EratiK Wrote:

Yonosa Wrote:You my friend are a lame duck. Don't run your life based on emotions, especially something as fleeting as "love". I personally don't base my relationships on fantasy magical connections that don't really exist. Sometimes people get along, sometimes people don't, and certain people have a propensity to get along more often. There is not a mystical connection, don't be a primitive.

Just because something is imaginary doesn't mean it isn't real. Try to read Lacan please.

I think I hate Lacan even more than Enter the Void. Enter the Void has more logical and scientific merit and emotional utility.

nest0r Wrote:

Yonosa Wrote:You my friend are a lame duck. Don't run your life based on emotions, especially something as fleeting as "love". I personally don't base my relationships on fantasy magical connections that don't really exist. Sometimes people get along, sometimes people don't, and certain people have a propensity to get along more often. There is not a mystical connection, don't be a primitive.

Yonosa, your comments are always great to read.

Haha yeah, I serve my purpose.


Also to the punk who said I haven't felt "love", that would be incorrect, but i did understand it for what it is.

nest0r Wrote:I think I hate Lacan even more than Enter the Void. Enter the Void has more logical and scientific merit and emotional utility.

I don't agree with everything he says, but having introduced topology into the domain of human sciences was truly a big step forward. Just last week I was reading an anthropology book about the Dreamtime, and the author showed how a hypercube could account for movements in the Aboriginal belief system (Barbara Glowczewski if you're interested).

Also, one other great thing Lacan did was (psychologically) pointing out how the representations are a combinatory sum of (more or less) drives, since this is how cognitive sciences are beginning to understand our brain. I mean, the transition between macro and micro thinking theorized by a bloke in the 50s. You can hate the man, but I'm still impressed by his works.

EratiK Wrote:

nest0r Wrote:I think I hate Lacan even more than Enter the Void. Enter the Void has more logical and scientific merit and emotional utility.

I don't agree with everything he says, but having introduced topology into the domain of human sciences was truly a big step forward. Just last week I was reading an anthropology book about the Dreamtime, and the author showed how a hypercube could account for movements in the Aboriginal belief system (Barbara Glowczewski if you're interested).

Also, one other great thing Lacan did was (psychologically) pointing out how the representations are a combinatory sum of (more or less) drives, since this is how cognitive sciences are beginning to understand our brain. I mean, the transition between macro and micro thinking theorized by a bloke in the 50s. You can hate the man, but I'm still impressed by his works.

Lacan has contributed what to science, exactly? I don't think Lacan has introduced anything useful. Scientific thinking and social science and suchlike have evolved from a wide array of angles, but I think only Lacanian folks would claim Lacan has contributed something concrete and pioneering to science of any sort.

What do you mean by representations and drives in cogsci? Are you speaking of modularity? That's not something Lacan had anything to do with or did 'first'.

I don't hate the man, and don't think of them as a man. I hate the references to the theorist and the ridiculous ideas that otherwise smart people waste their time on. "Fashionable Nonsense," I believe someone called it?

Certain people try to preserve various concepts and ideas from famous psychoanalytic theorists, but cognitive scientists have their own lineage and their own models and don't need that nonsense. ;p

Oh right I'm on a timeout, sorry!

I'm sure someone like Zizek has a lot to say about how great Lacan is, but Zizek doesn't know what they're talking about most of the time anyway, other than superficial revisionism and shallowly contrary thinking.

Yonosa Wrote:Also to the punk who said I haven't felt "love", that would be incorrect, but I did understand it for what it is.

Please don't imprint your reduced view on the general universe. Just because you consider something trifle doesn't mean the problem hasn't abysmal connexions...

Throwing in my experience --

I met my husband online ten years ago and we were in a romantic distance relationship for eight years before I relocated to his end of the US last summer. We were in extremely close communication (hours on the phone/webcam every night) during those eight years, and had many 2-3 long visits, so the transition to living in the same place was painless. It was an absurdly long time to live apart but we didn't have any options until recently. Everything worked, our families get along, and I'm glad every day that I stuck it out and came here.

nest0r Wrote:Lacan has contributed what to science, exactly? I don't think Lacan has introduced anything useful. Scientific thinking and social science and suchlike have evolved from a wide array of angles, but I think only Lacanian folks would claim Lacan has contributed something concrete and pioneering to science of any sort.

