Those who have not done these things may not know how. How do we teach them "how". (Obviously, you invite them to meetings, you help them shovel their walk if they can't, you invite them to block parties--blah, blah, blah. But people who don't have this kind of capital don't necessarily know what to do with what is offered them. One has to pass it on, give what one has received. That's the difficult part to teach.) — Bitter Crank

Is it really a matter of teaching someone to get involved? Some people are just joiners, they get involved, they enjoy the social element of it all. I'm in my local Kiwanis, for example, but it's hard to call me the backbone of my community because I enjoy talking to the local bankers over a free sammich every other Tuesday and hearing some speaker tell me about goings on at the local children's hospital. My real contribution is that I raised a couple of kids who did well in school and local law enforcement doesn't know their names (and the Chief is in Kiwanis too, another added benefit should things go awry). Sure I pay my taxes, I cut my lawn after getting my warning from the HOA (and I'm the President there as well, so there's that perk should things go awry), and I sometime help plant trees down at the local plant the trees thing. All those details just make me a guy who likes to occupy his time in clubs and whatever, but I really harbor no illusions that my little contributions here and there do a tremendous amount. But, if my kids were hellions, that'd be another matter.

But wouldn't the problem be that the more social capital a community has, the less it will be needed to be distributed? And, wouldn't it be more likely that the more social capital I have, the more likely that I will live in a community where most possess social capital.

I live in the suburbs where the lawns are well manicured, unemployment is very low, education is high, families are intact, most are financially independent, and crime is low. There is much fat of the land I suppose, but not that many really need it. It would also be unusual for me not to migrate to a community that was pretty well functioning, as opposed to subjecting myself to a more struggling community.

And here's another problem: Communities support pales in comparison to family support, meaning the community, while well intentioned, will never get those less fortunate ones to the level of those who were graced by good circumstances. So, sure, being near good families is going to make things a bit better for those in bad families, but the real solution is to make good families.

I mean, are you suggesting here that women are intuitive, or are you suggesting that men are dumb? Your story has no correlation, in my opinion, to intuition at all, it is about rationality or the lack thereof. There is also a balance of probability here. More men tend to cheat, you would have to be one hell of a stupid girl to not figure out that he is doing shit behind your back, from changes in his behaviour and responses to you. It is all rational, your ability to interpret others. — TimeLine

You'll recall a prior post where I specifically stated I would prove men were stupider than women, so it should come as no surprise to you that I would remain on point.

Next, stop attacking my story. It was a good story, nice plot line, developed characters, and, if you'd have asked instead of launching into attack mode, you'd have known the setting, a picturesque town in the wine region of France. A wonderful place, but for the French.

Back on point, though. There is often rationality behind the intuition to explain it, else I'd be arguing that women were irrational impulsive messes, insisting upon judgments rooted in the blowing of the wind. But that's not what I'm arguing (at least I'm bright enough not to admit it here), but I'm saying the impulse precedes the rationality, and, while the impulse may be ultimately defensible rationally, it is not the basis. For that reason, when a woman says her judgment tells her X, all the rational defenses in the world hold no weight, not because the woman isn't rational (ahem, just clearing my throat), but because the intuition is immovable and rational defenses appear as lame excuses.

This is all to say that I am not arguing that intuition and rationality are diametrically opposed. If I were, then I would be saying women's intuition really is nothing more than women's irrationality. And if I said that, I'd have no one's hand to hold.

Jelly.

I Googled "The most beautiful pictures in the world" (https://www.google.com/search?q=the+most+beautiful+pictures+in+the+world&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_lJOyyrPaAhVnQt8KHb1WDRwQsAQIJg&biw=1366&bih=651) just to put an end to this discussion. You can see the results here.

It appears that the common elements are: (1) nature, (2) vivid colors, especially greens and purples, and (3) geometric designs. The colors and shapes seem to suggest some divine purpose. That's my take. Anyway, my goal is to create an algorithm that can generate beautiful images so that we can once and for all mechanize creativity and eliminate the final vestiges of humanity.

Oh and one of my God Son's is pursuing a degree in Fire Science and is working towards becoming a....wait for it.....a FIRE FIGHTER! — ArguingWAristotleTiff

He better be careful not to catch fire.

