arethinn | hmm...

I marked several reasons... the main one being that I've only talked to you a couple time besides in passing, and haven't really been in a position of extending invitations since then. When I do throw parties of any sorts, invites usually go out on my LJ (locked to friends), but I've just not done one in a while.

I generally don't invite anyone to other people's parties, and other than my parties and other gatherings (which you are always invited to), I only really hang out with people one-on-one, which you've said you don't do.

I generally don't invite anyone to other people's parties

This was another one I thought of last night... the option would have been "I might, but the person who thought up the outing / person whose house it is doesn't know you."

I only really hang out with people one-on-one, which you've said you don't do.

Not with people I don't know well, no. It makes me uncomfortable. You really only do one-on-one? As opposed to small groups (three or four people)?

I actively dislike small groups. I feel like I present different aspects of myself to each person I know, and so small groups are confusing because I don't know who to be. I can do small groups only on a shallow "let's go to a movie" kinda level, and I don't really like that. Large groups are so many people at once that it sorta trumps that confusion and I'm just the side of me most appropriate to the mood (ie, party-mode).

*echoes*

More than three (and if that, the other two being moreorless the same in terms of my relationship / aspects with them) is distinctly uncomfortable, under some undetermined critical mass of parties... but then, those only work if essentially everyone there is actively interesting in the same general way (e.g.

tysavlia's, where everyone's either shiny or pongy).

See, I like that level. Again there is an outward focus so there's no pressure for any individual to make it interesting. I am not seeking lots of intimacy, here. Few are the people who spark in me a desire to have a deep emotional connection. I'm rarely prepared to give that, but I don't expect it in return either. I just want companionship, people that like me enough to want to include me, to have me around.

*nods* Yeah, I just don't really do non-intimate companionship outside of parties. Sometimes if someone else invites me to a group outing to a movie I'll go, but I'm unlikely to initiate that with anyone I'm not already on intimate terms with.

Honestly, it's only because I live on the opposite coast (NC now instead of CT but no less far away from the Bay Area). I don't generally "do" large gatherings, being sort of a solitary type but if you lived close by I would very likely invite you along to things. I go to a monthly interfaith discussion group I think you'd enjoy, actually.

Well, 's why I specified "this is really for folks local to me", for whom it would make any practical sense. *shrugs*

Yes, I saw that. How very silly of me to have wanted to respond just to say something encouraging and kind.

It just wasn't answering the question I asked, was all. I'm wondering why I am currently not getting invited to things, not whether I would get invited to things if I lived nearer to $FAR_AWAY_PERSON. Sorry to sound unappreciative!

You didn't sound unappreciative, I was just feeling a little "slapped across the nose", I guess.

I apologize for snapping at you, you didn't deserve that.

I was just feeling a little "slapped across the nose", I guess.

Aha, well, in that case, clearly

*NOSE-LICK*

is in order!

This is probably obvious, but in my case, I've never like, sat down and chatted with you, and I haven't been following your journal very long, and we've never like, IMd or anything, I don't actually throw parties, I just shake them up, and I definitely don't have a tendency to invite people I don't know personally to other people's parties. I mean, your first sentence kind of says a lot, that you recongize many of the people involved in these events, but you don't really know them personally enough to know how they're connected, for example. A lot of the smaller parties tend to involve people that hang out or know each other outside of the party environment, a degree of separation cap or something, and that's part of what generates their particular atmosphere. If that makes any sense. Start getting to know people socially, and you often find yourself on invite lists later. (=

Also, when -I- organize big-groupy outings, I just tend to post open invites or simply the fact that I'm going and work with everyone that responds. I kinda feel like personally inviting a huge list of people is something that applies well to parties, but not to casual or spontaneous group outings, though I sometimes will run through my IM list and issue personal requests to people that are around if I've really been bit by a social bug. Those spontaneous social invitations are the way I tend to get to know most of the people I know - we just all show up somewhere and see who likes talking to whom. I've seen a few other people do similar things, so if you see them go by, don't be shy about responding, the worst you're going to get is a no, catch us next time, which puts you the same place as if you'd never asked anyway, right?

