“Life partnership”, in my characterization, involves “cranking up various positive relationship-variables to the maximum”, among which is the ability-to-be-vulnerable. I. e., this type of relationship is distinguished not by having a distinct unique Thing going on, but by a specific extreme parameterization of a whole bunch of Things.
If I understand correctly, David says there’s a number of other interesting Things which are ramped up in a(n idealized) romantic relationship, that they form a cluster with the ability-to-be-vulnerable, and that there may be some latent relationship-variable mediating all relationship-variables in this cluster.
I would agree with that. But my definition doesn’t really interact with David’s search for this “compact generator”. There may be some emergent quality that we get as the result of the simultaneous ramp-up (e. g., the “centrality in each other’s lives”), but I hadn’t attempted to nail that down.
I don’t think it quite does.
“Life partnership”, in my characterization, involves “cranking up various positive relationship-variables to the maximum”, among which is the ability-to-be-vulnerable. I. e., this type of relationship is distinguished not by having a distinct unique Thing going on, but by a specific extreme parameterization of a whole bunch of Things.
If I understand correctly, David says there’s a number of other interesting Things which are ramped up in a(n idealized) romantic relationship, that they form a cluster with the ability-to-be-vulnerable, and that there may be some latent relationship-variable mediating all relationship-variables in this cluster.
I would agree with that. But my definition doesn’t really interact with David’s search for this “compact generator”. There may be some emergent quality that we get as the result of the simultaneous ramp-up (e. g., the “centrality in each other’s lives”), but I hadn’t attempted to nail that down.