I found myself thinking of that argument on rasfc a while back (was it really a few months ago? I'm not sure), the whole what is identity and not, and the claim that changes to the body don't change the sense of identity, unlike changes to the mental process.

I spent this weekend far more dependent on my cane than is normal for me even when I am using it. (Usually I need it for a day or two and then I'm more or less okay. This weekend I needed it to climb up the steep slopes of curb cuts.)

And one of the things that drove me completely bats about that dependency, about the limitation of the pain, was this steady persistent awareness that this is not me. And I don't have the identity I had as a child, when I could do nothing, be nothing, that did not run, but damnit, I can walk. That hurt, sometimes, more than the pain.

My mother tells me that my brother could never have riding lessons like I did as a child because his hip went weird on him too easily. And muses about her need for a hip replacement.

Who am I, in the bone?
So, a bunch of people on rasfc were discussing, in the usual newsgroup-disorganised way, the whole "Can God make a rock so large He can't lift it" notion. As it happens, [livejournal.com profile] arawen and I touched on that in a conversation about two weeks ago (I think we got there from 'tired of dealing with people who think that one's faith can be refuted by reference to a god that is completely irrelevant to it'), and he made a comment I found amusing about the physics of the question.

So, in fairly normal way, I posted a comment to that effect into the thread, identifying [livejournal.com profile] arawen as my boyfriend because, inane as that word is, it adequately contexts who I was talking with, within social norms of identification, for purposes of continuing conversation.

Though apparently, the matter was quite notable to someone, who has proceeded to interrogate me at length about why I referred to my boyfriend, whether this meant there was some sort of weird philosophical disputation involved with [livejournal.com profile] teinedreugan, why I felt the need to not anonymise my relationship into functional nonexistence, or some other such stuff. It's gotten increasingly bizarre. (The latest bizarrity is about whether using such a specific identifier is too much information and who's to judge such a thing -- which leaves me with a sort of wicked, trollish impulse to use accurate words that properly describe the relationship, the ones that I don't use because people find them alarming. I have not responded to this, as he has indicated that he does not want to talk with me about it, or for that matter [livejournal.com profile] brooksmoses, he just wants to make little snide pot shots in the hope that someone will agree with him somewhere, I guess.)

And this is all because the fellow knows I'm married and not monogamous, and thus there must be some Profound Deep Reason for me to mention my boyfriend, other than, y'know, it being normal to refer to one's partners in conversation as such, at least on my home planet. It was apparently this mention that led the fellow to claim my bafflement at the question of why I had not consulted [livejournal.com profile] teinedreugan (about his opinions of snarky dismissals of asinine philosophical masturbation attempting to refute a god none of us has any personal interest in) was disingenuous. (That was a godawful sentence. Oh well. I'll parentheticalise a chunk for clarity.)

Apparently, just treating a partner as a partner is remarkable, bizarre, a marked case worthy of comment, to at least some people -- it seems that most of the rest of the thread thinks he's the person who's making no damn sense, which is reassuring for a change. It was suggested that it would be superior to refer to him as a friend, to avoid raising the possibility of some sort of profound philosophical war about the nature of irrelevant deities, but even if I didn't find that to be an offensive suggestion, I am really not comfortable with the notion that I'm responsible for controlling someone else's deranged imagination. Herd your own invisible pink unicorns, please.

Also, in the context of this the synchronisity of this post amuses the hell out of me.
Not that I think I need a reality check on this one, but does this paragraph strike anyone as obviously implausible?

