by czarofmischief 39 Replies latest social current
Picking up mannerisms and patterns of speech is normal. I've seen people visit a foreign country for a few weeks and come home with an accent. But I can honestly say that after 16 1/2 years of marriage, my wife did not begin to look like me, grow any taller, and she still has no hair on her ass. She has, however, been well educated in the use of profanity.
Walter
For instance, do you feel that "one flesh" is literal, in that husband and wife bond and grow closer together until they become one creature?
I guess this explains why my breasts seem larger and I find at certain times that I just don't feel fresh.
***** Rub a Dub
Okay Czar, the problem is that I have nothing to relate this to. I've never been married and I don't ever intend to be. I am a complete commitment phobe. The only real, permanant bond I have is with my son. I suppose I could say I have that with my parents but, I really don't. I love them but, I could go for months without talking to them and it wouldn't bother me the slightest. My son is the only person on the planet that I love more than myself. He and I look a little bit alike but that's to be expected. Also, the bond between us is very tight but that is also to be expected. I wouldn't know about husband and wife bonds because I have no experience with that. Sorry. I like to debate things that I have some understanding of. On this subject I have no idea.
~Aztec
czar said --
The Bible says that when a man and a woman get married, they become "one flesh". This doctrine is interpreted literally right down to this day: in that wives cannot testify against their husbands, and vice versa. What is your opinion of this? For instance, do you feel that "one flesh" is literal, in that husband and wife bond and grow closer together until they become one creature? Or is a metaphor of some degree?
I have an opinion on nearly every subject in the world. Not that I would always express one if I had no knowledge of the subject, as that would be rude and arrogant for the most part. But, I beg to differ, if someone asked me my opinion, irregardless of my knowledge, of, lets say, "The Darkness", a band I never heard of or have any idea about... I could say that I have no knowledge so no comment, or I could elaborate in general terms about how I feel about something they specifically said in their lyrics, or ask about the genre of music the play and I could comment on that aspect and begin to learn what this band is like, albiet vicariously. In fact, I wouldn't need to have the foggiest idea why they wrote what they wrote, or what it meant to them or anyone else, I would only know my feelings and could attach some level of subjectivity to the question and reveal a little bit about myself in the process.
This sort of dialog is exactly what I am terrible at. In social settings, I get claustrophobic or better yet, I KNOW I have the intellectually superior answer so I refrain from discussing such trivial matters. And when I stop and think about it, introspectively, I do all this because of my inability to disclose anything about who I am. I trust very few people, and so the less I reveal, the less I have to worry about anyone getting close enough to me that I get burned (oh, and I display alot of anger so they are sure to get burned if they get through any of my defenses).
Anyway, good question czar... I vote for the metaphor version. If the real trust, belief, and disclosure exists between 2 people that allow a deep emotional bonding, I believe they do eventually "read" each others thoughts; but they don't guess them or speak for them... they become one from the standpoint that they fulfill each other and extract from each other certain elements of the individual that are rarely, if ever, seen outside the context of the relationship. In this way, they support each others growth, independent of their own, cause they both know they have a "home" to go back to and share what they are learning.
ugly
You promised to respond Czar. Where'd you go? Are you okay?
~Aztec
Regardless of the book its found in, I think that ideally the statement is true metaphorically. You may begin to pick up each other's mannerisms and finish each other's sentences and hopefully develop some common goals. But hopefully not fleshly. I wouldn't want my wife to start looking like me. That's quite scary.
Czar, at least logon and let us all know that you are okay.
~Aztec
Yeah, I'm fine, sorry guys, I'm okay - I was at a friends house and my most recent bout with SARS (read: flu) laid me out for a week.
Anyway, Aztec, SYN pm'ed me something interesting about this subject. He didn't want to waste his 5,000 post on this, though, but I imagine he'll pop in some time or another. I'll paste it in at the end of this post - he said it was okay.
Good call, LT, btw!
This sort of dialog is exactly what I am terrible at. In social settings, I get claustrophobic or better yet, I KNOW I have the intellectually superior answer so I refrain from discussing such trivial matters. And when I stop and think about it, introspectively, I do all this because of my inability to disclose anything about who I am. I trust very few people, and so the less I reveal, the less I have to worry about anyone getting close enough to me that I get burned (oh, and I display alot of anger so they are sure to get burned if they get through any of my defenses).
ONe-ugly-time, it is very important for your own well being that you bite the bullet and step outside yourself and open up. Otherwise you turn into that guy in the coffee shop who talks to himself (Czar looks around the coffee shop guiltily.) You are aching to open up, otherwise you wouldn't be here. So just admit that its something you need, then go and get it. Talk, damn you, talk!
I didn't know that so many other people had noticed the same thing. I'm excited, is this a genuine thread discussion?
Here's SYN's comment:
Previously it was thought that all humans had only two sets of DNA, normal nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA. The mitochondrial DNA is the true indicator of bloodline, because it gets passed down from woman to woman, unlike male DNA, which isn't preserved during the fertilization process. So much for surnames and heirs!
But enough of the basic cellular physiology. In a recent issue of new scientist, a group of researchers said that they've discovered that mothers "inherit" cells and tissue from their babies as the babies develop in their wombs, with different DNA to their own, and that these cells continue living in the mothers permanently, sort of "phasing into" the mother's own body, unobtrusively.
Similiarly, with sufficient amounts of exposure to the mucal surfaces of his wife, a man can "inherit" some of her tissue too, although a vastly smaller amount than a mother and child will exchange, but it still happens.
This is important, because it means that we're not genetic "islands", with only two sets of DNA - we may in fact have dozens of sets. Children inherit genetically identical tissue from their mothers, who in turn may already have bits of the father's tissue living in their bodies. In turn, this extends deeply into the bloodline, possibly resulting in people possessing intact genetic information from people as distantly related to them as their great-grandparents. There are also people who's bodys are split into several different groups of genetic information, e.g. their arm may have entirely different genes to their head. Apparently this is caused by very young zygotes in the womb fusing during the first trimester or so, resulting in biological entities called "chimaeras". So the whole genetic landscape of humanity (and all animals) is not quite as simple and straightforward as we think. Most of nature appears to be like this - we might construct little theories to try and explain how things work, but in the end the result is that nature is far more complex than we thought.
What? Nature being more complex than we thought? Who'd have thunk it?
CZAR
Now here's my response to Aztec's post, showing my personal interest in her, and that I value what she has to say.
Okay Czar, the problem is that I have nothing to relate this to. I've never been married and I don't ever intend to be. I am a complete commitment phobe. The only real, permanant bond I have is with my son. I suppose I could say I have that with my parents but, I really don't. I love them but, I could go for months without talking to them and it wouldn't bother me the slightest. My son is the only person on the planet that I love more than myself. He and I look a little bit alike but that's to be expected. Also, the bond between us is very tight but that is also to be expected. I wouldn't know about husband and wife bonds because I have no experience with that. Sorry. I like to debate things that I have some understanding of. On this subject I have no idea.
Commitment phobe? Understandable, after escaping the borg. I don't think that it is unusual to not feel close to your parents, I often forget to call my mother, even though I love her dearly. Just remember that when your own little boy grows up.
As for proving God exists or if he doesn't - well, no, you don't HAVE to - it's just a fundamental debate that everyone has an opinion on, and I thought we might have a nice conversation about it.
sicky-poo CZAR
There was an article in New Scientist about human Chimeras some weeks ago.
C my thread about the subject.
