Friday, 07 December 2012
-
My Metaphysical Breakup
For the last twenty-two years, I have kindled a very close relationship with my closest consort, Pride. Pride has supported me in all of my endeavors and has always made me feel like my feelings mattered most. Every man I have ever been romantically involved with has been in a three-way relationship with Pride and I, and Pride has always helped me achieve what I think is best.Over the years, Pride and I have built a strong relationship, even to the point where I have consciously ignored people and obligations because Pride has always assured me that it’s the right thing to do. There has very rarely been an instance where a person has shushed my beloved Pride.
Last night I realized that over the last year, I have willingly allowed someone else to come between me and my dear Pride and that they in fact are exceedingly more important to me than Pride has been. This person has humbly weakened the once iron-clad relationship and understanding that my crony and I have had over the past decades. While I know that Pride will still be my side when it is rightfully called upon, and likely in situations not concerning its new superior, it is liberating and comforting to know that there is someone in this world that loves and respects me at a level that I completely reciprocate. This, I have learned, is a crucial variable in the abstract and complicated algorithm that leads to the perfect match.
It's not you Pride, it's him. I choose the right hand.
Have you experienced a sneaking metaphysical breakup with one of your more bold qualities? Did you have the same reaction?
Image Source
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to datingish's Datingish Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in datingish's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: TaylorKay
- Name: TaylorKay
- Location: Austin, Texas, United States
- About Me: Hello hello! I'm Taylor and I'm here to talk about everything under the sun that comes with love, heartbreak, and sex. Enjoy my stories, take or leave my advice, and drop me a comment of you feel moved to do so!
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 18 Views: 0 53519 Comments: 0 299 View all posts by TaylorKay
Comments (38)
This is surprisingly well written. Good post, and I can kind of relate to it.
Aside from that, fuck metaphysics. Metaphysics is physics for Dummies. A simplified abstraction. Metaphysics is to physics as Microsoft FrontPage is to Notepad. Liberating for those who are lazy, restricting for those who are knowledgeable.
@T3hZ10n@xanga - ...Metaphysics is the study of being...it's a branch of philosophy...not physics.
You were being facetious, right?
@T3hZ10n@xanga - alphabet soup is totally a rip off. it doesn't contain the entire abc in one can. you have to get more than one can to find all the letters
tiresome for the ocd, who have to separate the vowels from the consonants because mixing the two would be uncouth. die abc soup dieeeeeee!
@Jenny_Wren@xanga - 50/50
Philosophy is baby-science in the same way that religion is baby-politics.
i feel like there was a metaphor here that i'm totally missing.
@Jenny_Wren@xanga - lol. you're forgetting that he works on stuff using really sophisticated mathematics. of course he knows what he's talking about. (and, although he wasn't being facetious, i certainly am, hahaha.)
@TheNotoriousGOD@xanga - The "sophistication" of any mathematics reflects only the difficulty of understanding encountered by those who use it... not its utility nor the sophistication of what it is being used for. You are so transparent.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljo14yYz5K1qhlx68o1_250.jpg
@T3hZ10n@xanga - Philosophy *isn't* science...at least not in terms of the normal use of the word "science".
It's like trying to say language is baby-mathematics...or anthropology is baby-podiatry.
@T3hZ10n@xanga - no shit?
@Jenny_Wren@xanga - I know... I'm still being half facetious.
@T3hZ10n@xanga - Right...
@Jenny_Wren@xanga - And no, you got it twisted... it would be like saying podiatry is baby-anthropology.
@T3hZ10n@xanga - ...I think you missed my point.
@Jenny_Wren@xanga - You're arguing PoV. What I said was mostly for humor/food for thought.
@T3hZ10n@xanga - But it wasn't remotely correct, so it couldn't be humorous or food for thought. You weren't even insinuating or making light of facts. You were throwing out completely incorrect statements that don't relate to anything at all. If your goal was to be humorous by being just random, than that makes a bit more sense.
@Jenny_Wren@xanga - Derpa derpa derp. No, it wasn't remotely random, nor was it remotely incorrect. Your face, however...
