What is everyones thought on love? Is it chemical reactions, instincts, or spiritual??

Why can it drive people to do such crazy things, and almost get sick without it?

Chemical reactions of course :D

it is all those things you state and MORE. Love is (and dont worry i aint goin corny) PROFOUND, in its deepest deepnesses. in its more superficial it is also profound and can cause all manner of misery and horror. is the latter love though?...i would say no. if you want to harm someone cause they dont love you back is that really love, or is it something else

for me REAL Love is seeing THROUGH falsness. for example, i had a Trip two weeks a go. part of the Trip had me by chance watching this documentary about the Isralie Palestinian conflict. you were flowwing a camera--were seeing through camera at the life there. i saw through the confilct. i saw that the roots was people clinging to their beliefs. simple. it was simple DIRECT obscervation-feeling. that is love i reckon

and of course eroticism is part of that, and part pf physical love and desire which is love too

maybe love is just a bullshit joke, and everyone who has "loved" is just kidding to try and confuse us normal people. :m:

Like religion? I think so.......

i think love is pain... i know why love lets us do crazy thing. it's because we see this person as god ''itself'.

Love is the conceptual embodiment of the best or most pleasurable human emotional states: requited romantic love (with lots of sex) is the most highly-rated of these. Devotion and intimacy of a non-sexual nature, most obviously with one's family, comes next.

But the word "love," at least in English, is extended to describe any experience or situation a person enjoys: including hobbies, sports, and making money. It can even refer to the application of negative emotions such as hatred and spite, when one "loves" to hurt, intimidate, or take revenge on others.

Even people who psychologically cannot care about anyone but themselves - like psychopaths - probably still feel love of one sort, directed towards money or property. And a love for the act of killing.

http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=2424049

Fascinating.
Simply, simply fascinating.

I wonder how many of you here have put up a "wuv" thread of your own.
I wonder how many of you perk your ears up the site of these threads, asking what love is about, talking about it, dreaming and thinking and singing about it without respecting yourself enough to even like yourself let alone love anything.

Don't know what 'love' is, as all of you know it?
Its a mechanism for idiots to have scenes with. Its a lovely pastime for the girl of no status to show that she has some by the simple flash of the engagement ring he just gave her.
Its the perfect means for the homeliest girl or boy in the crowd to finally be significant enough for gossip.
Where would love be without the drama of the simple who mishandle it with hysteria?
Where would love be without this feeling every last one of you here walks around with of being nothing?
That is why when someone like myself sees you all in love she imagines a leper getting his sores blown on by lepers, and I call it charity.

Yet you call it love.
Simply fascinating.

Love? Well the Greeks had four words that have all been translated as love. I can't remember what the words are in Greek, but in english they are the Lustful kind of love, the Romantic kind of love, the Brotherly (friendship) kind of love, and the Charity kind of love. Lust refers to desire, and can be in reference to "I love that candy bar" to "I love that great body." The romantic kind refers to the love that is fostered between a man and a woman, this is probably the kind of love that is referred to when speaking about chemical reactions in the brain. The brotherly kind of love refers to the love that grows between to friends. It's a love of the familiar, comradery. Finally, Charity, is a selfless form of love. It is the selfless giving of one's self to the service of another. I think, however, that there is a fifth kind of love, not named by the Greeks, and that is parental love. I think that parental love is unlike any of the four mentioned. Love is something that has many faces, and it's best to express exactly what you mean when you use the word. ;)

It's natures way of motivating you to remember "this is my mate". It takes on additional meaning given the particular chemstry and experience of the individual. That way you can also love cheese. It can be twisted in any number of ways.

Don't know what 'love' is, as all of you know it?

Where would love be without this feeling every last one of you here walks around with of being nothing?

You have really turned cynicism into an art - just as the great lotharios of the World have done with love (or least sex). I would say you "love" your denial of love, gaining satisfaction from it.

Call me a soppy, cliche'd romantic, but it's a great shame if you have never felt love for anyone else.

I think the emotion we call "love" is caused by hormones in our body being set off when we see, hear, or think about some person, animal, or thing we love, or when we are doing or thinking about what we love to do.

I like to think it's almost magical that such a good feeling results from (relatively) simple chemistry!

Huh.

I can't wait to find the What is Anger thread.

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=41262

:p

Very obliging aren't you? :p

Yes.

TheMatrixisReal:
And yet with that attitude, they will procreate and pass on there "leper" genes and you will not. Ahhh, the wonders of evolution at work
Yes, isn't it wonderful?

That all over the world as we speak there are slums with thousands of people breeding behind the walls the way rats do, automatic and careless, like the filthy nature of the common idiot.
The only reason we can spot a rose jutting out from a crack in that slum is because there will be millions of ugly clones, just like you, standing behind it as background.
Now do you see why you are useful?

beyondtimeandspace:
Love? Well the Greeks had four words that have all been translated as love. I can't remember what the words are in Greek, but in english they are the Lustful kind of love, the Romantic kind of love, the Brotherly (friendship) kind of love, and the Charity kind of love. Lust refers to desire, and can be in reference to "I love that candy bar" to "I love that great body." The romantic kind refers to the love that is fostered between a man and a woman, this is probably the kind of love that is referred to when speaking about chemical reactions in the brain. The brotherly kind of love refers to the love that grows between to friends. It's a love of the familiar, comradery.
Agapic, Platonic, and Erotic.

The acronym of which is 'ape'- which is what people usually do when they are in 'love'.
They ape what they see on television- what they read in digests and hear talked about in the gossip.
All of them like enamored barrel monkeys aping each other in drama.

You people don't even know what 'love' is, yet are always first to love everything.

Finally, Charity, is a selfless form of love. It is the selfless giving of one's self to the service of another.
Oh shut up.
Charity is by far the most selfish arrogance- it allows an impoverished soul to elevate itself by looking down on another one.
All with the simple act of looking down.


Starthane:
You have really turned cynicism into an art - just as the great lotharios of the World have done with love (or least sex). I would say you "love" your denial of love, gaining satisfaction from it.
I can see why you would think so.
Its easy to explain me with, isn't it?

"Genganken, that miserable bitch. What a cynic- she can't love anyone, much less herself, so like all cynics here she is channeling her misery into an art form"

You stupid wench, you farmboy. You can't even contemplate the loving of one's self to such degree that Self becomes a treasure you give to another.
Not some chewed up piece of copper thrown around by fucking prostitutes.

Call me a soppy, cliche'd romantic, but it's a great shame if you have never felt love for anyone else.
Its a greater shame you can't see this.

And you're not as much a soppy, clichéd romantic as you are simple minded.

Call me a soppy, cliche'd romantic, but it's a great shame if you have never felt love for anyone else.

Could you tell me why it is a shame to never feel love? I do not really understand.

Dream:
Could you tell me why it is a shame to never feel love? I do not really understand.
I'll beat him to it.

He'll say something like love is something that makes us more than ourselves, that its an experience that parts the clouds, pales the sun, lifts the spirits, and puts a bunch of furry bunnies on your fucking lawn.

Dreamwalker! You're missing out if you don't have some clueless bitch to cuddle with! What a shame!

Aww shit... just too bad I cannot participate in that thing called "love".

Dream:

I'll beat him to it.

He'll say something like love is something that makes us more than ourselves, that its an experience that parts the clouds, pales the sun, lifts the spirits... You're missing out if you don't have some clueless bitch to cuddle with!

Great Scott! :rolleyes: I would probably just have said that it's one of the better aspects of being human, one of (but by no means the only) principle pleasures in life!

Oh, and my favourite little bundle of cuddles is far from clueless.

Could you tell me why it is a shame to never feel love? I do not really understand.


Once you've experianced true love you will understand but there are no words that can describe to you what the sensation is. It is something each person has individually and is expressed differently by everyone. It was most pleasurable to me to be with the one I loved.

Starthane:
Great Scott! I would probably just have said that it's one of the better aspects of being human, one of (but by no means the only) principle pleasures in life!


And how would you value integrity in comparison?
Respect?
Commitment?


Cosmic:
Once you've experianced true lobe you will understand but there are no words that can describe to you what the sensation is. It is something each person has individually and is expressed differently by everyone. It was most pleasurable to me to be with the one I loved.
Ooohh.

That sprinkly feeling of feces inches away from the anus? Indescribable.
And universal.

Starthane:

And how would you value integrity in comparison?
Respect?
Commitment?


Cosmic:

Ooohh.

That sprinkly feeling of feces inches away from the anus? Indescribable.
And universal.


Just because youv'e been hurt doesn't mean that you won't ever love again. Don't be so negitive about everything just because you have had a rough time in life just accept what WAS and move on....forward.

Cosmic:
Just because youv'e been hurt doesn't mean that you won't ever love again. Don't be so negitive about everything just because you have had a rough time in life just accept what WAS and move on....forward.
Ah, the wildcard- so and so must have been hurt before.
So and so must be spurned.
So if someone does not like dogs is it always because they've been bit before?

No! It can't be that the doggythrope has looked on canines as filthy, lousy mongrels that tear up all the furniture and cost money just to keep so has come to the conclusion that he does not like dogs.
It has to be that the doggythrope was bitten by a dog before!

It can't be that the loveythropes are higher minds skilled enough to go through all the garbage to find a teeny pearl.
It has to be that the loveythropes, like Gendanken, have been hurt before!!
You people are hilarious.
I should strangle you or ..something.

Strangle someone that only speaks their opinions? That is a little harsh isn't it? I only stated what most people go through to have the kind of reactions you have against love but it seems you are unique. Have you ever loved anything?

Starthane:

And how would you value integrity in comparison?
Respect?
Commitment?

Integrity and respect are both important aspects of a person - especially if you mean self-respect. But then, that could also be called self-love. A person can function well if (s)he has both of these, even in the absence of love for or by anyone else.

As for commitment: that is, I suppose, an essential part of love, integrity and respect. It is also a component of work ethic and morality.

Overall, the various human qualities you mention are all a part of each other. [That's why I thought the Red Dwarf episode with a psi-moon, which created a variety of archetypal characters based on "distinct" apects of Rimmer's personality, was silly - even if entertaining. :D ]

Cosmic:
Strangle someone that only speaks their opinions? That is a little harsh isn't it?