I just tend to post open invites or simply the fact that I'm going and work with everyone that responds [...] I've seen a few other people do similar things, so if you see them go by, don't be shy about responding

I'm not seeing those, or something. I recall some things in the past where I made occasional responses, but not getting responses to my responses (which I take as a tacit "you're not welcome"). Just to hold this last one up for example, there was no such "open invite" on anyone that I saw (but then I don't know whose house it was at, so that may not have applied), and no mention from anyone who later posted about it, that they were going in the first place.

Perhaps such are friends-locked and I'm not on the friends lists of the people who post such information? *shrug*

Hrm, perhaps I didn't make the differentiation clear. Small parties thrown by other people are very rarely all-come general announcement affairs like Autumn's parties. This last party I posted pictures from was, as labeled,

kamileon's birthday party. What I was referring to as "group activities" that y'all-comes are posted about are things like (in my case) the 4th of July, the Maybe Logic showing, various concerts or movies or walks or outings or dinners or trips to SF, or even Breakfast Club, which is both regular and open to anyone that wants to show up. I've also seen

fenwickrysen,

doublefeh,

saizai, and

tyrsalvia all reasonably often post open invites for various potentially fun things. I believe it's also often acceptable to pipe up and express interest in being included if it's okay when someone posts plans for a cool adventure without a specific open invite. I hope that clarifies what I was saying...

or even Breakfast Club

What/when/where is this? I've never heard of it. (Although it sounds like something that takes place in the mornings somewhere other than my room, and that it would therefore be difficult to engage in my normal morning activity of sleeping, so the likelihood of seeing me there is slim *wink*)

I've also seen fenwickrysen, doublefeh, saizai, and tyrsalvia all reasonably often post open invites for various potentially fun things.

I don't recall seeing fenwick do so, but I'm not on his friends list, so if he posts such friends-locked, then I never would see them. Sai I haven't spent enough big-group time with to yet be comfortable with small-group time (never mind one-on-one). I seem to have schedule conflicts with the others half the time (darn this working for a living), but see below for more on the question of "open invites".

I believe it's also often acceptable to pipe up and express interest in being included if it's okay when someone posts plans for a cool adventure without a specific open invite

Is it really, though? I certainly don't feel safe doing so. It seems like the smaller-group "cool adventures" (as opposed to big-group, "come one come all" things) get details thereof agreed on by groups of friends, of which I am not a member, and therefore was not in the plans. I feel like, if they considered me close enough to want me in on it, and were actually interested in my presence, they'd have asked me to come, so it's rude to go "hey, what about me?"

Even if it's clear that someone really is posting something totally open (like

doublefeh's various recent "any one wanna do anything" kinds of things) I'm still never sure if I'm on their list of acceptable "anyone"s. The couple of times I have tried, see already made statement about not getting responses to my responses. *shrugs*

It's like catch-22 squared. I can't get close enough to get invited if I don't get invited which I don't get because I'm not close enough. *pop*

Well, for future reference, consider yourself on the list of acceptable anyones. I can only think of one time I've Significantly interacted with you (Autumn's small bbq), but you seemed nifty enough. :-)

thanks... it's good to know. :)

>>> I don't recall seeing fenwick do so, but I'm not on his friends list, so if he posts such friends-locked, then I never would see them. <<<

It's rare for me to post anything friends-only unless it's got damn good reason to be (often legal, technical, personal, or ethical). I tend to post one or two things a month that are open invite, yet you've never responded. You're just not reading them or something.

I dug up all the links but LJ ate my comment. But just since April there's been the "Unspeakable" preview, a showing of The Wall (which gathered ~10 people including folks you know), an open invite to watch solstice atop Twin Peaks, and the Cowboy Bebop movie night. I know there were others I dug up, too, and a great many more going back all the way to December when you started reading me. These events usually gather from 2-10 people, offer a focus other than the group if you want it, and usually are mainly an excuse to meet new people and go goof out and hang out and have fun for a nigt. And anyone is welcome to them and I make that clear when I post them; that's how I've made friends of a good deal of the people I write about (I met

djdigit solely through events like this.)

So I don't know how you're missing my posts about them, as they're usually posted at least twice before the event in question.

But hey, if you want to stay home and whine that no one invites you along (because you never took initiative when it was open to take) then that's your pity party and I won't stop it (there's a lot of mental mileage that can be had from posts like this). But you're more than welcome to come along if you want to risk having a good time and meeting some new friends.

