How settled are you really in Canada?
Dec 29th 2008, 9:08 pm
#31
Forum Regular
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 110
Re: How settled are you really in Canada?
I wasn't out to argue the finer points of settlement, more a personal one, in the context I have assimilated. Surely most of the BE posters can identify with a potential British Ex-pat?
Dec 29th 2008, 9:39 pm
#32
Forum Regular
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 90
Re: How settled are you really in Canada?
I think what really makes a huge difference is the friends that you make when your out there, when I'm in canada I live in Regina Saskatchewan and honnestly its a pretty average city in a province with a tiny population but I love it out there because of my friends.
Leaving Regina to go back home was one of the hardest things I've done in my life, I wouldnt exactly call myself a softy but my eyes were watering and the truth was I was only going home because I had to.
When I'm in the UK I dont know what to do with myself because I'm really just waiting to go back to canada. I've been building a life out there, I have a company thats happy to give me a job in an industry alot of people dream about working in, I have adoptive families (one thing thats happened alot is that when you move out there on your own other families want to look after you) and I have really close friends.
In our free time were constantly making films of our various activities, as a supprise gift they put together a video of us sledding and showed it on the huge tv screen with pretty much everyone that lives in the university building watching.
They put this message at the end of the dvd:
Merry Christmas Phil!
If you dont come back to Canada, we will punch you straight in the junk
p.s We heart you
p.p.s Make love to a beautiful Canadian woman so you can live here.
- Your Canadian Friends
Leaving Regina to go back home was one of the hardest things I've done in my life, I wouldnt exactly call myself a softy but my eyes were watering and the truth was I was only going home because I had to.
When I'm in the UK I dont know what to do with myself because I'm really just waiting to go back to canada. I've been building a life out there, I have a company thats happy to give me a job in an industry alot of people dream about working in, I have adoptive families (one thing thats happened alot is that when you move out there on your own other families want to look after you) and I have really close friends.
In our free time were constantly making films of our various activities, as a supprise gift they put together a video of us sledding and showed it on the huge tv screen with pretty much everyone that lives in the university building watching.
They put this message at the end of the dvd:
Merry Christmas Phil!
If you dont come back to Canada, we will punch you straight in the junk
p.s We heart you
p.p.s Make love to a beautiful Canadian woman so you can live here.
- Your Canadian Friends
Dec 29th 2008, 9:45 pm
#33
Account Closed
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,284
Re: How settled are you really in Canada?
Of course, if you take it outside the context of my scenario, there is plenty of evidence that most cultures aspire to be settled; albeit some temporarily.
I wasn't out to argue the finer points of settlement, more a personal one, in the context I have assimilated. Surely most of the BE posters can identify with a potential British Ex-pat?
I wasn't out to argue the finer points of settlement, more a personal one, in the context I have assimilated. Surely most of the BE posters can identify with a potential British Ex-pat?
Dec 29th 2008, 9:57 pm
#34
Born again atheist
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Europe (to be specified).
Posts: 30,259
Dec 29th 2008, 10:40 pm
#36
Joined: Oct 2007
Location: Ontario
Posts: 6,609
Re: How settled are you really in Canada?
We first came out to Canada and lived in Kelowna/Westbank. The first couple of months were like a holiday. Once that feeling went away, I just could not get out of the back of my mind that I didn't like it. I still cannot put my finger on why, even though I have LOTS of ideas...lol.
From day one of arriving in Atlantic Canada I felt at home. Again, I have no idea why really, but this place is my home and will continue to be for years to come. I have never felt as settled as I do here.
From day one of arriving in Atlantic Canada I felt at home. Again, I have no idea why really, but this place is my home and will continue to be for years to come. I have never felt as settled as I do here.
Dec 29th 2008, 10:42 pm
#37
Born again atheist
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Europe (to be specified).
Posts: 30,259
Re: How settled are you really in Canada?