I smell like horse, am covered in dirt and super tired. But I am happy. :cool: — Lone Wolf

Alright, I've got this one. What smells like a horse, is covered in dirt, is super tired, and is happy?

Sounds like someone might be preggers with a centaur.

Anyway, never again. Hold my hand? — TimeLine

Fair enough, but are you saying that men don't have intuition? — TimeLine

Men's intuition is a mix of experience and rationality, but not just true intuition. It's something, but it's different. Like if you were talking to some dude, laughing, flipping your hair, licking your lips, holding your hips, gyrating , I might be like "wassup wid dat" and you'd be like "awww baby it ain't nothin but a chicken wang" and I'd be like "for realz?" and you'd be like "you know it's you and only you," and then I'd go bout my bidness like nothins up, and on the side, you'd be like hittin dude up, making plans an shit, and I'd be damn two timed. See, now if we flipt dat scrip and I'm chattin some lady up, you'd be like "Nuuu-uuuu" and I'd be like "baby, she nothin I swear," but you'd be like "nuuu-uuuu" til I was cryin on the curb "lemme in baby, I'm 'sorry, it ain't like dat," and then you'd finally lemme back in only after I learned my damn lesson, cuz you know bullshit when you see bullshit.

The difference, as you can see, is that the gentleman in our example could be convinced his conclusions were wrong because his intuition didn't offer him the certainty and clarity as did the young woman in our example.

Assume I know nothing.

No, I'm not saying that behavior alone is what yields language. — Sam26

I can only imagine how frustrating it is to talk to me about this because you keep repeating what you're saying and I seem to be non-responsive, right? I say that because I feel the exact same way. You and @Banno seem to be so non-responsive that I wonder if we're just on a completely different wavelength (which our lack of communication despite using shared words forms somewhat of an irony). Distinguish between language and behavior. That was the gist of my post. Language is just a conveyance of meaning from one being to another, and saying "come here," giving a come hither look, or the most subtle of expressions are all the same thing. I just candidly don't know where your distinctions are.

In particular, the concept pain gets its meaning from pain behavior, otherwise there would be nothing for the word pain to latch on to, in terms of sharing what we mean by pain. How would we know if someone was using the word correctly? — Sam26

This just makes no sense at all. It's not the concept of pain that gets its meaning from pain behavior, it's the word "pain" that gets its meaning from that. But if you're asking what pain is, it's the hurt I feel. But to the extent you're just saying that I can't know what a dog is without someone saying "dog" and pointing at a dog, I disagree. I simply wouldn't know that you called dogs that until that was somehow communicated to me.

What is denied is that meaning is dependent upon this internal self, and since one cannot have a private language, one cannot have private meaning. — Sam26

Like I said, I get the conclusions that follow from the denial of the private language. I just don't accept there are no private languages. I fully understand that my private language might be irrelevant to the public, but I'll never follow you guys equating irrelevant with non-existent.

Meaning is developed amongst people, i.e., two or more people working together to share concepts. It's an agreement to go on in a certain way, to proceed based on rules of use. — Sam26

These generalities drive me crazy. Meaning of what? If you want to say the meaning of the word "dog" is developed among people trying to communicate, that's pragmatically true, and should I develop a word I use privately, it would be odd and an irrelevant practice. But if you're saying that meaning generally cannot occur outside the public, as if Robison Crusoe could not derive the meaning of any of the events unfolding upon him because he lacked anyone to share any of the new events around him, I have no earthly idea what you mean by "meaning."

It strikes me honestly as if this isn't philosophy at all, but some attempt at explaining how words are used and why we need not worry about metaphysics and the things that confuse us. It's a pragmatic approach that relies upon behaviorism to somehow satisfy those who find the intangible aspects of philosophy antiquated and unhelpful. I feel fairly comfortable in my assessment provided in this final paragraph. Other than this, I doubt we agree on much else.

PS. if you want to alert someone to a reply, the syntax isn't name, it's @name (double quotes around the name). EG @kym doesn't do anything, but @ "Kym" does (when posted without the space between the @ and the first ".) — fdrake

There's also the @ symbol you can click as one of the options right above the message box and then you just type in the name. It even makes sure you choose a real user.

