Why the Lover Whispers Sweet Nothings

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by gendanken, Jun 3, 2004.

  1. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,779
    Can't you see it?

    Ever among a small flock of girls there is a small man in the middle simply glowing with pride- for his lifetime of senility there is, to him, redemption in the dexterity he feels he has in weaving fragile webs of chicanery that he spins between women.
    So he spins and he spins, stepping back every now and then with a hidden sneer of contempt for these beings too stupid to notice.
    Strindberg calls his passion for women 50% animal heat 50% hate.
    He is a weakling, but give this Tantalus a warrior that can snap his neck in half and watch him scurry like a cockroach.

    They

    Didn't

    Fucking

    See it.


    Blood for blood,revenge has come
    Through the face of hate,I see the face of faith
    I will bring you to your knees
    Can you see these eyes glow? .
    Kataklysm, the Resurrected

    'nuff said
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2004
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. John Connellan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,636
    What about if I wasn't flattering myself and just exchanging words with Gendanken (not u). Why don't u just fuk off and leave me alone for a while.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. John Connellan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,636
    How did it ever get to this Rosa?

    When did I ever fuck u in the head? I don't go around calling u a twit. I never have and probably never will.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    John,


    How did it ever get to this? I'll tell you how:

    So we had our little "thingie" in the other thread, and then you said those words. I took them seriously -- not seriously in the manner that I would expect anything from this relationship. I took them seriously because I feel obliged to take love and other people's feelings seriously. I didn't want you to feel cheated or played with, I didn't want to be reckless with your heart. I hope that my private messages delivered that attitude.

    But then, in the private messages, you said that it is all just "benign fun" to you. Okay, so I let go, thinking that the whole thing didn't matter to you anyway. For it was you who wanted me to think it didn't matter to you, when you proclaimed it "benign fun". I only took what you gave me. You acted as if your own feelings didn't mean much to you, so I gave up on them too.
    I felt released by you the moment you called the whole thing "benign fun".

    Then, you came into this thread. And you have said some things that I think are quite cruel, and they have presented that "benign fun" in a new light. It is for the things you have said here that I think you are a characterless twit.

    Did you think that I would care for you no matter what you say or do?!


    You merely saying "When did I ever fuck u in the head?" gives me the creeps.
    Yes, you may have never called me a twit, but that doesn't already mean that you care for me.


    What is it that you really want from me, John?
    That I would love you inspite of everything you do here? Inspite of your negativism?
    Were you flirting with Bells, went at Gendanken and hoped for Xev -- to make me jealous or to put me down?

    What am I to you?



    And one more thing: This here is the internet. Not Real Life. The pretty much best thing you could get here is to be some sort of a virtual lap dog. Yes, you would get a lot of attention, as you can be quite adorable. We might even become friends, you might even become friends with Bells. But you want more. And this, none of us can give you here, so why are you flirting and toying with us?
     
  8. John Connellan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,636
    No I said that because u were asking me where will we go for here and I was looking at it practically and concluded that we should just keep it fun.

    I think feelings are an amazing thing and like every human, most of my life is spent trying to find those feelings at all times. Unlike most, i try not to get carried away with them.

    And I got the impression u wanted to feel released (esp when u thought I was only about 15

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )

    I have never said anything cruel to you. I would love u to expand on this point as I think taking somebody elses feelings for granted is one of the worst traits sum1 could have.

    I think the stage has been reached now that no matter what i do, u will not care for me!

    How did it sound when u said it?

    Rosa, what was the first thing i ever said to u in these forums?

    I'm not that bad......really

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    If I was flirting it would never have been because i wanted to put u down. More likely because I am not attatched to u!

    How about this. Do u think all guys want only sex?
     
  9. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,779
    This is absofuckinglutely hillarious.

    Either the girl(s) has allowed her loneliness to devour her, or this 'show' is a prank.
    Either way- quit it. The both of you- take it outside or a p.m. box.
    There's ICQ, AIM, AOL, and Yahoo for your inanities.

    LEAVE this thread OUT OF IT.
     
  10. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    Gendanken,

    Thank you for stepping in. I'm relieved.
    I'm tired of punching thin air.
     
  11. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,779
    Rosa:
    I still say you were/are trying to convince yourself.
    Just to clear things up 'cuase they need clearing up and your little friend here can't fucking read:

    Bells sayz:"I have a feeling John that you wouldn't know true love if it came and bit you on the arse"

    To which gendanken replied:

    "Oh but if it licked him in the ass he, like fireguy and all these others that whisper shit for booty, would no doubt fall over in 'love'."

    The 'it' up there in bold our stupid troglodyte John misread as "I". It meaning 'love' not 'gendanken'.
    Case closed.
     
  12. John Connellan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,636
    Ah the old referring to oneself in the third person. The way u are writing, u would think u were the great fuking Xev herself. Instead ur just wannabe Gendanken who used to follow her around everywhere but seems to be trying to make a name for herself on her own now.

    I didn't misread it. It didn't mean "love", it meant "loving from Gendanken"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. thefountainhed Fully Realized Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,076
    Firstly, I'd like to know where these quotes are coming from, and how exactly they are related within their context. And more importantly, how they relate to your original basis:

    “Sometimes a complex will become associated with certain words which, although seemingly neutral and unrelated, are in fact linked to an underlying disturbance. Moreover, sometimes a person will draw attention to an underlying emotional problem by using or repeating certain words or phrases which, when linked together, hint at its existence.”

    Because there are two inherently different things being addressed:


    1. How certain words uttered by a subject can reveal an underlying complex.

    2. The circular response of the hopeless romantic who appeases his dejection from being rejected by creating fantasies-- need not be words. This serves as both penance and appeasement.

