![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 7 to 31 of 34. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on May 20, 2011, at 20:43:42
In reply to wild things, posted by floatingbridge on May 19, 2011, at 9:59:39
Maybe it's just me, but the idea doesn't appeal. I suppose skunks aren't much of a target from predators, but then there's the whole walking into the road hazard. They probably have to work as hard as we do to provide themselves with a safe dry home and enough to eat. Male skunks have their fair share of competition for female companionship, and while the female skunks can probably get all the sperm donors they could possibly want, I'm not sure how skunk fathers stack up with nurturing and the provision of resources. Can you imagine giving birth to your little skunk litter all alone in a dark burrow somewhere? Then having to think of getting some food for the family?
They probably don't worry about things much, but I don't imagine they feel all that much joy at beautiful music and aren't moved by poetry.
I suppose it's pretty good to be a skunk, if you are a skunk. I'm just not sure it's any better than being a human, if you are a human.
Posted by Dinah on May 20, 2011, at 20:44:11
In reply to Re: wild things, posted by Dinah on May 20, 2011, at 20:43:42
But then, I haven't an ounce of romance in me.
Posted by floatingbridge on May 20, 2011, at 22:00:51
In reply to Re: wild things, posted by Dinah on May 20, 2011, at 20:44:11
> But then, I haven't an ounce of romance in me.
Really Dinah? Methinks you are pulling my leg. Wit and romance are not polar opposites.
Btw, I don't want to be a skunk (that's a funny thing to write) but I did enjoy imagining what it's like to be a skunk in space and time.
How about a Vulcan mind meld?
(Like Wally from *My Dinner with
Andre*, I wouldn't give up my electric blanket for anything.)
Posted by sigismund on May 21, 2011, at 1:46:27
In reply to Re: wild things » Dinah, posted by floatingbridge on May 20, 2011, at 22:00:51
Speaking of My Dinner with Andre, I have never enjoyed a movie more than "Vanya on 42nd Street".
Posted by SLS on May 21, 2011, at 5:17:04
In reply to Re: wild things » Dinah, posted by floatingbridge on May 20, 2011, at 22:00:51
Hi FB.
> Btw, I don't want to be a skunk (that's a funny thing to write) but I did enjoy imagining what it's like to be a skunk in space and time.
What a nice connection with nature that is. I love the way your mind works.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on May 21, 2011, at 5:29:43
In reply to Re: wild things, posted by Dinah on May 20, 2011, at 20:44:11
> But then, I haven't an ounce of romance in me.
If you are without romance, then what are you with?
I'm curious to know how you view yourself. It would be interesting to compare your view with the views of others in cyberspace; knowing that cyberspace is a milieu within which personalities don't always match those that exist in other environments.
Besides being able to exercise a certain amount of logic (or ill-logic), I like to think that others feel that I am compassionate and accessible. I hope the romance is obvious, along with passion. Of these, I am most dubious that I am accessible in cyberspace. I very often feel that others are not responsive to me. In real life, the opposite is true.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on May 21, 2011, at 5:30:59
In reply to Re: wild things » Dinah, posted by SLS on May 21, 2011, at 5:29:43
Am I any fun?
- Scott
Posted by floatingbridge on May 21, 2011, at 6:17:55
In reply to Re: wild things, posted by sigismund on May 21, 2011, at 1:46:27
sigi!!!!! I thought that movie was/is fantastic! I adored it and wept flipping buckets.
I read a slim volume by Wallace Shawn and wished I hadn't. I thought of that adage that it is sometimes best for some artists not to talk too much about their art.
Posted by floatingbridge on May 21, 2011, at 6:52:43
In reply to Re: wild things, posted by SLS on May 21, 2011, at 5:30:59
> Am I any fun?
>
>
> - ScottScott, really? Your amusement often amuses me :-)
But we're talking posts here, not people.
Cyberspace is weird. Humor doesn't translate the same as in person. I didn't realized the humor in Dinah's post for awhile. Her post was slow-release for me. Very dry. I am very slow to get humor, I think, because of social anxieties, and, well, a certain intermittent dimness....