Just don't say you never had the opportunity, because I've been tossing them out at least once, and often twice a month. Even just saying, "I'd love to, but the timing's bad---keep me in the future loop" puts you on the radar. You never do that.

I dug up all the links but LJ ate my comment. But just since April there's been the "Unspeakable" preview, a showing of The Wall (which gathered ~10 people including folks you know), an open invite to watch solstice atop Twin Peaks, and the Cowboy Bebop movie night.

I recall the solstice thing, and Cowboy Bebop rings a vague bell. I don't remember anything about "Unspeakable" (not even sure what that is) or "The Wall". I have no idea where it is in this tangled labyrinth of comments now, but I recall saying that I am never sure if I am actually included in "anyone" when people say "anyone want to come". People may have different lists of possible candidates that they were thinking of, and I don't know whose I'm on and whose I'm not.

Even just saying, "I'd love to, but the timing's bad---keep me in the future loop" puts you on the radar. You never do that.

Timing is often bad. Rarer is the thing I'm available for, rather than the other way around. It would be a lot of "sorry, timing is bad" posts, which would get quite irritating, I'm sure. Posting negative RSVP's (as oppposed to who IS coming, which is the needed information) seems silly to me. If I'm not coming, who needs to know that?

>>> I am never sure if I am actually included in "anyone" when people say "anyone want to come". <<<

Understandable in some situations, but you've definitely been reading my journal long enough that you should know I mean exactly what I say most of the time. If I say "anyone" I really do mean "anyone". If I want to keep it lower-key, I don't broadcast it to everyone. Honestly, this is how most people I know work, but I tend to have friends who don't mince words.

As to negative RSVPs, you don't have to answer to every one---you're right, that might be annoying---but for something that sounded really cool to you it does manage to put you on the radar to ping for those events that are more low-key if they seem to be along the lines of things you've expressed interest in in the past.

I'm noticing, not just in this subthread but everywhere, that you cut it all down to black and white too much. You don't have to respond to everything with a positive or negative RSVP or silence. You are allowed to mix it up. Life's not black and white.

You don't have to respond to everything with a positive or negative RSVP or silence.

Buh? As I've not mastered bilocation, in the end I'm either going to be present or not be present. I can state an intention of either one of those (although it might change), or make no statement at all. What's the fourth option?

A lot of the smaller parties tend to involve people that hang out or know each other outside of the party environment, a degree of separation cap or something

This is what I perceive as the problem... I am on the outside, and so can never get on the inside, because the people who are already on the inside stick together and stay that way. The only way I can get on the inside of a group of friends is to be there at ground level. I have never successfully done this since grade school. In high school the group of people I hooked up with had mostly all known each other from junior high, and although I still had some feeling of "tribe", i.e. a group of people who saw each other every day (school) and aside from that did lots of other stuff together, it just went downhill after that. My only close friend is

enotsola but I can't seem to get even moderately closer to anyone local because they're already all close to each other and I'm an outsider and outsiders just can't get in, not really.

Hrm, that sounds like a lot of high school logic to me, no offense intended. In the adult world, nobody's there at "ground level" - even the oldest friends in any given social group have probably known each other through many, many evolutions of social groups, and sometimes new friends can become old friends in amazingly short periods of time when there's really effective communication and cooperation - for example, I've only known my evil twin

artistic_chaos for just over a year, but we've really connected deeply and I love her like my oldest, dearest friends and we can read each other like large-print books.

In any event, the "ground floor" of any social group is right here and now. Just because someone's got close friends doesn't mean that they're suddenly out of love of ability to connect, it just means they might be shorter on free time, or less likely to seek out new people. People get close by spending time together, paying attention to each other, communicating, being vulnerable, nurturing, reciprocity, all that stuff. There's a very good reason it takes time to establish - one needs a dataset before one can make the evaluation if a given person is the sort they want to share significant influence with, and everyone's going to mesh at different depths, variable with a TON of factors. But, at the root, the difference between "insider" and "outsider" is in each of our own heads, I think. For me, personally, I wouldn't want to be an "insider" in a group that would consider me such (all respect to Groucho), and somehow because of this, I never consider myself an "outsider" anywhere, merely a neophyte with a bunch of new knowledge to glean and new connections to make. I am human, I live as a human, threfore nothing human is completely forgeign to me. Where is the space beyond "inside" and "outside", integrating and transcending? Making friends with someone brings a whole pool of potential new friends through that connection, but I don't have to accept or be accepted by them to have that friendship, it's just bonus material if it works out.