Actually, he was really the first to introduce topology in human sciences.

Quote:What do you mean by representations and drives in cogsci? Are you speaking of modularity? That's not something Lacan had anything to do with or did 'first'.

I know, he just showed how modularity was psychoanalytically relevant.

Quote:I don't hate the man, and don't think of them as a man. I hate the references to the theorist and the ridiculous ideas that otherwise smart people waste their time on. "Fashionable Nonsense," I believe someone called it?

I don't know what is happening on the American thought scene, but I'm really having a hard time thinking of myself as a "fashionable thinker", because I'm really not. Lacan and Levi-Strauss, Deleuze and Fédida just strike me as thinkers that, IMHO, have asked questions in maybe the most precise way.

Quote:Certain people try to preserve various concepts and ideas from famous psychoanalytic theorists, but cognitive scientists have their own lineage and their own models and don't need that nonsense. ;p

I'm glad they don't!

Quote:Oh right I'm on a timeout, sorry!

I'm sure someone like Zizek has a lot to say about how great Lacan is, but Zizek doesn't know what they're talking about most of the time anyway, other than superficial revisionism and shallowly contrary thinking.

I haven't read any book by Zizek (or Badiou for what matters), but I really dislike his approach that seemed pretty arrogant and superflous from a few articles I've seen. Sorry to break it to you, but these kind of guys are really disrespected in France.

EratiK Wrote:Actually, he was really the first to introduce topology in human sciences.


I know, he just showed how modularity was psychoanalytically relevant.


I don't know what is happening on the American thought scene, but I'm really having a hard time thinking of myself as a "fashionable thinker", because I'm really not. Lacan, Levi-Strauss and Deleuze just strike me as thinkers that, IMHO, have asked questions in maybe the most precise way.

Precise doesn't go very well with those names. I'm pretty sure famous French theorists are all considered 'fashionable' within all academic circles. It's part of the insular cottage industry. I'm a fan of folks like Latour encouraging empiricism in theory as long as people who don't believe in most of the previous generations' nonsense carry the torch (looking at you, Meillassoux), but not of manipulative pseudoscience to bolster baseless concepts.

There is nothing relevant in psychoanalysis, I would argue, and if there was, Lacan didn't show it. I don't know whether he used topology 'first', but I don't think there's anything scientific about Lacan or psychoanalysis, whatever "x science" they might claim to be operating within. A one-off instance of pseudoscientific gibberish involving topology, that has little to do with the development of science, that's possible I guess.

/dismisses entire industry

And I was referring to Sokal's book, translated in English as "Fashionable Nonsense," but something like 'intellecual impostures' originally.

Edit: And by the way, thinking of humankind's mental interiority as modular came long before Lacan.

EratiK Wrote:

Yonosa Wrote:Also to the punk who said I haven't felt "love", that would be incorrect, but I did understand it for what it is.

Please don't imprint your reduced view on the general universe. Just because you consider something trifle doesn't mean the problem hasn't abysmal connexions...

Do evidence based belief systems impose on reality? Certainly. Do they impose less than ideological ones? Of course, and they are testable and more workable in that they they do not assert an answer and admit a lack of evidence and understanding where evident. These kind of belief systems must necessarily adopted as our societies become more and more technical, there won't be a place for ideology if we are to make it, and if we destroy ourselves prior it will be due either to ideology or the lack of equal access to natural resources propagated by our primitive social organizations. Educate yourself son.

nest0r Wrote:Precise doesn't go very well with those names.

This remark was really unnecessary. Have you read Elementary structures of kinship? Expressionism in philosophy: Spinoza (the title is poorly translated by the way)? Of paranoid psychosis and its links to personality (Lacan's medical thesis, before he was a psychoanalyst)?

Quote:I'm pretty sure famous French theorists are all considered 'fashionable' within all academic circles. It's part of the insular cottage industry. I'm a fan of folks like Latour encouraging empiricism in theory as long as people who don't believe in most of the previous generations' nonsense carry the torch (looking at you, Meillassoux), but not of manipulative pseudoscience to bolster baseless concepts.

There is nothing relevant in psychoanalysis, I would argue, and if there was, Lacan didn't show it.

