its not rocket science, or "mushy spirituality". If Stuart finds that below his superior Aristotelian intellect, that's his problem. So far I'd say he's doing a pretty good job arguing my points for me about how an out of control ego operates.

I can't see the "brilliant" part yet but I'm looking for it.

That will have to do for now - dinner calls.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 7:29 pm

Looking at things from a different perspective ... I sometimes use argument as a learning tool. Sometimes a position I take is merely devil's advocate and I am trying to learn more about the opposing position or simply running an experimental opinion up the pole to test it out. Looking for unseen flaws, if you will. This is a very common trait for the Myers-Briggs ENTP type (The Inventor) and one that often results in confusion and frustration for those that love us. Thankfully for the rest of the world, we are only 2% of the population but it makes it hard to find others that are like us. We are sub-sect of abstract thinkers that itself makes up only 15% of the population. It sucks just as much to be us as it does for you when you find yourself in our clutches. Muahahahaha

An accurate but poorly written description is here:

http://209.15.29.56/myersbriggs/entp.htm

dana · Post by **dana** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 7:55 pm

geekster wrote:Looking at things from a different perspective ... I sometimes use argument as a learning tool. Sometimes a position I take is merely devil's advocate and I am trying to learn more about the opposing position or simply running an experimental opinion up the pole to test it out. Looking for unseen flaws, if you will. This is a very common trait for the Myers-Briggs ENTP type (The Inventor) and one that often results in confusion and frustration for those that love us. Thankfully for the rest of the world, we are only 2% of the population but it makes it hard to find others that are like us. We are sub-sect of abstract thinkers that itself makes up only 15% of the population. It sucks just as much to be us as it does for you when you find yourself in our clutches. Muahahahaha

An accurate but poorly written description is here:

http://209.15.29.56/myersbriggs/entp.htm

Damn it - outed by Geekster. I've heard it described as a dance actually: where at one moment you're holding tightly to your own truth, philosophy, vision, stance (whether diabolical or not), and in the next moment fully willing to abandon that stance and take that of the person you argue with.

[by the way was that your email? I'd love to find out who was that commited to this thread.]

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 7:59 pm

No, it wasnt mine. I wasnt sure which thread the person was talking about until you mentioned it.

Also ... this link at the bottom of the page is pointedly accurate ... at least for me.

Again ... pooly written but true ...

http://209.15.29.56/myersbriggs/conceptualist.htm

Rob the Wop · Post by **Rob the Wop** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:12 pm

dana wrote:My point all along is that there's a definite art to doing it well. Who was it several posts back - Rob and someone else talking about the end of a relationship - most likely taken apart piece by piece through disagreements done poorly. If those same disagreements are handled well, the love grows stronger.

Calling bullshit on this one. Handling disagreements correctly can lessen the impact of differing points of view, thereby ensuring greater understanding of your partner. This does NOT ensure the creation of a stronger bond. A perfect example of this would be to come home and find your partner raping a midget with a cucumber on your nice Persian rug. The resulting disagreement maybe eventually broken down until you realize that a childhood trauma caused severe mental abberations later on in life, and that the midget was being paid good money for the deed. This does not ensure that you accept the issue to the point of creating a better relationship.

And our relationship ending had nothing to do with poorly handled disagreements. You are projecting at this point. We got along so well that it took us a long time to realize we should break up. The ending was delayed because of how well we handled disagreements.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:23 pm

ENTP's tend to value logic over emotional attachment. It is very easy to switch sides in an argument the moment you see that it is "correct". Or you might do it for experimental purposes, particularly in a group. Take the other side and throw darts at your real position in order to inspire the opposition to new avenues of thought so you can then "switch back" and consider these from the other side again. It is like moving back and forth between different sides of a chess board to see how it looks from the other perspective ... poor analogy but close enough.

This is one reason we make poor politicians, we tend to be pragmatic. I can often see good points in both the positions of the left and the right. If someone could take two from column A and two from column B, a really good policy could be made but neither side would support it because it embraces parts of the other side's "groupthink" so they reject it out of hand. This is why the rest of the population often seems "stupid" to us. They keep letting their idiology get in the way of competance. The goal is to get from point A to point B as efficiently as possible. We sit around bored while everyone else argues over which route to take and valuable time is wasted doing nothing.