    The two necessarily differ. Whilst 1. can be a consequence of 2., both are not the same.

    Firstly, I assumed that the patient maybe drawing this attention purposely-- at least on the subconscious level, but I am not so sure. It is simply a fact of the complex that patterns will exist in the speech of the subject.

    Meaning, if patterns existing in the "sweet nothings" are subconscious and uncontrollable, then they are merely an effect of the hopeless romantic having 'distance'/not getting the object of their desire. The complex is the romanticizing of this rejection.

    An important implication is that sweet nothings of course need not be reflective of necessarily the complex of the hopeless romantic. In fact, like I said, I think the appeasement is done mostly through fantasizing and even re-imaging of the object of their desires.

    No. The subject is never destroyed, hence the complex.
     
  14. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,779
    Oohh..... Aahh....
    We are not amused by an imbecile's caricatures of our person.
    Muahhahaha....

    Anyway-
    Fountainhed:
    All quotes are gendanken's.
    They are from this thread, apropos to the very thing being discussed- the Hopeless Romantic. So:

    Right- its far too simplistic. I used it as analogy, outline.
    Behaviorism, thought, imagery- all are far more dimensional than words. However, the conccept of association stands.

    A lover stuck in distance romancing his rejection is the premise:

    "It is this subtarranean river of erotic energy that feed the creative passion.....In some the relationship takes the form of a rapid development of sex and art at once; and from this union the romanic type of genius comes......these are the type in which imagination dominates logic. Because desire is a torment in them, they are sensitive, emotional, forever suffering, and imaginative beyond restraint; the extreme, the exotic, and the strange lure them eveyrwhwere. It is they who create the poetry, the painting,the music and the philosophy of love."- Durant


    Therefore- his desire infuriates his object with loverlier shades of beauty: we desire nothing because it is good, but call it good because we deisre it. This, the essence of beauty.
    One prolongs the beautiful image with distance and negation, placing its lover deeper and deeper in longing, thus sickness.
    One cures him and kills it (beauty) both with the possession.

    Preach this to Pyramus and Romeo, kiddo.
     
  15. thefountainhed Fully Realized Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,076
    I do not disagree that desiring that which one cannot get, especially in particular persons, leads to rudiculous uses of one's imagination. My whole issue is with the relation to expressions of this so called disease through word patterns.

    The imagination serves to appease, the subconcious pattern presentation serves to present. It does not get simpler than that.

    In any case, perhaps a more interesting study would be why it is that in the face of continuing rejection, persistence still ensues.

    Idealized stupidity.
     
  16. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,779
    Fountain:
    Animal heat.
    "It does not get simpler than that."

    *snap*
    Presto.

    Seeing this, I don't see how you'd even move to disagree.
    Which is just what you did when you debuted in here.

    No.Shit.

    Counterproductive Cowshit.
     
  17. thefountainhed Fully Realized Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,076
    This makes no sense; but, perhaps it was simply because I di not elaborate.
    here: My whole issue is with the relation to expressions of this so called disease through word patterns as the equivalent of self appeasement.

    The existence of patterns do not make make it easier to deal with the rejection. It merely represents the presence of this 'disease'. Capiche?

    You miss my point: no romeos exist.
     
  18. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,779
    Then *you* make no bloody sense.

    Differentiate between "appease" and "present", knowing that senses are only alleviated in the presence of stimuli.

    Don't care, mine stands.
    Idealized stupidy exists cast and mold with the lover that kills himself in his passion.
    For counterprodcutive cowshit. It's happened, happens, and will happen.
     
  19. Hathor Banned Banned

    Messages:
    272
    dahling, perhaps if you drop the harlequin romance novels?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. thefountainhed Fully Realized Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,076
    Refrain from getting emotional, woman. This is merely an exchange of ideas.

    A presentation is merely a natural and non-deliberate response. An appeasement within this context is a subcnonscious or conscious reaction to a conflict or punishment.

    What the hell are you talking about? Romeo is physically death.
     
  21. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,779
    Hathor:
    Why hello Hathor, my slimy prince.
    Perhaps if you stop assuming I'd even touch those?

    Fountainhed:
    "Refrain from getting emotional, woman. This is merely an exchange of ideas. "

    Ain't nuclear science, my boy- people kill themselves for this shit. Simple.
    Calm down.
    Presentation, standardized by pattern, serves to appease.

    You can have neither without the other.
    Imagery as pattern, response and release as appeasement.
    Thus, imagery is opiate.
     
  22. thefountainhed Fully Realized Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,076
    I'm getting frustrated gendy.

    I'm very calm. People kill themselves not for this shit but rather for infatuation and also for the misrepresentation of love--- but that is an entirely different matter and not excatly relevant.

    You can have neither without the other.
    Imagery as pattern, response and release as appeasement.
    Thus, imagery is opiate.[/QUOTE]

    Give me a bloody break. You said the whisperings were the opiate. Also, the presentation is not the appeasement; that is the whole purpose of fantasy or romatiicization. Of course you can have one without the other. The pattern need not exist always be in the presence of the appeasement.
     
  23. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,779
    Fountainboy:
    Relevant insofar to your mentioning that Romeos don't exist.
    Pryamus. Pygmalion.
    All of them with their heads in the bloody clouds.

    And I've agreed with you to its oversimplification- so stop being an asshole.
    Now take your mind from word---->image.
    But image is only a word's 2 dimensional counterpart.

    How you can possibly sit there and say one can have presentation without either an appeasement or repulsion is...beyond me.
    For every action, sayz Newton, there is reaction.
     

Share This Page