Which never was my claim.

Quote:I don't know whether he used topology 'first', but I don't think there's anything scientific about Lacan or psychoanalysis, whatever "x science" they might claim to be operating within. A one-off instance of pseudoscientific gibberish involving topology, that has little to do with the development of science, that's possible I guess.

/dismisses entire industry

And I was referring to Sokal's book, translated in English as "Fashionable Nonsense," but something like 'intellectual impostures' originally.

Where to start?
I don't consider psychoanalysis to be a science, and I don't understand whoever made that claim. It would be like saying philosophy is a science. Psychoanalysis is more of a reflexion on language. Like pragmatics really. As a French literary nerd, I can't avoid some of its insights because they help to understand how language works. I have a feeling we're not talking about the same psychoanalysis: it seems there's a cultural gap. I don't know how it is in America, but I assure you I despise obscurantism whatever shapes it takes.
Incidently, you're the biggest intellectual I've ever met (no offense).

Yonosa Wrote:Do evidence based belief systems impose on reality? Certainly. Do they impose less than ideological ones? Of course, and they are testable and more workable in that they they do not assert an answer and admit a lack of evidence and understanding where evident. These kind of belief systems must necessarily adopted as our societies become more and more technical, there won't be a place for ideology if we are to make it, and if we destroy ourselves prior it will be due either to ideology or the lack of equal access to natural resources propagated by our primitive social organizations. Educate yourself son.

Anyone even remotely aware of phenomenology knows obviousness to be a highly subjective concept. If you're too paternalistic to even realize that, I'm sorry.

mezbup Wrote:2: you live in one country, they live in another (may or may not have met yet) and it looks like it will be years before you can actually be together. - these fail 100% of the time. I don't even feel it's justified to give people that 1% of hope that I know they'll foolishly cling too.

Unfortunately you're in situation number 2.

My advice, cut your losses and move on. It's emotionally efficient.

Oh dear, I've been in situation number 2 for around almost a year. We've lived together temporarily for almost 2 months in total, but it will be another couple years before we can move in together permanently, but it's going pretty fine. We've introduced each other to our parents and intend to get married after we both graduate and I have a job.

I don't really find it that hard. TBH the long distance lets me focus on my studies more. If I lived with a girlfriend all the time I know I'd never concentrate on studying. It's not like the alternative (being single) is better anyway.

To eratik:
Don't get your point at all. Nor your misuse of the the word paternalistic, are you referring to the son joke at the end there? I see you live in France perhaps you misunderstood if english is not your native tongue. To put "son" at the end of a statement like that is just a joke, not serious at all, and I am most certainly not paternalistic. But anyways, enough time wasted and what I wanted to say has been said in my previous post. I will not respond again.

.

TheVinster Wrote:Well I'm very pessimistic, unfortunately, so I guess it's possible; however, I did want to get the pros and cons of a long-distance relationship. It makes me think I may not be ready for one now, but this summer when I (hopefully) visit Japan I could also begin one at that time, whether it be with the same girl or not.

I really don't understand the rush for a relationship, but I guess it varies in priority from person to person.

That aside, I'm going to sell you Study Abroad now over your Summer visit because its such a better deal!

It sounds like based on your initial post that you hit a community college/tech school, probably did the 2 year Gen Ed. stuff and now are doing your courses. I don't know what your major/minor look like, but if your 4 year has a study abroad program to a school in Japan, I would recommend that over visiting for a summer. If you have a minor or major in Japanese, do all the requirements in Japan and live the life, so much better. Its not cheap though, and that may be your limiting factor. There are a few funding options for it too. The Freeman Asia recently came back and is really NICE! Bridging Scholarship which only has a few slots for awards and so is retarded hard, but still worth trying. There is a scholarship out there if your focus/major in school is business/econ related for japan as well, but I've forgotten the name on the scholarship. There is also a scholarship out there you can get if you qualify for Pell Grants from the govt. right now as well. JASSO exists as well but receiving it varies depending on where you are going. If your school lacks an exchange program, there are private organizations that offer programs like IES (Don't study in Nagoya! Shitty place compared to Osaka or Tokyo so I've been told).
Finally one trick I also learned from a fellow student I met while abroad and you may have to research this to see. Some universities have inter-uni exchange programs, for example, you go to Florida State which has an exchange with UCLA, UCLA incidentally has an exchange program to a uni in Osaka. You do an exchange to UCLA and then do an exchange to Osaka. The guy I knew did that; he stayed 2 semesters in Nagoya (see above haha) from his home uni and then an extra semester from the uni he exchanged into.