You didn't opinionate.
You rebelled.

Have you ever loved anything?
Yes.

Star:
Integrity and respect are both important aspects of a person - especially if you mean self-respect. But then, that could also be called self-love. A person can function well if (s)he has both of these, even in the absence of love for or by anyone else.

Thats...what I'm talking about.
Been talking about.

Most of you know nothing of Self and end up in love with other selves you expect to help you find yours.
Which is what is meant by lepers:

"That is why when someone like myself sees you all in love she imagines a leper getting his sores blown on by lepers, and I call it charity.
Yet you call it love."

Interesting responses. For me, it boils down to exactly what gendanken is saying.

People say that love is being able to take care of one another for all time.

I say, take care of yourself so that you can be loved.

Do that, and you aren't a half of a whole being, you are a whole being that exists with another whole being for the purpose of enjoyment, not dependancy.

Arditezza:
People say that love is being able to take care of one another for all time.

I say, take care of yourself so that you can be loved.

Do that, and you aren't a half of a whole being, you are a whole being that exists with another whole being for the purpose of enjoyment, not dependancy.
DITTO.

Now is that so fucking hard for you idiots to see??
Maybe its the big words and lack of tact?
Suck it.

I think they are just too busy for us to shatter their romantic ideals of love.

Sadly, they don't realize that the reason for their heartache and heartbreak, relies solely on their belief in ideals and perfections that just don't exist. I choose to be not disappointed, and I know you do the same.

Well... I see love as a freedom of self-expression. When I love someone, I want to be totally free to express myself, so that I can be my real self. That's what I think love is, the total and undivided expression of oneself. Like an extension of yourself. As if you weren't just here, but also there. Have you guys ever heard of things such as "you will always live in my heart"? Well... that's what I'm talking about. It is not just sexual, not even just emotional. It is limitless in width and depth. A limitless expression of oneself. Of course sex should be the greatest and wholest expression of oneself. But without sex, it is still love. :)

What is everyones thought on love?

Gave you the overview above.

Is it chemical reactions, instincts, or spiritual??

It's a result of the instinct for self-protection. (it's the postive half, that allies you - where as hate helps identify your enemies). It is generated physically by a chemical reaction, yes... but that's only half of it. I don't think it's spiritual by nature but can be spiritual. (I kind of find though now, that the concept of spirituality is somewhat un-necessary, basically it's a mish-mash of emotions). It's abstract.

Why can it drive people to do such crazy things,

Because it's rooted in the survival instinct, which is fundamental. That gives it power. If for instance, the expectations you form based in it are false... and you're not particularly stable - you'll almost surely do something stupid or crazy.

and almost get sick without it?

Well, it IS also all mixed up with the reproductive instinct (even if you're gay, you still want to "get it on" in whatever way you see "getting it on" as good). If you are in love, you can form a dependency. If you are dependent and lacking the object of that dependency, you will likely "get sick".

Arditezza:
I think they are just too busy for us to shatter their romantic ideals of love.

No, I think they're too busy masturbating to Hallmark cards and listening to wuv songs to know better.

Like so:

Have you guys ever heard of things such as "you will always live in my heart"?
Yeah, and have you heard the one where she's all like I want you baby, please come back
I need your love
now this is wack

or the one where he says I need you, all the world just fades away
when I'm with you
everything just seems ok

Or the one where he's all sad because his baby's sleeping with another man.
And he just don't understan'

Wes:
Because it's rooted in the survival instinct, which is fundamental. That gives it power
The point being to wrest the power back from it.

Fascinating.
Simply, simply fascinating.

I wonder how many of you here have put up a "wuv" thread of your own.
I wonder how many of you perk your ears up the site of these threads, asking what love is about, talking about it, dreaming and thinking and singing about it without respecting yourself enough to even like yourself let alone love anything.

Don't know what 'love' is, as all of you know it?
Its a mechanism for idiots to have scenes with. Its a lovely pastime for the girl of no status to show that she has some by the simple flash of the engagement ring he just gave her.
Its the perfect means for the homeliest girl or boy in the crowd to finally be significant enough for gossip.
Where would love be without the drama of the simple who mishandle it with hysteria?
Where would love be without this feeling every last one of you here walks around with of being nothing?
That is why when someone like myself sees you all in love she imagines a leper getting his sores blown on by lepers, and I call it charity.

Yet you call it love.
Simply fascinating.

So when two people are happy together, and care nothing for the opinions of those around them, and what they think about you two. They would live together through anything, whether it be horrible or wonderful... they would help each other through anything for the simple reason of love. Is that ... fake?

It depends on dependancy.

If the two people simply want to be together, and do not NEED to be together, then it's a healthy relationship. If you find yourself lost, or bored without that other person around... then you have dependancy, and not love. If you are unable to function without them, or if when they are not in your sight you are always wondering what they are doing, who they are with and when they are coming home... then it's a relationship built on someone else holding up your self-esteem. See where that is bad?

So when two people are happy together, and care nothing for the opinions of those around them, and what they think about you two. They would live together through anything, whether it be horrible or wonderful... they would help each other through anything for the simple reason of love. Is that ... fake?

What do u mean by fake? Most everything (biologically) has a function.

Don't know what 'love' is, as all of you know it?
Its a mechanism for idiots to have scenes with. Its a lovely pastime for the girl of no status to show that she has some by the simple flash of the engagement ring he just gave her.
Its the perfect means for the homeliest girl or boy in the crowd to finally be significant enough for gossip.
Where would love be without the drama of the simple who mishandle it with hysteria?
Where would love be without this feeling every last one of you here walks around with of being nothing?

How refreshing!

That is why when someone like myself sees you all in love she imagines a leper getting his sores blown on by lepers, and I call it charity.
No darling.

Love is when the leper rubs ointment into the sores of the other leper with their stumps even though their hands have fallen off and then the other leper turns around for you to do the same to them, without either having to ask.

He'll say something like love is something that makes us more than ourselves, that its an experience that parts the clouds, pales the sun, lifts the spirits, and puts a bunch of furry bunnies on your fucking lawn.
Blah! You've read one too many Hallmark cards.

That sprinkly feeling of feces inches away from the anus? Indescribable.
And universal.
Lovely... It's called toilet paper dear.

People say that love is being able to take care of one another for all time.

I say, take care of yourself so that you can be loved.

Do that, and you aren't a half of a whole being, you are a whole being that exists with another whole being for the purpose of enjoyment, not dependancy.
Beautiful!

I agree with you and Gendy. Love is not about being one half who finds their other half. We are not sliced up fruit that need the other pieces to be whole again.

If a person does not know themselves as a whole and love themselves as a whole, they cannot know what is when they meet another whole individual. Love should not be something that has one pining for the other as though their life has stopped when the other is not around.

I'm not with my partner because he can take care of me. I'm with him because I like to be with him. I love him for who he is and he loves me for who I am. He does not make me whole. Only I can make me whole. I do refer to him as my other half at times for easy reference, but in reality he's another individual who I'm with. The only person who can be my other half is myself.

Love is when you find someone who likes you for who you are without wanting to change you to suit their needs, ie. to make you their other half.

If the two people simply want to be together, and do not NEED to be together, then it's a healthy relationship. If you find yourself lost, or bored without that other person around... then you have dependancy, and not love. If you are unable to function without them, or if when they are not in your sight you are always wondering what they are doing, who they are with and when they are coming home... then it's a relationship built on someone else holding up your self-esteem. See where that is bad?
Well said!

It depends on dependancy.

If the two people simply want to be together, and do not NEED to be together, then it's a healthy relationship. If you find yourself lost, or bored without that other person around... then you have dependancy, and not love. If you are unable to function without them, or if when they are not in your sight you are always wondering what they are doing, who they are with and when they are coming home... then it's a relationship built on someone else holding up your self-esteem. See where that is bad?

Nice, but: "If the two people simply want to be together, and do not NEED to be together" -- then you have love for love's sake.
In that case, one might just as well not pursue love and being loved, as what you're saying also means that you are the same with or without the other person. As if you are perfectly self-sufficient. I don't buy that.

Your wanting to be with the other person is a need.
People don't want things just out of the blue, for wanting's sake.

Not every needing the other person results in "If you find yourself lost, or bored without that other person around... then you have dependancy, and not love. If you are unable to function without them, or if when they are not in your sight you are always wondering what they are doing, who they are with and when they are coming home... then it's a relationship built on someone else holding up your self-esteem."

gendanken:
Now is that so fucking hard for you idiots to see??
Maybe its the big words and lack of tact?
Suck it.

Amusing.
You're not any different from those proclaiming their allegience to "luv".
You're simply refining your allegience to a specific type of "luv"

And that leads to this:

Bells:
I'm not with my partner because he can take care of me. I'm with him because I like to be with him. I love him for who he is and he loves me for who I am.

Then you are no different from a Hallmark card. You are simply a Hallmark card with a different message on it.
Do you actually think your message is so subversive, so radical? It's common.

You're all common. In you, the fascination with love simply becomes a fascination with sneering at love, or saying it should be constructed in some personal way.

"Love is overrated!" I hear "it's just chemicals"
Well no, duh?
If the subject is truely as common as you say - admitting that it is - you are equally as common for your insatiable need to denounce or rectify it.

Historically, the love of love is often connected with an ecstatic love of death, of warfare and progeny. I dare any one of you lily-livered pussys to say that's not fucking interesting.

You'll make of love something "healthy", and you think you're going against the trend? Far from! You're the heirs of the 19th century's medicalization of emotion, the modern emphasis on being well-adjusted and healthy.

Bah. Humbug.

Xev

Then, if anything, what does love mean to you? How do you incoporate it in your life?

Do you accept your points of view on love to be also common?

Gendy: I don't see that you necessarily need to wrest it back. It depends on who you are and what you value.

Nice, but: "If the two people simply want to be together, and do not NEED to be together" -- then you have love for love's sake.
In that case, one might just as well not pursue love and being loved, as what you're saying also means that you are the same with or without the other person. As if you are perfectly self-sufficient. I don't buy that..