Now, granted, there's a good chance I've developed this attitude because I changed schools every 2-3 years growing up, then left the state for college, left that state for the summer, left college, then left it all behind again to move to Cali, where I had to start over yet again. Maybe there's something about realizing how very many different people there are in the world that helps you realize it's okay to just be yourself, and that there are still going to be plenty of people out there that appreciate that more than you can imagine when you're busy trying to be someone else.

In any event, the "ground floor" of any social group is right here and now. Just because someone's got close friends doesn't mean that they're suddenly out of love of ability to connect, it just means they might be shorter on free time, or less likely to seek out new people.

The ground floor (in my mind) is the subset of the group who have known each other the mutual longest amount of time. That might be just two people, or it might be the entire group if they all met at once and had never known each other before. Unless there's such a "fresh start", building the group's history of friendship from the beginning, then there's always things I am left out of, things I will never understand in my heart the way they do; I can never be as close to them as they are to themselves, because there just isn't that history time spent together and shared experience.

"Less likely to seek out new people" also affects me, because I am that new person that's not needed or wanted. I'm seeing this from the opposite side, here. Not that there's necessarily anything that can be done - it certainly isn't their "responsibility" or anything, although I imagine I resent it on a deeper level - but just saying that that's part of the reason I feel the way I do.

I am human, I live as a human, threfore nothing human is completely forgeign to me.

*chuckles* Whereas, while I do live as a human, I don't consider myself to be one, therefore things which are human are inevitably at least partly foreign to me.

Maybe there's something about realizing how very many different people there are in the world that helps you realize it's okay to just be yourself

Only to a point. There are always compromises and adjustments. I am not the exact same person in any given setting or group of people. There are parts of me too private to show to some or even most people; similarly, in some settings I focus on certain things because that's the common thread of the group. If "being myself" means talking about farming lemons in a group whose main commonality is that they are all into promoting nightclubs, I mean, it just doesn't make sense to me. Of course I am not going to "be myself", not if I want to be accepted as part of that group.

I gotta go garden while I have light, but I've still got a few more thoughts. I'll be back after sunset.

Also -

This is probably obvious, but in my case, I've never like, sat down and chatted with you

Perhaps I am broken in this regard, but it seems I am the reverse of most people when it comes to this. I don't feel comfortable "sitting down and chatting with" people (whether in person or in IM) until I have already gotten to know them fairly well in a broader social context. I can't chat first and do things with them later. I panic under the pressure I feel to be interesting. In a group situation, the presence of other people takes the pressure off me personally, and I can sit back and watch or throw in if I think I have something to say, until at long last (we're talking months, as opposed to over the course of a night) I can relax enough that I don't feel I have to be brilliant to talk to. That's what scares me off one on one situations until I've had enough group time... I have to entertain this person, be as perfectly wonderful and juicy as they are, and I just can't do it.

Hrm. Now there we're probably getting into a lot of "your stuff," because I've honestly only known a few people that actually seem to expect other people to entertain them and be brilliant when they're just hanging out. Do you expect other people to be your entertainment when you're hanging out with them? I'd think not, so why would they expect differently of you? I could stand up in the middle of the room, say something, and do a dance, and one or two people might think I was brilliant, most would think I was weird or drunk, and a few people might be completely repulsed. Either way, I'm just being me. Chances are that the people that thought it was brilliant will talk and hang out with me more in the future, the people who thought it was weird will just add it to the list of other weird things I've been caught doing and accept it as a part of Angyl, and the people that are repulsed by it will probably either tune me out of their attention or stew madly while their head cracks open - it's all good either way.

No offense, but I don't really want to hang out with someone that feels like they need to try to be interesting and brilliant. That's not relaxed interaction, that's bullshit. I interact with people to connect to them, not to be entertained - I've got walls and racks of media to entertain me without human connection, you know? The only thing I can do brilliantly with consistency is be me, and the people that brighten my world the most do it by being themselves.