I'd still like to know how black holes can exhibit gravity while simultaneously having an escape velocity that exceeds the light speed of gravitational waves. Is there any way I can communicate that question in in The Philosophy Forum? — Kym

There is a subsection titled Science and Technology. If it's not appropriate to ask such a question there, then I have no idea why not. — snowleopard

I deleted threads of yours which had an OP with a single sentence, a blog link, and a terminology of science question. This is a philosophy forum, original posts of threads should ask a coherent and detailed question, state a coherent position with an argument, and importantly be philosophical in nature. — fdrake

I think that's it's less a misunderstanding on my part of your position than it is a knowing rejection of it. That is to say, I could argue your side if I wanted to, meaning I get it, I just reject it.

This is not to deny that there are subjective experiences, but it denies that subjective experiences give meaning to words or concepts. — Sam26

Sure, it denies it, but it's wrong to deny it. It's just the case that what happens is that I have a phenomenal state that results in a behavioral state that results in a particular linguistic use. I'm not entirely comfortable separating the linguistic use from the behavioral state either. Saying "Ouch, I'm in pain" while showing behavioral signs of not being in pain, relay sarcasm, as it's the holistic behavior (which includes sounds and gestures and anything else) that determines meaning. Writing "my dog has fleas" is no more linguistic than if I used hieroglyphics or if I painted a picture of my dogs with fleas. They are all symbolic representations of thought, and we can impose whatever rules we want on the
symbolism and those grammatical rules (for example) will be just more symbols.

That is to say, we have 3 options:

1. Phenomenal state --> Behavior ---> Language
2. Behavior --> Language
3. Phenomenal state --> Language/behavior

I take it that you accept #2, where behavior alone is what yields language (begging the question of what yielded the behavior).
I take it that you think I accept #1, where the phenomenal state causes the behavior and the behavior causes the language.
I'm suggesting I accept #3, where your phenomenal state causes language directly because there is no difference between language and behavior. They are one in the same. So how do I know that your behavior, whatever it might be, is representative of the same internal state as mine when you exhibit it? I don't. I assume it. It seems likely. But is my experience of pain like that of a spider's? I doubt it, despite its wiggling around like I might if I were in pain.

You also said, "my phenomenal state of the rock is knowable to me," but this is also an incorrect use of what it means to know. Knowing is not a completely private matter. It would not make sense to answer the question of how you know, by pointing to some internal state, or noumenal experience. The term or concept know would lose all its meaning, again it would be senseless. One can see this is so by looking at what follows from such a statement. — Sam26

And so when the dog barks at the door, he doesn't know there's an intruder in the yard, but you hear his bark and do know there is because you have the ability to know, but not the dog? Bizarre conclusion it seems.

My position would be that the dog formed an opinion based upon the behavior he witnessed and knew there was an intruder. You heard the bark and knew there was an intruder. You yelled out "there is an intruder" and someone else knew there was an intruder. All of this began in a dog's furry head as a belief without language. I'd actually even say that the man walking into the yard was a statement "there is an intruder in the yard" as much as if the man said "I am an intruder."

Ohhhhh. It's a bagless Dyson. Fancy.

Is that the thing with the vacuum cleaner? — TimeLine
Hmm no but interesting idea! :lol: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

What exactly would be in the vacuum cleaner bag when you emptied it? Some old French fries, maybe a credit card receipt, you know, whatever might have fallen into your lap on your way to work?

There are a number of post-game regrets that I have, despite the entirety of the problem being caused by him. — TimeLine

Alright, some new facts provided by you, so some revisions of sorts by me:

You were not above it. You were down in it. You did stupid shit to him. He did stupid shit to you. You listened to your friends to manipulate responses by him. He likely did the same to manipulate behavior from you. You noticed the artificiality of his behavior. He likely noticed the same of yours.

You regret the games you played, but despise the games he played. You blame him for all that went wrong, yet you describe wrong behavior on your part.

Don't worry, I'm not saying you were equals. You invested, threw yourself in it, bounced all around in the chaos of the turbulence. You loved him in this painful suicidal way. You were genuinely living life, hacking away the best you could with some degree of acknowledged ineptitude to find happiness. But not him. He didn't crash and burn. He bounced around with you, but where you were fighting, he was just along for the playful ride, maybe even smirking. Your intuition keeps telling you he didn't care about you, and that's why. You felt yourself struggling, crying, yearning and he just rode the roller coaster with his hands in the air enjoying the ride.