For example, a Green is against nuclear power just because it is nuclear power. They have an inherent phobia against nuclear anything. If they had been around a few thousand years ago fire would have been outlawed because it could burn entire cities down. Nevermind that we have dammed up all the rivers, ripped just about all the coal out of the earth, and China's growing thirst for oil will make US conservation a moot issue. Greens would sooner see us all Amish than nuclear electric. The ONLY reason they got away with it in Germany is because of the EU ... France is nuclear and will gladly sell Germany all the power it needs, just as Ohio has no problem exporting power to Michigan. German has no coal to speak of, no oil at all, not much hydro potential left ... where is it going to meet its energy needs? France! That's how.

When it is almost too late. When oil is $100/bbl and the compromise is offered that the only way we will sign greenhouse gas treaties is with nuke power, they will relent ... but only on the CO2 issue and probably in about 10 years time when the economy is in shambles rather than now when it can be done to PREVENT a problem ... why? Because to them, if it isn't a problem RIGHT NOW, then it isn't a problem. Concrete thinkers need to have the problem shoved right in their face, be able to touch it, feel it, be fucking cold at night before they decide it is really a problem.

There, that should be enough off-topic crap for one night

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:48 pm

Well maybe not.

What one major difference is how one reacts to disagreement. If A and B disagree and both argue their point, and A suddenly sees that B is right and feels stupid but thinks to themself "wow, I can't believe I was so stupid!" and adopts B's position (maybe after "testing" it by some other means) then all is fine. If A decided B is full of crap and dicsounts all further statements by B, that is also fine.

But if A refuses to budge because he is a Plork and that is the position that all good Plorks hold and he must defend Plorkdom by making the proper arguments and holding the right stances ... and decides he doesn't like B very much because B is obviously opposed to the Plork ideal ... there is no hope. As there is no hope if A decides he doesn't like B because B "makes me feel stupid" and so gets angry and either raises tensions or breaks off contact. This is why religious argument is a waste of time and why political argument is a waste of time. People that hold positions by faith are not likely to change their opinion based on someone that challanges their faith and makes them uneasy. That someone can even hold an opposing position makes them angry because they see it as invalidating.

A person that holds a position based on logic can more easily adopt a new position because there is no emotional investment in their old position ... unless of course they loose face because it makes them APPEAR incompetant ... but they will accept their incompetance and adopt the new position anyway because it is right and hold any ill will toward B at all if allowed to adopt the new position gracefully.

Zulegoona · Post by **Zulegoona** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:56 pm

Take a deep breath Geekster, I think maybe you need to take a break from this and have a drink.

dana · Post by **dana** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:38 pm

Rob the Wop wrote:
dana wrote:My point all along is that there's a definite art to doing it well. Who was it several posts back - Rob and someone else talking about the end of a relationship - most likely taken apart piece by piece through disagreements done poorly. If those same disagreements are handled well, the love grows stronger.
Calling bullshit on this one. Handling disagreements correctly can lessen the impact of differing points of view, thereby ensuring greater understanding of your partner. This does NOT ensure the creation of a stronger bond. A perfect example of this would be to come home and find your partner raping a midget with a cucumber on your nice Persian rug. The resulting disagreement maybe eventually broken down until you realize that a childhood trauma caused severe mental abberations later on in life, and that the midget was being paid good money for the deed. This does not ensure that you accept the issue to the point of creating a better relationship.

And our relationship ending had nothing to do with poorly handled disagreements. You are projecting at this point. We got along so well that it took us a long time to realize we should break up. The ending was delayed because of how well we handled disagreements.

To this I can only respond with - 1) you're over simplifying in regard to creating a stronger bond - arguing well is only one piece of the pie. 2) fucking A, keep it real, at least in the realm of believability at a bare minimum "midgets, childhood trauma"??????? 3) fine I might be projecting. That's why I used the key phrase "most likely" Is there some other reason why you think most relationships fail if not the antagonism and petty arguments that never get dealt with? 4) And that last bit you're totally losing me on. If you got along so well, why did you break up?