Actually, that is exactly what I mean. I looked for love in High School, to be a half. I searched for someone to validate me, and show off to my friends. I no longer wanted to be alone, and I wanted someone to fawn all over me. I found it, several times. But, when you are "looking" for love, there is obviously something missing, or you do not feel complete without another person to share it with you. When you fall in love, without looking and without needing to be in love... that's the part that is the key. You are no longer settling for the best love you can get, just because you have to have it from somewhere. You can respect yourself, and be self-sufficent enough not to need to be loved. When you are loved, it's a blessing... but it's not needed to make you a person.


Your wanting to be with the other person is a need.
People don't want things just out of the blue, for wanting's sake.

A want is a fleeting feeling, but not a need. You can want your entire life to travel the world, but it doesn't mean that your life is not complete if you never make the trip. So want, and need are two different things. Moreso when it comes to love, because love is not needed to be happy, or productive, or live a full life.

Not every needing the other person results in "If you find yourself lost, or bored without that other person around... then you have dependancy, and not love. If you are unable to function without them, or if when they are not in your sight you are always wondering what they are doing, who they are with and when they are coming home... then it's a relationship built on someone else holding up your self-esteem."

Well, I disagree. If you need someone to complete you, then there is something missing in the first place. It is indeed a matter of self-esteem and self-worth. If you have neither, it's very easy to need someone to love you to boost your own ego. In fact, it may be the sole reason for dysfunctional people to form dysfunctional relationships. It can also be a reason the divorce rate is too high. Everyone expects too much from love, and from each other. They talk about it, see counselors, shared it with the women at the hair salon and their buddies at the bar, and it's all about how disappointed they are. When the people they should be disappointed with is themselves for being half of a whole.

Xev:
You're not any different from those proclaiming their allegience to "luv".
You're simply refining your allegience to a specific type of "luv"

Actually, another commoner beat you to it just as commonly:

"You have really turned cynicism into an art (gendanken) - just as the great lotharios of the World have done with love (or least sex). I would say you "love" your denial of love, gaining satisfaction from it.
Call me a soppy, cliche'd romantic, but it's a great shame if you have never felt love for anyone else. "- Starthane


Amusing.

What's hilarious is that post up there coming from you.
Peasant.

"Love is overrated!" I hear "it's just chemicals"
Well no, duh?

Take that up with Wesmorris. He's the chemical chick.


Bells:
No darling.

Love is when the leper rubs ointment into the sores of the other leper with their stumps even though their hands have fallen off and then the other leper turns around for you to do the same to them, without either having to ask.

No!

All lovebirds are lepers.
Seriously- a man actually worth his 'luv' would never give it to a cripple.
Lovely... It's called toilet paper dear.
Corny, but tell me.
Only curious- why do you call him 'partner'?
Thought that was homosexual speak.


None of you see it, huh?

"Take that up with Wesmorris. He's the chemical chick."

chick?

Okay then, uhm... doesn't any abstract component of mind have some sort of chemical component, propping it up there into it's abstractness?

It depends on dependancy.

If the two people simply want to be together, and do not NEED to be together, then it's a healthy relationship. If you find yourself lost, or bored without that other person around... then you have dependancy, and not love. If you are unable to function without them, or if when they are not in your sight you are always wondering what they are doing, who they are with and when they are coming home... then it's a relationship built on someone else holding up your self-esteem. See where that is bad?
That's a great point. Which makes me wonder.... how people usually keep themselves not attached to each other, while still being frequently intimate?

People say that love is being able to take care of one another for all time.

I say, take care of yourself so that you can be loved.

Do that, and you aren't a half of a whole being, you are a whole being that exists with another whole being for the purpose of enjoyment, not dependancy.
I sort of agree with you, but I think it is actually both. There's nothing wrong with taking care of each other sometimes. Like when you get sick and your partner do chiken soup for ya. :p It is when people become dependent that it is bad. But it is possible to be independent and at the same time helpful. That's something called interdependence ;)

Even because nobody in the whole world is completely independent! I mean.... who produces the food that you consume? Who transport it? Who sells it? Who drives you to work/school (assuming you don't have a car)? Who built your computer? Who sold it? Who designed it? Who created it? There's a lot of people that have done a lot for you (well... actually for money). But we usually forget that. We usually want to be proud of being ourselves so we think that we are completely independent, which is obviously not true.

So interdependence is better then independence, because it improves standards of living. It is just like trade. It puts you being the possible national production output.

Do that, and you aren't a half of a whole being, you are a whole being that exists with another whole being for the purpose of enjoyment, not dependancy.
That's very true. But in order to do that, you need to have a well developed identity. Erikson, a psychologist, theorized that we go through many stages of development throughout our lives. They all have a point of crises. They are:

Trust vs. Mistrust
Autonomy vs. Shame, Doubt
Inititative vs. Guilt
Industry vs. Inferiority
Identity vs. Role Confusion (ages 13-19)
Intimacy vs. Isolation
Generativity vs. Stagnation
Integrity vs.Despair


In order to be succesful in a relationship, you have top go through all the first 5 stages and resolve their crisis successfully. The culmination of the main crises for relationship is the "Identity vs. Role Confusion" stage. Without a solid sense of identity, if you go into an intimate relationship, you tend to absorb the personality of your partner, since you don't have a complete personality yet. That's why teenagers tend to have dependent relationships. Once you have your personality well developed, you can move on to the "Intimacy vs. Isolation" without experiencing dependant relationships.

Here (http://www.haverford.edu/psych/ddavis/p109g/erikson.stages.html)'s a source for Erikson's stages.


PS: Everyone has their own pace of development. Only because most people go through "Identity vs. Role Confusion" throughout their whole teenager years, that doesn't mean that everyone will do that. Some people can develop earlier, and others later.

Then you are no different from a Hallmark card. You are simply a Hallmark card with a different message on it.
Do you actually think your message is so subversive, so radical? It's common.

You're all common. In you, the fascination with love simply becomes a fascination with sneering at love, or saying it should be constructed in some personal way.

"Love is overrated!" I hear "it's just chemicals"
Well no, duh?
If the subject is truely as common as you say - admitting that it is - you are equally as common for your insatiable need to denounce or rectify it.

What I see here is just a confusing of the special and the general.
Pretty much no matter whose love we would try to describe, it would always come out as something common; and it would only seem less common if we were really good at making novel metaphors. The point is that as long as we are using language, it all comes out common, because language is common, thank you very much.

But this does not mean that the individual application of the common language will also be "common": it can not be; as soon as it is applied on the individual level, it becomes special.


*****

Actually, that is exactly what I mean. I looked for love in High School, to be a half. I searched for someone to validate me, and show off to my friends. I no longer wanted to be alone, and I wanted someone to fawn all over me. I found it, several times. But, when you are "looking" for love, there is obviously something missing, or you do not feel complete without another person to share it with you. When you fall in love, without looking and without needing to be in love... that's the part that is the key. You are no longer settling for the best love you can get, just because you have to have it from somewhere. You can respect yourself, and be self-sufficent enough not to need to be loved. When you are loved, it's a blessing... but it's not needed to make you a person.

We obviously have a completely different background, so I cannot comment on that. I see where you are coming from, but I find it odd.


A want is a fleeting feeling, but not a need. You can want your entire life to travel the world, but it doesn't mean that your life is not complete if you never make the trip.

Then you either didn't want to do it that badly anyway, or what you are suggesting is the self-fulfilling sabotage pattern of "how to beat silly ideas out of your head".


So want, and need are two different things.

Sure they are.
But I think there is also a need for wanting, like I said before.

If wants would be eventually irrelevant and not something one would or should act on, then we'd not do much, or the most of what we do would have to be classiffied as "following our whims".


Moreso when it comes to love, because love is not needed to be happy, or productive, or live a full life.

I categorically disagree.
Only robots can be "happy, productive and have a full life" without love.


Well, I disagree. If you need someone to complete you, then there is something missing in the first place.

Like I said, I am familiar with this concept of thinking of some "love"-relationships as a try to complete one's incomplete self, but I find this concept, as well as your solution to it, misleading.


Everyone expects too much from love, and from each other.

I would conceptualize this as "people don't demand enough from oneself".


When the people they should be disappointed with is themselves for being half of a whole.

I can understand this -- but do tell: How are they, who, according to you, are half of a whole, to become whole?

By being independant. Regardless of whether or not they are in a relationship.

By not needing someone else to fill their life.

sargentlard:
Simply put, I don't care. The post-debate spin in the background is more important.

RosaMagica:
What I see here is just a confusing of the special and the general.
Pretty much no matter whose love we would try to describe, it would always come out as something common; and it would only seem less common if we were really good at making novel metaphors. The point is that as long as we are using language, it all comes out common, because language is common, thank you very much.

Language is indeed common, but it may be used in novel ways.
I'm not sure how this relates to my criticism.

Arditezza:
By not needing someone else to fill their life.

And you are wholly self-sufficiant, you could go the rest of your life without another human's contact?

gendanken:
What's hilarious is that post up there coming from you.

I'm sure that you and Fenris are having lots of scintillating conversations via private message about how much you hate people who go to forums to socialize...but that's no reason to adopt his style.
Be creative.

"You have really turned cynicism into an art (gendanken) - just as the great lotharios of the World have done with love (or least sex). I would say you "love" your denial of love, gaining satisfaction from it.
Call me a soppy, cliche'd romantic, but it's a great shame if you have never felt love for anyone else. "- Starthane

And I agree with the first point.
You, Bells, etc seem to love talking about how much you despise love.
A morbid curiousity, love and sex, for someone so self-proclaimed cold and despising the human touch.

Quit trying to be something you're not, bunny.

Xev's been watching us too?

See that little thingy under my username?

Gendanken, the beautiful ice-cold woman, spends a good thirtyfive-forty percent of her time here exchanging private messages. Because she's very aloof and above socializing on the 'net, like some bored housewife.

The point has been made, ought not to be belabored as I'm tired, but the internet is primarily a communications network. It started for that purpose and has flourished for it. Therefore anyone upon the internet, is a social creature like the rest, and no amount of "but I despise love!" will exipiate for them.

