This is really not off the top of my head...
A friend put the following philosophical question:
Assume an intelligent, perceptive individual who follows his or her own path. Occasionally that path will coincide with another person; love ensues, etc. Does the mutual challenging, prodding of each other then necessitate that the trajectories diverge too far from that point where the crossing - that deep understanding - occured?
"Trajectories" is such a nice word to describe out life paths - at least it's 3D, and implies time as well. I also like trajectories because I'm the geek who once wrote a numerical integrator in Excel to determine the path, and thus the muzzle velocity, of an air-cannon-launched pumpkin. On one hand, there's the spark that comes from crossing close paths in the poly-dimensional space of our lives. In an internal-cumbustion engine, the spark is what makes it all irreversible - makes the entropy accrete at a rate that can't be reversed. That entropy (crap, I'm mixing meta-metaphors) is what drives us, is it not? And as for whether, once crossed, the paths must necessarily diverge; they must, but this actually can be an advantage. When I'm performing my own intellectual repairs, so to speak, I've found that I get too self-absorbed unless i have a sounding board - someone to help me realize that I'm on the wrong path. Who better to make that objective determination than someone with whom you've gained rapport, inwhom you trust? If the paths diverge to the point that it "no longer works", i.e. either the advice is a bit too objective or there's no longer enough rapport to grant weight to the opinion, then the relationship is no longer useful in a utilitarian view; but i don't think that the paths must necessarily diverge so much. After all, (getting back to the metaphor) those trajectories *are* still with respect to the same ground, in the same atmosphere. I see my neighbors as an example. They're both social workers, over fifty, but she's an artist, and he's an artisan, if you get my meaning. Would that i may find something of that same sort of willing, not willful, love.
Assume an intelligent, perceptive individual who follows his or her own path. Occasionally that path will coincide with another person; love ensues, etc. Does the mutual challenging, prodding of each other then necessitate that the trajectories diverge too far from that point where the crossing - that deep understanding - occured?
"Trajectories" is such a nice word to describe out life paths - at least it's 3D, and implies time as well. I also like trajectories because I'm the geek who once wrote a numerical integrator in Excel to determine the path, and thus the muzzle velocity, of an air-cannon-launched pumpkin. On one hand, there's the spark that comes from crossing close paths in the poly-dimensional space of our lives. In an internal-cumbustion engine, the spark is what makes it all irreversible - makes the entropy accrete at a rate that can't be reversed. That entropy (crap, I'm mixing meta-metaphors) is what drives us, is it not? And as for whether, once crossed, the paths must necessarily diverge; they must, but this actually can be an advantage. When I'm performing my own intellectual repairs, so to speak, I've found that I get too self-absorbed unless i have a sounding board - someone to help me realize that I'm on the wrong path. Who better to make that objective determination than someone with whom you've gained rapport, inwhom you trust? If the paths diverge to the point that it "no longer works", i.e. either the advice is a bit too objective or there's no longer enough rapport to grant weight to the opinion, then the relationship is no longer useful in a utilitarian view; but i don't think that the paths must necessarily diverge so much. After all, (getting back to the metaphor) those trajectories *are* still with respect to the same ground, in the same atmosphere. I see my neighbors as an example. They're both social workers, over fifty, but she's an artist, and he's an artisan, if you get my meaning. Would that i may find something of that same sort of willing, not willful, love.
2 Comments:
Or put more simply: an object at rest tends to stay at rest; an object in motion that appears to be moving forward will be stopped dead in its tracks by Republicans, who will in turn, turn the "object" into an "objection" an set any notion of progress back another fifty years.
Unless of course you're commenting on the intersect-parabola trajectory of my penis and another woman's mouth, which only exists in theoretical space-time that Stephen Hawking can explain... cause it sure ain't happenin' on THIS plane of existence.
uh, what the fuck?
Post a Comment
<< Home