5 ms·

To follow this line of thinking, are you suggesting I can have an intimate relationship with a rock? If you're not speaking to the point about intimacy, what p

by toolz 5y ago

To follow this line of thinking, are you suggesting I can have an intimate relationship with a rock? If you're not speaking to the point about intimacy, what point are you speaking to, because your post isn't very clear what point, if any, you were trying to make.

darkerside 5y ago
Yes. Only one small part of your brain finds that idea ridiculous.
- toolz 5y ago
  Do you have intimate relationships with rocks? and if so can you describe what that relationship is like? Does your conscious self acknowledge this relationship or are you just speaking in some metaphysical sense that is completely intangible?
  - NikolaeVarius 5y ago
    Like I said, people have intimate relations with dolls, 3d waifus, and goddamn robot dogs. Its extremely closed minded to think intimate relations are limited to human -> human interactions https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intimate https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intimate Nothing in the definition requires two humans
    - Galaxeblaffer 5y ago
      And rocks I'm sure
      - GreenWatermelon 5y ago
        And trees, and blankets, and baseballs, and coffee mugs, and diaries.
      - desmond373 5y ago
        Yes. People have great fascination with many inanimate objects, usually with exceptional features or stories based around them. They seek to protect and understand these objects at great depth. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uluru https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uluru https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_Stone https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_Stone
  - wruza 5y ago
    Well, the universe is full of rocks. “Intimate” may not be a great word (too anthropic and intangible), but writing off all these rocks as boring and banal is probably narrow sighted. Birds, sun and vegetation may feel intimate, but try to feel that without a rock right under your feet. They have a point, imo. We tend to ignore “default” things, but it doesn’t make them irrelevant, they are an important part of the setup. The next thing to feel intimate relationships with is gas (the universe is full of gas that produced you after all, isn’t that as close to “intimate” as it can get).
    - toolz 5y ago
      > “Intimate” may not be a great word Intimate was the centerpiece of my curiosity. Sure I can have feelings about the universe and the rocks that exist within this universe, but there is no intimacy. > isn’t that as close to “intimate” as it can get No, intimacy isn't a feeling that just happens to you or a circumstance you happen to be in, it's an active relationship where both parties involved do something to foster or maintain the intimacy. Can someone feel as though rocks were actively fostering or maintaining intimacy with them? I mean, I guess? I'm not sure what that would look or feel like to believe that inanimate objects were actively working to deepen their relationship with you. Rather it feels like this metaphysical spiritual jargon I read here is just co-opting a word to give more significance to a different kind of relationship someone might feel towards inanimate objects. It's harmless I'm sure, but at the root of it, it feels very selfish and condescending to take a word that has clear meaning and suggest to someone they just aren't using all of their brain if they can't understand intimacy with inanimate objects. Now, understand I really don't mind misuse of words if it's towards a greater goal of communication, but here it feels like it's towards a lesser goal of demeaning people who use the word only for effective communication.
      - darkerside 5y ago
        I see why you're offended now. It was not my intention. I don't think I can describe it in words. Like I said, our egos stop us from taking the idea too seriously, perhaps out of a survival instinct. There are some drugs that will cause "ego death". The part of your brain that distinguishes between the self and the other literally ceases to function. It sounds metaphysical and silly, but when it happens, you understand how insignificant your ego truly is in comparison with the world, and yet it tells you that it contains every perception that tells you what the world is, and it's only when that ego stops that you can see that the world, including you, can go on without your ego. So, just like intimate moments with a lover, or a musical instrument, or blessed peaceful moment, you are allowed to forget about yourself. That is my understanding of intimacy. What is yours?
  - datavirtue 5y ago
    Can someone define "intimate relationship" so that we know what we are arguing about? I have an intimate relationship with kaolinite, silica, bentonite, and feldspar. I could go on and on.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
NikolaeVarius 5y ago
Why the fuck not, people have intimate relationships with human sized dolls
- Koshkin 5y ago
  I think you may be confused: it’s almost like saying that “a car has had an intimate relationship with a pole.”

by toolz 5y ago

darkerside 5y ago

Yes. Only one small part of your brain finds that idea ridiculous.

toolz 5y ago
Do you have intimate relationships with rocks? and if so can you describe what that relationship is like? Does your conscious self acknowledge this relationship or are you just speaking in some metaphysical sense that is completely intangible?
- NikolaeVarius 5y ago
  Like I said, people have intimate relations with dolls, 3d waifus, and goddamn robot dogs. Its extremely closed minded to think intimate relations are limited to human -> human interactions https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intimate https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intimate Nothing in the definition requires two humans
  - Galaxeblaffer 5y ago
    And rocks I'm sure
    - GreenWatermelon 5y ago
      And trees, and blankets, and baseballs, and coffee mugs, and diaries.
    - desmond373 5y ago
      Yes. People have great fascination with many inanimate objects, usually with exceptional features or stories based around them. They seek to protect and understand these objects at great depth. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uluru https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uluru https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_Stone https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_Stone
- wruza 5y ago
  Well, the universe is full of rocks. “Intimate” may not be a great word (too anthropic and intangible), but writing off all these rocks as boring and banal is probably narrow sighted. Birds, sun and vegetation may feel intimate, but try to feel that without a rock right under your feet. They have a point, imo. We tend to ignore “default” things, but it doesn’t make them irrelevant, they are an important part of the setup. The next thing to feel intimate relationships with is gas (the universe is full of gas that produced you after all, isn’t that as close to “intimate” as it can get).
  - toolz 5y ago
    > “Intimate” may not be a great word Intimate was the centerpiece of my curiosity. Sure I can have feelings about the universe and the rocks that exist within this universe, but there is no intimacy. > isn’t that as close to “intimate” as it can get No, intimacy isn't a feeling that just happens to you or a circumstance you happen to be in, it's an active relationship where both parties involved do something to foster or maintain the intimacy. Can someone feel as though rocks were actively fostering or maintaining intimacy with them? I mean, I guess? I'm not sure what that would look or feel like to believe that inanimate objects were actively working to deepen their relationship with you. Rather it feels like this metaphysical spiritual jargon I read here is just co-opting a word to give more significance to a different kind of relationship someone might feel towards inanimate objects. It's harmless I'm sure, but at the root of it, it feels very selfish and condescending to take a word that has clear meaning and suggest to someone they just aren't using all of their brain if they can't understand intimacy with inanimate objects. Now, understand I really don't mind misuse of words if it's towards a greater goal of communication, but here it feels like it's towards a lesser goal of demeaning people who use the word only for effective communication.
    - darkerside 5y ago
      I see why you're offended now. It was not my intention. I don't think I can describe it in words. Like I said, our egos stop us from taking the idea too seriously, perhaps out of a survival instinct. There are some drugs that will cause "ego death". The part of your brain that distinguishes between the self and the other literally ceases to function. It sounds metaphysical and silly, but when it happens, you understand how insignificant your ego truly is in comparison with the world, and yet it tells you that it contains every perception that tells you what the world is, and it's only when that ego stops that you can see that the world, including you, can go on without your ego. So, just like intimate moments with a lover, or a musical instrument, or blessed peaceful moment, you are allowed to forget about yourself. That is my understanding of intimacy. What is yours?
- datavirtue 5y ago
  Can someone define "intimate relationship" so that we know what we are arguing about? I have an intimate relationship with kaolinite, silica, bentonite, and feldspar. I could go on and on.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

NikolaeVarius 5y ago

Why the fuck not, people have intimate relationships with human sized dolls

Koshkin 5y ago
I think you may be confused: it’s almost like saying that “a car has had an intimate relationship with a pole.”