[PeterGriffin]

Please don't compare one's attachment to another living being (like a cat) to attachment to objects, or even worse, intangible symbols (like a name).

A tendency to apply high value to symbols, instead of substance is a property I've noticed in less sophisticated people. They can't tell (or weren't taught to tell) apart symbol and substance, but symbols are way simpler, so they focus on the symbols.

Works for them to a degree. But it's stupid. Symbols exist only point to something else. Maybe being named after your grandfather means a lot to you as a symbol, but no one else feels that way. To them it's just your name.

And one is not honoring their grandfather by being particularly stubborn about their weird name, they're just being silly, and harming themselves.

You honor those you respect through your actions, not by wearing hollow badges (like using a specific name). By the way, I was named after my grandfather.

[CocaKoala]

>A tendency to apply high value to symbols, instead of substance is a property I've noticed in less sophisticated people.

This is a wonderful sentence. I recently got married, and I wouldn't trade my wedding ring for ten times the gold value in cash, because I cherish it as a symbol of my commitment to my wife, and a symbol of our love for each other. Does that make me "less sophisticated" than somebody who looks at their wedding ring and says "Gold prices are up from when we got married; let's cash this sucker in and make some profit"?

Am I stupid for not doing that? Is it silly that I cherish my wedding ring more than somebody on the street, because to me it's a symbol of my marriage and to them it's just my ring?

It's fine if you want to adopt an utterly robotic and value-driven outlook on life, but it's silly to expect everybody else to do the same, and it's ridiculous to say that people who refuse to be similarly robotic are somehow "less sophisticated" than your utterly logical and enlightened self.

edit: you keep on pointing out how you do X, like how you've shortened your name, or you were named for your grandfather, and I guess I don't understand why because it doesn't matter. What you choose to do doesn't have that much of a bearing on what other people choose to do, and just because you're willing to change your name doesn't mean other people should have to.

[PeterGriffin]

> Does that make me "less sophisticated" than somebody who looks at their wedding ring and says "Gold prices are up from when we got married; let's cash this sucker in and make some profit"?

They wouldn't buy a ring in the first place.

[CocaKoala]

That'd dodging the question and you know it. Maybe the ring is a family heirloom passed down for generations. Still not sophisticated? What about the person who's father left them his vintage 1913 archtop guitar, and they don't really play it that often but have fond memories of listening to their dad noodle around and play blues music in the evening?

Is it more reasonable to say that nobody should attach emotional value to any inanimate object, or to say that people have the right to decide by which name they'd like to be referred to, and that as a matter of basic respect you should put some effort in to learning how people want their names to be pronounced?

[silencio]

Surprised you're still commenting...

My husband and I also recently got married (congrats to you and your partner from us!) and we designed our rings from scratch - mine with a diamond alternative stone - as seen here: http://cl.ly/image/3A3R24042w0C. PeterGriffin would probably proceed to tell us that our rings are still just garbage sentimental trinkets distracting us from the "substance" of our relationship despite us "making stories" with them.

Nothing about spending the money to get our rings says that we can't also honor what the rings stand for by doing other things. Doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. That doesn't even come into the equation.

The same could be said about names - you can choose to keep a name due to an attachment while also honoring the origin of the name. This is why I'm just adding more onto my name instead of removing any bit of the name that my parents gave me. (My nickname is longer than my real name, even. My real name is a little too short.)

Ultimately it's a personal decision, and ultimately, like you point out, it's a matter of basic respect to respect someone's choice of name and name pronunciation. Nothing about a choice to be attached to something means that you're stuck "telling stories" and that you're forever doomed to be attracted to the symbol and not the substance.

I am actually quite saddened by the idea of someone living such a life. "Robotic" is kind of an understatement.

[PeterGriffin]

No I'm actually impressed you designed your own rings. In another setting that would certainly be worth a nice conversation over lunch or dinner with you and your husband.

Maybe my reaction is... beyond understanding... (cue in spooky music).

Also don't confuse "robotic" with my lack of focus on stupid things. I laugh, cry, hate and love a lot too. I can't understand why I need to be a stupid son of a bitch getting hung up on how people pronounce my name or getting overly attached to small shiny commercial objects, in order to do those things.

I also don't believe in witches and black magic. Oh, how robotic.

[silencio]

Okay I admit I was surprised ;) I figured that wouldn't be enough of a maker story. We only did it because we were bored by all the identical unsuitable rings we encountered. If we were going to stick with one symbol for our lives, may as well be exactly what we wanted instead of settling.