Maybe fun is like beauty. Or music or poetry for that matter. It exists in the reception. Fun for one person, or
humor, can be offensive to another. Ideally, fun would not cost anybody anything.Have you seen *Play Time* by Jacques Tati? Or any of his films. They are deeply ironic and very--I can't think of
the opposite of misanthropic--all-inclusive and life affirming. They are like, aren't we ridiculous and isn't that just wonderful? I find them such a tonic.
Posted by floatingbridge on May 21, 2011, at 6:57:06
In reply to Re: wild things » floatingbridge, posted by SLS on May 21, 2011, at 5:17:04
> What a nice connection with nature that is. I love the way your mind works.
>
>
> - ScottThat is such a kind thing to say. I'm going to save that for a rainy day.
fb
Posted by sigismund on May 21, 2011, at 13:34:18
In reply to Re: wild things » SLS, posted by floatingbridge on May 21, 2011, at 6:57:06
What does 'romantic' mean anyway?
I once visited a friend in the loony bin. This young man there came up to me and said 'You know I am God, don't you?'
I wasn't sure he wasn't. One of those strikingly beautiful young people.
How was I to know?
In another mood I might have dropped everything and followed him.That's what I should have said (I didn't say anything. I was much too impressed.).....'Why have you not asked me to follow you?'
Is that romantic?
Posted by floatingbridge on May 21, 2011, at 14:30:30
In reply to Re: wild things, posted by sigismund on May 21, 2011, at 13:34:18
> What does 'romantic' mean anyway?
I don't really know. Usually romanticism is associated with subjectivity, emotion, sensation. Scientific reason and theories of objectivity are placed in opposition. I'm regurgitating my lit school stuff.
Given that definition, I would be more of a romantic because of my belief that objectivity remains an ideal never quite achieved, though I think should be strived for, and because of my native tendency toward emotion-based thought.
But I am *not* romantic (!) in any contemporary pop sense.
Dinah, what is romance to you? Since you haven't an ounce ;-)
Perhaps sigi, you are a lapsed romantic? One who feels the impulse to follow beauty and sighs with nostalgia yet relief for not being ultimately swayed. That's sense?
I have never read "Sense and Sensibility". Maybe the title suggests this tension, but don't know....
>
> I once visited a friend in the loony bin. This young man there came up to me and said 'You know I am God, don't you?'
> I wasn't sure he wasn't. One of those strikingly beautiful young people.
> How was I to know?
> In another mood I might have dropped everything and followed him.
>
> That's what I should have said (I didn't say anything. I was much too impressed.).....'Why have you not asked me to follow you?'
>
> Is that romantic?
Posted by sigismund on May 21, 2011, at 15:02:40
In reply to romance? » sigismund, posted by floatingbridge on May 21, 2011, at 14:30:30
With that young man I could gave gone to Mae West for inspiration (What is an angel like you doing in a place like this?) or Leonard Cohen (Your suffering will equal your beauty) or the Bible (Who has delivered you into the hands of the Philistines?)
When it comes to music it is easy to leave the romantic, except for stuff like Schubert. He's romantic. I'm clear about that.
You need to be young. I have not quite forgotten.
My kids aren't romantic at all. My wife and I were saying about their hard headedness 'They're like aliens'. It must be all those good ego boundaries.
Posted by Dinah on May 21, 2011, at 18:15:20
In reply to romance? » sigismund, posted by floatingbridge on May 21, 2011, at 14:30:30
Well, I think I haven't an ounce of romance because...
http://www2.latech.edu/~bmagee/201/marlowe/shepherd_&_notes.htm
Christopher Marlowe's "The Passionate Shepherd to his Love" is romantic. It largely left me unmoved.
Sir Walter Scott's "The Nymph's Reply to the Shepherd" captivated me at my first reading. It is my favorite poem of all time, though I'm also rather fond of Sir John Suckling.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Why_So_Pale_and_Wan,_Fond_Lover
http://www.netpoets.com/classic/poems/061005.htm
My husband is a bit more romantic than I am, but even then, our favorite love song is "Good Enough for Now" by Weird Al Yankovic.
"Oh I couldnt live a single day without you,
Actually on second thought, well I suppose I could.
Anyway, what I'm tryin' to say is honey you're the greatest,
Well at any rate, I guess you're pretty good.
Now it seems to me, I'm relatively lucky,
I know I probably couldn't ask for too much more,
I honestly can say you're an above average lady,
You're almost just what I've been looking for."I always thought that these things indicate a sad lack of romance in my soul.