It is especially amusing to watch some dumb wifemother like Arditezza explain how decidedly self-relient she is.
Anyone discussing love so frequently (mea culpa) cannot atone by disparaging it.

See that little thingy under my username?
Aye. What has that got to do with watching the posting habits of forum members? Or how often they pm?

Gendanken, the beautiful ice-cold woman, spends a good thirtyfive-forty percent of her time here exchanging private messages. Because she's very aloof and above socializing on the 'net, like some bored housewife.
... with a notebook in hand and a pocket calculater, noting times and frequency. Someone influencing you?

The point has been made, ought not to be belabored as I'm tired, but the internet is primarily a communications network. It started for that purpose and has flourished for it. Therefore anyone upon the internet, is a social creature like the rest, and no amount of "but I despise love!" will exipiate for them.
Did you ever read "Why The Lovers Whisper Sweet nothings"?
Perhaps more attention should be paid to the type of love said to be despised. I thought it was quite clear. There are three threads going on about this at the moment (not an unusual occurence), and all three of them are quite specific in showing the differences between beliefs. We see the same sort of thing in the religion forums - atheistic types are drawn to them as well, not from a secret desire to be religious, but from a fascination with the mechanics of it.

Interesting to see who shows up in these things though... me, you, Gendanken... all we need is wanderer, Lucysnow and the spookz vaudeville show and it would be just like old times. Heh.

yeah, love and stuff, deep.
More importantly- what a matchup we have here, Xev vs Gendanken, this is hot.
Who can honestly say they haven't been hoping for this day?

Xev's already hit hard by calling Gend out on her PMing antics. I can't see that wound closing up fast, I predict it will inhibit future counters from the gend.
What can she say? Really? At the end of the day she'll still be the one who routinely PMs invert nexus and fenris wolf. You can't maintain the "too cool" image with that little tidbit hanging from your forehead like a used condom.
"Peasant" aahh yeah you cyber socialise with invert nexus... - you see my point, she's starting on the back foot.
Then again, the very same harem of he-bitches xev calls attention to might burst in flailing their unsheathed claws in defense of queen G. Who knows?
This is all very exciting.

... co-starring Dr Lou. Who has, as usual, completely missed the point (and claims one of his own which has already been made). If he'd only brought up the animal kingdom again my day would have been almost complete.

Not to mention revealing himself as yet another voyeur. My, aren't we inundated with those. I suppose finding that so many here log on for the seeming purpose of watching who pm's who (and how often) shouldn't come as too great a surprise. So much for intellectual stimulation. Not only watching pm's, but you would have to... sit there, and watch the "who's online" to see who replies. You would have to sit and watch it for quite a while in order to see a conversation unfold that you are not a part of.
Fascinating. There are books and things out there, people.

*edit -
Oh, and one last thing. I don't know if Xev "routinely pm's" anyone.
She's invisible. I suppose it makes it easier to be a voyeur if no one knows you're doing it.

Yowch, this one's feisty.
I heard gendanken puts them in hessian bags and beats them to make them ferocious.

Aw, come on, show a little love. :D

It wouldn't be so bad, if only she'd not use the same bag she does for her cats.

Lou, I get the distinct impression that even if it were the case, you'd be jealous of that too. Wouldn't you?

You're right, I'd love a harem of he-bitches.
All I would have needed to do was call myself "Louise natic" and you'd be digging your nose into my crotch too.

I'm afraid that even if you were to do so, you don't quite have the... calibre, I prefer.
But chin up. There are plenty of others in your league.

I'm afraid that even if you were to do so, you don't quite have the... calibre, I prefer.
But chin up. There are plenty of others in your league.
Did you unzip your gimp mask before saying that?
You're full of shit anyway.
You'd be so ready to learn from the animal kingdom if I was louise.

Okay.

*************
LOVE.

ROMANTIC love.
BROTHERLY love.
PATERNAL love.
FILIAL love.
...
Love OF ANIMALS.
Love OF DISCUSSION.
Love OF APPLES.
Love OF LIFE.

...

All these kinds of love aren't one and the same thing!
Love is a relational concept and the attribute in front of it determines its content.

What has been discussed most in this thread is ROMANTIC LOVE and so far, nobody made the practical distinction between INAFATUATION and LOVE.

Infatuation is the love-like relation an idealized self has for an idealized other; this is the relation you have in mind when you talk about "being half of a whole and therefore needing the other to make one whole". Yes, an infatuation is usually bound to fail, as it exists between two idealized versions of selves, not the real selves.

Love is the relation of deep affection between two selves who view eachother as non-idealized.

In this regard, infatuation is indeed something not to strive for, but love is certainly a very, very important emotion.

***

By being independant. Regardless of whether or not they are in a relationship.

By not needing someone else to fill their life.

This is a totalitarian individualism that supposes that one is one's own creator and reason to live.
I hope you see that to think that one put oneself into this world for one's own purposes is ... too much of a stretch, to say the least.

***

Language is indeed common, but it may be used in novel ways.

Like I said: we can use novel metaphors -- but we are still using language, and thus whatever we *say* bears the stamp of being common.


I'm not sure how this relates to my criticism.

It relates to it inasmuch that I defend the stance that love is the specialness-maker and the maker of personal identity. (Yes, try to raise a child with minimum emotional affection: Hitler's Lebensborn. They all died.)

I state that identity exists only in relation to another identity; depending on the quality of this relation is the sense of this identity.

As such, logically, disregarding the quality of the relation to others, nothing is unique, or it is so unique that it becomes lost in its complete unrelatedness.


*That* I love someone makes this person special and unique *to me*. How I love them, what the quality of that relation is (whether it is love or infatuation), is decisive to how I perceive my own identity and their identity (idealized or non-idealized).

Fenris:
Aye. What has that got to do with watching the posting habits of forum members? Or how often they pm?

Doi. You missed the significance - it means I am the spice queen!
I occasionally wonder whether chicky is replying to a thread of mine. It's easy to see member actions and frequency - I think even the ordinary users can do that.

Someone influencing you?

Mu'dib!

Did you ever read "Why The Lovers Whisper Sweet nothings"?

No, preferring "Spanking stories of the Bourgainvillia Convent" and "Gom Jabbar for Dummies"

Perhaps more attention should be paid to the type of love said to be despised. I thought it was quite clear. There are three threads going on about this at the moment (not an unusual occurence),

Yup, but all three treat.

atheistic types are drawn to them as well, not from a secret desire to be religious, but from a fascination with the mechanics of it.

Perhaps. I myself rarely post in religion, save to mock. It does not concern me.

Interesting to see who shows up in these things though... me, you, Gendanken... all we need is wanderer, Lucysnow and the spookz vaudeville show and it would be just like old times. Heh.

I'll give you the advice I gave Wanderer, albeit on a different subject - if it does you no harm, why condemn it so vociferously?
I personally think it's rather a dumb thing to dress up like Winnie the Pooh and fuck your second cousin while smearing her body with green jello and singing covers of Led Zepplin songs, but as long as nobody does that in public - who cares?

Okay, so people love in public. Yeah, it's gross. But that's the second thing I told Wanderer - "Quit obsessing about what other people do and wear, you oversocial freak!"
You can't play being above others if you're so goddamned fascinated with how they act.

If you excuse me, I'm off to work - the data analysis must flow!!

It is especially amusing to watch some dumb wifemother like Arditezza explain how decidedly self-relient she is.
Anyone discussing love so frequently (mea culpa) cannot atone by disparaging it.

It's one thread discussing love Xev.

Let's clear up your misconception now, shall we?

I am the sole breadwinner of my family of four. My husband stays home to raise the children, and I work. We made this decision because I am able to make considerably more money than he can, so it was the obvious choice. He is also a more adept caregiver than I am, and I am the more disciplinarian of the two of us. I don't drive a minivan, I don't go to soccer games, and I don't spend my time at the hair salon or at the magazine rack filling up on Redbook, Ms. and Vogue. At work, I am the manager of six tech geeks, and I am on a team of three highly skilled network administrators. I am in charge of 28 servers, 4 data centers and making sure that my tech guys are taking care of the 800 people we service on a daily basis. I have been honoured by my peers with awards, and am highly regarded by the men and women in the fishbowl we call the executive offices. I am on call 24/7. I carry two pagers, and cell phone at all time because I am the more responsible of the three of us and therefore am the one chosen to cover the time. I am proud of all this, as I have worked hard. I own one skirt, and two dresses. I own one pair of flats. I am not the epitome of motherhood and femininity, nor do I want to be. My children are well dressed, and well mannered. I attribute this to my husband, because he has raised them well. I make as much time for them as possible, but I do miss too much. This is my first vacation in two years, and it's because three and a half weeks ago, I had open heart surgery to repair a defect. That is why I've had a lot of time to post lately.

I'm tired of your stupid insults, that make no sense and are completely off base. I'm tired of some stupid little bitch trying to judge me, from her sheltered little world where there is little responsibility and nice little perks. Someone who lashes out at everyone, to make up and cover up for her own inadequecies and inferiority. I am tired of the spoiled little girl, that is so angry at the world because it encroaches on her precious little dreamworld of what she believe to be, because she read it in some book. Xev, you are intelligent, but you are a social moron. You do not know people, and you are a very poor judge of character. You are mean, just to be mean and then use the tired old excuse of "If you don't like it, then it's your fault for being thin-skinned.". Which hurts some people, and you relish the thought of hurting others. It's fun for you, as you've pointed out. You can't have a conversation without insulting somene else, or pointing out your percieved flaws of them. Internet forum or not, that's your sickness. You can only dream of being as smart as Gendanken is, with all her social skills. You can only dream of comprehending what she can. You think you are both so alike, but your head is not reality based, and hers very much is. That is the difference, and what makes her respected, and you just a figment of your own imagination.

This:

If the subject is truely as common as you say - admitting that it is - you are equally as common for your insatiable need to denounce or rectify it.

is something to work with.

Why this aversion for the "common"?
Why the desperate search for the "special"?

Methinks that the whole problem lies in how the "common" and the "special" are conceptualized.

and what makes her respected
Even fecal ingestion has its fanciers. You look closer and you see they're toothless jim, crusty rusty, asthmatic melloy, creepy earl, etc, the activity is endorsed by freaks. It might be accurate to say its respected, but respected by whom? And what is their opinion worth?

