|
Some thoughts regarding the video slideshow:
The basis for the message at the end is that each of us becomes an independent stone or wheel, and if we just happen to encounter somebody else going the same direction we are then we can enjoy their company. The underlying message is that we aren't linked to, or "tied down", to anyone else. I see this approach working wonderfully for perpetual bachelors/bachelorettes. With relationships as arrangements of convenience this model works great, since there is never any linkage. If one wheel/stone hits a stumbling block somewhere, it is safe to assume that any accompanying stone will simply roll on ahead, perhaps with an inner hope that someday the other stone might get rolling again and catch up....which is exactly how the round stone treated the triangle when it first encountered it. What I found fascinating in the video was the notion that rough edges can only be knocked off independently. It is sad, in the case where a match/linkage was initially made but one "grew", that it never occurred to the joined couple that if they continued to roll together any excess corners would have also naturally been smoothed out, leading them to effectively remain as "one" complete round stone. So sad. It was a lost opportunity. 
|
|
Quoted: Some thoughts regarding the video slideshow: The basis for the message at the end is that each of us becomes an independent stone or wheel, and if we just happen to encounter somebody else going the same direction we are then we can enjoy their company. The underlying message is that we aren't linked to, or "tied down", to anyone else. I see this approach working wonderfully for perpetual bachelors/bachelorettes. With relationships as arrangements of convenience this model works great, since there is never any linkage. If one wheel/stone hits a stumbling block somewhere, it is safe to assume that any accompanying stone will simply roll on ahead, perhaps with an inner hope that someday the other stone might get rolling again and catch up....which is exactly how the round stone treated the triangle when it first encountered it. What I found fascinating in the video was the notion that rough edges can only be knocked off independently. It is sad, in the case where a match/linkage was initially made but one "grew", that it never occurred to the joined couple that if they continued to roll together any excess corners would have also naturally been smoothed out, leading them to effectively remain as "one" complete round stone. So sad. It was a lost opportunity. I think the point is that you can't rely on someone else to make you complete. If you're not enough by yourself, you'll never be enough with someone else. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Some thoughts regarding the video slideshow: The basis for the message at the end is that each of us becomes an independent stone or wheel, and if we just happen to encounter somebody else going the same direction we are then we can enjoy their company. The underlying message is that we aren't linked to, or "tied down", to anyone else. I see this approach working wonderfully for perpetual bachelors/bachelorettes. With relationships as arrangements of convenience this model works great, since there is never any linkage. If one wheel/stone hits a stumbling block somewhere, it is safe to assume that any accompanying stone will simply roll on ahead, perhaps with an inner hope that someday the other stone might get rolling again and catch up....which is exactly how the round stone treated the triangle when it first encountered it. What I found fascinating in the video was the notion that rough edges can only be knocked off independently. It is sad, in the case where a match/linkage was initially made but one "grew", that it never occurred to the joined couple that if they continued to roll together any excess corners would have also naturally been smoothed out, leading them to effectively remain as "one" complete round stone. So sad. It was a lost opportunity. I think the point is that you can't rely on someone else to make you complete. If you're not enough by yourself, you'll never be enough with someone else. Ah, but a couple should "compliment" eachother, which suggests that they are more "complete" together than apart. Are you more complete with your wife? On the other hand, if somebody isn't "squared" away without a partner, they probably won't be squared away just because they have a signficant other. 
Shapes are quite the flavor of the day! |
|
I didn't get that out of it. At first the piece is sitting all alone, waiting for someone to come along and make it "whole". Some relationships did okay, but none really panned out. The piece made surface changes (the flowers) but that didn't change anything fundamentally. The fitting piece was okay for a while, but in time it grew, changed, matured (?) and they no longer fit. So the piece keeps looking for something to make it complete.  The O was "whole" on its own. The missing piece had to learn to make itself what it wanted/needed first, before it could pair up with another complete O. ? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Some thoughts regarding the video slideshow: The basis for the message at the end is that each of us becomes an independent stone or wheel, and if we just happen to encounter somebody else going the same direction we are then we can enjoy their company. The underlying message is that we aren't linked to, or "tied down", to anyone else. I see this approach working wonderfully for perpetual bachelors/bachelorettes. With relationships as arrangements of convenience this model works great, since there is never any linkage. If one wheel/stone hits a stumbling block somewhere, it is safe to assume that any accompanying stone will simply roll on ahead, perhaps with an inner hope that someday the other stone might get rolling again and catch up....which is exactly how the round stone treated the triangle when it first encountered it. What I found fascinating in the video was the notion that rough edges can only be knocked off independently. It is sad, in the case where a match/linkage was initially made but one "grew", that it never occurred to the joined couple that if they continued to roll together any excess corners would have also naturally been smoothed out, leading them to effectively remain as "one" complete round stone. So sad. It was a lost opportunity. I think the point is that you can't rely on someone else to make you complete. If you're not enough by yourself, you'll never be enough with someone else. Well crap, I typed all that and I should have just waited for you to say it in one sentence. |
|
Instead of a wedge, shouldnt it be half a circle, since two people need to contribute equal parts into a relationship so it will "roll"?
I think so. ETA: Or really since you need to be able to roll on your own before entering a relationship, shouldnt it be a complete circle thats been cut lengthways (You'd have to have a 3D drawing to see it) and it looks for another circle that same size it can roll with? |
|
Quoted: Instead of a wedge, shouldnt it be half a circle, since two people need to contribute equal parts into a relationship so it will "roll"? I think so. ETA: Or really since you need to be able to roll on your own before entering a relationship, shouldnt it be a complete circle thats been cut lengthways (You'd have to have a 3D drawing to see it) and it looks for another circle that same size it can roll with? Some people are triangles. Or pyramids.  |
|
Sorry, when I saw the example the message seemed a little obtuse. I went round and round with it in my mind until parralels, intersections, and deviations to the original model began to take shape. Geeky of me, I know, but then again I hear that it's hip to be square. As you can see from my last post, my initial response was a complete 180 degrees from the angle the illustrator presented, but in a way I came around a full 360 to see one way it could be applied. Didn't mean to get all bent out of shape over the thing. I admit that it's a-cute illustration.
Perhaps a poll is needed. It just wouldn't be arfcom if there wasn't a choice for pi. Then again, on arfcom I don't know if a signifcant ratio of the members will ever really understand the root of relationships. Only a fraction are able to grasp the sum total of these discussions. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Instead of a wedge, shouldnt it be half a circle, since two people need to contribute equal parts into a relationship so it will "roll"? I think so. ETA: Or really since you need to be able to roll on your own before entering a relationship, shouldnt it be a complete circle thats been cut lengthways (You'd have to have a 3D drawing to see it) and it looks for another circle that same size it can roll with? Some people are triangles. Or pyramids. A lot of people cant roll. |
|
Quoted: Sorry, when I saw the example the message seemed a little obtuse. I went round and round with it in my mind until parralels, intersections, and deviations to the original model began to take shape. Geeky of me, I know, but then again I hear that it's hip to be square. As you can see from my last post, my initial response was a complete 180 degrees from the angle the illustrator presented, but in a way I came around a full 360 to see one way it could be applied. Didn't mean to get all bent out of shape over the thing. I admit that it's a-cute illustration. Perhaps a poll is needed. It just wouldn't be arfcom if there wasn't a choice for pi. Then again, on arfcom I don't know if a signifcant ratio of the members will ever really understand the root of relationships. Only a fraction are able to grasp the sum total of these discussions.  Impressive.
|