So, am I retracting my prior comment that he did care about you, despite all your intuitions telling you that he did not? I would, given these new comments by you, but for this one seemingly terribly inconsistent comment slipped in: "

I regret listening to others, because I know that despite his overwhelming flaws, we actually were compatible. — TimeLine

Now I understand your regret. As I noted, a team that loses by 10 goals doesn't look for that one thing that went wrong because there was a complete breakdown, but a team that loses in a tiebreaker will remember every small mistake that cost the game. You feel like there was a moment in time when you could have sent the message to him that you were serious because you feel like he was serious at one fleeting second before your self-doubt kicked in and you stopped listening to yourself but instead to your friends.

Yeah, he wanted to hold your hand at first, maybe even later, but it got crazy too fast.

Where is your imagination? Tools are sometimes required to achieve desired outcomes, no? — TimeLine

Hey Tiff, I think Timeline is talking about your rabbit thingy.

You are still wrong, sorry, I am not going to agree with you. Think about those women who are consistently abused by their partners and yet continue to 'love' them as they remain in the relationship despite being treated like dirt. — TimeLine

I've not said that women make good decisions about the men they choose. I'm just saying that women's intuition is a thing.

whereas gay women form long-term relationships ( — TimeLine

The data shows that lesbian relationships last the shortest. http://www.thehomoarchy.com/lesbian-realtionships-are-significantly-less-stable-then-anyone-elses-why/

From my own studies based upon a large number of films that I have reviewed, I have found the typical lesbian relationship lasts about five minutes, the participants are usually two or more very attractive women, and they are profoundly uninhibited, often allowing men to participate.

I would agree that some belief is ineffable, but only in the sense that sometimes creatures cannot talk about their own mental ongoings. — creativesoul

Well, the only creature that can talk about his mental ongoings to any extent are humans.

No examples of ineffable belief can be spoken of any further, lest it would cease being ineffable. — creativesoul

This is just incorrect, yet it keeps getting reasserted. It is entirely logical to say that my belief in freedom is ineffable, it evoking a feeling in me I can't describe. Just because I can name it hardly means I can describe it. I can also say that I have a phenomenal state that I can tell you about, but only to an extent, the rest being ineffable. I can sketch you how my father looked, but I cannot present to you all the details. I just lack the language or art skills (and they are one in the same) to show you exactly.

The language you're using is Kant's. However, you're not using it in the same sense that he did. If you were, your notion of belief would be parallel to his notion of Noumena, and our talk of belief would be parallel to phenomena. As a result, your notion of "belief" would fall by the wayside... that which cannot be talked about... isn't. — creativesoul

This is just wrong. The noumenal realm is unknowable period. I cannot speak of the rock outside of my experience of the rock because it is incoherent to reference a rock with none of the subjectively imposed properties of a rock. No matter how I look at the rock, it will be from my perspective, and since there is no such thing as a perspectiveless perspective (the noumenal realm), I can't know the rock.

On the other hand, my phenomenal state of the rock is knowable to me. I can speak of it. You can't. You can't speak of it because you can't see inside my head and see and feel my thoughts. The noumenal perspective is God's perspective, which no one can have. The phenomenal view is my personal view, which only I can have.

I can see my own beetle. You can't. No one can see the beetle as what it is as the thing in itself.

Where I think this conversation might be interesting is if the question were posed in the hypothetical as "Suppose we were prohibited from considering phenomenal states when trying to explain language usage, how would that be done." That might get the conversation where you want it, as opposed to everyone telling you phenomenal states are necessary to explain language usage. I say this because you seem fairly fixed in your opinion that phenomenal states shouldn't be referenced and then become frustrated in others' failure to play by your rules.

Hence belief becomes and explanation for our actions, such that when we act erroneously, we might explain it by noting that we held a false belief. — Banno

Our belief explains all of our intentional conduct regardless of whether we achieved a desired or undesired result. We don't need any statements to have beliefs and we don't need any truth values to have beliefs. We can have beliefs without language. Beliefs are internal states worthy of discussing and some internal states are ineffable.

"F" the ineffable. I've set out why I choose not to consider phenomenal states — Banno

I've set out why I choose to consider phenomenal states and why the effable is not in need of F'ing.

