Gestalt

[diis]

Court and I got into a little tiff tonight about something stupid tonight, and it got me thinking about a tricky little logic problem.

Background
I bought a copy of A Long Way Gone after watching an interview with the author on The Daily Show with my wonderful girlfriend a few months back. Both of us expressed an interest in reading the book, so

Comments

[glennantm]

Here is another question entirely. Is it the book...or the information IN the book. This would be, I suppose, where Gestalt comes into play. Is the worth of the pages, binding, ink, equal to the value of the information formed from those materials? I wouldn't imagine so.

I got your rambling right HERE!

[greck]

And this, dear readers, is why you never go in halfsies on home furnishings with a roommate.

The way I resolve this situation (which requires normalized relations) is: Anything purchased by the plurality that is not easily divisible* remains in the domicile (the corporeal representation of the plurality) when one party moves out, unless said party "buys out" the other party's interest, or unless a pre- or at-purchase time arrangement was made as to the disposition of the item in perpetuity.

If the parties do not have normalized relations, then obviously all bets are off. May I recommend amateur burgling?

* Cheerios are easily divisible; a couch is not. A sectional sofa may be.

[defunct_world]

Hah

[greck]

"...or if I want to lend it out do I have to ask him first or if I have a yard sale after I read it will he be upset if I sold it without asking."

HA~! IT WAS A TRICK QUESTION!

The answer is he'd be upset either way, either because you sold his belongings, or because you sold something he bought *just for you*.

:-P

[defunct_world]

Mmmmmmm... you may be right about that one!

[defunct_world]

I still don't think you know why I was debating with you ;) It wasn't about me or you versus us. It was about your lack of clarity and the fact that you said it was mine and then he said it was yours contradicting yourself and leading me to believe that you might have been simply trying to originally cover up the fact that you didn't remember how much I wanted that book. I was wrong about the reason for the contradiction, but I was right about the clarity.