Classic.

I've been dragging this shitty thread around for- what, a month?- knowing the content would attract 3 certain species or people.
Only one showed up in the third page.

Guess who??!!

Xev:
And I agree with the first point.
You, Bells, etc seem to love talking about how much you despise love.
A morbid curiousity, love and sex, for someone so self-proclaimed cold and despising the human touch.


Hilla!
You still don't get it do you?

This is the part where you will tell me about warfare, death and progeny.


Gendanken, the beautiful ice-cold woman, spends a good thirtyfive-forty percent of her time here exchanging private messages. Because she's very aloof and above socializing on the 'net, like some bored housewife.

The point has been made, ought not to be belabored as I'm tired, but the internet is primarily a communications network. It started for that purpose and has flourished for it. Therefore anyone upon the internet, is a social creature like the rest, and no amount of "but I despise love!" will exipiate for them.

It is especially amusing to watch some dumb wifemother like Arditezza explain how decidedly self-relient she is.
Anyone discussing love so frequently (mea culpa) cannot atone by disparaging it.
Ooohhh.

I mean really, me saying this:

"And how would you value integrity in comparison?
Respect?
Commitment?"

of all things should have given it away, but No!
You, that antisocial, war enamored creature with her 12 posts per day and an ICQ splayed out like free pussy at one point was just a little too transfixed with the content put in here just for your kind.
Hence your initial reply.
And you still don't get it!

See the fun?
And I know way too about you for that slogan to even fit- quit trying to be something you're not.
One down, two to go.

Fenris:
Not to mention revealing himself as yet another voyeur. My, aren't we inundated with those. I suppose finding that so many here log on for the seeming purpose of watching who pm's who (and how often) shouldn't come as too great a surprise. So much for intellectual stimulation. Not only watching pm's, but you would have to... sit there, and watch the "who's online" to see who replies. You would have to sit and watch it for quite a while in order to see a conversation unfold that you are not a part of.
Fascinating. There are books and things out there, people.

HA!

Having fun?
This is perhaps the forum's biggest ass penny.
Printing it out as we speak.

Dr. Lou:
"Peasant" aahh yeah you cyber socialise with invert nexus... - you see my point, she's starting on the back foot.
Then again, the very same harem of he-bitches xev calls attention to might burst in flailing their unsheathed claws in defense of queen G. Who knows?
This is all very exciting.
Edit- misread your tripe.
Thought you meant in defense of Xevie.

Anyway- analysis of why we come here has already been covered- this self professed 'beautiful ice cold- woman' is simple grasping on chicky’s part.
History is incredibly useful, I should know.

Now go post elsewhere, we’re bashing love and they’re swarming:

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=41404:

Rosa:
LOVE.

ROMANTIC love.
BROTHERLY love.
PATERNAL love.
FILIAL love.
...
Love OF ANIMALS.
Love OF DISCUSSION.
Love OF APPLES.
Love OF LIFE.

All forms that should be butchered and dragged through a Manchurian incident, or thrown whole into a blender with furry pink bunnies for women to slurp on their lunchbreak.

And I quote

"Bah humbug"

My what an interesting turn a boring thread has taken. The duel of the century is about to form before our eyes, is it? Should be fun to watch. I'm a voyeur too, you know.

Xev's already hit hard by calling Gend out on her PMing antics. I can't see that wound closing up fast, I predict it will inhibit future counters from the gend.

Then you don't know the Gend too well. Do you?

What can she say? Really? At the end of the day she'll still be the one who routinely PMs invert nexus and fenris wolf. You can't maintain the "too cool" image with that little tidbit hanging from your forehead like a used condom.

Wow, Lou. You're my hero. You're like that really smart investigator and stuff. I mean look how you found out this dastardly secret plot right in your own back yard. Next you'll move on the FBI and start weeding out terrorist plots.

Oh...Wait...It wasn't exactly secret. Now was it. Do you know what a secret is?

"Peasant" aahh yeah you cyber socialise with invert nexus... - you see my point, she's starting on the back foot.

What's the matter? Jealous that you can't voyeur those conversations from the shadows as well? Don't worry, you'd be just as bored as you are in the threads in which we partake. I'd call them discussions more than socializations. I won't deny that some socialization goes on, but the point is moot as this thread is not about socializing... it's about love.

And yes. Fenris is right. Your point has already been made elsewhere. And you'll never guess by who.

Then again, the very same harem of he-bitches xev calls attention to might burst in flailing their unsheathed claws in defense of queen G. Who knows?

Interesting strategy. Yet not original. Xev already used it and now you just imitated her. Does that make you her he-bitch? We'll never know since she's one of the hidden. And, yes, Dr. Lou. I've seen you using the private messenger service as well.

Gendanken can take care of herself as you well know.



It wouldn't be so bad, if only she'd not use the same bag she does for her cats.

I just hate it when she puts us in the bag together with the cats. Gets rather confined in there. And the Wolf tends to fart when beaten. He always blames it on the cats though.



Even fecal ingestion has its fanciers. You look closer and you see they're toothless jim, crusty rusty, asthmatic melloy, creepy earl, etc, the activity is endorsed by freaks. It might be accurate to say its respected, but respected by whom? And what is their opinion worth?

And this from a front to backer/stander-upper. You wipe like a girl.

Irresistable.

I'm sure that you and Fenris are having lots of scintillating conversations via private message about how much you hate people who go to forums to socialize...

Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrright.

Anyway,
Invert, you've stuck your neck out on this one. Dr. Lou is fearsome.

By being independant. Regardless of whether or not they are in a relationship.

By not needing someone else to fill their life.
So much for interdependance........ :m:

John Donne:


THE GOOD-MORROW.


I WONDER by my troth, what thou and I
Did, till we loved ? were we not wean'd till then ?
But suck'd on country pleasures, childishly ?
Or snorted we in the Seven Sleepers' den ?
'Twas so ; but this, all pleasures fancies be ;
If ever any beauty I did see,
Which I desired, and got, 'twas but a dream of thee.

And now good-morrow to our waking souls,
Which watch not one another out of fear ;
For love all love of other sights controls,
And makes one little room an everywhere.
Let sea-discoverers to new worlds have gone ;
Let maps to other, worlds on worlds have shown ;
Let us possess one world ; each hath one, and is one.

My face in thine eye, thine in mine appears,
And true plain hearts do in the faces rest ;
Where can we find two better hemispheres
Without sharp north, without declining west ?
Whatever dies, was not mix'd equally ;
If our two loves be one, or thou and I
Love so alike that none can slacken, none can die.



Of course, some will call Donne a ninny.

Gendanken,

Invert, you've stuck your neck out on this one. Dr. Lou is fearsome.

I know. He has me trembling.

But, my Queen, you've trained me only with cats and Wolf farts. I feel that the good doctor is the closest analog to my methods of training. Don't you?

gendanken:
This is the part where you will tell me about warfare, death and progeny.

No, I've said it before. I do not post to masturbate - I can masterbate to masterbate.

of all things should have given it away, but No!
You, that antisocial, war enamored creature with her 12 posts per day and an ICQ splayed out like free pussy at one point was just a little too transfixed with the content put in here just for your kind.

I have a kind?
Morbid wage-slaves with a starting migrane?
I feel so loved.

'Free pussy'.
Didn't you say that before?
Bring up the bathroom walls thing again. Can't you see I'm all tired from giving head for quick cash?

But who is called "Queen" and relishes the title?

Dr Lou Natic, Lucysnow, Fenris Wolf, Invert Nexus, RosaMagika - these are usernames to me, not actual people.
You can talk to them like actual people, like they give a shit - like you can spill your life to them - and they will care. You like their validation, you tell them personal things, which I'd never say to a username - but you do.

I've honestly discussed aspects of my actual life with maybe one person here. You can say the same?

I am - what, tell me? I have a high post count? I have an icq number, which I put up so I would not forget?

Antisocial? The title occasionally fits. War-enamored? Also occasionally fits.
I occasionally use what occasionally fits.
Your point is...?

Hence your initial reply.
And you still don't get it!

Perchance because I don't - care.

And I know way too about you for that slogan to even fit- quit trying to be something you're not.

I am sure you know much about many of sciforums' denizens, considering the frequency with which you private message them.
But we are not intimate.

Arditezza:
Ahem.
I'm glad you're the uber-fraulein, but my point stands.
You, with a husband and children, are no person to judge those dependant on the love of others.

Oh and yes, Arditezza, I am terribly jealous of Gendanken's social skills. She's so very good at chatting with people, gaining their respect, getting them to like her -- I wish I could be just like her.

Dr Lou Natic, Lucysnow, Fenris Wolf, Invert Nexus, RosaMagika - these are usernames to me, not actual people.
You can talk to them like actual people, like they give a shit - like you can spill your life to them - and they will care. You like their validation, you tell them personal things, which I'd never say to a username - but you do.


A role, a part in a film or a play -- a username. You view online communication to be the same as it is between roles in a film or a play?

RosaMagika:
A role, a part in a film or a play -- a username. You view online communication to be the same as it is between roles in a film or a play?

I've never thought about it that way.
Yes...it could be, but that depends on the user. Some might reply as they would to any social setting, others have an image or a persona they play, an exaggeration of their natural self.

There's a person behind the username - that I understand - and I understand that username a and username b can find common ground, even to the extent of going beyond the anonymity.

The abstract medium actually has a benefit over the traditional social. I can type while brushing my teeth, or curling my hair, or whatever. I can get to the bottom of what's interesting faster, rather than being bogged down - as so often happens in social settings - by silly stuff like clothing or chitchat. So it can be more idea based, more creative, and I obviously enjoy it.

Nor is there anything wrong with preferring it, embracing it. Arditezza's right in saying I lack social skills. Things like body language, tone, gossip, tend to bore me - I am not sure whether I'd call myself inept at them, or simply non-responsive. I can be charming, entertaining, funny - but there is something lacking in my desire. I'm flat under that skill - for it is a skill, and not (as it is for people who are actually good people) something that came from the heart.
Online...I can be charming, but even less so than in my actual environment.
The little intimacies gendanken can exchange with others, I rarely do, I am too much of a puritan. A spark fails, and I cannot be like one of the popular posters - gendanken or Wanderer or you - because of it.

What I object to is the hypocrisy - which I've been guilty of - of placing yourself in a priveledged relation to the social while on the internet. Idea-based or not, this is only a form of the social.

Then you don't know the Gend too well. Do you?
I know she's prone to wrecklessness. I've seen her defeat herself.
Frankly, I don't think she'll come out on top of this one.
I tell you what, if it ends in a draw I'll be mightily pissed. If xev and gendanken reach a gay agreement I'll be fucking outraged. Previous light scuffles between the pair have ended that way, and its always torn me up inside.

Wow, Lou. You're my hero. You're like that really smart investigator and stuff. I mean look how you found out this dastardly secret plot right in your own back yard. Next you'll move on the FBI and start weeding out terrorist plots.

Oh...Wait...It wasn't exactly secret. Now was it. Do you know what a secret is?
Secret or not, its worthy of reiteration. It should be made clear that this isn't something gendanken can just brush aside. She associates with you- that's a massive handicap in any form of combat where maintenance of dignity is of pivotal importance. She's limping to this fight, her gameness is admirable, but will surely be her downfall.

What's the matter? Jealous that you can't voyeur those conversations from the shadows as well? Don't worry, you'd be just as bored as you are in the threads in which we partake. I'd call them discussions more than socializations. I won't deny that some socialization goes on, but the point is moot as this thread is not about socializing... it's about love.
Fascinating, please tell me more.

And yes. Fenris is right. Your point has already been made elsewhere. And you'll never guess by who.
My point?
I've merely come in here to address the significance of what is going down. Its the classic lion vs tiger fight.
I've made a few comments of whats happened so far, simply pointing out that gendanken's in trouble early. Due to a self inflicted wound I might add, xev pointed at it and we all had a good laugh. It is those silent laughs which gendanken must be aware of that are doing the damage.

Interesting strategy. Yet not original. Xev already used it and now you just imitated her. Does that make you her he-bitch? We'll never know since she's one of the hidden. And, yes, Dr. Lou. I've seen you using the private messenger service as well.
I've had the courtesy to return about a 3rd of the private messages I have recieved. I initiated one with "antisipatience" to pretend I was a member of a secret government who was angry with him for revealing all of our conspiracies, to which he replied "we want our planet BACK!!!" and thats about it.
Anyway, what are you doing? This is really getting way off the topic of xev vs gendanken and i don't... oh right, sometimes I forget that losers take themselves seriously. You seem to be denying you're gendanken's he-bitch, right? Like, you're a man. You, invert nexus, are a person and not just gendanken's he bitch. You are comparable to me, I might be the bitch according to you, who's the he-bitch is very much up in the air and undecided, not flagrantly well and truely determined past the point of being debatable ... in your opinion.
Am I understanding you?
Are you really stuck way back there?
Please, lets stick to the topic of xev vs gendanken.
You were only mentioned in regard to being a hole in gendanken's armour. I didn't intend for you to come in here and defend your sorry self. Jesus.

And this from a front to backer/stander-upper. You wipe like a girl.
I wipe like a human being, you should try it some time.

Gendanken :
HA!

Having fun?
This is perhaps the forum's biggest ass penny.
Printing it out as we speak.
That has to be a first. I'm going all gooey inside.
It's difficult to see the attraction though. Wouldn't it be a little like staring at the NASDAQ for hours on end?

Something further - that whole function was designed to ensure that forum members could track each other. We used to be able to track pm's, check in to see if one had been read or not. Now, we have no idea - unless we sit and watch.

(Enjoying myself immensely.)

Fenris:
Doi. You missed the significance - it means I am the spice queen!
I occasionally wonder whether chicky is replying to a thread of mine. It's easy to see member actions and frequency - I think even the ordinary users can do that.
Still doesn't explain how you know even the ratio of time she spends pm'ing.
Nor to whom. You're downplaying your interest.

Mu'dib!
...
No, preferring "Spanking stories of the Bourgainvillia Convent" and "Gom Jabbar for Dummies"
Sequined Tapdancing, Xev-style.

Not hard to know what books you happen to be reading at the time either.
Is the Gom Jabbar significant?

I'll give you the advice I gave Wanderer, albeit on a different subject - if it does you no harm, why condemn it so vociferously?
...
Okay, so people love in public. Yeah, it's gross. But that's the second thing I told Wanderer - "Quit obsessing about what other people do and wear, you oversocial freak!"
You can't play being above others if you're so goddamned fascinated with how they act.
I admit to being rather judgemental. Although it should be noted that occasional interest hardly rates as an obsession. I'm rather interested in Bonobos as well, but I'd hardly want to spend any personal time with them, and more to the point I do in fact consider myself superior to them. If you were speaking about interest or obsession for the purpose of comparison, so that one might rank oneself aganst others, then you might have a point.

And the Wolf tends to fart when beaten. He always blames it on the cats though.
Not true.
Last time I blamed you.

She's limping to this fight, her gameness is admirable, but will surely be her downfall.
He said, licking his lips.
You couldn't do it if she was asleep, so you're rather hoping someone else will. And that someone just happens to be another "feisty" female (and hopefully this time your attentions will be a little more warmly recieved).

I've merely come in here to address the significance of what is going down. Its the classic lion vs tiger fight.
Except that lions and tigers don't generally fight. People like you tend to wish they would, though. You justification comes only when the one you had your money on wins. You wouldn't dare take one on yourself, other than the occasional snipe to see if they'll notice you.

I've made a few comments of whats happened so far, simply pointing out that gendanken's in trouble early. Due to a self inflicted wound I might add, xev pointed at it and we all had a good laugh. It is those silent laughs which gendanken must be aware of that are doing the damage.
See?

That "silent laughing" might be hurtful - but only when it originates from significance.

I suppose if you're persistant, keep jumping up and down at the back and waving your hands around begging for atention, your "allies" might notice you eventually. Keep at it.

Anyway, what are you doing? This is really getting way off the topic of xev vs gendanken and i don't...
The phrase "you couldn't organise a fuck in a brothel" comes to mind.
You only have significance here in order to further highlight the whole damn thing.

* - and as a distraction. I missed two Gendanken's. Now how will I make up for that?

Lou:

I know she's prone to wrecklessness. I've seen her defeat herself

So... she is prone to recklessness. And this explains how the "wound" will have an inhibitive effect on her how?
Do try to keep up.

Secret or not, its worthy of reiteration.

Well, reiterate to your heart's content. It suits you.
Reiterate long enough and someone might be convinced that you've had an original idea.

It should be made clear that this isn't something gendanken can just brush aside. She associates with you- that's a massive handicap in any form of combat where maintenance of dignity is of pivotal importance.

Ah, so now it's that she associates with me in particular that is her weakness. Not that she associates with others at all.
I'm beginning to think you don't like me.

Fascinating, please tell me more.

Tell you more what?
It would be pointless to share our discussions with you because they are much the same as takes place in the threads in which we have mutual interest. I've rarely seen you in any of those so they must not interest you. So, I can't imagine our private conversations would interest you either.

But, that which is hidden is always more tantalizing, is it not? You can construct your own fancies in the unknown and make yourself feel superior because of your mental constructions.

Tell me. What do you think we talk about?


You know. Come to think about it, most of the times that I can ever recall you joining into any relevant threads is when a "bloodbath" is occurring. You do love to flock to carnage, don't you?
Always so quick to take the bait.
Over.
And over.
Christ, Lou. Even animals learn eventually. When will you?

My point?
I've merely come in here to address the significance of what is going down.

Lou the commentator. How... fitting. Maybe if you circle about the action long enough stating the obvious some of the blood splatter will land on you. And then you might pretend significance, if only for the briefest of moments.

You are comparable to me...

No. I don't think I would compare myself to you. We are completely different animals. But, you go on with your commentating. You're doing well. Maybe they'll hire you to announce for football or something. Oh, that's right. They usually hire former athletes, don't they?

Am I understanding you?

No. It appears I lost you.

I was saying that you're only imitating Xev. You did find a novel way to make it seem as though you were being original by bringing my name up. At least that was new material. But, the strategy that you imitated was simple.

First you mention the "he-bitches" by name. And then you predict the arrival of this "harem" to defend their "queen". This way, you can claim victory in either the circumstance that the aforementioned harem doesn't show ("See, I told you they were bitches.") and if they do show ("See, what did I tell you. Bitches.")

Xev, at least, was intelligent enough not to be quite so obvious about it. Your mention of us arriving to defend our queen was extraneous. But, imitators must use every word they can so as to obscure their inability to come up with their own points.

But, regardless of the obviousness of the strategy, it is irrelevant in the present context of love.

I might be the bitch according to you

Know what I'd call a bitch? Someone who pokes their bitchy nose into a situation that does not concern him in the least. Someone who just wants to state the significance of the situation to those involved who are already more aware than he of any possible significance.

Are you really stuck way back there?

Frankly, Lou, I couldn't care less about your opinion of me. It would be pointless to affirm or deny my place in the greater scheme of things to a non-entity such as yourself.

It would seem that you are the one that is stuck in that you think that your opinion matters.

Please, lets stick to the topic of xev vs gendanken.

The topic is love. Gendanken and Xev love each other, you know. Some people show love by hugging and kissing. Gendanken and Xev apparently show their love by hurling verbal assaults at one another. Maybe, if we're lucky, an orgy will break out after the brawl. I doubt that commentators will be invited.


Fenris:

Not true.
Last time I blamed you.

Damn you. I forgot about that. She was beating us loud that day, wasn't she? I think they heard us screaming across town. But, I got even with her. I killed the cat she had in the bag with us at the time. She never found out it was me... yet.

So... she is prone to recklessness. And this explains how the "wound" will have an inhibitive effect on her how?
Do try to keep up.
I was making a general comment regarding the contestants of the match.
I'm finished with discussing the inhibitive effects of the wound. I predict the wound will have an inhibitive effect, what else is there to say?
Geeze, we'd make a terrible commentating duo.

Well, reiterate to your heart's content. It suits you.
Reiterate long enough and someone might be convinced that you've had an original idea.
Original idea? Wtf? Are you drunk?
You could have just as easily said "...and someone might be convinced that you aren't a faggot" and that would have been as relevent.
Do you even know what you're talking about?

Ah, so now it's that she associates with me in particular that is her weakness. Not that she associates with others at all.
I'm beginning to think you don't like me.
Aww, thats sad.
You are what you are, I'm not mad about it, that would be like being mad at a shark for swimming.
The bottom line is, you and the rest of the gendanken fan club were used as a weapon by xev against gendanken. Like the good commentator I am I called the action- "whoa! what a devestating blow, I can't see gendanken getting up from that one" -whatever.
This doesn't sit right with you for some reason, why is that? Is it because the mention of you as a friend was used as an insult? What could possibly be so upsetting about that? I mean ..... oh yeah, my mistake, your depression is valid.

Tell you more what?
It would be pointless to share our discussions with you because they are much the same as takes place in the threads in which we have mutual interest. I've rarely seen you in any of those so they must not interest you. So, I can't imagine our private conversations would interest you either.

But, that which is hidden is always more tantalizing, is it not? You can construct your own fancies in the unknown and make yourself feel superior because of your mental constructions.

Tell me. What do you think we talk about?
Well this is awkward, ahhh, I was being sarcastic. :o

You know. Come to think about it, most of the times that I can ever recall you joining into any relevant threads is when a "bloodbath" is occurring. You do love to flock to carnage, don't you?
Always so quick to take the bait.
Over.
And over.
Christ, Lou. Even animals learn eventually. When will you?
Learn what? This is rewarding, as it was the first time, thats why I keep doing it. Stop making it so fun for me if you want to train me to stop. You evidently don't know much about animal behaviour.

First you mention the "he-bitches" by name. And then you predict the arrival of this "harem" to defend their "queen". This way, you can claim victory in either the circumstance that the aforementioned harem doesn't show ("See, I told you they were bitches.") and if they do show ("See, what did I tell you. Bitches.")
Man, you've got me all wrong.
I don't see how I could possibly come out victorious, I'm the commentator. It was never my intention to win or have an original thought or whatever.

Xev, at least, was intelligent enough not to be quite so obvious about it. Your mention of us arriving to defend our queen was extraneous. But, imitators must use every word they can so as to obscure their inability to come up with their own points.
Where the fuck did xev call attention to the xev vs gendanken scrap unfolding? I'd like to see it. Thats the point I was making, as far as I'm concerned you being a he-bitch is a given and mentioning it doesn't mean I expect people to think I'm being original.
Someone else has already said most commentators are former athletes- ooohhh you're trying to steal someone elses thoughts :rolleyes:
I never presented referring to you as a he-bitch as an original thought. I never said "hey guys, i just realised, invert is a he-bitch".
Obviously you are a he-bitch, I can't even believe you have the audacity to deny it.

But, regardless of the obviousness of the strategy, it is irrelevant in the present context of love.
And what you're saying couldn't be any more irrelevent to me. If you don't want to talk about xev vs gendanken, don't quote the post I made on that subject and dissect it. If you do, fine, lets discuss weights and recent performances. Not fucking whatever the fuck you're trying to talk to me about or accuse me of or whatever the fuck you're doing.

Know what I'd call a bitch? Someone who pokes their bitchy nose into a situation that does not concern him in the least. Someone who just wants to state the significance of the situation to those involved who are already more aware than he of any possible significance.
Maybe it was unnecessarry. You seem a little more irritated than someone who merely witnessed the unnecessarry though.


Frankly, Lou, I couldn't care less about your opinion of me. It would be pointless to affirm or deny my place in the greater scheme of things to a non-entity such as yourself.
If that were true I'd be thrilled. This whole little hissy fit wouldn't have happened. You were the one that addressed me first, I mentioned you only as an object that related to the battle. I didn't want the object to come in and tell me it's life story.
Please, don't care less about my opinion of you, I actually wasn't expecting to you. I'm kind of annoyed that you do care so much, it's distracting me from whats important.

The topic is love.
Thats your topic, not mine. If thats what you want to discuss talk to the people who are discussing it, not me.

Gendanken and Xev love each other, you know. Some people show love by hugging and kissing. Gendanken and Xev apparently show their love by hurling verbal assaults at one another. Maybe, if we're lucky, an orgy will break out after the brawl. I doubt that commentators will be invited.
Ha, I love the "I'm a part of the gang and you aren't" vibe demonstrated in this passage.
Even though thats exactly what you're being made fun of for. You just can't not try to use it to your advantage, even when it is the topic of your ridicule.
"Haha you shit yourself"
"at least I have this rad shit in my pants"
"ahhh yeah, I know, thats why I laughed"
Its almost cute. Shame you're like what, a 25 year old man?

Dr. Lou Natic:
I don't see how I could possibly come out victorious, I'm the commentator. It was never my intention to win or have an original thought or whatever.

Of course not. You're so dense you cause a redshift, and the only thing you could win would be first place in the "I have an STD" contest.

I'm kind of annoyed that you do care so much, it's distracting me from whats important.

Which in your case is downloading pictures of obsese shemales and writing love-letters to the ones you really like.

Invert Nexus:
Ah, so now it's that she associates with me in particular that is her weakness. Not that she associates with others at all.

She only associates with you because this is the internet and she doesn't have to smell you. The yeast infection that skanky whore gave you is probably what's causing the problem -- why don't you buy some antibiotics and take a shower, you filthy untermenschen?

I'm beginning to think you don't like me.

You're probably hurt, but he's so desperate he'll suck your dick anyway.

“ A role, a part in a film or a play -- a username. You view online communication to be the same as it is between roles in a film or a play? ”

I've never thought about it that way.
Yes...it could be, but that depends on the user. Some might reply as they would to any social setting, others have an image or a persona they play, an exaggeration of their natural self.

No, by "role" I didn't mean just the exaggerating one's natural self.
You know the whole discourse theory and how we take on roles in life -- at school it is the role of a student, at the doctor that of a patient, at the market that of a customer (discourse, scripts, schemes and all that). It is taking up these roles that enables social interaction, and if someone mixes up the roles, say playing the role "customer" while at the doctor (and the role "patient" should be played), this is considered as a transgression of the conduct rules.

And there is also the role "forum member" -- this role is defined by the site rules and the medium, and each individual plays it as he sees fit.

But what all those roles have in common is that they are played by the one and the same individual, the choice of the role depending on the context.

It is possible that when two individuals interact, only their roles actually interact (like when you go to the bank and the whole procedure of making a bank transaction is standardized). But humans are more than just roles! Roles are just something we put ourselves in out of conveniece to be able to act in a complex environment.

In such an online forum, it is certainly possible to interact officially, just as argumentators -- as roles, and in that case, the participants are indeed no more than usernames.

It takes some social competence to be aware of the role and when you are playing it -- and when to step out of it and be just yourself.
Being just a role, and treating others as if they were just roles is so emptying!


Nor is there anything wrong with preferring it, embracing it. Arditezza's right in saying I lack social skills. Things like body language, tone, gossip, tend to bore me - I am not sure whether I'd call myself inept at them, or simply non-responsive. I can be charming, entertaining, funny - but there is something lacking in my desire. I'm flat under that skill - for it is a skill, and not (as it is for people who are actually good people) something that came from the heart.

Do you think you are bad, evil?


What I object to is the hypocrisy - which I've been guilty of - of placing yourself in a priveledged relation to the social while on the internet. Idea-based or not, this is only a form of the social.

Of course it is social! It is just important to be able to distinguish between the "official social" (that of the roles) and the "personal social" (that of the individuals as they are).

***

Now, to return to the topic of love, using the methodological background of understanding social roles briefly sketched out above:

When in a relationship the two parties are merely playing their love roles (a.k.a. Hallmark), this indeed could hardly be called "a personal relationship of deep mutual affection". Such a relationship is a form of a standardized mutual infatuation.
Was your criticism of the common directed at this issue?


***


She associates with you- that's a massive handicap in any form of combat where maintenance of dignity is of pivotal importance. She's limping to this fight, her gameness is admirable, but will surely be her downfall.
/.../
You were only mentioned in regard to being a hole in gendanken's armour. I didn't intend for you to come in here and defend your sorry self. Jesus.

Why would Invert be "a hole in gendanken's armour"?

RosaMagika:
And there is also the role "forum member" -- this role is defined by the site rules and the medium, and each individual plays it as he sees fit.

Yes. I see what you are getting at now.
But just as in life, every forum member plays the role as best they see fit, using their unique abilities and personal conditioning.

Do you think you are bad, evil?

Mwahaahaha!
No, typo.

Of course it is social! It is just important to be able to distinguish between the "official social" (that of the roles) and the "personal social" (that of the individuals as they are).

I don't see that great of a difference.
I do not say that people are their roles, but being a person is playing a role. Even if you do not want to, certain facets of your character will be seen by others as signifying your belonging to a certain role. And you choose your role, according to how you want to be.

It takes some social competence to be aware of the role and when you are playing it -- and when to step out of it and be just yourself.

I do not believe it is possible to "be just yourself"
"Yourself" is a product of others and thier roles, and your reactions to them.
"Yourself" is the product of many different wills, and there is no "just being" involved.

Being just a role, and treating others as if they were just roles is so emptying!

I do not agree.

When in a relationship the two parties are merely playing their love roles (a.k.a. Hallmark), this indeed could hardly be called "a personal relationship of deep mutual affection". Such a relationship is a form of a standardized mutual infatuation.
Was your criticism of the common directed at this issue?

To an extent. But I don't think people are nearly so unique as all that.

Dr. Lou Natic:

I was making a general comment regarding the contestants of the match.

Of course you were. That's what you do best, right? Make general comments?

I'm finished with discussing the inhibitive effects of the wound. I predict the wound will have an inhibitive effect, what else is there to say?

Nothing really. You're the one that tried to rebut my "You don't know the Gend" statement which rebutted your "inhibitory" statement with an unrelated, general comment.
So, how's the weather?
Cure those crabs yet?

Geeze, we'd make a terrible commentating duo.

