The Slippery Slope

[Recidiva]

Thanks, but the statement that there is no such thing as an absolute truth is not an hypothesis.

Now, there are things in math that are seen as absolute (products of the operations on natural numbers, i.e. 3X2=6, for example) but math is an artificial system (while it may have some of its origins in our mental structures, it's still artificial) and not subject to the same kinds of uncertainty as our attempts to explain the natural world. That's where doubt and uncertainty are the rule and not the exception. It's that untidy natural world that causes all the problems.

Now, back to the original idea. I wonder if the theorist with whom CM shared cocktails had an explanation for his theory. Some see a problem and ask "Why" and others see a problem and ask "How did the train get to Philadelphia in the first place?"

Yes, but 3 x 2 = 6 is an absolute theory, not a truth. You can make symbols absolute because they're not tangible.

That's the point that people are making regarding ivory tower theory versus engineering. You can think thoughts in your head as much as you want, and they can be as elegant as you think they are. But it's reality that decides what's real. You can predict things in very narrow capacity if you're dealing with math. That describes statistics and algebra and calculus. Group behavior, or the behavior of motion on physical objects. Beyond that, you can psychologically profile as much as you want, but it's usually bullshit because when you really need "the law of averages" to predict something, it's usually because it's an exception to the rule.

Unfortunately relying on something being "probable" ends up unable to predict the anomaly events.

 

[midwestyankee]

Isn't it more appropriate to ask why the train would want to be in Philly at all?


*hides from HottieMama*

Or why it would want to travel at exactly 73 mph for some unknown fraction of the distance to Ardmore and then switch instantaneously to 46 mph for the remaining unknown fraction of the travel time. Or was the engineer on speed?

 

[Recidiva]

Or why it would want to travel at exactly 73 mph for some unknown fraction of the distance to Ardmore and then switch instantaneously to 46 mph for the remaining unknown fraction of the travel time. Or was the engineer on speed?

And the possibility that you will develop a way to travel at exactly 73 miles per hour and never vary in reality (not talking spedometer stuck on cruise control) is low.

Thought that's stuck on cruise control doesn't take in the minor variations in the actual speed fluctuation based on friction, wind speed and performance.

And the car and driver assuming they will travel forward at exactly 73 mph cannot predict having the experiment suddenly cease to exist due to a tractor trailer swinging into their lane.

 

[midwestyankee]

Yes, but 3 x 2 = 6 is an absolute theory, not a truth. You can make symbols absolute because they're not tangible.

That's the point that people are making regarding ivory tower theory versus engineering. You can think thoughts in your head as much as you want, and they can be as elegant as you think they are. But it's reality that decides what's real. You can predict things in very narrow capacity if you're dealing with math. That describes statistics and algebra and calculus. Group behavior, or the behavior of motion on physical objects. Beyond that, you can psychologically profile as much as you want, but it's usually bullshit because when you really need "the law of averages" to predict something, it's usually because it's an exception to the rule.

Unfortunately relying on something being "probable" ends up unable to predict the anomaly events.

Ah, yes, and isn't it the anomolous events that give life its wonder?

 

[Recidiva]

Ah, yes, and isn't it the anomolous events that give life its wonder?

Yes. I tend to enjoy living more in that space, which gives me a perspective on those who prefer to remain only where things are predicted, to the point of throwing out all other data as "anomalous" and therefore "wrong."

 

[rida]

.....
.... He will not make an important decison without consulting me and I will suport him wholeheartedly if he opts for a choice that I wouldn't have made.

I think that is the core of what makes a relationship long lasting.

People change, and evolve, and the only way a relationship will survive is if it evolve to reflect those changes (whether from vanilla to D/s; from D/s to M/s or any other direction/combination possible).

But ultimately being able to work toward the same goal as a team, independently of who had the final word, is what makes the difference in a relationship survival rate.

And I think this is true in general, vanilla or BDSM.

 

[JMohegan]

This reasoning is the sort of thing that makes me wonder why (generally speaking) it is presumed submissives are cherished/encouraged to pursue their interests, and slaves aren't. I had lunch with a different gentleman yesterday, who has had M/s relationships for 30+ years, and looks at things from a M/s perspective, rather than D/s. We've discussed the details of how each of us see such a dynamic/what it means, and he's the sort of guy who wants final say in everything, with the option to micro-manage - even though he hasn't any interest in doing so... he's of the "oversee another's life" school of thought, which (to him) includes enjoying my impassioned interest in XYZ subject, and making whatever need happen, happen to enable my enjoyment of such - going back to college/setting goals with me and making sure they happen, etc. He's already said being a good mother would be a priority, as would maintaining my close friendships... yet were I to decide to enter a relationship with him, I would be a "slave" in the BDSM sense/definition of the word. Sometimes his exertion of control would be no different than what I'd decide to do for myself, but it would make it no less his decision.

I draw a clear distinction between areas in which I maintain active control, areas in which I maintain latent control, and areas in which I have no interest in maintaining control whatsoever.

A partner's career, and interaction with family & friends, are areas in which I have never been interested in maintaining control, either active or latent.

As for the original topic, I did (and do) see the point of the original theorist; I can see where there would be a gradual shift in some relationships, and knowing his views of BDSM, can especially see why he sees things the way he does. However, having said that, I do think it might be a bit easier on both parts to acknowledge X dynamic, Y boundaries, communicate throughout the process, and not worry about the semantics of "submissive" versus "slave."

Here's the original topic (bold emphasis added by me):

I had margaritas with a (no chemistry but we like each other's minds) friend last night, and in the process of discussing D/s he proposed his theory that all dominant/submissive relationships eventually fall into two catagories - they either drift towards and eventually become full blown Master/slave, or the relationship falls apart.

If you or your friend believe that this theory applies to someone like me, that's your prerogative.

I simply disagree.