Love

Dr. Lou Natic:

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.

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

Invert Nexus:

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?

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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!

Do you think you are bad, evil?

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?


***

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

RosaMagika:

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.

Mwahaahaha!
No, typo.

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.

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 do not agree.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dr. Lou Natic:

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

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?

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.

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 that Gendanken having private discussions with people has no bearing on her views on love.

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.

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

At least you admit it.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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:

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.

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 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.

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.

 

Invert

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 torturing invert if you think you're so hard. The effeminate shrieks are blood curdling.
He nibbles on your thumb while you twist his spine, it's pitifull, enough to make you cry.

Honestly, you can't even make me mad invert. I can't continue insulting you when you're so ineffectual. It feels mean. Just keep on truckin little buddy. Give me a few parting stabs even. Tell me how unoriginal I am or whatever it is you like to do. This ones on the house.
Do you have a paypal account by any chance?
I mean, I feel terrible. Anything i can do, just ask.

Gendanken should come in and defend your honour, she owes you that much, after all the footrubs and ass-baths.
Get in here you pig, and clean up this mess.

 

Love is said to bring happiness. I've read, heard, seen much of this happiness. But it's as if behind a glass to me. It's a fully true world, but not mine. Maybe it's all in your heads? Are you all sure true love exists?

 

But they sure do get big thrills off of thinking that they're big-time commentators. Yes?

It's hard for you to admit that your mighty "spine-twisting" fails in your own insignificance, isn't it?
Keep at it, guy. Someday you'll find someone who thinks your opinion is worth something. And then you can unleash your awesome fury upon them.


I do congratulate you on your new strategy though. Feign compassion and flee with tail tucked. Such wit. Such style.

I hope you realize that the success of this strategem once more hinges on your insignificance. No one cares what you think as long as you just shut the fuck up.

 

Whoa, is there a doctor in the house?
hehe
"I'm ken griffey junior"
You sure are buddy. Hey who wants a chocolate milkshake?

 

Wow. You really got me with that one.
You're a bad, bad man.

Now why don't you just fade away like you promised and leave the Xev vs. Gendanken match to Xev and Gendanken? I think it's been pretty much settled that no one here is interested in your commentary.

 

It's over.
Xev's already begun her downward spiral towards a settlement with gendanken by pleasantly fraternising with rosa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I've seen it before, the gay agreement I so feared is on its way.
And I can't help but hold you, invert nexus, responsible.

 

I know what you mean. Both the theory that one is (to be) special as if one "fell from the Moon", and the other theory saying that there is no thing like "just yourself", are both misleading extremes.

Think of it this way: You speak several languages too, right? For the same thing, you know a word in each language that you speak -- like "book", "Buch", "livre", "liber", "knjiga" ... When you speak another language, you are sort of putting yourself into a role. The meaning 'book' is there irregardless of the actual language that you are using at the moment. (For the sake of the simplicity of the argument, let's not go into the meaning debate, but keep to a common view.) But at the same time, there is only one language where you feel really "at home", only one language that seems native.

And similar is with the self: you can play many roles ("speak many languages"), but you feel there is an instance that is aware of all these roles, and operates with them (in the language metaphor, this is the instance of "meaning"). Also, you have probably made the experience with yourself that there is a "place", a "way to be just you", when you feel "native", "at home".

You're nobody till somebody loves you ... so find yourself somebody to love.

Uniqueness emereges from a unique relationship. Specialness exists only among the special.

One can be special or unique only in certain relation to other subjects; it depends on the quality of this relation what the sense of uniqueness or specialness is.

If the relation in which subjects are compared is that of an absolutistic logical comparison of features and traits, only those at the ends of the bell curve are special, sure. But I think this is a very harming way to conceptualize specialness.

Someone is special to you if you have a deep affection for them. Someone is special to you if you love them.

There is no such thing as an "absolute specialness" that would exists irregardless of relation (except maybe for those at the ends of the bell curve) -- yet in our society, we seem to be forced to think of specialness exactly in this misleading way!

As if someone would first have to be special, and only after that would they deserve our love.

 

Ooooooooooooooh. La la la la la la di da di da la la ... and then the kitty comes and spoils the fun by catching the mouse.
***

What we are having here is another in vivo meta-analyis. Which is cute.

The topic is love, and now, right here in this thread, we are dealing with both the theoretical as well as the practical aspect of love.
There are many kinds of love ...

 

Xev:

A-ha.

Bull.

Two- just like you.
Could I?
Absolutely.

You have my little friend Wanderer to thank for the cute moniker.
Fenris is very effectively groveling… for a little secret.
All the rest think it from symptoms of inferiority.