The robotic part, I suppose, is a combination of your personal feelings on the matter while refusing to see why it may be a problem for others. Not having an attachment to your name by itself is a personal choice I can respect.

BTW if it's of any interest, my first name is Jane. My nickname is Janey. My longer than my full name nickname is "janeylicious". Funny how nobody fucks up the last one (except maybe the spelling) but I have so much trouble with my plain first name to the point that I occasionally just make up a different name or rely only on the nicknames. The plain name stuff can backfire ;)

[CocaKoala]

well wait, I'm confused; my wife worked with a jeweller to design my ring, and I worked with a jeweller to design her engagement ring and matching wedding band. Did we just roll over from "foolish to spend money on rings" to "it's okay because we designed them"? Or does that not count because we didn't make the wax, cast the metal, and set the stones ourselves?

I'm not calling you robot because you don't like to focus on things you think are stupid; I'm calling you robotic because you absolutely insist that anybody and everybody who DOES focus on things you think are stupid are stupid.

[PeterGriffin]

I wonder if you realize that just because your family bought some trinket (or whatever) for money some time in the past, it doesn't make it special. "Look, honey, my grandgrandfather wasted his money on this piece of junk. He was very susceptible to salesman pitches. He was also a lottery ticket buyer. A drunk. And he beat his wife. Boy, I'm glad I turned out better."

Now, if my grandgrandfather crafted a piece of jewelry, that makes it more interesting than throwing money on something someone else made. It's because of pure informational value. It makes it an object that can be studied, that can inform us how people thought and what their approach about something was. That makes it more valuable than the trivial "they had the money and they lacked the imagination to start a business or buy something useful, or do something else sensible, so they bought this crap here".

But actually most family trinkets don't have a history worth retelling. Usually it's some variation of poor people collecting money and buying/ordering this "symbol" and imagining they "made it", because they now have this thing here, a symbol of success and sophistication. Actually, I think this clip from Pulp Fiction about sums up my feelings about "family jewelry" well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kngBtoylIVM

It's a sign of thinking primitively (of course, not that I blame the poor people clinging to bullshit, but it's nothing to tell the world about). De Beers and co. have made billions out of idiots buying tiny useless crystals as status symbols.

Sure, you can always put some family jewelry in a cupboard and leave it there to make an interesting conversation breaker (hey, my father kept this watch in his ass for 5 years!), because those usually are worth little to nothing on the market anyway.

Suggesting that if I don't respect the sentimental value of trinkets, so I can focus all my attention on "market value" and selling them is just some straw man you think you're oh so clever to pull off on me. But no, the market doesn't care about your ass watch. Nobody cares. You shouldn't either.

But to see someone who really puts great importance on such stuff, even to the point partially basing their self-worth on what their ancestors did (or didn't, as a matter of fact) is a big honking warning sign. Because if you keep looking back, you'll create much less to look forward to.

Focusing on the past too much is the reason why even generations do all the work, and odd generations spend their life "being proud of their families".

It doesn't matter if you're Einstein's grandgrandgranddaughter or Hitler's grandgrandgrandson. All you have left is some family property (if that), and a silly name. You have to make your "name" on your own. Your worth as a human being is not hereditary.

There are two kinds of people, those telling stories, and those making stories. Those telling stories are a commodity. I like this one: "1% of people make things happen, 9% of people notice what happens, and 90% are unaware of what happens."

By the way, I'm done explaining the basics of life to you, I have better shit to do. See ya.

P.S.: You should've read this post in Christopher Walken's voice.

[CocaKoala]

Thanks for explaining the basics of life to me. Thanks to you, I've learned that

a) A hypothetical story about a hypothetical great-grandfather apparently invalidates the value of family heirlooms

b) crafted items are valuable because of the information they hold, which inform us how people thought and what their approach to something was. Their purchasing patterns, however, tell us absolutely nothing about how they thought, what their approach was, or what types of things they valued.

c) Having family heirlooms which were foolishly bought back in the day is primitive thinking (and a sign of being poor). If your will isn't one hundred percent cash you are wasting everybody's time.

d) Sentimental value is bullshit, and market value is a straw man; heirlooms apparently have literally no value at all.

e) You have to make your "name" on your own, but if your name is hard for people to pronounce then you should just deal with it when they give you a different one.

Thanks for clearing all that up.

[PeterGriffin]

You're welcome, buddy.