    I have known men who didn't bother to consider whether or not someone was sexually attractive to them before that person brought the question up, because they were enjoying that person's company too much. I have known men who continued with relationships in which sex was not an option for medical reasons because they actually loved their wives, not just their wives' genitalia. I have known men whose capacity for attraction was limited to one satisfying relationship, who simply did not register other people as attractive when partnered. I have known men who turned women down who approached them, even though both were available, and still somehow managed to maintain friendships with those selfsame women. I have known stable mixed-sex groups of people that somehow manage not to degenerate into raving sexual tension. I have known men who looked at open relationships and said, "You know, that's just too much effort." I have an ex whose given reason for breaking up with me was that I was too interested in sex and not enough interested in things that fed his sense of relationship; I have another ex whose sex drive was much lower than mine; I have another ex who ended the relationship when he realised that he was treating me as a sex object because he thought that that was a disgustingly neanderthal attitude to take. I know men who complain about the social presumption that they're primarily interested in sex or ruled by their libidos because they find it as derogatory and disgustingly sexist as I do. I know a man who was never taken seriously when he was raped by a woman because people just figured, hey, men are happy to get laid, why's he so upset about that silly 'consent' thing?
The Dope has thrown up another polygamy-legalisation thread, which has some reasonably productive conversation in it, aside from what I shall term the golddigging whore problem.

Specifically: a couple of people expressed that if polygamy were legal, the wealthy, powerful men would collect sufficiently all of the women that the poorer people would be deprived of spouses.

I just responded to one of the bits of sexism -- the standard presumption that it's only men who are interested in multiple relationships.

I'm finding myself completely boggled by the impending golddigging whore shortage that these people are worried about. I mean, setting aside the fact that the actors, politicians, and other denizens of the supermarket tabloid world don't seem to have any problems collecting as many MOTAS as strike their fancy right now, and this doesn't seem to deprive the rest of the world of a reasonably adequate dating pool.

But there's the whole ... okay, you're upset that someone who's primarily interested in being an adjunct to power and money may be going somewhere far, far away from you? Leaving behind all the normal people who are interested in finding partners that they love and care about, or at least can shag satisfactorily?

It's one of those things that leaves me wondering what the hell alternate dimension people are writing from. There was the guy who posted that he expected that most women were in the golddigging whore category, and I just wonder which one of us is the space alien. I've met maybe one person in my life who might qualify, and since we were in school at the time and thus nobody we associated with had significant money in the first place it's hard to tell whether or not she grew into one. I can't imagine my sample size is all that damn weird.

[ Must change the music to what's playing now, hah. ]

It's one of those places where -- if it wasn't so fucking bizarre -- would leave me wondering, again, how I wound up on this planet. Here I'm pretty sure those other people are the ones who recently stepped through the transdimensional portal without noticing the transition.

It was nonetheless nice to see [livejournal.com profile] queenofhalves link [livejournal.com profile] bitchphd, who mentioned Crittenden's book, which is, alas, about the universe I grew up in, more's the pity, but it at least reminds me that I'm not alone.
rasfc is currently having a discussion of sorts on the subject of intelligence and what it's good for, and whether it's an important factor in appreciation of books, and so on. Overall, it's one of those conversations that I find fascinating in the "I want to poke at this" sense but am wary of saying anything in, because the embroilment potential is very high.

There's something of a cultural divide going on, I think, though I can't figure out where the boundaries on it are, quite, since bits of it appear to be me and folks in the UK (or Commonwealth nations) on one side of the line. (I theorise a little that we're back to Yankee-people-and-their-culture on this, but who knows? I was raised in a culturally odd environment.)

This may wind up being long. Cultural and class stuff, intellectualism stuff, snobbery. )
Dealing with mild folkishness and other stupid recon tricks. )

Weirded out by 'the BDSM community' again )

Also, for the amusement of all and sundry, not only am I the sort of person who would say "Your egotism is charming, but slightly confusing" to a partner, I just did.

And I'm out of rice vinegar. So sad.
A bunch of threads of stuff are conspiring to make me ponder again. Funny how threads in various places wind up talking about the same sorts of things. And some of this is why I think I was pointing at something political in rasfc yesterday, not that it seems to have helped. Also, very lengthy and not entirely linear babble.

A quote from the Principia:

    DISORDER is simply unrelated information viewed through some particular grid. But, like "relation", no-relation is a concept. Male, like female, is an idea about sex. To say that male-ness is "absence of female-ness", or vice versa, is a matter of definition and metaphysically arbitrary. The artificial concept of no-relation is the ERISTIC PRINCIPLE.

