Is the grass ever greener on the other side?
  • Shamshir
    855
    Let's say you know the grass is greener on the other side.
    How do you know? You would have to have seen it.
    Retort: I don't need to know, I'm just guessing.
    Even to guess, you'd have to have visualised, which is to say seen, the image of a greener grass on the other side, to have it as an option.
    Otherwise, if you haven't seen it, 'greener grass' turns blank.

    Now, you know the grass is greener on the other side, so you go to the other side.
    Is the grass still greener on the other side?
    It might be, it might be not.
    What has changed, if it is no longer greener on the other side? Your view.
    Not so much as where you're standing, but how you view 'where you're standing' as.

    Let's replace, for a moment, the greener grass with the horizon.
    The horizon is on the other side. You walk to it. You reach it. It's still in sight.
    It's still in sight, so it's still on the other side.

    But if what's in sight is always on the other side, how can the grass not be greener on the other side?
    By replacing 'in sight' with 'insight' and 'inside'.
    You don't look for something, and suddenly you don't need to find it. It's in place.
    The short term would be 'contentment'.

    Applying the aforementioned, I deem that the object itself is not representative of a quality, but rather has qualities applied to it; the way you lather something with paint.
    A thing is not good, bad, strong, weak, crooked, straight - but viewed as these; and what these are, are just lenses through which one sees.
    Shamshir Options
  • Artemis
    1.9k
    Applying the aforementioned, I deem that the object itself is not representative of a quality, but rather has qualities applied to it; the way you lather something with paint.
    A thing is not good, bad, strong, weak, crooked, straight - but viewed as these; and what these are, are just lenses through which one sees.     — Shamshir

    You're jumbling up different kinds of qualities, though.
    There are descriptive qualities like round, 5 feet tall, 7 pounds heavy, etc. that are inherent to the object, and I may or may not be able to perceive this quality about the object, but it is nevertheless a quality of the object.

    Then there are more evaluative qualities like good, bad, nice, mean etc that are a judgment call according to the perceivers values and perspective.

    Things like green, strong, hot, etc. are somewhat of a mix between the two. For example, a glass of water has a specific temperature, say 95 degrees, but deciding whether it is hot, cold, or lukewarm is relative to the circumstances of the perceiver. If I just had my hand in icewater, 95 degrees will feel very warm.
    Artemis Options
  • Shamshir
    855
    You're jumbling up different kinds of qualities, though.
    There are descriptive qualities like round, 5 feet tall, 7 pounds heavy, etc. that are inherent to the object, and I may or may not be able to perceive this quality about the object, but it is nevertheless a quality of the object.     — NKBJ
    It's not an inherent quality of the object. It doesn't have to be round, big or smooth.
    You say round in comparison with something thought of as flat.
    You say big in comparison with something thought to be small.
    You say smooth in comparison with something thought to be rough.

    It's an applied quality that comes from comparison.
    An object doesn't need a description and it doesn't have one; it is given one, in an attempt to convey something.
    Shamshir Options
  • Artemis
    1.9k
    ↪Shamshir


    Although we only have a concept of "roundness" due to the existence of not-round things, in itself the curve of the surface is a quality of the object.
    Artemis Options
  • Shamshir
    855
    Although we only have a concept of "roundness" due to the existence of not-round things — NKBJ
    Not necessarily. Round and not-round can be, without being applied to anything; making us oblivious to them, but not destroying them.
    in itself the curve of the surface is a quality of the object. — NKBJ
    Again, not necessarily; for the same reasons.
    The curve and the surface themselves being objects, mind you.

    That said - every object itself may be viewed as a quality; which makes a composite object, a composite of qualities. In that sense, sure, they have qualities. Yet the composite object is different from the objects that compose it - detaching it from all those qualities; making it again without quality, but being a quality itself.

    Going along with that, the following:
    Applying the aforementioned, I deem that the object itself is not representative of a quality, but rather has qualities applied to it; the way you lather something with paint.
    A thing is not good, bad, strong, weak, crooked, straight - but viewed as these; and what these are, are just lenses through which one sees.     — Shamshir
    May be taken as a half truth.

    Specifically this:
    A thing is not good — Shamshir
    When the thing is goodness itself, again it is not good per se - but it is goodness, which is good.
    In layman's terms: It doesn't have to be good, so it isn't. It can be good, so it is.
    Shamshir Options
  • Artemis
    1.9k
    n layman's terms: It doesn't have to be good, so it isn't. It can be good, so it is. — Shamshir

    You've stopping making sense here.
    Artemis Options
  • Shamshir
    855
    You've stopping making sense here. — NKBJ
    Then, I propose we cease this yapping.

    My advice to you would be: Look it over some more, mull it over some more and then go with what comes - whatever it may be.
    Shamshir Options
  • Artemis
    1.9k
    My advice to you would be: Look it over some more, mull it over some more and then go with what comes - whatever it may be. — Shamshir

    Why is it that all y'all mystical, relativist types want to dispense (unrequested) advice to others? It's like you all have this drive to be the "sage" and have the rest of us sit come sit at your knees as your lowly disciples. It's hilarious really how serious you take yourself, despite that it contradicts what you proclaim your worldview to be.
    Artemis Options
  • Shamshir
    855
    ↪NKBJ

    The only thing I did, was write a few words to you.
    I did not request that you consider them.
    If they are not to your liking, pay them no heed.
    Shamshir Options
  • Artemis
    1.9k
    If they are not to your liking, pay them no heed. — Shamshir

    Done.
    Artemis Options
  • Shawn
    13.3k
    The short term would be 'contentment'. — Shamshir

    Yes, contentment is important. Otherwise, we would like in chronic dissatisfaction. But, to boil down the issue, I would have to say, who cares? The grass may or may not be greener than your underwatered lawn.
    Shawn Options
  • Shamshir
    855
    I would have to say, who cares? The grass may or may not be greener than your underwatered lawn. — Wallows
    More or less.

    What does it matter if the grass is greener on the other side, if you're on this side?
    I guess it matters in a way, helping you take note of your underwatered lawn.
    Shamshir Options
  • Shawn
    13.3k
    What does it matter if the grass is greener on the other side, if you're on this side? — Shamshir

    Love thy grass as you would your neighbors green one.

    Or just get some AstroTurf and stop worrying.
    Shawn Options
  • I like sushi
    4.9k
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JljGYrdDCek
    I like sushi Options
  • Shamshir
    855
    ↪I like sushi

    But if the grass is always greener on the other side...
    Where's Switzerland if you're already in Switzerland?
    Shamshir Options
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment