If you cannot see how love can be more than a selfish trade off, where you only feel it as long as you are getting something out of it, then you are probably beyond help. Love as a mere self-serving transaction is no love at all. What does that mean, other than perhaps erroneously implying that I'm an atheist? So you do believe in fairytale magic. If that's so, then this reciprocation is completely subjective. As you say, "can be interpreted by the parent as reciprocation". That doesn't mean any objective kind of reciprocity exists, and if it isn't objective, it doesn't really exist. So love can exist in an individual without any other input but their own beliefs, and all by your own assertions. So what the hell have you been arguing?
Originally Posted by Greatest I am “ Originally Posted by Syne I'm clearly saying that love can exist without reciprocity. ” Then show an example of how that would work. ” If you cannot see how love can be more than a selfish trade off, where you only feel it as long as you are getting something out of it, then you are probably beyond help. Love as a mere self-serving transaction is no love at all. ================================ I see that when you cannot back your statements, you go to attack mode to deflect. And you criticize me.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Regards DL
And I see that you don't deny, in the least, "love as a mere self-serving transaction". I've already given the example of parental love as existing where reciprocity from a helpless newborn infant cannot. Still no luck with the forum literacy, huh? So completely pointless. Got it.
Such a shallow thinker. Why do people reproduce? We are driven by nature to pass on our genes. When the baby lives through the tough go of being born, we accomplish our task. That is self-serving gratification of our instincts. The baby, to us, shows his reciprocity by making it and thus shows that reciprocity, through it's efforts, is at play. The bonding and elevation of that first love grow from that moment on. Regards DL
So just like Wynn, your "reciprocity" is an equivocation that allows for the subjective belief of one individual to completely account for it. How is that any different from love existing without any necessity for an objective reciprocity? You don't really have a clue what you are arguing, do you?
Because you are an equivocating troll who doesn't make his own arguments clear. I've have to put a pry bar to it just to find out exactly what you meant by the simple word "reciprocity". Try to keep from making up farcical definitions next time.
Poor child. Your anger at yourself you take out here. Tsk tsk. Reciprocity is a well know and defined term. Shall I link you to a dictionary? Regards DL
Which version is real? The one with 40 days or the one with 120 days? You might also wonder why there are two stories of the same MYTH. Regards DL
Sure. Find me a reliable reference that says reciprocity includes the completely imagined. Or just admit that any god's love could exist with this same imagined reciprocity.
Yes, you have, you're just too thick to see it. You are explicitly saying that your special definition of reciprocity includes things that cannot be distinguished from what the person would otherwise naturally do for their own survival, i.e. "making it". If it cannot be objectively differentiated then it must only reside in the perceptions (imagination) of the recipient. But I'll play along a bit. "Proof" isn't necessary for something to exist. So are all other emotions nonexistent if unexpressed? If so, I guess you don't believe in self-control. Are you just a puppet of your base desires?
I would think that all emotions, to be true emotions, need to be shared. They should all have a recipient and the circle is not complete till acknowledged. Positive emotions are what we send out to others. They are in a sense gifts. What good is a gift if it does not get to where it is sent? Regards DL
