Mh, I begin to feel the uncomfortable feeling that this debate may be transformed from confrontation of ideas into confrontation of words.
Oh, I desire to appear clear: this is not wrong per se - this a matter of fact - however not infrequently it is a way to proceed that makes people diverted from the exact and correct final purpose of the whole debate, because the attention gets fixed on the match of the reasoning, rather than on the primary issue.
Anyway, I feel I should reply something to you, TransWarp, at least still for this time; then we shall see...
Transwarp wrote:Asso, I think I have you on the ropes. I am about to destroy your argument using your own words. (Sorry, but you leave me no choice!) Read what you wrote again *very* carefully, paying attention to the words I have emphasized.
You agree with me that Trip would feel loss. But what did he lose? He lost HIS T'Pol. Trip (and YOU) are both making a DISTINCTION between the two T'Pol's. If Trip considered them to be identical, he would feel no loss. He ONLY feels this loss and grief because he lost someone he can never get back. Someone unique. Someone, if you will excuse me, who is irreplaceable.
They are not and will never be the same person.
Ah, but you attempt to modify your argument so you can sneak it past me by appending the word 'practically' to 'the same'. Not even you can believe they are 'actually' the same.
If they were completely the same, and totally identical, then Trip would feel no grief because he would have lost nothing. He would have no reason for grief: HIS T'Pol would still be with him. Ridiculous, you say? Of course. But that is what MUST be, if your thesis is correct. After all, they are identical. The same. Interchangeable.
But Trip is an illogical human. Maybe he grieves because he does not realize MU T'Pol is really HIS T'Pol and he hasn't really lost anything. Eventually he discovers this and now he is happy again. Whole again. They stroll along the beach, hand-in-hand and remember all the good times they had together... Oh, wait. MU T'Pol can't do that. She wasn't there for those times. How can this be? I thought she was 'the same'. 'Interchangeable.' Now our poor Trip finds out that he can't do the same things with the same T'Pol? Perhaps 'practically the same' and 'the same' are vastly different.
It seems to me, frankly, that you want to - a little artificially, grant this to me - take, say, to the extreme what I said. I realize that words have an enormous weight, but I think that they should also be correctly interpreted. If we give them, and the reasoning that they carry with them, a too literal interpretation (and, above all, an interpretation useful to bring water to our own mill), the end result will be, allow me again, a kind dialogue of deaf.
I said you, in various ways, that I agree with you about the importance of experience and environment.
If I am not mistaken, you, on the other hand, said me that you agree with me about the potential that both our couples have.
Finally, about the fact that the genes pool of our couples (I try to find the exact terms, so as not to give rise to incorrect interpretations) is the made up of the same (identical) genes, working in the same (identical) way, connected in the same (identical) way, etc etc etc... that - I believe - may be given for granted.
So, we have two Trip, genetically identical (I hope this is good word), born in two different places, and two genetically identical T'Pol born in two different places.
These, I believe, are as it were our points in common.
If I am not mistaken the divergence between us is that for you the differences created on our two pairs by the influence of environment and experience are such that they cannot be identical: in the sense that these differences can not be undone .
And for that reason, our friends cannot and will never be interchangeable.
For Trip there will be always his own T'Pol: that's what you said, right? Even the mere fact that he could learn to love the other T'Pol but that he must wait to learn to love her, it is a clear demonstration that we are talking of different (once again I hope I am using the right term) persons, so different from one another that it's impossible thinking that they might be something else from what they are; or, rather, from what you assert that they are.
Once again I think it's just a different way of interpreting the term identical and interchangeable.
Your words, again:
Transwarp wrote:Asso, I think I have you on the ropes. I am about to destroy your argument using your own words. (Sorry, but you leave me no choice!) Read what you wrote again *very* carefully, paying attention to the words I have emphasized.
You agree with me that Trip would feel loss. But what did he lose? He lost HIS T'Pol. Trip (and YOU) are both making a DISTINCTION between the two T'Pol's. If Trip considered them to be identical, he would feel no loss. He ONLY feels this loss and grief because he lost someone he can never get back. Someone unique. Someone, if you will excuse me, who is irreplaceable.
They are not and will never be the same person.
Ah, but you attempt to modify your argument so you can sneak it past me by appending the word 'practically' to 'the same'. Not even you can believe they are 'actually' the same.
If they were completely the same, and totally identical, then Trip would feel no grief because he would have lost nothing. He would have no reason for grief: HIS T'Pol would still be with him. Ridiculous, you say? Of course. But that is what MUST be, if your thesis is correct. After all, they are identical. The same. Interchangeable.
But Trip is an illogical human. Maybe he grieves because he does not realize MU T'Pol is really HIS T'Pol and he hasn't really lost anything. Eventually he discovers this and now he is happy again. Whole again. They stroll along the beach, hand-in-hand and remember all the good times they had together... Oh, wait. MU T'Pol can't do that. She wasn't there for those times. How can this be? I thought she was 'the same'. 'Interchangeable.' Now our poor Trip finds out that he can't do the same things with the same T'Pol? Perhaps 'practically the same' and 'the same' are vastly different.
Why not try to see things in a way (eh, eh) a little 'different'?
