?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Quick post - Omnia mutantur, nihil interit.
September 2nd, 2004
03:45 pm
[User Picture]

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Quick post
For person X to depend on person Y means, for me, that person X would feel that there was something missing without person Y. Person X gets something from person Y that he doesn't feel he can get elsewhere.

For person X to have a meaningful relationship with person Y means, for me, that person X and person Y's relationship affects person X's life outside of just his relationship with person Y.

Lemma: if person X's entire life is taken up by his relationship with person Y, person X is incapable of having a meaningful relationship with person Y. Proof: person X has no life outside of his relationship with Y to be affected by it.

It seems that, for me, these two properties seem to be tied to one another in the following way: a relationship between me and X is meaningful only if I depend on person X. (That might be an “if and only if”—I'm not sure.) That is, if I don't depend on person X to some extent—if I don't get something from him that I can't get elsewhere—then I don't allow him to have any real effect on my life.

I'm not sure why this is, or whether it's beneficial. I'm only trying to analyze a situation, not solve a problem, at the moment.

(4 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
[User Picture]
From:papertygre
Date:September 2nd, 2004 05:39 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I think I agree that meaningful relationship = a relationship having an effect on one's life outside that relationship. But I don't think I agree that something's having an effect on one's life = depending on that thing.

There's a difference between being affected in a unique way by something, and needing that thing to the extent of placing demands on it.
[User Picture]
From:kenoubi
Date:September 2nd, 2004 05:49 pm (UTC)
(Link)

But I don't think I agree that something's having an effect on one's life = depending on that thing.

There's a difference between being affected in a unique way by something, and needing that thing to the extent of placing demands on it.

I did not mean to say that those two things were the same. I meant to say that they seemed to be related for me, right now, in that particular way.

[User Picture]
From:katieboyd
Date:September 2nd, 2004 06:14 pm (UTC)
(Link)
"For person X to depend on person Y means, for me, that person X would feel that there was something missing without person Y. Person X gets something from person Y that he doesn't feel he can get elsewhere."

If you replace "person Y" with "thing Y" or "habbit Y", wouldn't you have the same definition you gave for addiction Tuesday night?

Something to think about.
[User Picture]
From:kenoubi
Date:September 2nd, 2004 06:57 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Wow, I laughed out loud when I read your post (and I'm in a room with 6 other people).

Thanks. That is something to think about. Actually, your post itself makes you a potential counterexample: you affected me, but I didn't depend on you (in fact, I wasn't expecting anyone to comment on this entry at all, except maybe Ratha). This is probably too weak a piece of evidence to make me change my mind at an emotional level, but my intellect finds it very amusing because it's such a clear case.
Omnia mutantur, nihil interit Powered by LiveJournal.com