I'll let you in on a little secret - brilliance isn't brilliant until someone perceives it as such. A good interaction finds the midpoint where it is both produced and received, where each party comes closer to realizing the infinite radiance in vulnerable raw humanity within everyone, and themselves. You seem afraid that you're somehow not good enough. Do you realize that that's the perception of your own reality tunnel? Do you understand that it's more brilliant to be real, to be connected and flawed, than to have the shiniest, most perfect facade? One might admire a painting, but we embrace other people.

But, I'm sure you'll get there. It's a scary journey, but man, talk about liberation! (=

I'm not sure how someone would think to invite you specifically to something if you've never chatted with them or hung out with them anywhere but at huge superficial parties. How might they know enough about you to know where you might be comfortable, given your expressed discomfort with one on one and small groups? Small groups sometimes turn into large groups, like at Maybe Logic, but there's usually no way to tell until you get there and see who made it. Tell you what, I'll give you a free virtual "hey can I come along" card, as long as I get a "not this time, but how bout we plan something in a few weeks and I'll invite some more people" card in return. I can't guarantee that I'm brilliant, entertaining, or that I'll necessarily get along with you, but I'm prefectly willing to give it a try some time. Though it doesn't sound like we'd become much in the way of close in any event, unless you ever found yourself ready to "be yourself" around me - that's kind of a factor of closeness for me. :/ Sorry. Doesn't mean I wouldn't wanna nonbrilliantly hangout tho! (=

Man, I'm just spamming all over this entry, aren't I? You've got me trying to put some things into words that I haven't had to try to express for awhile, it's causing much spewage because I don't have it refined yet.

I could stand up in the middle of the room, say something, and do a dance, and one or two people might think I was brilliant, most would think I was weird or drunk, and a few people might be completely repulsed.

That's a group situation. Rules are different there. If I fail to be interesting, there will still be others who are and so other folks' time won't have been wasted.

Do you expect other people to be your entertainment when you're hanging out with them? I'd think not, so why would they expect differently of you?

In a way, yes, but I don't think quite in the way you seem to be envisioning it. If I am with someone one-on-one, there's a certain pressure to be interesting to each other. Otherwise, it's a disappointment. If I went out with someone hoping to have a good time and found that, in fact, I was bored by or otherwise not enjoying the company of the other person, I would be disappointed by that. I don't want to disappoint anyone, so I feel I had better be interesting to that person. I am responsible (to a point) for their having a good time. If we are mutually bored by each other, then it's just too bad, but if I find them thrilling yet they are bored by me, then...

You seem afraid that you're somehow not good enough. Do you realize that that's the perception of your own reality tunnel?

Do you realize that it had to be based on something, and that I'm not just randomly feeling this way? I'm not as good as the people around me whom I wish to be like, at anything I can think of (unless you think good spelling is a particular virtue).

I'm not sure how someone would think to invite you specifically to something if you've never chatted with them or hung out with them anywhere but at huge superficial parties. How might they know enough about you to know where you might be comfortable, given your expressed discomfort with one on one and small groups?

I'm not comfortable doing small-group things first, or until I've had enough contact within a looser, lower-pressure setting. It's not that I can't handle them at all. Repeated contact in large-group settings would eventually lead to a buildup of some familiarity and then experimental invitations along on smaller-group things, where further familiarity would get built. It seems that it's getting people to (want to) think of me the first few times that's the hurdle; hopefully, after a while I'd be considered "part of the group" and thus included by default unless I had some particular scheduling conflict. That all is the theory, anyway.

Though it doesn't sound like we'd become much in the way of close in any event, unless you ever found yourself ready to "be yourself" around me - that's kind of a factor of closeness for me.

That seems to me to contradict your statements that being flawed is better than being perfect. Here you seem to be saying that unless I could rid myself of my flaws, I would never achieve the status of being worth inviting to anything.

