(no subject)

[holzman_tweed]

On a number of BDSM mailing lists I'm on, there is a perrenial discussion of the notion of "need" -- what is and is not a need, to be specific. The context is generally what are the repsonsibilities of a Dominant when the nature of the arrangement is such that the submissive is in a position of ongoing dependance. The general thought is that the Dominant is respoinsible for the submissive's needs being met, but things break down when people try to identify those needs.

This afternoon, I had an epiphany about some of the miscommunication at work in such conversations.

My mother taught me a principle many years ago:

If you wish to be logically coherent, any sentence containing the word "should" should begin with the word "if."

I've come up with a corrolary:

If you wish to be logically coherent, any sentence containing the word "need" needs to begin with the word "if."

Because the only way to evaluate whether or not something is a need is to understand the goal that the supposed need is in support of.

---

[Politics]

In discussing politics with my sister and her husband last night, it came to my attention that they've never heard of Kucinich. They live in Ohio, my brother-in-law being a native. I suspect this tells me everything I need to know about his chances.

I wonder if I've heard of him only because of how much time I spend online.

Comments

[supergee.livejournal.com]

I like your mother's idea about "should."

[violent-solace.livejournal.com]

Sometimes the way your brain works makes my head hurt. :)

How does starting a sentence containing 'should' with 'if' become logically coherent?

Are you speaking of proper grammatical context or something different?

[holzman.livejournal.com]

Words like "should" and "need" imply a goal to be fulfilled by the action. If two people are examining a thing claimed to be a "should" or "need" without understanding that goal, they are comparing apples and oranges without realizing it. Stating a "should" or "need" without a goal to compare it to is therefore a meaningless statement, or at best a drasticly incoherent one.

[violent-solace.livejournal.com]

Ok. I think I'm starting to see what you mean (now that I've had two cups of coffee and re-read it a few times :))

I just see so many layers and possibilities wrapped up in things like this that its hard for me to understand something when its proposed in this way.