Geekster - I loved it. (From here on out if someone disagrees with me, they can go plork themselves!) The example using the greens is interesting given the current state of pisspoor political discourse. Personally I'd like to see the Greens start undermining the support base of the Democratic party and the Libertarians undermining the Republicans. I'd love to see the Republicans left alone in a death embrace with the religious right and the Democrats a little more focused. In regard to the topic at hand I think American politics needs something to polarize the parties and force them to take a stronger more meaningful stance. Kinda like what happened to the debates when Perot showed up.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:21 pm

I used the Greens as a feeble attempt to get a rise out of Cowboy. I could have substituted any number of groups and positions. A part of me says that if the Republicans would just back off of the moral majority marriage a bit they would BE the Libertarians but another part of me says that if they did that, the Democrats would make this huge sucking sound to center to capture them and we would be worse off.

What the Libertarians need is a REAL candidate. If you look at places like cato.org you would THINK they could get one but the problem is that the Libertarian party doesn't have the huge financing and organization that the other parties do. What they need is a real politician (McCain would be a good one) and a few high profile financiers. They could even work from the ground up if they had local organizations that were REALLY interested in government and not so much in mining asteroids and stuff. We DON'T need a bunch of Trekies running the govt.

The Democrats have a standard tactic ... avoid stating their plans clearly (because every time they do, people run to the other side) and attack the opposing messanger, not the message. It's mostly pap, drivel, whatever. The Republicans are actually less worrysome that one would think. For example, they are in favor of PROPOSING a constitutional ammendment that would define marriage. Fine ... it will never pass the states. What people don't understand is that the party doesn't EXPECT it to pass. Just PROPOSING it is enough to placate the religious right. It is all about posturing. It would never pass so I don't worry about it. The closest they can come without an ammendment has already been done when Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act ... which Democrats never seem to mention.

A PRESIDENT CANT MAKE A LAW. When will people get that through their heads! I laugh when Kerry complains about Bush's energy policy. It is as if US policy somehow sets world prices. Got news ... the single fastest growing consumer of world oil is CHINA. Once they get 4 times more cars on the road than the US has, our energy policy isn't going to amount to a pinch of owl scat in world markets. At least the Republicans understand how world markets work. The only things Democrats understand is running for office and winning elections. FOR ONCE I would like to see a Democrat running for office that has not spent his ENTIRE career in government. I hate em both.

The republicans can't tell me who I love or who I want to marry and I hate the Democrats telling me who they need to jerk more of my hard earned out of my pocket to support because they deserve it more than I do. Fuck both of them.

Woohoo, this is FUN!

Rob the Wop · Post by **Rob the Wop** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:21 pm

dana wrote: To this I can only respond with - 1) you're over simplifying in regard to creating a stronger bond - arguing well is only one piece of the pie.

1) Uhm, no- I was refuting your claim that better disagreement creates a stronger bond.

If those same disagreements are handled well, the love grows stronger.

dana wrote: 2) fucking A, keep it real, at least in the realm of believability at a bare minimum "midgets, childhood trauma"???????

2) Hypothetical situations are often blatantly over-emphasized to assist in understanding the underlying principals. So much for adding humor to the mix. Must I dig out my old psychology books, talk to my psychiatrist friend, or get one of Dr. Phil's books to give you an example you can accept? Maybe you should 'get real'. Attacking an example that is quite obviously humor is the mark of a poor debater.

dana wrote: 3) fine I might be projecting. That's why I used the key phrase "most likely" Is there some other reason why you think most relationships fail if not the antagonism and petty arguments that never get dealt with?

3) People are different. By stating that relationships fail due to unresolved issues is painting a far too rosey picture of the world. The inverse would state 'most relationships will succeed if disagreements and issues are dealt with correctly'. I fully disagree with this one. Lust, and the first feelings of love happen in any relationship. But some people 'grow out' of a love. Not from any unresolved issues, but simply because not every two people are meant to spend their lives toghether.

dana wrote: 4) And that last bit you're totally losing me on. If you got along so well, why did you break up?

4) The essential 'spark' left. We ceased to have the strong intimate and emotional bond that is required for the long hual. Again, do you love your siblings? Your parents? Your best friend? Are you intimate with everyone you love? No. We are very close friends now and share in most everything- but we aren't going to be a couple. Unresolved issues and past/present disagreements have nothing to do with it.

calsur · Post by **calsur** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:46 pm

geekster wrote:

(even if my daughter DID moon the entire class yesterday ... have to talk to her about that).

