Relationship with Friends

[nomas]

Alright. First, I'm taking exception in technical grounds. You say sex is the "only thing" that "separates" good friends from lovers. Sometimes, your good friend is also your lover and there's no separating the two. As far as sex being the only thing distinguishes your lover from your good friend, I have to ask: What about the emotional connections you have with your lover? You cannot mean that they're identical to those you have with your friend. So sex is NOT the "only thing" which makes a distinction. (Unless you really believe what you said and YOU do have identical emotional bonds with BOTH your friends and lovers....which would make for some pretty confusing appointment books, I'd think...and DIS-appointnments). Example in point: so-called FWBs.

Then I take exception on grounds of implication. To say that sex is the only thing that distingushes a friend from a lover is to imply that ****ing is all that elevates a person to the status of lover. That is patently false.

Yup, you're correct. I consented that I oversimplified my definition and called you out to write this for me. I agree with you. What I did was make some assumptions: In the traditional sense of the term, a couple who shares intimacy is the definition of lovers. A couple who hangs out but doesn't share intimacy are NOT lovers..they're friends. But obviously if you're friends with someone and at night you put on a ski mask and rape this person this doesn't make you lovers, despite fulfilling my previous definition's requirements of friends plus the sex.

[nomas]

[QUOTE=indigosoul]No, I still disagree w/you. The above counterexample is more like how a Naturalist would behave. YOUR original example is more like Experimental science. You ARE conducting an experiment. No different from the guy who adds something to the petri dish to watch the cells wriggle... for the following reason:[quote]

I still disagree with you too. I don't see how my counterexample was different with yours. I had a parallel with every element. You claim:

The distinction b/w observational science (like a naturalist), is that conclusions are made from observations WITHOUT perturbing the system (e.g. fat guy) and Experimental science, where a stimulus is applied and a result observed (e.g. your example). This is by definition manipulation, and is what you have been describing. You are NOT an impartial observer, you are CONTROLLING the amount of interest YOU show & observing the result… the stimulus COMES FROM YOU. AND what you do next is a function of the result you get. Unlike the “fat guy” case, where you are more like a Naturalist; you haven’t added anything to the system and the status quo is preserved. Unless you then CHOOSE to say something... in which case you then make the system experimental.

You claim that in my example, my lack of expressing, even articulating everything that's on my mind is a stimulus, while your lack of articulating what's on your mind is not changing the status quo. I say either could be either. Scientifically they're a comparable scenario.

So I still see it as manipulation. Now, whether this is okay in the case of our "friends" is a different question. You seem to be saying it is, especially considering the consequences, and maybe you're right and I'm just a control freak. But I would still want it acknowledged... tho maybe later would be okay once the relationship was more equal. Hmmm. Seem to be backpedaling here... It just SEEMS so insulting to me...

I still see it as choice of behavior and disclosure...and don't be insulted..that's not my objective, we're just having a very civil discussion, I believe. And to tackle this other post:

I hear you. The key here is "I'd LIKE YOU to feel the same way". Manipulation to acheive the desired outcome.

Allow me to rephrase: How about "I'd like it if you felt the same way"...

That changes things, right? That helps my case because I can argue much in the same way as my previous example that our behavior is always based on what we want. WE CHOOSE to behave in the way we behave. W e know the consequences and we know what happens when we behave a certain way and we choose to behave accordingly.

Example: I want my mom to be proud of me. She values hard work. Result, I make an effort toward being a hard worker. Other scenario..it's too hard for me to be a hard worker..so even though I'd like to make my moms proud, I just don't have the will to do it. I either make me happy in making my mom happy or I make me happy in being lazy. Either way, it's always about me. You cannot escape it.

Or... oh, okay, maybe you say the game isn't to produce new feelings, but to tease out (what might be?) existing ones...? "to get a clue what you feel", in your example. Well, still manipulation in my book, but puts a different flavour to it. Tho I suppose you could argue you're not manipulating anything, simply uncovering what's already there. I guess since I seem to be using a lot of science analogies, the equivalent would be "dissection" to uncover what's underneath.