Posted by Dinah on May 21, 2011, at 18:19:54
In reply to Re: wild things, posted by floatingbridge on May 21, 2011, at 6:52:43
I hope you didn't find my post distressing or offensive. It wasn't meant to be.
You aren't the first (or second or third) person who referred to my humor as dry. I'm not entirely sure what dry humor is, but I hope it isn't a bad thing.
Posted by Dinah on May 21, 2011, at 18:35:57
In reply to Re: wild things » Dinah, posted by SLS on May 21, 2011, at 5:29:43
> > But then, I haven't an ounce of romance in me.
>
> If you are without romance, then what are you with?
>
> I'm curious to know how you view yourself. It would be interesting to compare your view with the views of others in cyberspace; knowing that cyberspace is a milieu within which personalities don't always match those that exist in other environments.Darned if I know. I don't usually think of myself as a positive person, but I find myself saying optimistic (gasp!) things sometimes. I'm often sensible, but can be wildly lacking in sense at times. I don't think I'm humorless, but in some ways I am I think. Am I the same person one day to the next? I think a pull towards the middle and away from extremes is strong and consistent in me. (That can also be perceived as contrariness.) And I strive to be consistent in honor and integrity and a bit of compassion.
> Besides being able to exercise a certain amount of logic (or ill-logic), I like to think that others feel that I am compassionate and accessible. I hope the romance is obvious, along with passion. Of these, I am most dubious that I am accessible in cyberspace. I very often feel that others are not responsive to me. In real life, the opposite is true.
I think of you as smart and logical, compassionate and accessible. I also think that people at Babble have always been very responsive to you. At any rate, I've always considered you pretty terrific. I do enjoy being around you.
Do you really think otherwise? Surely you know how loved you are here.
Posted by floatingbridge on May 21, 2011, at 20:35:21
In reply to Re: wild things » floatingbridge, posted by Dinah on May 21, 2011, at 18:19:54
Well, dry is very good. It takes wit and timing. Few words, maybe. Slightly elliptical, which makes for a good joke.
Read dry as intelligent and sometimes mordant. But in your case, not at anyone's expense.
How do you feel about the word choice?
Kinda' like your post "I don't understand." Takes a beat to sink in (for
me) but rewarding. I can't do it, but admire it.How's that?
I was flustered at first because I have difficulty telling if I'm being ridiculed (my baggage, not yours).
Plus, I am *not* romantic in many, many ways.
I'm just pleased to talk to you. I like you an awful lot.
Warmly,
fb
Posted by Dinah on May 21, 2011, at 22:26:41
In reply to Re: wild things » Dinah, posted by floatingbridge on May 21, 2011, at 20:35:21
Me too. :)
I wouldn't ridicule you. It wouldn't even occur to me.
My therapist says that I have a different way of thinking than most people. I think that's just his way of saying I'm odd. I started thinking about really being a skunk, you see.
Posted by Solstice on May 22, 2011, at 8:15:21
In reply to Re: wild things » Dinah, posted by SLS on May 21, 2011, at 5:29:43
> Besides being able to exercise a certain amount of logic (or ill-logic), I like to think that others feel that I am compassionate and accessible. I hope the romance is obvious, along with passion. Of these, I am most dubious that I am accessible in cyberspace. I very often feel that others are not responsive to me. In real life, the opposite is true.
>
>
> - Scott
I 'feel' responsive to you... because when I read your posts, I am impacted. Every time. In a positive way.And I know that during the time you stopped posting, I was very sad. It was like there was a huge hole here.
And I wish I could know you in 'real life.'
Solstice
Posted by Solstice on May 22, 2011, at 8:32:04
In reply to Re: wild things » floatingbridge, posted by Dinah on May 21, 2011, at 18:19:54
> I'm not entirely sure what dry humor is, but I hope it isn't a bad thing.
Dry humor... it's my favorite kind! It takes clever intelligence to pull it off.. and both you and Scott have the knack for it. Sigi & fb, on the other hand, are masters of equally clever 'cheeky' humor.. my other favorite kind :-)Solstice
Posted by Solstice on May 22, 2011, at 8:47:52
In reply to Re: wild things » floatingbridge, posted by Dinah on May 21, 2011, at 22:26:41
> My therapist says that I have a different way of thinking than most people. I think that's just his way of saying I'm odd. I started thinking about really being a skunk, you see.Dinah..
