Doormats

[Doc Durian]

at first I thought you were talking about french sweet breads, you know like intestines... LOL but yeah, sugar that refined is bad for you. Vegan cupcakes would do ya well ~

Don't eat sweets period... aside from fruits and even then, limited...

[Rollerderby]

No, haven't read his stuff only heard of him. My impression is he makes thing more complex than they actually are. Which, of course, is the complete opposite of clarity. Language should be as clear as possible to permit the best communication possible.

So, I suppose, I should refer you to Einstein. Who said that everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

Impression does not equal knowledge or understanding. Complexity is only part of the circle of which simplicity comes from. In order to break things down you need to understand the larger ideas they stem from. Language is everything, and yet does not mean the same thing to anyone, much like colors. My comment to you should be clear; 90% of communication is non-verbal so language itself is imperfect. Where does that other 90% of understanding come from if there are no words to describe it?

Even Einstein's idea comes from a broader understanding of the truth. The reason why he is able to express it so eloquently is because he has mastered language.

[IndiReloaded]

You are spouting rubbish, Derby. Or being very unclear. Most likely both.

And, since I am very confident in my education and knowledge level, perhaps you want to figure out clearly what point you are trying to make & then make it.

[Yggdrasil]

Rollerderby,

I actualy have a question for you: have you ever communicated to your guy, b/f, date, what you want from him?

Maybe that's an issue?

I mean: we men aren't mindreaders and communication is 90% of the game.

I pretty much act and react like the guy you described in your post (see my previous post on that), but I also communicated to my spouse that this is how I am and my reasons for it, and she doesn't have a problem with it.

Just a thought.

[Rollerderby]

We love words, all of us, don't we? You perceive syndrome as a bad thing? To me, it's just another way psychiatry has labeled life as a form. Derrida discusses how language is never an absolute, and words are perceived differently by those who have experienced life in different ways. Your words convey different picture ideas in my mind than yours and all that.

But other would argue that 90% of conversation is non-verbal, so how can you possibly truly understand other individual from the internet? Clarity, like cleanliness is a virtue. And shall we say, next to Godliness? Syndrome was my word, not yours.

I value words for their resonance and poetry. Science doesn't equal truth. Have you read Derrida? I was philosophizing with what you said. Not putting it down.

[url]http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/derrida.htm[/url] Read this it's interesting...

Impression does not equal knowledge or understanding. Complexity is only part of the circle of which simplicity comes from. In order to break things down you need to understand the larger ideas they stem from. Language is everything, and yet does not mean the same thing to anyone, much like colors. My comment to you should be clear; 90% of communication is non-verbal so language itself is imperfect. Where does that other 90% of understanding come from if there are no words to describe it?

Even Einstein's idea comes from a broader understanding of the truth. The reason why he is able to express it so eloquently is because he has mastered language.

Point A: Derrida is talking about how words do not have concrete definitions. Words are a bit more gray than black and white. Has it ever occurred to you that not every person perceives colors in the same way as you do? That maybe your blue is someone else’s yellow? Of course I am speaking in the generalized ‘you’ tense, not the specifically ‘you’ as ‘indiereloaded’. Words are similar to colors. Read the page if your curious about where I am getting this idea from. It’s all in the link.

Point B: Point A is where I derive the logic from this idea from. Because language is imperfect, non-verbals make-up a lot of communication. Thus, my perception of your tone of voice that is conveyed in your posts strike me as kind of snippy, where in fact because I can’t see you and how you are meaning to inflect your words, I could be completely mis-reading it. Thus, I am careful with my words in order to express myself. I believe your real problem here is how carefully you are reading my posts, and taking in the understanding. Perhaps you perceive I am insulting your intelligence. This is not the case. But, I highly doubt you have studied everything on the planet, and are the most omnipotently enlightened being in the world, let alone on love forum. I think you make interesting points in your arguments, but sometimes you fail to see other sides of arguments. I use ‘arguments’ loosely because an argument for some includes shouting and not listening. I use the word more in the way of expressing ‘debate’.