Hi :) I'm a random person who found this thread via an entry in

being_angyl's journal. I find this interesting, particularly as she can't quite seem to reach you, which is odd for her. Generally,

being_angyl can say at least a few things that resonate to just about anyone, but since you're a self-avowed non-human, maybe you're the exception to the rule. Here's my own version of attempting to strike a chord. Please know that there's no offense intended, these are questions to prod thinking about yourself, not to annoy or intimidate or degrade or whatever. You needn't respond to them, but I'd be interested in reading your reply if you did.

---That's a group situation. Rules are different there.---

Different rules for you or for everyone? Who owns the ruleset? You? The group? Miss Manners? Why are the rules different? How?

---I don't want to disappoint anyone, so I feel I had better be interesting to that person...---

Others can only be disappointed only if you do not meet their expectations of who you are or how you self-express. Do you want to be you or other people's expectations of you? What are your expectations of you? How do you live up to them? How do you fail them? How can this change?

What do you expect when you meet someone? What do you want them to be like, act like, talk like? Do you see that your expectations place the other person in a box which they may not fit? Do you realize that you see only the Box of Expectations, and not the person you've placed in there?

---Here you seem to be saying that unless I could rid myself of my flaws, I would never achieve the status of being worth inviting to anything.---
I could be wrong, but I don't think

being_angyl would ever imply anything even vaguely like that. I too seek friends who do not interact with the world through artifice. When you try to please all the people all of the time, you never have the least amount of time to develop yourself.

Do you know what it is to be yourself? What are you protecting the world from? What are you protecting? What do you hide?

---That's a group situation. Rules are different there.

Different rules for you or for everyone? Who owns the ruleset? You? The group? Miss Manners? Why are the rules different? How?

Different for everyone. A general thing. No one owns it, they are the rules that just are. Rules are different because the environment is different, just as syntax valid in one programming language isn't valid in another. How has already been described.

Others can only be disappointed only if you do not meet their expectations of who you are or how you self-express. Do you want to be you or other people's expectations of you?

I want to live up to others' expectations. If that happens to coincide with "me", then that's good, but I realize that that will rarely be the case.

What are your expectations of you?

Interesting. Brilliant. Powerful. Beautiful. Someone I would want to be around if I were someone else.

How do you live up to them?

I don't.

How do you fail them?

Miserably.

How can this change?

Have been born differently? It's things you either are or you aren't.

What do you expect when you meet someone?

Not a lot. Civility.

What do you want them to be like, act like, talk like?

There isn't anything in particular I want them to be like. If we wound up in the same place then I figure there's probably some common basis of interests; beyond that knowledge I don't really know nor expect anything in particular.

I too seek friends who do not interact with the world through artifice.

Exactly; thus, unless I could rid myself of that, you (like angyl) would never be willing to consider me a friend. That seems to me to contradict a statement that flaws are more desirable than a lack of them.

Do you know what it is to be yourself?

Rather ugly and frightening. That is not something I want to be. I'd rather be something better than the "real stuff" way down inside me. I want to get rid of "myself" and be something worthwhile.

What are you protecting the world from? What are you protecting?

Huh?

What do you hide?

An awful lot of things. There are many things I don't want other people to see or know about.

Exactly; thus, unless I could rid myself of that, you (like angyl) would never be willing to consider me a friend. That seems to me to contradict a statement that flaws are more desirable than a lack of them.

Hmmm....herein I need to clarify what the concept of personal flaws means to me, so that we might compare?

What's a "personal flaw"? I'd think that include any of a number of (generally accepted as) negative or undesirable aspects of a person. These may be behaviors, attitudes, habits, and other mental realm aspects, as well as health and physique.

I've found that towards one's personal flaws, one has two attitude options: positive and negative. One can always choose differently, every day, every moment, again and again.

The positive attitude leads to any of variety of choices. For example, a positive choice might be to accept the flaw as it is, an aspect of oneself towards which one will have a continually evolving perspective and attitude (and may possibly change). One needn't be happy about a flaw to do this. For example, the first step in choosing to deal with a flaw is admitting that you have it, and then that you're going to do something about it. It doesn't happen immediately.

The negative attitude towards a flaw also leads to any of a variety of choices. One might choose to shrink away from it, deny, block, hide or ignore it, as if it'll do anything but fester. One might also choose to try to do drastic things to try fix or overcome it immediately (. This does not imply that one doesn't fix or overcome...but I think both words imply some sense of immediacy, rather than the result of a long-term process which requires daily effort, aka "practice."