Well, it's about getting a clue as to what the other is feeling, I guess, is the closest you got there. Since, unfortunately, most people aren't as blunt as you and I would like them to be...more below..

Are we finding a common language yet?

I think we've shared a common language all along...whenever I don't understand something I ask you..but I do believe that the limits of verbal language don't help our cause in discussions sometimes.

Damn, it would still be easier if everyone was just upfront about what they are thinking/feeling, huh Nomas? This example is a special case, anyway; I still think your behavioural method is best used on ppl who don't really know each other that well.

...continuing on this "being up front". Yup, you're right. Nothing would be better if you could just walk up to someone and say, excuse me, so I was wondering what your level of interest was in me in the categories of: Friendship, Romance, Admiration, and Economic Interests. I accept responses in the following formats: Fractions, Percentages, Pie Charts, and Bar Graphs. Thank you.

Yeah, we'll be hard pressed to find people like that.

Oh, well, maybe we're imperfect for a reason..

We'd have nothing to talk about if we were all as perfect as the systems I can design. We woud reject such perfection. Like the matrix..

[artyemi]

I have to stop at your first premise. Honesty is not required for trust. An absence of harm is. How many times have you trusted someone who's been dishonest with you simply because they never did anything you knew of to harm you? What you're talking about is disclosure, which more involves forgiving. Not trust.

?? you lost me there.

Let me say is to myself a few times.

How many times have I trusted someone who's been dishonest with me simply because they never did anything I knew of to harm me?

When people are dishonest with you, they tend to lose a piece of your trust, even if there' no harm done. Maybe there is harm there.

[whaywardj]

That's my point. Honesty is NOT a critereon for trust. In fact, honesty can destroy trust, as you point out. We all have trusted dishonest people at one time or another. So, if honesty isn't necessary for there to be trust, what is necessary?

Indigo is equating trust with trustworthy. Those are totally different things.

[indigosoul]

You claim that in my example, my lack of expressing, even articulating everything that's on my mind is a stimulus, while your lack of articulating what's on your mind is not changing the status quo. I say either could be either. Scientifically they're a comparable scenario.

Think we'll stalemate on this Nomas. I can't seem to explain well enough the difference, tho has to do w/one action being PASSIVE (fat guy) and the other ACTIVE (your example). Tho you claim there is no difference, I disagree.

I still see it as choice of behavior and disclosure...and don't be insulted..that's not my objective, we're just having a very civil discussion, I believe. And to tackle this other post:.

No, no. Not insulted by YOU, just saying I would be put out if I discovered someone was trying to pysch my feelings the way you describe.

...continuing on this "being up front". Yup, you're right. Nothing would be better if you could just walk up to someone and say, excuse me, so I was wondering what your level of interest was in me in the categories of: Friendship, Romance, Admiration, and Economic Interests. I accept responses in the following formats: Fractions, Percentages, Pie Charts, and Bar Graphs. Thank you.

Ah, excellent!! Ha, ha!! Put it on business cards, even. Hang on, didn't I read something like this in some story somewhere.... ???

We'd have nothing to talk about if we were all as perfect as the systems I can design. We woud reject such perfection. Like the matrix..

I love that movie.

[indigosoul]

That's my point. Honesty is NOT a critereon for trust. In fact, honesty can destroy trust, as you point out. We all have trusted dishonest people at one time or another. So, if honesty isn't necessary for there to be trust, what is necessary?

Faith. I KNEW this was related to love... I've been looking at this wrong. Like the love question. It comes from within. Nothing external will satisfy if you don't believe from within. B/c Trust is subjective. Damn, I always end up feeling like my brain is being pulled through a sieve, W...

[nomas]

Well, indi..and so it ends. I guess we've come to a conclusion to our little discussion since I don't have any comments to your last post (in answer to my own) and we have reached agreements and one stalemate, as you pointed out.

So let me jump into this next discussion on trust.

I'm with indi on that one. It's a personal issue, trust is. YOU decide who you trust based on faith alone. It's almost like a decision. You decide to trust someone.

Damn. That's all I have for now. What initiated this discussion on the definition of trust again?