Male, like female, is an idea about sex. )
To study: Lost Tribes of the Stop & Shop.

While leaving the grocery today, [livejournal.com profile] teinedreugan and I were followed by several members of this lost and mysterious tribe. The first words spoken by these mysterious people, out of touch with humankind for so long, were, "It's snowing! When did that start?"

We must study them, learn about them and from them, determine if they know why essentially all the packages of eggs in the grocery store had at least one broken. As [livejournal.com profile] humanx said, "We can learn much from their ways."
So a fair number of people are discussing gendering at the moment. Most of these people aren't actually people whose journals I read regularly, but a couple of people whose journals I do read regularly have been commenting upon same with occasional links back.

I have a weird sort of interaction with matters of gender.

On ap, the standard of politeness is to use 'zie' or other gender-neutral pronouns for folks who one's not aware of preference for. When this gets used on me, it drives me completely insane. I consider GNP useful for people whose gender is unknown, unspecified, or other; my gender is none of these. Being identified as a 'he' is several (perhaps five or six) orders of magnitude more accurate than being referred to as a 'zie'. It actually has components of 'true' to it.

Most of the time I'm comfortable accepting 'female' as a word that describes me. I can't say I identify as female; it isn't a matter that has that much sfik-value for me. I've always had the basic attitude-feeling that if I do it, it has to be the sort of thing that women do, more or less.



When I'm spending time with women -- with Earth-woman-gendered-women -- I often wind up feeling like I'm doing the whole woman thing somehow wrong.

(This thought comes out in pretty simple trigonometry; for those people who run screaming from mathematics, I apologise; I can't do it any better.)

Unit circle centered on the origin; X-axis female-ness, Y-axis maleness. I'm not on either of the axes; I'm up about thirty degrees or so. I have a distinct, specified, very clear gender, located somewhere about half root-3 X + .5 Y, and when I'm near women who're near 1 on X, I'm clearly not fulfilling what womanness is by comparison, because I've got an angle there that I'm taking the cosine of to get there. Unit length falls short.

My gender is not unknown, unspecified, or other; it's just . . . a bit irrational.

"She" is close enough for everyday use. Call it about 86.6% accurate.
kiya: (hawk)
( Sep. 18th, 2003 11:57 pm)
[ Note: if you think you know all of what's going into this, you're probably wrong. If you think you know some of what's going into this, you're probably right. ]

[ Note #2: This may not make much sense; part of the writing it is trying to work things out. I did some working-out talking to [livejournal.com profile] teinedreugan and later [livejournal.com profile] brooksmoses last night, but a lot of it's still under my tongue. ]

[ Note #3: I should add a wolf silhouette to my hawk icon. ]

All these damned monkeys frustrate me. )

    But we do not notice them even when they throw nuts and filth on our heads.

[ The Jungle Book, Rudyard Kipling ]
Today I am feeling very dwojwierny.

I find myself very, very uncomfortable when I see other pagans expressing hatred or contempt for Christianity and/or Christians. It leaves me feeling like . . . like I'm in a room full of people telling Polack jokes.
Cut for people who don't want to read this sort of thing and possibly length. )

(While the current tune as mentioned is, in fact, something I consider a hymn, it is not stalking me; it is a large part of why I am writing this entry.
    No more turning away from the weak and the weary
    No more turning away from the coldness inside
    Just a world that we all must share
    Not enough just to stand and stare
    Is it only a dream that there will be
    No more turning away?
kiya: (snakie)
( Jan. 14th, 2003 09:29 pm)
[livejournal.com profile] teinedreugan and I went to the grocery store. Yay food. (We needed food for dinner for tonight and also for tomorrow; [livejournal.com profile] autumnesquirrel and [livejournal.com profile] sstaten over for dinner tomorrow, and thus must be fed.) So I made a beef stir-fry with a really terrific marinade on the beef. Didn't put it in for long enough, because we only got to the grocery at seven, and even with a late dinner that doesn't provide enough time for a really really good marinating.

