Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Akura]

One of my dogs(the mother) has to have a leg amputated. Three-legged dogs are always sad.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Dogs are more fortunate than most species when it comes to losing a limb. Their vascular system is fairly compatable with amputation, and most dogs will eventually adapt to having three legs.

[Bauglir]

I may be reading this incorrectly, but did iceball3 just tell Bohandas that he was restricting someone from being a female because they were born as male? There's surgery for that, but generally someone who is male is not female.

You seem to not understand the difference between sex and gender.

You, too, are recommended to read the essays I recommended upthread.

If it helps, here's a link to one, but Gender Trouble seems to be a book, although one that isn't hard to get hold of. Assuming those're the ones Vector meant (if not, oops)

[scriver]

I guess that's just a case of YMMV. I tend to see the upside of it (surprisingly, given that I'm a notorious pessimist) -- I'm not single-handedly responsible for the welfare of the world. No mistake I make is going to cause that much damage in the grand scheme of things. I have only a handful of people who truly depend on me, and I'm doing alright by them. And even if I get hit by a bus today, they'll find a way to survive. That doesn't make me feel worthless or insignficant, it makes me feel relieved.

It's akin to walking through the woods knowing that you don't have anywhere you really need to go. You can enjoy the walk, and "waste" your time with whatever trivial thing catches your interest. From a certain point of view, you can say that such a walk is pointless, if you have no destination. From another point of view, you can say that such a walk is a rare treasure.

I wish I had a better way to explain it.

No, it's a case of you not thinking big enough.
That is not the "big" picture, that's "our" picture. It is not your relationship to the universe, it's your relationship to other people and the world. The "level of picture" I prefer to stay on in contrast to the "bigger picture".

I'm also sorry for all the pictures.

[Vector]

If it helps, here's a link to one, but Gender Trouble seems to be a book, although one that isn't hard to get hold of. Assuming those're the ones Vector meant (if not, oops)

Huh, weird.  Same name, different author--I recommend the one by Gayle Rubin.

There is a PDF to Gender Trouble floating around and very easy to find on the internet.  I've only read the first chapter, though, so if you're interested then that's more than enough.

[KaelGotDwarves]

On the large scale of things, everything is petty bullshit - every thing is worthless and every action meaningless. Stuff, be it people, actions, nature, emotions ot whatever only matter on our scale.

That is why I do not ponder our relation to the "universe", because if I were to follow where those thoughts led, there would be no reason to care for anything. Indifference. And I do not very much care for being indifferent to all the things that matter in our picture.

Seeing the proper relationship of "self" and the universe yields perspective and wisdom into the nature of reality and how all actions and causes have perceived meanings and long-reaching and holistic effects our minds can only begin to comprehend- it definitely doesn't lead to indifference. Indifference is a cop out of sorts. Think about it a bit.

I remarked that I saw that my petty troubles with myself and the world were bullshit, not that everything is bullshit and worthless

And tl;dr quick-and-dirty explanation for those on gender...

Gender of an individual is now widely regarded academically as the mental aspect.
Sex of the individual is the physical aspect.

The two are both distinctly different and yet interconnected, as physical/mental health and sexual preference are. Also they are not black and white as most would like to think...

[ILikePie]

Maccabi vs Panathinaikos :-(((((((((

[JoshuaFH]

What I mean is, I feel constrained and imprisoned, not because of any outside force, but because I am compelled to be a quiet, logical, tactful human being through years and years of mentally torturous self-flagellation, to train myself to never err from that path that guarantees tangible, quantifiable success. Any emotion I might have, no matter how strong, is kept safely tucked away so that it will never interfere with my life choices.

...

Often, I feel as though I am a demon, living as an evil person on the inside, but acting as an altruist on the outside. I am often furiously angry with my fellow man, but not an ounce of this anger shows. When confronted with a problem, I just want to lash out violently at it's perpetrator, as though I were a beastly thug, but my reasoning forces me to act tactfully, as though I were a diplomat. Most people would consider this a positive trait, but I feel that I'm just mentally gaming my fellow human beings into approving of me, of thinking of me as a nice person they can rely on, when in reality I think so poorly of them and would like to tell them what I really thought.