See how language is confusing? I was merely commenting on this. I believe you took offense. Your choice to dismiss my point saying you don’t understand is simply acknowledging that you are ignorant to this knowledge. But, let’s have more of this pissing debate over a word, shall we? You didn’t understand me, I understood you perfectly well. Left-brain, right-brain. You are left, I am right. I also use sarcasm often and in public forums.

[Rollerderby]

And to you, Yggdrasil… I am totally not sure what I would say. I’ve said certain things to him. We talk, and I pointed out to him how he says he should do something a lot. I asked him why he would always say he should do something but often says it as if there is no way it will ever happen. Shoulds, coulds, somedays, pipe dreams… turned something around on him a bit. It’s new. I guess I’m looking for a way to kind of lead a horse to water and making the water look tasty enough that he’ll want to drink it and I won’t have to force him… you know what I mean?

[IndiReloaded]

Point A: Derrida is talking about how words do not have concrete definitions. Words are a bit more gray than black and white. Has it ever occurred to you that not every person perceives colors in the same way as you do? That maybe your blue is someone else’s yellow? Of course I am speaking in the generalized ‘you’ tense, not the specifically ‘you’ as ‘indiereloaded’. Words are similar to colors. Read the page if your curious about where I am getting this idea from. It’s all in the link.

Point B: Point A is where I derive the logic from this idea from. Because language is imperfect, non-verbals make-up a lot of communication. Thus, my perception of your tone of voice that is conveyed in your posts strike me as kind of snippy, where in fact because I can’t see you and how you are meaning to inflect your words, I could be completely mis-reading it. Thus, I am careful with my words in order to express myself. I believe your real problem here is how carefully you are reading my posts, and taking in the understanding. Perhaps you perceive I am insulting your intelligence. This is not the case. But, I highly doubt you have studied everything on the planet, and are the most omnipotently enlightened being in the world, let alone on love forum. I think you make interesting points in your arguments, but sometimes you fail to see other sides of arguments. I use ‘arguments’ loosely because an argument for some includes shouting and not listening. I use the word more in the way of expressing ‘debate’.

See how language is confusing? I was merely commenting on this. I believe you took offense. Your choice to dismiss my point saying you don’t understand is simply acknowledging that you are ignorant to this knowledge. But, let’s have more of this pissing debate over a word, shall we? You didn’t understand me, I understood you perfectly well. Left-brain, right-brain. You are left, I am right. I also use sarcasm often and in public forums.

I'm not ignorant of it. I'm dismissive of it. I've evaluated it and have decided what you say, as far as improving communication lacks merit. Big difference.

Look doll, you are barking up the wrong tree here. This deconstructionist/postmodernism crap is just that. As far as explaining the world goes, at least. I allow it as an amusing intellectual exercise w/a large pint in the pub after a hard week of solid, productive thinking, but that’s about it.

Unfortunately, you don’t seem to realize that a scientist already did the endgame experiment on a bunch of these postmodernist flakes. And they were found wanting. I was finishing grad school when Alan Sokal’s brilliant article got published. It was full of important sounding bunk and the idiots at Social Text actually published it. (Oooooh, lookie! A guy who actually understands math! Wow, and 8-syllable words… he must be saying something important!) . He published shortly afterwards that he wrote the article as a deliberate hoax to expose these pseudo philosophers for the charlatans they really were.

You mention that science isn't truth. Well, again, you would need to define "truth", which you did not. But scientific facts are objective realities. Not constructs arising from our imagination, which is the gibberish you are spouting. Scientific facts can be tested & they allow us to make pretty good predictions about our world. If you truly believe that science isn’t “truth”, then I would encourage you to step out in front of a car moving at velocity. I’m pretty sure the transfer of momentum will feel pretty “true” to you. But, if not, please PM me. We’d have to repeat the experiment a few times, of course, but if we could document your fuzzy truth then I’d be delighted to write the paper that would give us both a Nobel Prize.