But what about positive characteristics, like being friendly, kind, funny, intelligent, sexy, magnetic, popular, enthralling? Also with these characteristics, there's the sense of immediacy. They're cognized in a moment, they're tied to a moment. You can only be these things in a moment, so they require daily effort. For some, these characteristics seem to be natural, easy, a gift, but methinks all of those characteristics are learned....some learn early, some middling, some late.

I don't love my partner or friends because they're perfect, nor do I love them for their flaws. It's a total picture, the whole ball of wax, the burrito as big as your head. Who are they? Who they were yesterday? Who they were last month? Who they were over the course of years? Who I think they'll be tomorrow?

(oops, have to cut for length...I'll try to ease the rest in)

Ultimately, the people I know only exist in a moment of interaction. In that moment, they aren't any one identifying thing, but rather a whole kaleidoscope of interacting aspects and facets and shades; of only the surface of a few can I be aware. It's a being, an evolving, a happening.

In memory, that ongoing experience of a person may translate to some coherent, tangible, Idea of a "person." If I hold to that idea, as if it's a snapshot, then I can't watch them evolve because I won't see the changes. That in-memory, in-mind "person" is in constant revision -- not only in daily life on their own, not only in interaction with me, but also when I think of them or anything vaguely tangentially related to them.

So if everyone I know is in constant revision, so am I, to them, to myself.

It's kind of like having the source code for your Self in CVS on Sourceforge. Just about anyone can input, but those who contribute the best input become part of the core development team. And then there's cross development with their respective sources/selves.

Now, to dovetail this idea back to "interacting with the world through artiface". I really should have phrased that better, because on rethinking my wording, I realize that we all interact through artiface. We're always putting on the masks of our varied, ever changing selves. Sometimes we make those choices with awareness, sometimes without.

So, I personally am keeping an eye our for my ever growing core development team, but that certainly doesn't discinclude input, feedback, documentation, feature requests, submissions, etc. I do tend to avoid folk who put on an act that I feel is not a genuine aspect of that person...which might be why I like to meet people in relatively small group settings (4-6) -- it allows me to get a firm sense of a person in an easily-digested dose. Of course, my assessment of any person may be wholly inaccurate, so I try keep that in mind every time I meet that person again.

Whoops, pardon the length :)

Hey, you want to go to Zeitgeist (http://sanfrancisco.citysearch.com/profile/868351/?cslink=cs_srch_spons_ll_name) (a cool biker-bar-but-not-a-biker-bar in san francisco) with

cityratbuddy,

anthologie, and I tomorrow evening (link (http://www.livejournal.com/users/djdigit/67619.html?thread=65571#t65571))? Let me know if you're interested and I'll send ya the details.

cheers,
darrell (friend o' angyl's who surfed on by)

Dude, how did I miss this? I'm gonna need some chillout time after this @#$%! final project spits me out for the evening. Gimme a ping by IM or phone, I should be reachable by one or the other all day. Let's make it a mob!

hehehe, i was gonna give you a call this afternoon. Last night it occurred to me that you weren't down in BC for the weekend so maybe you were free for some chillin'. MOB TIME!!!!

*blinks* i'm kind of trying to avoid alcohol at the moment. bars are not really my thing, anyway.

They're not our thing either. That's why Zeitgeist is a prime choice. Damn good barbequed food (vegetarian available, I believe), a giant back yard, giant laid-back party-like atmosphere. Basically, the perfect place even with a small group that you can still blend into a giant crowd that's pretty easy-going. Just FYI (I'm not pressuring, just sayin' that going to Zeitgeist isn't like "going to a bar").

ditto! The bar for non-bar-goers ;)

okie dokie... I like bars, but they're certainly not for everyone. You ever go dancing? I know tons of opportunities in the city; we should grab a few people, make a dancedancedance mob, and go some weekend. One of these days i'm gonna drag Angyl to some quality drum 'n bass. Come with! :)

(addendum: to clarify "tomorrow" refers to Saturday night... I haven't gone to sleep yet.) ;)

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

you are in a maze of twisty little posts, all alike

hmm...

Expand Cut Tags

Style Credit