@T3hZ10n@xanga -
It was all incorrect. I had to *correct* each statement:
"Metaphysics is dumb physics."
No..metaphysics is philosophy.
"Metaphysics is dumb science."
No...metaphysics is *philosophy*. Isn't science at all.
"Oh, I was just being clever..you know, offering food for thought."
No, you weren't.
@Jenny_Wren@xanga - Anyone ever tell you you're annoying? -_-
Did you understand my reference to Microsoft FrontPage and Notepad? Metaphysics is built upon physics (not the concept or the science, physics itself)... how you compartmentalize it as philosophy is irrelevant.
It's good to hear you've gotten some insight into your own traits and behaviours, but that change shouldn't be caused by someone else. Well, if they person has helped you come to that conclusion, then that's great. But it's important to ask, if that person leaves the picture, how would the position of "pride" differ from before.
And...I don't know if metaphysical is an appropriate term, though I'm sure it may feel that way given the abstract thoughts that are had.
Also, I have no idea why there is such a row in the comments with the term metaphysics.
Metaphysical thought started over 2000 years ago. It did not stem from science, it is not pseudo-science, it is just another state of the progression of thought. Be it from philosophical, metaphysical, moral, to eventually empirical, which has been called "science" only recently. Metaphysics, physics, biology, astronomy, and chemistry are all interrelated, just as philosophy is, historically, that is.
Only in the last 200 years have we seen such an obsession to stratify and label and segregate disciplines. Yes the questions asked, and means used are very different currently, but we shouldn't forget that only a few centuries ago we didn't have any of the hundreds of sub-types of science we had today--we only had philosophy as a subject.
@animechrisy@xanga - Well said. 'Tis all interrelated.
"It's all a orchestra of strings
Doin' unbelievable things." - Aqua
@T3hZ10n@xanga - It isn't irrelevant. It is reality.
Your trying to backpedal and say that it isn't built upon "physics" just "physics itself" is irrelevant.
@animechrisy@xanga - You're right that philosophy was considered just as important as natural sciences prior to the modern scientific age, and they were taught as equal forms of "science" or study--but there has been a concerted effort in this age of scientism to somehow compare philosophy with modern science and say it is lesser or lacking, or is somehow not as useful, just because it is doesn't deal with empirical evidence (which would mean it's not derived from physics). What I'm trying to say is that it can't be, because it isn't at all the same thing, and it doesn't attempt to answer the same questions. It is useful in an entirely different way. It would be better if we would adopt the well-rounded classical education of the past. Chronological snobbery is not enough to say that one pillar of study is useless compared to something it was never meant to be.
@animechrisy@xanga - Also, I would argue that metaphysics was part of the philosophy movement, not separate from it (You gave the stages philosophy, metaphysics, etc, as though they were separate movements).
Aristotle, after all, wrote 'Metaphysics'--it was an argument for the beginning of all things. He argued there was a Prime Mover, a god of some sort, who must have started the universe. Translated, the title means "After the Physics". Or--an explanation of what happens outside the physical realm. It also focuses on the "why" of the whole world--the being of all the "beings". There wasn't, by any stretch of the imagination, a close connection between it and the idea of physics, physics "itself", or any clinical scientific ideas we may impose upon it.
And through the ancient, medieval, renaissance eras, philosophy was often taught as a separate subject, not as confusingly interrelated as you seem to let on (I say seem, because I know you weren't trying to be argumentative, I mean that in a gentle way).
The reason I say this is because different teachers taught different philosophers, believing their philosophy was right over another's--some would teach Plato, and say he had the approach to the universe right, while some would only teach Aristotle. It wasn't as simple as their being an age where everyone was Platonic and accepted him, or everyone accepted Aritotle's metaphyics.
So, natural sciences and mathematics and languages *were* separate, as least in the sense that most educated people accepted them as unchanging--while some would vary their philosophical subject matter.
@Jenny_Wren@xanga -
http://youtu.be/sBDxnItsCoI?t=9s
@T3hZ10n@xanga - I rest my case.
@Jenny_Wren@xanga - I would rest my case too if it were as tired as yours.
@T3hZ10n@xanga - Yeah, we'll go with that. ;) hahaha.