I honesty can't relate to the fixation on material or stability, since I've never had any real desire for anything but satisfaction.  Stability or success is just a means to have free time to pursue other things I want.  But I can relate to the rest of your attitude.  My fear has never been material loss, but failure itself.  I turn around from starting relationships because I don't want to go through being shot down; I didn't give up on college, whatever other ideas I might have had, because I didn't want to disappoint my family or lose the opportunity to finish; I turn down long-shot adventures to get a job in a far off place, because I don't want to be stranded there and hate where I am, even though I already hate where I am.

And it extends into my anger management.  People who've ridden in my car know just how angry I can get at people I don't know when I can yell at them without them knowing it, and those people who've ridden with me don't know the half of it, when I'm alone.  But I never lash out, I never get in anyone's face.  I get snarky and a little bitter at times, but I always try to check myself, because I know from experience that passive-aggressive douchebaggery just makes things worse.  I sometimes find myself thinking I should actually confront someone, not violently of course but just exert some verbal presence and make clear what's ticking me off.  Some of it's just that I want to prove to myself that I've got some spine, and some of it's because I think sometimes people need to be confronted so they'll stop doing something they have to know is angering me.

But I never do it, because I don't want to cause a scene or be known as an angry, confrontational person.  Indeed, I don't want to be an angry confrontational person, even if I'm the only one who knows it.  The irony is, people who hang around me even at my most controlled and managed still get the sense that I could snap at any minute (which I never have), and that really does worry me.  I've gotten a lot better about just not thinking about stuff.  But there's still anger, and jealousy, and all the other natural human foibles.  Sometimes I wonder if everybody has the same kind of stuff bottled up inside, or if I really am worse than other people.  I don't think it matters, but it's on my mind.

I really do appreciate your input Aqizzar, you have a talent that garners quite a lot of admiration: the ability to be frank and sincere. It's probably really noticeable, but the dry, erudite way I write my posts in the sad thread is meant to obscure the truth on the actual facts of my life. I am compelled to be disingenuous, as there's something I left out in my little diatribe: what happens when I try going against my inner reasoning. I worry. I fret. I am filled with anxiety and consternation at all hours of the day.

I have no real fixation on stability or material wealth, it's just my inner reasoning that mandates it. I reason that if I have these things, I can safely venture out and THEN obtain the things I actually want. In my relationship example, the issue at hand is that I can't approach an attractive woman, as it's a lose/lose situation in my head. If she turns me down, then my pride is hurt, but generally nothing is lost. If she reciprocates, then I'm instantly thrown into my psychological prison of turmoil and strife:

An uncertain element has entered my life, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?! I suppose that if I want to get to know her better, speaking with her is imperative (HOLY SHIT JOSH! You're charismatic, but there's actually very few people you enjoy talking with. The odds of her being one is almost nil), which will consume time (JOSH! Love is fleeting! You could be spending that time on more productive things!) and possibly money (This very finite income of yours mustn't be used trivially Josh!) and depending on how physically attractive she is, there WILL be all manner of other men competing for her (You don't want to deal with that, eh Josh? It's an excessive waste of effort and emotion) and so my life is filled to the brim with worry and consternation.

It's not her herself that shakes my life apart, it's me pulling my hair out over the actual logistics. If I can fix the time and money part, this is a problem I can tackle. It's overwhelming at the moment though, no matter if I feel lonely or not.

The speaking with her, and the competing men part, though, can be contributed to my wicked, uncaring heart, and I'm not quite sure how to fix that. I can understand if people think that I'm shallow, to think of women in this way, but I've tossed and kneaded the idea in my mind for quite a long time, and I've come to the conclusion that this is just the way I am. So there's no need to confront me about it.

Also, as the beginning of this post asserts, I am compelled to be disingenuous when speaking about my own life. Please understand that this is as honest and raw as I can be, even though my posts are riddled with half-lies, half-truths, lies through omission, flat-out lies, and statistics. Please understand.

[scriver]

Seeing the proper relationship of "self" and the universe yields perspective and wisdom into the nature of reality and how all actions and causes have perceived meanings and long-reaching and holistic effects our minds can only begin to comprehend- it definitely doesn't lead to indifference. Indifference is a cop out of sorts. Think about it a bit.

I remarked that I saw that my petty troubles with myself and the world were bullshit, not that everything is bullshit and worthless

That's how I see things as well. I did not mean to imply that thinking about our place in the grander scale would make you indifferent (after all, it did not make me such). But actively thinking about the meaninglessness of everything makes me -surprise surprise - not care about anything and feel that everything is meaningless. And I don't want to feel that way, because to us, in the smaller picture, things have meaning.

