?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Love Theory: Response to the collapsing of interactions and traits - Napkin Philosophy [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Napkin Philosophy

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Love Theory: Response to the collapsing of interactions and traits [Dec. 10th, 2005|03:58 am]
Napkin Philosophy
napkin_phil
[xiota]
[Tags|]

Proposition: both interactions (iota) and classical traits (tau) are, really, both traits

Translation: one loves (or doesn't love) someone because of how they view/value/perceive the other person's actions and semi-static traits

Counter-example: ones love can be swayed by the interactions "working" or "not working", and thus makes interactions inherently distinct from traits

QED
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: jessica_bunneh
2005-12-10 09:16 am (UTC)
ones love can be swayed by the traits "working" or "not working" though as well...

For example:
a trait of mine is my sarcastic humor lets say.. that can be "working" or "not working" the same way interactions can as you say.
The fact I'm tall may or may be working for a particular person. They might change their mind daily on it if im right on a borderline of what they consider okay and too tall ..

Just a thought.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: fractuality
2005-12-10 11:17 am (UTC)
What if we view interaction more as communication and openness? IMO, it is possible to work through all sorts of "not working" things just by talking about how they don't work and reaching compromises.

Perhaps we should also somehow model such traits that don't work, but a person's ability to accept the person anyway?

For example, I was really freaking committed to my last ex despite him apparently not knowing how to clean a bathroom sink more than once a year, and he watched cartoons that really annoyed me (high pitched voices and lack of plot or humor sucks). But I accepted those flaws relatively in stride... (it was the communication that did us in.) I realize that those negative traits slightly decreased my respect for him and that was unhealthy but I was willing to accept it anyway. What I think really caused the decrease in respect though was his unwillingness to talk about it, not the negative traits themselves.

So basically I guess I'm saying that like in Sternburg's triangle theory, we need to somehow emphasize the emotional intimacy/sharing/communication part. IMO, all healthy relationships should have it. But then again, my ideal version of a relationship may be disparate from some other people's.

I feel like using my usual cop out to end this one, so I will, please forgive me, Bob :-D

It's all relative! To the ideals of the individuals involved, and what their emotional/physical/material(financial) needs are in a relationship, and how much of their ideal they are willing to sacrifice.

Maybe that stuff needs to be considered in the lambda factor? No idea... sleep sounds good though!
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sandormeansme
2005-12-11 01:35 pm (UTC)
I am not sure exactly what you mean by "working" and "not working". Are you saying that an interaction "doesn't work" if the person doesn't like the outcome of the interaction, or possibly that they didn't intend the results of the interaction?
(Reply) (Thread)
From: xiota
2005-12-11 10:09 pm (UTC)
Pragmatism.

Something "does not work" if something happens that makes it impossible.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sandormeansme
2005-12-12 03:42 pm (UTC)
To confirm: an interaction that "doesn't work out" is one that rendered impossible.

Let us consider a concrete example:
Jim and Jane are two romantically involved individuals, living in New York. The couple sets a date to meet for dinner one night. Jane is a sales executive and has to travel for her job. The night she is to have dinner with Jim she is supposed to catch a plane from Detroit back to New York, but the flight is delayed, and she is unable to make it to dinner.

At this point the expected interaction is rendered impossible. Yes this can effect how much Jim loves his busy partner (he may love her less because she is not around when she says she is supposed to be). However the interaction is rendered impossible because of a trait that Jane is exhibiting: her location.

Thus we have been able to decompose a simple example from interactions to traits. The question is then raised: Can all such impossible situations be decomposed into traits? If so, then the proof you gave is false, if not then it retains its merit. I however don't know how to prove that statement.

I suppose we will have to work on it.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: fractuality
2005-12-12 05:45 pm (UTC)
How about wording it if the actions "are acceptable" or "aren't acceptable" to the other person in the relationship?

For example in Ryan's scenario in which Jane is incapable of making it, if the Jane calls, Jim is likely to find the interaction (or lack thereof) acceptable. But if she doesn't call, there's going to be some definite conflict, unless he's the weird apathetic type.

Thus, if enough inacceptable interactions occur, it makes the relationship impossible, or at least very painful.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)