Is this sesh free of charge too? If not, I can pay you when me and Cavacava meet in Israel in a couple of months by holding up a placard writing 'Hanover is a Sexy Beast' somewhere deeply religious to the dismay of passers-by. Like in a bus. — TimeLine

Why not hold a placard that says "The sky is blue" as well, considering you wish to inform the Israelis of the obvious. Oh, and thanks for the invite. I had to wash my hair that day anyway so couldn't have made it anyway.

I hope in some way that some of the men here are able to see the importance of being gentle to a woman's feelings. — TimeLine

It does, and sorry you went through that. I've been on both ends of the break-up thing and both suck, although being dumped is far worse. Being too nice is also a bad thing, where you go through the motions not wanting to hurt someone and dragging it out, her knowing you're hanging on, and me being miserable.

Sorry pal, no stroking in the Tootsie Roll. It kind of involves curling. — TimeLine

Weird.

Wrong. We are just as stupid as you men. We are not light years ahead and that is almost borderline sexist that harbours the notion that somehow we are 'motherly' in our understanding of the male mind and therefore responsible in managing men. Nope. You guys are just as fucking weird to us as we are to you. — TimeLine

No! I'm stupider than you! I'm so going to win this argument. Just wait and see.

I don't want to divert too much, but I do believe the distinctions between men and women go beyond the simple anatomical. You sort of conceded it above where you asked for more understanding by men regarding how they treated women. Men and women are each screwy in the own weird ways, but I am so aware of the magical Spidey sense that women have, I often watch their reactions to see what I'm missing, much like you notice your dog when its ears perk up.

Man child. Perfect phrase. As mentioned, I wanted to crawl all over him like a kitten the truth be told, and he remains the only man I have ever met that had some sort of a strange power over me. He was damned attractive. He may have only wanted that, but in doing so he allowed me to catch a glimpse of who I was, someone who would never give that to anyone unless he was the right man. I proved to myself that I am worthy to only be for the one person and the right person (as in, I didn't have sex with him). — TimeLine

Yeah, it looks like you guys had a major communication break down. That's frustrating even with people you remotely like, much more someone you really want to be with.

No, his failure to communicate and his general idiocy is confirmation of our incompatibility, that I am compatible with men who are confident and who respect me and admire me as I would them. — TimeLine

We all do post game analysis because we want to know what went wrong, but sometimes you realize the game was lost for so many reasons, it's hard to really isolate any one thing. And it's actually easier to lose for a thousand reasons than just one bad play, where you sit around wondering "what if" I hadn't made that one blunder. You guys weren't compatible because your values were different, your communication styles were different, your ambitions were different, and it sounds like you were a whole lot smarter than him. But love is indiscriminate and you fell for Hotty McHotty and got a bit battered, but you're better for it now.

Like the big haired man said "love hurts."

B.

Did that really just happen?

This seems like it ought to be in this contest;

Couldn't find a real man with a Trans Am?
My brothers and I would talk about how one day we were getting one of these sweet rides, eagle and all. Never happened. One day though. One day.

I was working through this earlier in my head actually. The distiction I think is that where I agree that your phenomena is noumenal to me, my phenomena, which is articulated by me through language, is known by me with certainty. I can know the correctness of my language in representing my phenomena. I can't ever know if my phenomena is closely related to the noumena though.

I can see my beetle. You can't. The incoherence arises when we attempt to describe the beetle without reference to it's non-subjective appearance.

I am at a place where I would like for you to clearly set out the distinction, particularly seeing how it is your expression that has lead us to where we are in the discussion. It's an odd expression. I deny the game altogether, but was curious to see if you could make more sense of it than what I've seen. — creativesoul

Well, it's an interesting question. I'd say the ball is an external object knowable as your phenomenal state. I don't deny external reality and consider a dream state of a ball distinct from an awake state, not in terms simply of clarity, but in terms of the former being of an objective thing externally.

I'm open to criticisms if it, but am not ready to slip into idealism just yet.

Sounds like you're just hatin cuz none of your posts are worthy.

That would require Hanoverian recklessness, a well documented relationship flaw where the less chance of success there is, the greater the challenge, and therefore a Herculean effort. It is the dog that chases the car and finally catches it and has no idea what to do with it or why he chases cars in the first place.