You DO have a different way of thinking than most people... but you seem to perceive that as a negative? ('odd')? What you do that is different from 'most' is that you DO think! And you have a remarkable capacity for what I think of as seeing through a prism. You see everything at once. All sides.. all aspects. The difficult part of having that capacity is that it can make it tough to choose... so our feet freeze in place. I think you are way smarter than most. So although you are most certainly in a very small percentage of the population at large, 'odd' is a totally wrong way to characterize you and your thinking. I certainly feel honored to 'know' you in a cyber kind of way ;-)
Solstice
Posted by floatingbridge on May 22, 2011, at 11:26:47
In reply to Re: wild things » SLS, posted by Solstice on May 22, 2011, at 8:15:21
Solstice,
Sending you a big grin :)
Though I find sigi's posts deeply ironic. Not really cheeky.
It would be nice to know a few babblers in person, wouldn't it? But, *sigh*. Cyber space will have to do.
So good to hear from you!
Posted by floatingbridge on May 22, 2011, at 11:41:34
In reply to Re: wild things » Dinah, posted by Solstice on May 22, 2011, at 8:47:52
>
> > My therapist says that I have a different way of thinking than most people. I think that's just his way of saying I'm odd. I started thinking about really being a skunk, you see.
>
> Dinah..
>
> You DO have a different way of
thinking than most people... but you seem to perceive that as a negative? ('odd')? What you do that is different from 'most' is that you DO think! And you have a remarkable capacity for what I think of as seeing through a prism. You see everything at once. All sides.. all aspects. The difficult part of having that capacity is that it can make it tough to
choose... so our feet freeze in place. I think you are way smarter than most. So although you are most certainly in a very small percentage of the population at large, 'odd' is a totally wrong way to
characterize you and your thinking. I
certainly feel honored to 'know' you in a
cyber kind of way ;-)
>
> SolsticeDinah once walked me through being
called 'odd'. I have never thought of Dinah as 'odd'-- it would never occur to
me.What is it about that word that sticks and stings like a dart? Once someone refers to someone as 'odd', well, if they knew what those three letters set off in some folks, they'd most likely have refrained.
You, Solstice, appear to me to be a very good reader and writer. And loyal friend.
Posted by SLS on May 22, 2011, at 18:20:52
In reply to Re: wild things » SLS, posted by Solstice on May 22, 2011, at 8:15:21
>
> > Besides being able to exercise a certain amount of logic (or ill-logic), I like to think that others feel that I am compassionate and accessible. I hope the romance is obvious, along with passion. Of these, I am most dubious that I am accessible in cyberspace. I very often feel that others are not responsive to me. In real life, the opposite is true.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
>
> I 'feel' responsive to you... because when I read your posts, I am impacted. Every time. In a positive way.
>
> And I know that during the time you stopped posting, I was very sad. It was like there was a huge hole here.
>
> And I wish I could know you in 'real life.'
>
> Solstice
Thank you so much. You really made me feel wonderful with your post. Now I know who to come to when I need an affirmation or two.:-)
- Scott
Posted by SLS on May 22, 2011, at 18:24:02
In reply to Re: wild things » Dinah, posted by Solstice on May 22, 2011, at 8:47:52
>
> > My therapist says that I have a different way of thinking than most people. I think that's just his way of saying I'm odd. I started thinking about really being a skunk, you see.
>
> Dinah..
>
> You DO have a different way of thinking than most people... but you seem to perceive that as a negative? ('odd')? What you do that is different from 'most' is that you DO think! And you have a remarkable capacity for what I think of as seeing through a prism. You see everything at once. All sides.. all aspects. The difficult part of having that capacity is that it can make it tough to choose... so our feet freeze in place. I think you are way smarter than most. So although you are most certainly in a very small percentage of the population at large, 'odd' is a totally wrong way to characterize you and your thinking. I certainly feel honored to 'know' you in a cyber kind of way ;-)
>
> Solstice
I agree, Dinah. You are wonderful in your uniqueness as a human being. Good stuff.
- Scott
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.