Trip and his T'Pol (the, so to say, new T'Pol, to attempt to be clear) are on a beach, hand in hand, and Trip (Trip, listen to me) remembers all the good times they had together. Eh no, no: he is mistaken, the wonderful T'Pol who is with him is a T'Pol who cannot possess these memories, she is T'Pol, but she has had other experiences.
“But…” - he suddenly finds himself thinking - …”the touch of this T'Pol ... I know this touch. I know this connection that there is between her and me, this correspondence, deep and innate. I know her soul, her Katra, in the depths. There is something, over there, something that is only of T'Pol, of my T'Pol, that no else has.!”
And - the great man he is, our beloved Trip - he will finish in saying to himself: “Thank you my God! Thanks, my T'Pol to still be here with me. I thought I'd lost you, and you come back to me.”
Meanwhile, T'Pol (which one? Well, please think the T'Pol you prefer) is finding herself holding the hand of Trip (which one? Again this is at your discretion).
“What's going on?” - She thinks – “What is happening to me? What is this I feel? This thing for which I ... I feel I should be born? I ... I do not understand. It seems to me to be with this man for the first time. Yet he has satisfied my Pon Farr. Or wasn't he? No! Yes! It was him! I feel it! I know!”
Now let's try to change a bit the scenario.
This time we are in the Mirror Universe. Trip - the MU Trip - is dead, a rebel has recognized him and has seen fit to wipe away with a well-aimed blow this hated symbol of the Empire.
But in doing so, somehow, for some reason, something happened, and another Trip is suddenly appeared, dressed differently, no scar, and looking dazed and amazed.
Well, you do not believe it, but T'Pol - the MU T'Pol - immediately avenged the death of MU Trip (what a idiot, this T'Pol!) and she finds herself staring at this Trip with no scar, trying to understand .
And, of course, considering the expert scientist and intelligent woman that she is, it does not take much to her to understand everything.
Several things then happen, they are not important, we can neglect these things.
Suffice it to say that, at some point, Trip and T'Pol (and stop to ask which ones) are in a battle field.
Fire, explosions, blood, cruelty, just MU.
The two are close.
They feel and perceive one another.
Trip to himself: “All this is horrible, but ... but ... It has its own fascination. And then there is here T'Pol. I feel her ... her resentment - even if I do not know why - and her contemporary being attracted to me just as ... just as I feel ... I do not know ... something ... hatred and malice ... and attraction - IMMENSE ATTRACTION! - on my part for her.
She is ... she is T'Pol! I found her, here! The T'Pol... right for me!”
Wow! Tremendous the influence of the environment, is not it? Especially if this environment is MU.
And T'Pol? This MU T'Pol? Well, the environment has already done enough on her, do not you think? All in all, even if she just doesn't understand why, she is glad that she still has her loved-hated Trip; things are not so bad.
Same strength, same - ahem - sexual potency - the same lack of scruples. Just the Trip right for her.
With a small improvement, however: the absence of the scar.
Certainly, however, this scar gave him a certain dark fascination. And. .. and if she procures it to him again?
Once again your words:
Transwarp wrote:No, the water is not powering your mill, it is washing away your arguments!
When I say someday he could develop an equally close relationship with MU T'Pol, you say, "Ah-Hah! That proves my point!"
Sadly, no. All it proves is that Trip has the capacity (as do we all) to put grief behind him and get on with his life. He could also come to love a human woman (call her Vera). Would you then claim that Vera is 'the same' as T'Pol? I would hope not!
Do not be sad for me, it is not the case.
At most I might be sad because I am unable to make you understand me.
I would add, that honestly, I do not understand what it does the example that you bring about an eventual life of Trip with 'Vera' with what I'm saying.
In Italy, my friend, we would say that you're covering the gold with straw.
We're talking about T'Pol, not Vera, or any other woman.
A little of your words, once again:
Transwarp wrote:Really, I can't understand your argument. It seems to me you have gone overboard in your zeal to prove that MU T'Pol and RU T'Pol have more similarities than they have differences. But rest assured, the differences are there and they are not insignificant. They may have the same DNA. They may have the same personality. But they have a vastly different set of experiences, and memories. This, to me, is indisputable. This, to me, precludes them from being 'the same.'
I am displeased you can't understand my argument. Anyway, if you feel I have gone overboard in my zeal to prove that MU T'Pol and RU T'Pol have more similarities than they have differences, that's because I believe and feel in this way, and for me I haven't gone overboard.
Sadly, as you said to me, this is your own idea: I think, for what I am persuaded, that the phrase: This, to me, precludes them from being 'the same.' should be completed with 'for me', because as I am incapable of making you in agreement with me, evidently 'the same' is for you.
Just still a little one issue. You stressed this: Perhaps 'practically the same' and 'the same' are vastly different. If I understood well, there is - a little suggested - the idea that I was slightly playing with words.
Believe me, it wasn't my intention. I can understand that I have my heritage to defend (byzantinism and machiavellism), but it wasn't the case.
I am persuaded that the smart pragmatism that is your own is able to make you aware that sometimes we can search for subtle distinctions where these don't exist.
And, Rigil, I know this is an unsatisfactory response to your claim. However I have the distinct impression that 'the same' term is for you completely different from what it is for me.
Cultural differences, by chance? In any case - forgive me - probably a little more of συμπάθεια would not be too.