I figured that out eventually and tried to respond in a way I thought he may understand considering his ridiculously strange behaviour, but he didn't understand and then I looked stupid. Anyhoot. — TimeLine

Hanoverian therapy methods are transcendent in nature, requiring objectifying one's own conduct for introspection. We do this by constantly asking ourselves what we've done and we allow our homunculus to assess it, splitting ourselves into two. I like that you've done this here (moving to a 3(a) on the Hanover Scale - pay for the seminar and find out if you're curious), declaring yourself looking stupid. My long winded absurd diversion into a non-existent therapy program only means to say that you looked stupid only to yourself. He thought you looked pretty and still wanted pretty girl to hold his hand. I know everything about men, remember?

But let's really step back and transcend this whole discussion and see what's really going on here. Compare yourself to LoneWolf and look at the differences in reactions to her. She is devastated (and I get I'm having an awkward convo about someone in the room listening, but Hanover gotta be Hanover), depressed, feeling lost, filled with self-blame, and pining over a man who was once there. She is heartbroken. Silly man on the keyboard sends her videos of Elvis and big hair man singing sappy love songs. Why? I'm cheering her up cuz she's sad.

Now splain yourself. There's no pining, hints of sadness, crying. No one is saying "pauvre pauvre TimeLine" because (1) you're not expressing pain, and (2) we don't speak French here. But the point here is that you seem to be seeking not comfort from your non-existent sadness, but instead some sort of understanding of what you're doing wrong in this dance, asking why do you keep stepping on folks' toes. Is that right, or was there really a time of genuine pining and heartbreak that you've just not shared (you can tell us anything, don't be a shy bird). I mean it sounds like you guys stopped seeing each other and you were like "what the fuck was that all about'?

Since when were women mind readers? — TimeLine

Since forever. I labor under no illusions that my insights exceed yours. Your femaleness puts you light years ahead of me in comprehending emotions and motivations. Truth.

But anyhoot (note the Hanoverian method of language adoption and the feelings of comfort it elicits), I didn't read the man child's mind. I just stated the universal truth that all men want women to crawl on their laps like kitty cats (mind out of the gutter perv - talking meowing regular old cats here).

— TimeLine

She is not your mother. There are conditions. To add to that, she doesn't want to be worshipped neither does she want to run around after man, just a friend to hang out with and share in life and experiences as equals, as well as figure out new and evolving sexual positions. I mean, have you heard of the Tootsie Roll? I just made that up, see, and I could have practiced that shit on him if he were normal. — TimeLine

Your requirements are reasonable, but you don't need to try to universalize them to prove their legitimacy. That is, plenty of women have different requirements than you (thank the good Lord (playful jab)), but different strokes for different folks (allusion to the stroking inherent in the Tootsie Roll).

Your partner is a reflection of the person that you are. — TimeLine

Can be. Plenty of happy couples are very different. I'm not saying you're not right to look for certain similar interests, but oftentimes happiness is found in sharing a generalized demeanor, communicating on the same wave length and things like that. Whether you share in various hobbies matter less.

He doesn't like girls like me - which I think is the real reason for his behaviour - he likes popular girls that have no mind enough for him to control, that dress like teenage clowns and pretend to care about things, things that will make them look good and ultimately him by extension rather than genuinely, that the people he associates with will approve of her. I am not someone they would approve and therefore I am not even worth it for him. — TimeLine

We call this a Hanoverian shift (at least we do starting now), where you provide me additional deets of your situation that entirely changes the direction of the convo, calling into question your thoughts. Previously I was to learn that you worked diligently to establish a relationship with a buffoon, but the impediment of his buffoonery limited its development. Had our hapless oaf been capable of Hanoverian Transcendence (described supra), the two of you would now be tightly bound in the Tootsie Roll (or perhaps even the Cinnamon Bun). Now I am to learn that the failure of the relationship had little really to do with a failure to communicate and his general idiocy, but just old fashioned incompatibility. He wanted a vacuous gum popping Valley girl, not a simple goat milking village girl (playful jab - I can say anything I want if I say "playful jab" - called a "Hanoverian Jab - take the seminar). Anyway, I'm having trouble deciphering if (1) you never really liked the guy, but you were just pushing yourself because you felt like you might be being too particular, so you felt the need to give any relationship a whirl or (2) you did like the guy, but it didn't work out, so you're just now offering a sour grapes argument that it'd never work out anyway. I've already eliminated (3), which is that you are heartbroken. Your lack of respect for this guy appears genuine, meaning you're not just name calling someone who dumped you. And it's not clear that he dumped you or that you dumped him, but you haven't told us about that yet. It seems more like a mutual hostile walk off.