I was not arguing with you, I was simply stating how I felt.

Think about it a bit.

I resent the implication that I have not.

[Willfor]

For once, I'm not actually replying to anyone, but actually using this thread as it was meant to be used. Amazing.

Anyway, I just got finished reading Dragon Keeper today. I started reading it while waiting for a certain event that never quite came to fruition, and then... well, I just kept reading it. Robin Hobb has a peculiar effect on me when I read her stuff: I tend to gloss over any problems, and thoroughly enjoy myself when I read her books. All of her characters are so human, or rather, all of her characters are so lifelike. (I wouldn't describe the animals she writes as humans, they are remarkably animal-like in their psychology) Some are more sympathetic than others, but all of her characters have moments where you want to reach through the pages, and shake them by the necks because they refuse to be anything but people. I know some people would have problems with this style of writing, but I very much enjoy seeing such a great reflection of reality in the midst of a fantastic world. I love to hate it, and this is why I read fantasy. Robin Hobb, and authors like her, are why I read fantasy.

It would stand to reason then, that I would like to write like her. I would. Actually, being able to write so deeply from another's perspective is a goal of mine. I want to be able to write from the brain of a person who I believe is the deepest scum in the universe, and not make it into a caricature. I want to be able to write their arguments as if they were giving their very best, and the arguments that can't be easily dismissed. Those arguments that I ignore because I know there is truth to them but I don't want to admit that there is any part of them that could be right.

This is not what makes me sad. I can do this already. In fact, I can so thoroughly take on other perspectives that I can lose my own for some time. It's remarkably freeing, and a wonderfully emotional experience that I think everyone should try to experience at least once in their lives. Deep roleplaying is an experience to be savoured. It can also be very painful at times, but I tend to have some emotionally masochistic tendencies.

No, what makes me sad is the OTHER part of my writing. When I'm writing, I have to pull myself out of my great emotional roilings to describe the scene around the characters. My description of actions is well practiced. My description of appearances is somewhat stunted, but I can do some insightful things when the mood hits me. My description of SURROUNDINGS is abysmal. And if I want them to NOT be abysmal, I have to pull myself out of what I really want to be writing about. If you stop and really try to look for places in my writing, you will see that they are often hardly described at all, and if they are, they are only briefly mentioned before I move onto the things that are easier for me to write about. Sometimes, sometimes, I get a narrative voice that can describe the surroundings well enough that it's passable. I've only written once of surroundings that I am proud of. I've been writing seriously enough for five years (and I've enjoyed writing for well over thirteen years), and this is still a problem for me.

And then I look at how Robin Hobb writes, and I look at how all the other authors I enjoy write... And I don't even compare. Scene setting is important, and I am missing a large part of what can enhance it.

I AM going to try practicing it more, as that's all I can do. This is just my observation that it is something that has made me sad today.

[KaelGotDwarves]

I resent the implication that I have not.

To have no passions is not to be amongst the living.

Take it as you will.

[scriver]

I resent the implication that I have not.

To have no passions is not to be amongst the living.

Take it as you will.

That's a nice saying, if still untrue. I fail to see how it applies to anything I said, though, especially the qoute. Unless you got the impression that I actually feel indifferent to everything, in which case you got the wrong impression. That is not what I meant to say.

[Cthulhu]

I am also bad at describing scenery when there are other things to be writing about.  I put down just enough to set the scene (Sometimes not even that, I've caught myself a few times completely leaving out any description of the surroundings at all), and that's it.  Sometimes I'm better about it but usually not.

[KaelGotDwarves]

That's a nice saying, if still untrue. I fail to see how it applies to anything I said, though, especially the qoute. Unless you got the impression that I actually feel indifferent to everything, in which case you got the wrong impression. That is not what I meant to say.

That is why I do not ponder our relation to the "universe", because if I were to follow where those thoughts led, there would be no reason to care for anything. Indifference. And I do not very much care for being indifferent to all the things that matter in our picture.

I merely pointed out that 'indifference' in it's various forms and levels is a cop out, because it's the result of not fully understanding, and not fully living. You can feel the saying is untrue, but the statement is that what separates the living from the non-living are various forms of passion. Do you disagree with the thought that to have passion about nothing is to be semantically dead?

[SalmonGod]

Team up with a comic artist.  Let them take care of the scenery for you?