reification and negation

[ilumairen]

Lighten up yourself.

 

:laughing:

[Karl]

People change whether they recognize it or not. There are levels (infinite levels?) of recognition of said changes and with these levels of recognition come levels of influence over these changes. For instance, I can choose to cut my hair or let it grow. I can choose to control my weight by changing my behavior (such as simply eating a little less and moving a little more). I can affect my health to varying degrees by physical and mental changes in behavior. I can gradually change the way I feel about situations in a conscious manner and affect the way my body's chemistry and physiology are effected by those stimuli. You'll notice that the levels become more subtle and less superficial as I go. The process continues beyond those examples.EDIT: Added a parenthetical clarification

 

Yes, I would agree with that.

[ilumairen]

I think like attracts like is a rather dull approximation - or perhaps even better it is true but does not always result in something good or creative.  I have found, experientially for instance that couples who grow to act and look alike have rather bland relationships based on similarities - 'we like the same things' etc.  There is a complementarity which goes beyond this which actually might look quite problematic on the surface but is creative.  So there are people who find additional qualities such as strength or joy which go beyond likeness.  Its possible to see these good combinations if you look for them.  This is neithr reification or negation but something else.

 

Reification and negation comes into play when we start defining ourselves and others imo. But I'm running out of time for today...

[Karl]

I interact on a regular basis with people whose views on life, life experience, and temperment are very different than my own, and so far I haven't found anyone quite as odd as myself, so I'd be quite lonely if I went looking for a bird with matching feathers. Then again, I need some solitude to maintain balance.

 

 

 

 

As my father was fond of saying,'no shit sherlock'.

 

 

 

You misunderstood me which is my own fault for not being more clear that it's the manifestations of those specific attributes noted in my post that I found heart-warming. I thought the word 'it's' would suffice. My bad, but thank you for sharing a bit more about your everday life.

 

 

 

That's not quite completely true, or you wouldn't have painted the picture of your life that you did.

 

We are all 'odd'. I don't go looking for matches either, which is why I have only one friend in the world. However, if I want to have a bit of company to go motorcycling, then I don't go to a knitting club to find riders. I like solitude.

 

Well they take me as I am or not at all. I'm a loner and very self assured, I keep my own company most of the time. Funnily enough my wife is exactly the same- although she was always a lot more purposely introverted than I was, very strong willed and doesn't suffer fools-not just easily, but at all.

 

 

 

 

[liminal_luke]

 

I'm not a 'heart warming' sort of person-

You did once refer to yourself as "Sheriff Karl," which I found sort of heart warming.

[Karl]

You did once refer to yourself as "Sheriff Karl," which I found sort of heart warming.

 

Far less heart warming for anyone seeking to initiate force against others.

[liminal_luke]

Far less heart warming for anyone seeking to initiate force against others.

I suppose that´s true, although you seem to have a very different take about what "initiating force against others" means. At least different from me. After considerable conversation, I´m now convinced that I won´t be able to sway you to my point of view. That´s one thing I´ll bet we can agree on.

 

Anyway, I´m not much for philosophical debate really, so I´m going to stop trying.

[Karl]

I suppose that´s true, although you seem to have a very different take about what "initiating force against others" means. At least different from me. After considerable conversation, I´m now convinced that I won´t be able to sway you to my point of view. That´s one thing I´ll bet we can agree on.Anyway, I´m not much for philosophical debate really, so I´m going to stop trying.

 

Your view doesn't accord with that of many homosexuals either, including my own brother, or cousin :-)

Every ethical/moral debate is a philosophical debate.

[liminal_luke]

Your view doesn't accord with that of many homosexuals either, including my own brother, or cousin :-)

That´s not surprising. We´re a pretty varied lot.

[ilumairen]

Karl.. your posts are very foolish sometimes.

Edited January 28, 2016 by ilumairen

[Karl]

That´s not surprising. We´re a pretty varied lot.

 

We all are. They don't see their sexual preferences as necessitating others to accept their behaviour, just as I wouldn't expect equal treatment from a homosexual business owner.

 

Not that I believe there was really any homosexual descrimination once the state ended its idiotic anti-homosexual laws. Perhaps in the army and for homosexual couples wanting to get accommodation, but most businesses see a customer as a customer-those that have strong views shouldn't be in business and can easily be boycotted. Where I take exception is the gay action groups that are using the law to target anti-homosexual private businesses like the witch hunters of old.

[Karl]

Karl.. your posts are very foolish sometimes.

 

So are empty ad hominems.

[ilumairen]

So are empty ad hominems.

 

Please don't make this thread some rambling debate regarding people's sexual preferences or identifications.

[Karl]

Please don't make this thread some rambling debate regarding people's sexual preferences or identifications.

 

Just ask that I keep on topic. I'm fine with that.

[ilumairen]

Just ask that I keep on topic. I'm fine with that.

 

It really isn't about staying on topic. I've already stated there is very little that doesn't fit within the wide parameters set in this thread. It is that this discussion has already occurred in the off topic section of this forum in the what it means to be transgender thread. A rehashing of that could serve little to no purpose here.

[Karl]

It really isn't about staying on topic. I've already stated there is very little that doesn't fit within the wide parameters set in this thread. It is that this discussion has already occurred in the off topic section of this forum in the what it means to be transgender thread. A rehashing of that could serve little to no purpose here.

 

I'm saying that instead of calling me foolish and making what appears to be lightly barbed comments about not turning the thread into....xyz

All you need to ask is that I keep it on topic, you don't need to beat around the bush, nor throw out insults. It's your thread and I respect that. It's inevitable that topics will swing off at tangents and the core is forgotten in all the banter, it's not done deliberately, it's just how it goes. If you don't want the thread to go off in those direction then you have every right to prod it back, but please do so without the crap.

[ilumairen]

I'm saying that instead of calling me foolish and making what appears to be lightly barbed comments about not turning the thread into....xyz

All you need to ask is that I keep it on topic, you don't need to beat around the bush, nor throw out insults. It's your thread and I respect that. It's inevitable that topics will swing off at tangents and the core is forgotten in all the banter, it's not done deliberately, it's just how it goes. If you don't want the thread to go off in those direction then you have every right to prod it back, but please do so without the crap.

 

Karl, I did not call YOU foolish (that would be reification of you in my mind that would negate me seeing something other than foolishness in words you share). I did call SOME of your POSTS foolish. There is a distinction.

 

That is not beating around the bush. It was an attempt at politeness and civility. How much blunt would you like? Are you feeling masochistic today?

[Karl]

Karl, I did not call YOU foolish (that would be reification of you in my mind that would negate me seeing something other than foolishness in words you share). I did call SOME of your POSTS foolish. There is a distinction.

 

That is not beating around the bush. It was an attempt at politeness and civility. How much blunt would you like? Are you feeling masochistic today?

 

Please see previous post.

[ilumairen]

:meow:

 

Once I had a cat who was actually friendly with a gerbil. He never hurt him, but when the gerbil was in the little plastic ball that he loved running around in sometimes the cat would bat the ball with his paw.

 

 

[Karl]

I loved Thunderbirds and captain Scarlet when I was a kid-still do.