I hope you instructed her on the proper technique? You must reach around and flap the cheeks? Style counts.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:03 am

She is just such a total sweetheart. She was completely crushed with embarrasement ... it was totally innocent fun and she has not been raised to have a phobia about seeing peoples butts ... not that we have ever encouraged such behavior ... just that we have never been phobic about it either. She was just crushed. I didn't need to be hard on her, she wa pretty hard on her self. The last conversation we had she said "Daddy, we really don't need to talk about it anymore, I get it" ... and that is from a 6yo. My baby girl, I love her to pieces.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:05 am

oh God,

6?

She and you gotta be a blast.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:24 am

Fish Face

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:26 am

Ah ha ha ha.....

ok

you guys are a blast.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:03 am

I think this is key to understand me ... this is so right on for me personally, and maybe for other burners too.

http://209.15.29.56/myersbriggs/conceptualist.htm

and scroll down to:

Conceptualist Married Life

Sensei · Post by **Sensei** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:25 am

Killer pic, geekster. She's a doll...

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:08 am

Hey, Geekster, ever need childcare?

Ever since the mooning story i've wanted to meet this kid.

You're both adorable.

And yes, Sensei, I am quite the manly man. Grrrrr....

So, regarding Angel's Fear' (as in, 'where angels fear to tread'), here's my blissful experience with it:

1) Arrive to class in foreign country.
2) Prof walks in and screams at entire class for not reading the book ahead of time over the course of the last semester. I am utterly confused and a bit taken aback.
3) Prof walks out.
4) One week later, prof assigns class into presentation pairs, per chapter. I'm on the first goddamn week.
5) Spend the next days burying myself in Bateson, 200 pages of them (cause you have to read the whole thing if you're going to understand it all) wihle housemates are rowdy in an echoey flat.
6) Tear out hair with strange yet somehow captivating mediterranean man in new country while trying to decode accents, sift through a different educational background, and learn the social rules. Oh yeah, and seeing a bit of the country, too.
7) Alternately reach enlightenment and then realise i've lost it again.
7.5) Create cryptic presentation in which we consider bringing a dead fish to illustrate some point. Presentation partner lacks the proper time to visit the Marxaslokk fish market prior to presentation. Damn.

Dig into a wild and insane world with classmates.
9) Repeat steps 7 and 8 repeatedly.
10) A year later, read it again because i needed to and get new revelations.
11) Lose them all again and again.

I'm now set to read it again as soon as i plough through about 43 other books that are waiting in the wings.

As a theatre-maker and musician, it was particularly relevant.

I probably couldn't begin to 'discuss' it without going through it again.... and i highly recommend studying neuroscience, some fairly conceptual mathematics, and Lacan at the same time. Throw in some Stanislavski and Grotowski and you have a start... of course if you have a good philosophy background (which i do not) all of these might be less important (though still pretty damn interesting!)

Pure fucking bliss.....

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:40 am

1st

who's chicklet?

enemy, know thyself

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:46 am

the end of a relationship - most likely taken apart piece by piece through disagreements done poorly.

how can you possibly make a statement like this without knowing word one about the parties or contexts involved? This is precisely what I meant when I talked about dishing this kind of 'wisdom' out in a generic fashion. At it's best it's useless. At it's worst it's patently destructive.

<insert personal attack here>

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:54 am

Rian Jackson wrote: 7.5) Create cryptic presentation in which we consider bringing a dead fish to illustrate some point. Presentation partner lacks the proper time to visit the Marxaslokk fish market prior to presentation. Damn.

This scares me for some reason.

GuinivereElise · Post by **GuinivereElise** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:05 pm

geekster wrote:I think this is key to understand me ... this is so right on for me personally, and maybe for other burners too.

http://209.15.29.56/myersbriggs/conceptualist.htm

and scroll down to:

Conceptualist Married Life

holy fuck Geekie. You just helped solve a major confusion in my life. My current significan is JUST THIS TYPE OF PERSON. Only I didn't have the resources to understand that it's a personality type. Everything makes so much more sense, now. Wow.

(and it's nice to know that I'm not just competely incapable of persuing and holding a relationship)

THANK YOU.

GuinivereElise · Post by **GuinivereElise** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:09 pm

um... whoops.

significan=significant

Does "love" mean no disagreements?

Re: ~

Re: ~

Re: ~

Re: ~

style points