The why to your heart

[j4]

A one-question poll to start the week. No quibbling: how you interpret the question is part of the point. It's just something I've been thinking about, & I'm interested to see what the wisdom (or otherwise) of LiveJournal has to say.

[Poll #963593]

Edited to add: I was trying not to influence the answers by over-explaining the question, but perhaps I went too far in the opposite direction: so, just to clarify, I'm talking about interpersonal relationships rather than the abstract concept of the-state-of-relatedness-or-otherwise-of-things-to-other-things.

Comments

[filecoreinuse.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I understand the questions. Relationships exist irrespective of reasons. All pairs of objects have a relationship even if said relationship is 'has no interesting relationship'. Similarly two objects may have multiple relationships ('are both foodstuffs', 'are both fried', 'are both parts of brunch' for 'bacon' and 'eggs' for example).

I would say they are 'for' defining the relation between things but that is in actual fact just not answering the question as posed.

[1ngi.livejournal.com]

Just got back in and read this lot of comments and just ended up giggling at the idea that even after you had said 'how you interpret the question is part of the point' there was still a desire for specificity.

;)

Anyway - dying to know what you found out.

[mpinna.livejournal.com]

(I'm writing this before reading what anyone else has said)

They aren't for anything. Neither are we. But as humans we need to relate to other humans because that is what evolution made us.

[redbird]

The problem with a free-text poll and results viewable to none is that I don't remember what I said.