Point being: If you have the option, don't visit in summer; study abroad for a year if you can, or even a semester. You will not regret it, I swear. Gives you plenty of time to meet a girl and get to know them too.

Good luck.

Yeah I'll look into my options as far as that's concerned. I'd love to study abroad instead of just visiting, as well. I'll see if I can make a study abroad work.

As for this thread, if a a mod or someone sees it, please delete it. If it's not deleted by tonight I'll just email one of you. I was still thinking I could delete it myself. Also, the lack of a PM feature really hurts...

A few links for your consideration:
http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Long-Dista...nship-Work
http://www.coupledtogether.com/blog/cate...bout-ldrs/

I've personally found myself in your position and unfortunately there are never easy answers.

Edit: If you're really desperate to delete the thread, can't you just delete the first post?

thecite Wrote:Edit: If you're really desperate to delete the thread, can't you just delete the first post?

I could have sworn that was finally disabled a short time ago :p posts yes topics no, so the bad side effect SHOULD be gone, lol

Really? I wasn't aware.

Yeah I can't delete it and I emailed Faburisu and he never took any action. Anyway I didn't, and am not, going into a relationship with her. Confirmed. Additionally she did something that made me lose a lot of respect for her, which was that she took down pictures of us because some guy that likes her from work (he's Japanese) was jealous. She's not going to date the guy, so it kind of hurt. Then she goes on to apologize like it's nothing. Hurting one person to quell the jealousy of another? It doesn't sound fair to me, but I'm trying not to dwell on it.

Oh well, all for the best I suppose.
You took the initiative and sorted it out with her, which is what matters most.
There's nothing worse than being left wondering what could have been.

The reason the option to delete was disabled was, I believe, due to a consensus that it's not quite cricket to delete the comments of everyone who took the time to respond just because you have poster's remorse, hehe. However, you still have the option of simply editing your original post: e.g. select it all and backspace it. ^_^

TheVinster Wrote:she took down pictures of us because some guy that likes her from work (he's Japanese) was jealous--*snip*--Then she goes on to apologize like it's nothing.*snip*

There is something about this that comes off as distinctly Japanese. In particular, the "removing pics" thing could have resulted because she was simply trying to maintain a balance in the workplace. If she is new there, everyone is her senpai, therefore, saying "no i won't remove them." could have caused some trouble.

All in all, this sounds like a cultural difference that "got lost in translation."

vix86 Wrote:

TheVinster Wrote:she took down pictures of us because some guy that likes her from work (he's Japanese) was jealous--*snip*--Then she goes on to apologize like it's nothing.*snip*

There is something about this that comes off as distinctly Japanese. In particular, the "removing pics" thing could have resulted because she was simply trying to maintain a balance in the workplace. If she is new there, everyone is her senpai, therefore, saying "no i won't remove them." could have caused some trouble.

All in all, this sounds like a cultural difference that "got lost in translation."

They are friends outside of work, and also she's not in Japan right now but is returning to Japan in a week or two. I don't feel this was any type of miscommunication, misunderstanding, or otherwise. I don't expect you to read my main post, but she visited me and returned to where she was studying abroad. There is no need to maintain any balance, because we are thousands of miles apart (her and I), and he should see me as no threat. Do you still think I'm wrong in my thinking, given this information?

If anything, this was on Facebook and she could've just blocked him from seeing that album.

kittycate44 Wrote:I read this article earlier, not sure it has any relevence but I thought it was interesting, if not extremely sad

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12358440

No offence to foreign men, but I wonder what the attraction even is, I find it baffling, maybe it's more of an infactution ... causasian men, on the whole really aren't all that attractive, and the attractive one's seem only ever to have an interest in themselves

*based on much experience from a broad range of caucasian men*

Geez, you're scathing. Pretty harsh to say that all attractive caucasian men are self absorbed douches.