(Untitled)

[myself0510]

This is in reply of Ashley's Definition post.

First thing to say: Ashley is someone I can be happy with and I am happy with him.

I said this from the beginning: I don't want him to change and I shall never ask this of him (or of anyone else). This is for serveral reasons (given in a random order):

1. It is not practical to expect someone to change and

Comments

[allsorts46]

There are some interesting points here. I know you don't really understand why I want to respond to this publicly, but it's because I like this - being able to hold an intellectual discussion about any subject, in the turn-based manner that a medium such as LJ provides. I know we could do the same thing by email, but it started here so it may as well continue. Also, unless you are actually against it, I like it being public. I enjoy reading things like this, so maybe others do to.

I mainly want to respond to your seven points at the end, but before that, a piece from the top half regarding your definition of 'change'. I think that the meaning you describe fits well with the literal definition of the word, but I don't think permenant, life-altering change is the only kind worth considering here. In your example about going to the sea, I think the important part is "when you have no strong reason against that". If the person has no disposition regarding going to the sea, then no change occurs whether they go or not. However if that person would, in normal circumsances, avoid going to the sea, if you ask them to and they accept, they have created an exception, which is a change in the conditions in which they will go to the sea. Bringing time into it only defines whether it was a temporary or permentant change - every change is still a change.

So, to your points:

1. You're right, calling it normality wasn't very accurate. There's no way we'll know what living together is like until we've actually done it. What I meant was that I've seen enough variation to get a balanced idea of what we're like, whereas before I'd seen only a very limited number of 'situations'. I haven't seen everything, but I can use what I do know to make reasonable assumptions.

2. I think that anything which removes the need for a solution can also be considered a solution. The problem with your example is that there are only two possible answers, true or false, and this is very rarely the case in the real world. If we were to have some argument about whether to paint something red or blue, and someone else comes along and paints it green (and somehow renders it unable to be changed again), then a problem has been solved. The problem of both of us disliking the colour might still be there, but it's no longer an issue - the problem of us not being able to agree is gone, because it has no reason to exist any longer.

3. I disagree that being considerate and always being willing to compromise and make exceptions are the same thing. Being considerate is about considering the effect your choices and actions might have on others, and having them in mind when making decisions. It doesn't mean having to alter your behaviour. We all have things we wouldn't do, and we're not wrong to stand by those things just because it might displease someone. You might call the smoker inconsiderate if they choose to ignore their friends and smoke around them, but unless he or she is somehow forcing it upon them, he or she should not be at all obligated not to smoke. It's then the friend's decision as to how they react - tolerate it or not - but the smoker is not wrong.

4. There's no real response to this, other than that I never am surprised when people come to wrong conclusions about me. In fact, I've learned to expect it. Generally I don't care, because the few people who are close to me do understand, and those who don't, don't get close - no real loss to me. I consider this in the same group as things like "I'll be your friend if...".

5. You seem to be assuming that 'trying to make it work' consists of making changes, but that isn't necessarily true. It's just as much learning what 'working' actually means. I've taken the stance of expecting neither one of us to change, and so what's important, in my mind, is understanding. Even if I'm trying to tell you I won't do something, I want to give you an explanation, not an excuse.

6. I'm glad you like it, though it needs some work. I've never ready any of Asimov's books, but I have wanted to.

7. I'm sure I won't regret it :P Of course I'd love to help you move back in. Maybe I can stay a bit longer this time, since it has been a while...

[myself0510]

Let's make this public if you prefer it this way. As I previously told you, I have nothing against it.

You are right about the fact that changes can be temporary too, but I think that this type of change should be subject to further talk among those involved. Continuing the sea-side example, let's take persons A and B that form a couple. We know that B dislikes going to the sea-side, but that on a particular occasion person A wants to go. If A wants to go only because he/she likes it, but not going causes no real harm (just an ":-< I wish I were on the beach now..."), and person B has sun allergies for example, so going would cause harm (at least an annoying itch)then they should not go. However, even if we keep B's reason, but we say that A has to go there for a more serious reason, that requires B to be there (for moral suppost at least), then I wouldn't blame A for feeling dissapointed if B refuses to go. It's true that B should not be forced to go, however he/she would be at least insensitive not to.

This is all I have to say on the change issue; more, later