Nope. We can't talk about the music; then you share your headphones with me, and show it to me. Our world now includes the tune. We can talk about the syncopation, the melody, and so on. Or, that bit after she stops singing, if you want something simpler. — Banno

Why is it so controversial to admit that language offers only a limited glimpse into one's phenomenal state? Language is a camera of limited resolution and while you can snap photos of whatever you'd like, it's inherently limited. It will never fully reflect the original. You say just keep moving the camera around, get more shots, different angles. I say it'll never happen.

I don't know if you can have a phenomenal state of a ball. Is the ball your phenomenal state? What's the difference between the ball and your phenomenal state? — creativesoul

To deny the distinction is idealism. Is that where you are on this?

What is irrelevant to the discussion isn't the phenomena, but the noumena. The ball is irrelevant, not the experience of it.

I don't understand your confusion. Can I not have a phenomenal state of a round ball.

The attraction of talking about phenomena seems to be that it somehow allows us to get inside the head - inside the other person's beetle-containing box. It doesn't. — Banno

No, the attraction is that it is the cause of our speaking to one another in the first place and it forms the basis all of our communication.

No it's not. You have this truly odd identity theory that equates the phenomenal state to its linguistic description, as if telling you the ball is round is somehow equated to my phenomenal state of the round ball. Telling you I saw an awe inspiring sunset hardly places you in awe.

Is there no irony in your inability to convey your position to me despite the thousands of words expended?

The ineffable.

But it never ends.

If they are ineffable personal experiences, then they cannot be discussed - that's what ineffable" means. — Banno

The ineffability need not be absolute. The police sketch artist hears the words and draws the picture, but never gets it exactly right. The source of the information lies in the witness' mind, the language roughly estimates and transmits it, and the recipient loses something in translation. Why is the sketch never exact?

If you make a perfume (as you're known to do) and tell me it smells of roses, and I don't think it does, I'll tell you that, but don't expect me to tell you why. I just don't have any real language for smells. It's ineffable, but I know your perfume isn't roses.

Oh no, did someone strike a nerve?

Listen here you defender of man, why would I cuddle up to one who has given me no indication that he wants me to crawl all over him like a kitten? — TimeLine

A guy doesn't tell you that because he suspects you already know it. That's what all guys want.

I really like you.
I enjoy your company.
I want to get to know you better.
I really admire you.
You are so fucking awesome. — TimeLine

Couldn't have said it better myself (awww).

To be fair, you're not respecting vulnerability limitations. Telling people you care about them ought to be easy, but it's not, male or female. Do you really say that if you're not sure where the guy stands or do you wait (and wait and wait) for him to say it first? Methinks you're just as much a scaredy cat as he is, little miss pretends to be balls to the wall, caution to the wind, express my love like no other.

You don't stalk someone and say nothing, you don't send affectionate messages to her pretending to be someone else, or love songs and short stories and completely freak her out thinking is this guy a psychopath or does he like me?, — TimeLine

That's precisely what I would do if playa didn't have no game, but playa got mad game see. What went down see is that he liked you, but didn't know what to say, so his dumber ass friend fed him some line thinking he was helpin a brother out, but you realized it was concocted bullshit, and instead of thinking "aww, retard likes me, bless his awkward heart," you went out and got a restraining order on the bitch. I am soo skreet, right?

this guy a psychopath or does he like me?, — TimeLine

B. Choice B. He likes you. He's not a sociopath. He's a retard. Give the retard some love. Damn girl.

And why, for heavens sake, is it that every time I promise to commit myself to study over the weekend, the weather is glorious? Do you have an answer to that, Mr. 'I know everything'? — TimeLine

Prolly God hates you.

Your essay is pretty good, but certainly needs to be improved. — TimeLine

My emotional retardation takes this as rejection, you learner of nothing. I'd be sad, but I forgot what we were talking about.

Here's your quandary: all guys are emotionally retarded. You just have to take one in and give him a good home and pet his head. It's just mean as shit to leave them in the rain wondering what to do.