"The Ambiguity of Peirce’s Signs
I will illustrate the ambiguity of Peirce’s statements by arguing against Frieder’s interpretations of two points. (To argue against the limitations or contradictions of a dialectical thinker is the highest form of respect, praise and thanks. My arguments were already implicit in Frieder’s presentation.) Peirce defines a sign as having three elements: a symbolic representation (the representamen), the object represented, and the interpretant perspective. To this definition Frieder remarks, "Ludwig Wittgenstein, in his later writings, defined the meaning of a word to be its use. This amounts to the same as Peirce’s concept of sign." To me the opposite seems true of Peirce’s definition. Peirce seems to be very much in the tradition of the early Wittgenstein, who tried to reduce language to symbolic representations of real world objects. With the notion of meaning as use the later Wittgenstein rejected the idea that word signs represented objects and moved to a functional view of language: people use words to accomplish social and communicative goals. Language is no longer a semiotic system of signs representing objects, but a network of social games embedded in cultural forms of life."
Or read any of my posts.
Dec 29th 2008, 10:46 pm
#38
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 15,883
Re: How settled are you really in Canada?
"The Ambiguity of Peirce’s Signs
I will illustrate the ambiguity of Peirce’s statements by arguing against Frieder’s interpretations of two points. (To argue against the limitations or contradictions of a dialectical thinker is the highest form of respect, praise and thanks. My arguments were already implicit in Frieder’s presentation.) Peirce defines a sign as having three elements: a symbolic representation (the representamen), the object represented, and the interpretant perspective. To this definition Frieder remarks, "Ludwig Wittgenstein, in his later writings, defined the meaning of a word to be its use. This amounts to the same as Peirce’s concept of sign." To me the opposite seems true of Peirce’s definition. Peirce seems to be very much in the tradition of the early Wittgenstein, who tried to reduce language to symbolic representations of real world objects. With the notion of meaning as use the later Wittgenstein rejected the idea that word signs represented objects and moved to a functional view of language: people use words to accomplish social and communicative goals. Language is no longer a semiotic system of signs representing objects, but a network of social games embedded in cultural forms of life."
Dec 29th 2008, 10:49 pm
#39
Born again atheist
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Europe (to be specified).
Posts: 30,259
Dec 29th 2008, 10:49 pm
#40
Account Closed
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,284
Re: How settled are you really in Canada?
Oh, that's easy. They say things like ...
"The Ambiguity of Peirce’s Signs
I will illustrate the ambiguity of Peirce’s statements by arguing against Frieder’s interpretations of two points. (To argue against the limitations or contradictions of a dialectical thinker is the highest form of respect, praise and thanks. My arguments were already implicit in Frieder’s presentation.) Peirce defines a sign as having three elements: a symbolic representation (the representamen), the object represented, and the interpretant perspective. To this definition Frieder remarks, "Ludwig Wittgenstein, in his later writings, defined the meaning of a word to be its use. This amounts to the same as Peirce’s concept of sign." To me the opposite seems true of Peirce’s definition. Peirce seems to be very much in the tradition of the early Wittgenstein, who tried to reduce language to symbolic representations of real world objects. With the notion of meaning as use the later Wittgenstein rejected the idea that word signs represented objects and moved to a functional view of language: people use words to accomplish social and communicative goals. Language is no longer a semiotic system of signs representing objects, but a network of social games embedded in cultural forms of life."
Or read any of my posts.
"The Ambiguity of Peirce’s Signs
I will illustrate the ambiguity of Peirce’s statements by arguing against Frieder’s interpretations of two points. (To argue against the limitations or contradictions of a dialectical thinker is the highest form of respect, praise and thanks. My arguments were already implicit in Frieder’s presentation.) Peirce defines a sign as having three elements: a symbolic representation (the representamen), the object represented, and the interpretant perspective. To this definition Frieder remarks, "Ludwig Wittgenstein, in his later writings, defined the meaning of a word to be its use. This amounts to the same as Peirce’s concept of sign." To me the opposite seems true of Peirce’s definition. Peirce seems to be very much in the tradition of the early Wittgenstein, who tried to reduce language to symbolic representations of real world objects. With the notion of meaning as use the later Wittgenstein rejected the idea that word signs represented objects and moved to a functional view of language: people use words to accomplish social and communicative goals. Language is no longer a semiotic system of signs representing objects, but a network of social games embedded in cultural forms of life."