On the contrary, I think we'd make a great pair. You tied to the chair spouting generalities and reiterations every time I poke you with a cattle prod. The fans will love it. We'll be the greatest commentating duo of all time.

Original idea? Wtf? Are you drunk?
You could have just as easily said "...and someone might be convinced that you aren't a faggot" and that would have been as relevent.
Do you even know what you're talking about?

Yes, I suppose I could have said that. But, that would not have expressed what it was I wished to express about you. Namely, that you're an uninspiring and unoriginal hack.

The bottom line is, you and the rest of the gendanken fan club were used as a weapon by xev against gendanken.

The bottom line is that Gendanken having private discussions with people has no bearing on her views on love.

This doesn't sit right with you for some reason, why is that?

Why is that? Because you are of the impression that you've made (or reiterated) a valid point when in fact you are barking at shadows.

Well this is awkward, ahhh, I was being sarcastic.

No shit? Wow. I thought you were being totally serious. How will I ever live down the shame?
Lou. I don't care if you were sarcastic or not. You asked a question and I answered.
Perhaps you actually mean you were being rhetorical?

Learn what? This is rewarding, as it was the first time, thats why I keep doing it. Stop making it so fun for me if you want to train me to stop. You evidently don't know much about animal behaviour.

Learn what? Apparently nothing. You do so love those ass pennies.

I don't see how I could possibly come out victorious, I'm the commentator. It was never my intention to win or have an original thought or whatever.

At least you admit it.

Where the fuck did xev call attention to the xev vs gendanken scrap unfolding? I'd like to see it. Thats the point I was making, as far as I'm concerned you being a he-bitch is a given and mentioning it doesn't mean I expect people to think I'm being original.

No. Lou. Your whole statement might can be taken as "calling attention" (as if) to the scrap unfolding, but your statement drawing me into this had another purpose altogether. Drawing me in was your solely original content and now you deny it. Pathetic.

Someone else has already said most commentators are former athletes- ooohhh you're trying to steal someone elses thoughts.

Oh? In this thread? Or in the world at large? Do keep up.

Obviously you are a he-bitch, I can't even believe you have the audacity to deny it.

When have I denied anything? I see no purpose in addressing your opinions. Are you still claiming significance?

And what you're saying couldn't be any more irrelevent to me. If you don't want to talk about xev vs gendanken, don't quote the post I made on that subject and dissect it.

I don't give a shit about Xev vs. Gendanken. You brought me into this. My focus is on you.

Maybe it was unnecessarry. You seem a little more irritated than someone who merely witnessed the unnecessarry though.

Far more than unnecessary. It speaks volumes about your own insignificance. About your own inner sense of your insignificance.

Irritated? Somewhat. I don't particularly care for these flame-war things, but you felt it necessary to draw me here. So here I am. I'm irritated that I was drawn here. And by you, no less.

Please, don't care less about my opinion of you, I actually wasn't expecting to you. I'm kind of annoyed that you do care so much, it's distracting me from whats important.

You should be happy that I'm here. You're finally part of something. How's that significance issue coming along?

Thats your topic, not mine. If thats what you want to discuss talk to the people who are discussing it, not me.

Actually, I'm just as guilty here as you. My focus is on you. I couldn't give a shit about the topic of Love.

Ha, I love the "I'm a part of the gang and you aren't" vibe demonstrated in this passage.

Oh? Did I say that I was going to be invited? I merely stated that you would not be.

And you know damn well that you'd love to be on the fringes of that experience just as much as you love being on the fringes of "Xev vs. Gendanken." Only in the orgy you'd be hoping to get splashed by a different fluid than blood.



Xev:

She only associates with you because this is the internet and she doesn't have to smell you. The yeast infection that skanky whore gave you is probably what's causing the problem -- why don't you buy some antibiotics and take a shower, you filthy untermenschen?

Actually, I think it's probably the twin statues of Gendanken and Xev I've sculpted from my own shit and semen that's causing that smell.

I defy you to call me an untermenschen once you've seen the magnificence of the goddesses I've created. Their hands eternally locked about the other's throat. Their bosoms heaving. Their eyes flaring madly. Makes me hard just thinking about them. Having no images of the two goddesses to go on, I had to use my imagination. I think my hands were guided by some higher power and I feel that I have somehow captured your true essence. One in image. One in form.

Each night as I masturbate on them and deposit a new layer of semen I pray to the Gods to give me my Galatea.

The smell is a touch on the horrible side though. I hope that someday when my prayers are answered that the smell will be removed along with their lifelessness.


************************

Rosa,

What?! How dare you mix your philosophical debate with our free for all? Damn you!!! Cmon, pick up some shit and fling it with the rest of us.

Well, if you insist.

Discourse theory is getting rather close to the heart of the matter, I should think.

It takes some social competence to be aware of the role and when you are playing it -- and when to step out of it and be just yourself.
Being just a role, and treating others as if they were just roles is so emptying!

I tend to agree with you here. However, in many instances, we have an innate urge to drop the role and be real. A key element is not only knowing when to drop the (or a particular) role but also knowing when not to.

For instance, many socially aware individuals would trick you into opening yourself to them too fully and giving them ammunition with which to conquer you. Roles are, in many cases, a shield and a barrier against hostile forces. Machiavellian intrigues within the social context as we all jostle for position.

And, many are nothing but role. Cut through the roles imposed upon them by society and many people vanish as if they were never there.

I do agree with Xev here in that the real person underneath is a role as well. (Remember the look of other eyes.) But, there are differences. Some personal roles are more truthful and honest than other's. The truly personal role would be one made for the look of our own eyes. And while we are wholly incapable of being utterly truthful and aware of ourselves and our environment, some are more capable of this than others. Some reach closer to the limit than others. It is those who are far from self-honesty and respect that vanish in the light of role eradication. For it is honesty and respect that ultimately must shape that base role.

Xev,

I do not believe it is possible to "be just yourself"
"Yourself" is a product of others and thier roles, and your reactions to them.
"Yourself" is the product of many different wills, and there is no "just being" involved.

I have to say that I'm shocked to hear you say this. I hardly know you, of course. I know more of you than actually knowing about you. But I would have pegged you for someone who would have argued the side of man as an island. A pity you weren't around for Rosa's "Look of Other Eyes" thread earlier this summer.

As to the product of wills, this is in many respects true. But, they are 'interpreted' wills. And therefore self-imposed to a large extent.

And, one cannot forget that not only are we a product of external wills, we are also a product of internal wills. We are not singular. We are an amalgam. And the sum is greater than the parts.

Rosa: Being just a role, and treating others as if they were just roles is so emptying!

Xev: I do not agree.

I should think that while one cannot wholely forgo these roles in our lives and relationships, when one finds someone in which one finds mutual respect, commitment, and integrity then to maintain a wholely professional role is cowardly. Professionalism is a defense mechanism.

Xev

Then you are no different from a Hallmark card. You are simply a Hallmark card with a different message on it.
Do you actually think your message is so subversive, so radical? It's common.

I'd say I was a Hallmark card with a message for me, myself and I. I don't think my message is subversive or radical. My message is my own. If it's common, then who cares? If it's not, then who cares?

You're all common. In you, the fascination with love simply becomes a fascination with sneering at love, or saying it should be constructed in some personal way.
I don't sneer at love. If I did then I'd spend a great deal of time in the mirror sneering at myself for actually loving someone. And love should be constructed in some personal way. It is not something that can be generalised because of its very nature. It is personal.

Historically, the love of love is often connected with an ecstatic love of death, of warfare and progeny. I dare any one of you lily-livered pussys to say that's not fucking interesting.
Its personal nature means that it's not interesting to those on the outside of that relationship, be it one with a partner, one's child/children, parents, friends, etc. For example, I'm usually bored out of my wits when I hear my friends talk of the love they feel for their child. Why? Because that relationship does not concern me in any way.

You, Bells, etc seem to love talking about how much you despise love.
I don't despise 'love'. I love it. I just despise listening to people talk about the love they feel for others. It goes back to the personal aspects of love. Love is boring if you're on the outside looking in. The irony is that I enjoy boring people out of their skulls with my love stories... hmmmm..

Doi. You missed the significance - it means I am the spice queen!
And here I thought you were a Spice Girl. ;)

Online...I can be charming...
:eek:

Indeed!

Exhibit A:
Of course not. You're so dense you cause a redshift, and the only thing you could win would be first place in the "I have an STD" contest.

Exhibit B:
She only associates with you because this is the internet and she doesn't have to smell you. The yeast infection that skanky whore gave you is probably what's causing the problem -- why don't you buy some antibiotics and take a shower, you filthy untermenschen?

Christ woman, what charm school were you sent to?

Gendanken

All lovebirds are lepers.
Oi! I'm not a bird!

But yes, in a way you're right. All lovebirds are lepers. Because only a leper knows what it's like to be a leper. Only they know the blissful feeling they get when their painful and throbbing limbs fall off, reducing the pain in that part of their body.

Seriously- a man actually worth his 'luv' would never give it to a cripple.
Until he becomes a cripple himself.

Corny, but tell me.
Only curious- why do you call him 'partner'?
Thought that was homosexual speak.
Is it just homosexual speak? I call him my partner because that's simply what he is. We aren't married. He pays for half the bills. He shares half the cost of this relationship. What else could he be? I don't call him my 'wuv' because that would annoy the shit out of me and I'm not that kind of a romantic. He's not my boyfriend because I'm no longer in highschool.

Fenris Wolf

Interesting to see who shows up in these things though... me, you, Gendanken... all we need is wanderer, Lucysnow and the spookz vaudeville show and it would be just like old times. Heh.
Hmmm, is this your way of warning us to stay tuned for yet another warped version of Gilligan's Island?

Don't forget Wolfy, if you're going to play Mary-Anne again, shave your legs this time. No one likes to see a woman in pigtails with hairy legs.

Invert
I don't particularly care for these flame-war things
I can see why. You come off as an amputee in a boxing ring.
People with down syndrome don't particularly care for dodgeball either.

This is all alot more depressing than I thought it would be, seems I'm not as cold hearted as I like to think.
All the big shot apathetics in this thread; try torturi