So, back to the specific topic: Definitions in language exist to improve communication and reduce incorrect interpretation. Certainly, you are free to deviate from standard accepted definitions & come up with your own, but then the onus is on you to explain yourself if you want the receiver of your communication to understand you. Just like a how mathematician (or physicist) very carefully defines terms when solving problems, especially if it involves any new math. You failed to properly define your reinterpretation of a standard word, and muddied the communication waters. This is in direct contradiction of your claim to value "clarity". This is the crux of the issue.

Here endeth the lesson. And no worries about my intellect. I am not in the slightest insecure about it. You seem to require this crucial lesson, I am an educator, there you go. Now. Back to telling us about your dates, doll.

[Rollerderby]

[url]http://www.loveforum.net/off-topic-discussion/30354-indie-rose-any-other-name.html[/url] <---- here you go, new thread since you want to get back to talking about my love life. :-)

[Yggdrasil]

And to you, Yggdrasil… I am totally not sure what I would say. I’ve said certain things to him. We talk, and I pointed out to him how he says he should do something a lot. I asked him why he would always say he should do something but often says it as if there is no way it will ever happen. Shoulds, coulds, somedays, pipe dreams… turned something around on him a bit. It’s new. I guess I’m looking for a way to kind of lead a horse to water and making the water look tasty enough that he’ll want to drink it and I won’t have to force him… you know what I mean?

Hmmm... 'I would love it if you could show more initiative' ? Should be a good conversation opener in my opinion.

Try not to control him, but let him know what you want, or need, in a relation. If he's not able to live up to that, all I can suggest is to look for a more compatible partner or to settle for the acceptance that not everyone is alike.

[Rollerderby]

Yeah no, I am not a controlling person. I don't want a relationship like that.

But I wanted to post here to say that Better Boy #1 asked me out yesterday when we were hanging out, and I said yes. I then freaked out a bit by saying that he usually finds reasons to rejects people, but that he likes me so much he hasn't found anything. I took it weirdly, and was like, well no one's perfect, and while we know each other, we aren't exactly under each other's skin. After talking about it a little bit, he was like, no that was not what I meant, you are not on a pedestal, but I see how that came across. I think he felt badly for making me feel weird. I think I'm just overly cautious sometimes and can get kind of nervous in the beginning. I had two really short, really explosive relationships where the guy was "falling in love with me" one minute, and trying to control me the next. I got out with my life and my sanity in tact (I think) but I guess I'm just wary? We had a laugh about it after the fact though, so yeah.

[Illusional]

LOL what?? Do you have enough words to explain how you came to this conclusion?

when it comes to dating dumb people, i need no explanation.l

raverboy

[shackinguplife]

If you're the one walking all over him, then maybe you should change your behavior first. Maybe that's the problem (no offense). But if he's a doormat with everyone, then talk to him about it.

[Yggdrasil]

I think I'm just overly cautious sometimes and can get kind of nervous in the beginning. I had two really short, really explosive relationships where the guy was "falling in love with me" one minute, and trying to control me the next. I got out with my life and my sanity in tact (I think) but I guess I'm just wary? We had a laugh about it after the fact though, so yeah.

You're strange haha.

I think you're simply on your toes and have learned from previous relations to be cautious. That's not a bad thing in itself, just make sure you're not missing out on all the fun because of it.

Relax.

[Mish]

But I wanted to post here to say that Better Boy #1 asked me out yesterday when we were hanging out, and I said yes. I then freaked out a bit by saying that he usually finds reasons to rejects people, but that he likes me so much he hasn't found anything. I took it weirdly, and was like, well no one's perfect

That's like five assumptions all in one.

[Rollerderby]

That's like five assumptions all in one.

on who's part?