But the marinade was a decent-sized splash of rice vinegar, a lot of soy sauce, a moderate amount of sesame oil, a heaping spoonful of shredded ginger (I came to the conclusion that for some reason I can't keep ginger root around like my parents did, so I broke down and bought a jar of shredded ginger), and two heaping spoonfuls of cornstarch. Good stuff.

Mostly I'm writing 'cause there was something in the checkout line I felt a need to share with the world. This being a National Enquirer headline. (For those people who aren't familiar with this notable entity, the Enquirer is one of the gossip rags which occasionally wanders into UFO sightings and the like. Okay, [livejournal.com profile] teinedreugan insists it's not occasionally.)

Gist of the headline I never expected to see in the Enquirer: Shocking News: Clone Baby a Fake!.
I'm not sure I can think of anything at the moment that makes me feel more cynical than seeing someone make snide comments about how "dyed-in-the-wool Christians" behave . . . more or less just like humans unspecified by adjective, really.

Oh, most terribly shocking, people of one adjective are not any more likely to agree, to act in concert, to fail to be in conflict, or to avoid tripping over each other than people of any other adjective or, for that matter, people who are not currently sorted by adjective. Newsflash! People persist in being people, even if they're in possession of adjectives.

So why the dig at one religious faith again? I missed the point, here. Unless the point was to make snide comments about how people keep on doing what they think is right even if other people disagree. (Another revelation which fails to induce a need for me to fan myself in order to prevent collapsing from shock.)
kiya: (hawk)
( Aug. 30th, 2002 02:25 am)
So the net's still being fuggheaded. Which irritates me tremendously when I'm trying to get a message to [livejournal.com profile] brooksmoses before he goes to bed, and I can see the sequences 'cause I'm logged into another machine at the moment -- I send the mail, I check usenet, I check the logs on the machine, I see that he's checking mail . . . and that the mail I sent a usenet cycle and catchup ago hasn't reached there. It shows up twenty-six seconds later, which isn't that much in the grand scheme of things, but in terms of catching the last mailcheck is a big fucking deal, especially when one's trying to get a clarification on a glitch.

And I've got a couple of delightful little language-use glitches running around in circles at the moment. Onwards into rantland. )

Oh, hello, a rather belated reply from [livejournal.com profile] brooksmoses. Nice to know that that message got through after all, and I can stop being wiggy in the head about it.
This from the most recent spam phone call I've gotten (I'm answering the phone today because Kevin placed an order and they might be calling here).

    Can I speak to Kevin Marsh?
    I'm afraid he's at work.

This is the normal thing. Normally in follow-up to this, they ask me, "Are you Mrs. Marsh?" and I say "No." This time they asked the question that I answer "Yes" to:

    Is this his wife?

Then it gets interesting.

    Mrs. Marsh, I. . .
    My name is not Mrs. Marsh.

Graceful recovery, that.

    I did not take my husband's name.
    *with amazing huffiness* Oh-kay. Sorrreeeeee.

Then she hung up on me.
(By "this" I mean "argue with Tal".)

Though at least this time I did not respond to his "Don't you agree that my conclusion drawn from my personal biases is the case?" with anything other than "No."

Ramblings about possessiveness )

But enough Martian anthropology.

I've been dealing with depression again. And I'm actually dealing at the moment; my personal goal is to do one significant and useful thing per day, and also to remember to eat each day. Two days ago, I got about two thirds of the way through cleaning the cruft off the living room rug so I could vacuum it. Yesterday, I cleaned out Kunda's favorite lurking log, which had accumulated lots of skin and such and thus needed to be blasted clean with the hose. Today I have done laundry (not sure how many useful things that counts as; it was put in the wash, and transferred to the dryer, and I may remember to take it out and bring it upstairs when it's done). I have unloaded and loaded the dishwasher, though I haven't started it, because I have not the brains to either work out how to get the hose attached to the faucet or figure out why the door won't close.

This is useful inasmuch as it keeps me from feeling like a complete waste of oxygen.

I also finally beat the scenario in Kohan that was aggravating me. And the next one, for good measure. But those don't count as useful, even if they were personal goals.


kiya: (Default)


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags