RE: coins?

RE: coins? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Switch

Message

Dustyn -> RE: coins? (4/8/2006 11:50:08 PM)
I usually expand, but not until I think me feet are firmly under me and not crammed as far as possible down my throat. LOL

funhippykid -> I know, I know... (4/9/2006 8:32:59 AM)
Does Dustyn have a coin fetish? [sm=hello.gif]

Dustyn -> RE: I know, I know... (4/9/2006 9:23:20 AM)
Nah, I just prefer to break things down to the barest elements and deal with them individually. Just seems more thurough in my mind than tojust tackle a big issue. If something have five smaller, more distinct problems within it, if you deal with those five efficiently, the bigger issue is sussinctly abolished.

WyrdRich -> RE: coins? (4/9/2006 9:36:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dustyn Besides, the gem-stone argument is flawed (no pun intended) in this discussion because the example I was using was only two dimentional. If I was including concepts of external influences which impact differently on either of those two distinct personality archetypes, then yes, a gem stone would be more appropriate. Instead, I went for the most basic interpretation. Besides, gemstones also have inclusions and impurities that refract the light different, putting different emphasis on different facets as the light strikes them and the flaws inside. I just tend to prefer to look at things at the basic levels before expanding to the larger views. And there lies the problem. People are not simply two-dimensional. We all exist in at least four dimensions. Trying to simplify things just guarantees you're going to be wrong.

Dustyn -> RE: coins? (4/9/2006 9:43:40 AM)
In some ways, understanding other people, for me, is akin to working on a jigsaw puzzle. I put the border together, then start working on the largest images, and once those are together, start trying to link them together with the remaining pieces. The only way a person can be wrong about figuring things out about people is A: a lack of fundemental pieces (information) and B: being given the wrong pieces (lied to). Beyond that, an assumption can be changed with more information and the smaller the detail, frequently the more important it is to that person's character. In the broader terms, most people are generally similar. It's the small details that make the differences and that is really where I was going with this whole coin analogy. And no, people themselves are not two dimentional, but when you limit the discussion to two aspects, it does reduce the issue to being two dimentional.

LaMalinche -> RE: coins? (4/9/2006 11:14:34 AM)
You are missing all of the grey areas. . . it is not A or B. . . there are other choices. . . like Epsilon. . . or Gamma. . . It is not black and white. . . Sometimes it is paisley. . . shudder. . . Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal. All cats are not grey at midnight. . . endless variety. Best, LaMalinche To be matter of fact about the world is to blunder into fantasy— and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

5.859375E-02