arguments w/ andy

lunches with andy are always long conversations that diggle with questions of identity, social norms and values, and various human roles and identities. they often also involve cambodian food and are always argumentative.

good.

a friend has recently retired from blogging. he says (and i repeat it here because it rings true - limits me in the blogosphere too) "I always hate myself as soon as I express an opinion". which is interesting - we're both opinionated people, yet there is for me something difficult about committing all of the complexity of an idea, all the variability, all the caveats and angles to a few printed words. printed words can feel limited and stifling (or maybe that's just what happens when you're too lazy to write all the rest down). but i think somehow i don't give people the benefit of the doubt - don't believe that they will understand that printed words are just a beginning, are necessarily a simplification. maybe i need a disclaimer as a banner for my page:

the following statements do not accurately reflect the opinions of the author and should not be taken to reflect her feelings, experiences, or thoughts either in their entirety or at any other point in space and time.

and so in waffling i invite discreditation. great. how to win when you think the world is beautiful because of it's variability, complexity, and shifting contexts?