If anything, we’re both treated like some godamned queens- and basing one’s worth on entourage or people is the very disease all fools suffer from- belief in popularity, a Saddam.
I’ve said as much to, specifically, the same imbecile projecting his queendom on me- Wanderer.
Now, if he’d at least coined forum Queef- there we’d have something to at least grin about.

Like you repeatedly using the “ice-cold, beautiful, antisocial queen” gimmick?
(and head should only be given for free)

Really, this flinging back and forth on social nuance is sterile- back then you’d actually have a point, stupid little girl in denial that I was, but here we are two hypocrites with spectators dying to see blood. Like two amputees pointing to their stumps. Ok. Point?

Anyway-the issue I’m concerned with is simple and deals with your initial post- all the rest is noisy baggage you can keep.
Caffeine Fubar starts a thread, talking about love.
Then others gather......to talk about love.
The Bells and Arditezzas of the world would have no platform if it weren’t for these people- by negating their needy romance.
And you would have no platform if it wasn’t for the rebels- by negating my supposed defiance.
The Bells and Arditezzas are not enough, its only when “my” kind swarm that your kind actually functions- as such, the world sees that those affecting indifference actually aren’t.

Its like a bunch of antithetics floating around believing themselves to be different, yet the whole progress of this thread has been like a chain reaction of commonality.
You’re just as common as Caffeine Fubar and RosaMagiKa and Bells and Arditezza.
So this:

Fits you perfectly.

You say you don’t care, but you, quite frankly, do.
That said- love is a bloodclot (personal motto). All of you get over it.

Social skills?

I have a thread up where I’m like a 4 year old girl who’s just discovered her vagina.
And I’m one moooody twat.

Dr. Lou:
Congratulations, lou lou.
You’re the brand new poodle!
You despise what's on your level and hide behind others- you should have been Jewish.

Fenris:

More like watching gophers getting trapped in your backyard.
*grin*

And you owe me a dollar.

 

We all done here then? Damn. Still, I expect we'll still see a few cameos in the wrapup.

 

Wolf:

Yep, think so.

Lest you'd like further the vouyerism.

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

 

All you want is someone to tame the shrew that you are.
And while acting in a manner to attract that shrew-tamer, you are growing so strong in your shrewness that in the end, it will be impossible for the shrew-tamer to do what he is supposed to do. At some point, the only way to tame you will mean to kill you. Thus you will remain a shrew, proving your point of being a shrew.
Which is ... sad.

 

I think that may be the case with Xev, as she's built this elaborate personna that absolutely must be maintained, no matter the cost to her psyche. I think that gendanken is a genuine misanthrope. I would wager a guess that she is not much different offline than she is on. She doesn't believe that the internet is a game, or some kind of fucked up play where everyone has a role and then attempts to upstage everyone for her amusment, like Xev does either.

The reasons for the bitterness and distrust are unimportant, but it a general tone with gendanken. Moody, yes. But rarely with a happiness or glow that you can occasionally glimpse when Xev is starring in another lead role. Xev must be the star of the show, where gendanken is content to sit on the sidelines and sneer at all involved. Sometimes this garners her attention, and when it does she plays the role well, but I think she genuinely dislikes the fact that she plays the role and generally grows quiet after that. Xev, in contrast lives for the attention. Speaks for the attention and bathes in it, denying it all the while. And when people challenge her, she uses her feminine charm (and in this case her moderator powers by pointing out how much PM'ing gendanken does... tsk tsk.) to rally the throbbing young males who follow the antics of the sniveling little girl in pig tails they all think they can impress. Xev is right, when she gets involved, it becomes a stage. Because she makes it so.

gendanken also has her admirers. This is without question, but less intentional.

And, we are all common. Get used to it. Perhaps that is what these two are so at odds about. They do often agree, and they do share interests. Does that not make them as common as those they despise? Less unique?

And back to the topic, what makes me having a huband and children, more dependant on love? Yes, I love them all dearly. But would continue being myself, being independant and self-reliant if that changed tomorrow. I am glad that love is there, but it is still not needed to fufill my life.

 

RosaMagika:

Because all a woman ever wants is a maaaan to surrender to after a long and stormy courtship.
And if she is "shrewish", if she goes against prevailing cultural norms, if she says things that are different or "rebellious", it's only because she wants to be tamed.

Because you see - our culture is really really great and authority is really really great and all anyone could ever want is to submit to it.

gendanken:
Fine - but take this scenerio.
I lose weight, suddenly and drastically. I used to have some really nice sweaters, but now that I'm thin I want to wear more form-fitting sweaters. So I give another girl my old sweater - and it looks pretty decent on her, with a little secret. It's still an old sweater, you're still caught up in the social -- even if you never displayed your ICQ number.

Arditezza:
Because I doubt you could really go even a month without human contact, and if I doubted my doubt - I need only refer to the fact that you're a housewife who puts her family before her own needs.