Or read any of my posts.
Dec 29th 2008, 10:59 pm
#41
Born again atheist
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Europe (to be specified).
Posts: 30,259
Dec 29th 2008, 11:06 pm
#42
Account Closed
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,284
Re: How settled are you really in Canada?
Dec 29th 2008, 11:12 pm
#43
Born again atheist
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Europe (to be specified).
Posts: 30,259
Re: How settled are you really in Canada?
I'll pull up a chair and listen. Avidly. Intently. Will I assimilate the context then?
Dec 29th 2008, 11:59 pm
#44
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Dec 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,092
Re: How settled are you really in Canada?
Being settled is a bit like a relationship:
The more you give to the relationship and the more you are willing to adapt to the other the more connected to the other you will be.
If I am not willing to change I will not be settled.
Canada is different from Britain, so looking here for what was in Britain can be frustrating.
I've been lucky enough to canoe in the wilderness, ski powder in the mountains, camp under the stars in a totally virgin sky, hike to mountain tops. I've also worked the prison system with the aboriginal community, got a degree at the U of Calgary, taught and been a school administrator.
I've learned to ride a motorbike. Learned to shoot a rifle and hunt. Got married and had kids.
I am now a Canadian, and would probably never feel at home in the UK again.
I got immersed in the country and can now apreciate that there is culture here, I can admire the architecture of the prairies - the grain elevators, the Ukrainian chrurches built by early settlers. I can appreciate the history of a new country, which as a nation state is actually older than both Italy and Germany! I can admire it's artists, whose vision was shaped by the land. Canaoe round OAS lake in Ontario and you'll know why the Group of Seven painted as they did.
Yes there's culture in England, but with my Northern Working Class accent and backgriund I never fit in with cultured society at University in London.
There's no class here: and you can read that both ways, and one of them would be wrong. There are many people with lots of class here, but they are not defined by their geneology, school tie or accent.
You can reinvent yourself here, as many Brits have: Grey Owl, David Thompson, Robert Service.
And Canada is a great country: it's not just Mounties, Maple Syrup and hockey.
BTW go to a hockey game. Take a chance, you might like it! Or not, doesn't really matter. What matters is that you try.
My point is that coming to Canada is not like coming to a restaurant where you can complain about what's missing. It's like a pot-luck. And many times you "eat what you brung" while trying out perogies, ginger beef, andfood from other countries.
The more you give to the relationship and the more you are willing to adapt to the other the more connected to the other you will be.
If I am not willing to change I will not be settled.
Canada is different from Britain, so looking here for what was in Britain can be frustrating.
I've been lucky enough to canoe in the wilderness, ski powder in the mountains, camp under the stars in a totally virgin sky, hike to mountain tops. I've also worked the prison system with the aboriginal community, got a degree at the U of Calgary, taught and been a school administrator.
I've learned to ride a motorbike. Learned to shoot a rifle and hunt. Got married and had kids.
I am now a Canadian, and would probably never feel at home in the UK again.
I got immersed in the country and can now apreciate that there is culture here, I can admire the architecture of the prairies - the grain elevators, the Ukrainian chrurches built by early settlers. I can appreciate the history of a new country, which as a nation state is actually older than both Italy and Germany! I can admire it's artists, whose vision was shaped by the land. Canaoe round OAS lake in Ontario and you'll know why the Group of Seven painted as they did.
Yes there's culture in England, but with my Northern Working Class accent and backgriund I never fit in with cultured society at University in London.
There's no class here: and you can read that both ways, and one of them would be wrong. There are many people with lots of class here, but they are not defined by their geneology, school tie or accent.
You can reinvent yourself here, as many Brits have: Grey Owl, David Thompson, Robert Service.
And Canada is a great country: it's not just Mounties, Maple Syrup and hockey.
BTW go to a hockey game. Take a chance, you might like it! Or not, doesn't really matter. What matters is that you try.
My point is that coming to Canada is not like coming to a restaurant where you can complain about what's missing. It's like a pot-luck. And many times you "eat what you brung" while trying out perogies, ginger beef, andfood from other countries.
