I asked a question, why do many good love relationships go bad. I was
told that if I asked a negative question I would get a negative answer.
I got an answer, at least as it affects some people.
The answer I got is that there are right ones and wrong ways to handle
disagreements and arguments - disagreements and arguments that are, if
not inevitable in every relationship, at least happen in the vast
majority. The wrong way being, in many cases, the blame game. Thus,
something one says to another about something bad he has done is
matched by him bringing up something bad she has done; people one-up
one another in the wrong the other has done (or has in their
character); an attack is matched by an opposing attack; and pretty soon
the relationship devolves into one of intrnecine conflict, in which the
point of the game becomes, not to be one's best to the other person,
but to convict the other person and make them carry the wastebasket for
the ongoing production of psychic rubbish in the relationship. The
point of the game becomes, not to be one's best, but to make one's
partner appear the worst.
Or in the words of Fretblanket, "Whoever shouts the loudest wins... you
say you're fighting fascism, build your own little 1941."
After an argument in which I saw potential for such things developing,
I wrecked my head for hours trying to come up with the solution.
And the solution I got -
Is to take responsibility for the wrong in oneself -
Make sure that it does not affect the partner -
And put a stop to the blame game at the root.
Ilya Shambat
http://ibshambat.blogspot.com
.
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: 1941 |
18 Sep 2006 01:11:26 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I asked a question, why do many good love relationships go bad. I was
told that if I asked a negative question I would get a negative answer.
I got an answer, at least as it affects some people.
Personally I have come to believe that people never really change. They
may temporarily seem and act different but then they jump back into the
temperment whos strength and style was imprinted at a critical stage in
youth, much as language accents become permanent (for life).
Suggestion? Find someone who's temperment and style you like and it
will probably be likable till you die, unless[(!)!!] evolutionary
psychology is right and love only exists to make the pair bond last
long enough for a child walk off alone after the split up!
This phenomenon, popularized in the Marilyn Monroe movie The Seven Year
Itch, is based on the notion that the fabric of marriage gets frayed
threadbare after seven years....
Evolutionists feel that the seven-year span is to humans what a
breeding season is to birds. Apparently, natural selection has designed
us to withstand the rigors of marriage for at least long enough to
raise a child to the point that it has a reasonable chance of survival
without a father. After seven years of marriage, the first child is
likely to be five or six years old. By this age, children are strong
enough to walk without being carried, which is in keeping with
constraints on our hunter-gatherer ancestors who had to relocate their
temporary camps by distances of several miles. Children at five or six
years can feed themselves to some extent, by collecting plant food, for
example, and are alert to dangers of wild animals.
The Science of Romance - by Nigel Barber
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1573929700/
The answer I got is that there are right ones and wrong ways to handle
disagreements and arguments - disagreements and arguments that are, if
not inevitable in every relationship, at least happen in the vast
majority. The wrong way being, in many cases, the blame game. Thus,
something one says to another about something bad he has done is
matched by him bringing up something bad she has done; people one-up
one another in the wrong the other has done (or has in their
character); an attack is matched by an opposing attack; and pretty soon
the relationship devolves into one of intrnecine conflict, in which the
point of the game becomes, not to be one's best to the other person,
but to convict the other person and make them carry the wastebasket for
the ongoing production of psychic rubbish in the relationship. The
point of the game becomes, not to be one's best, but to make one's
partner appear the worst.
Or in the words of Fretblanket, "Whoever shouts the loudest wins... you
say you're fighting fascism, build your own little 1941."
After an argument in which I saw potential for such things developing,
I wrecked my head for hours trying to come up with the solution.
And the solution I got -
Is to take responsibility for the wrong in oneself -
Make sure that it does not affect the partner -
And put a stop to the blame game at the root.
Ilya Shambat
http://ibshambat.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: 1941 |
18 Sep 2006 10:30:50 PM |
|
|
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158603086.273588.305980@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
ilya_shambat2004@yahoo.com wrote:
I asked a question, why do many good love relationships go bad. I was
told that if I asked a negative question I would get a negative answer.
I got an answer, at least as it affects some people.
Personally I have come to believe that people never really change. They
may temporarily seem and act different but then they jump back into the
temperment whos strength and style was imprinted at a critical stage in
youth, much as language accents become permanent (for life).
Suggestion? Find someone who's temperment and style you like and it
will probably be likable till you die, unless[(!)!!] evolutionary
psychology is right and love only exists to make the pair bond last
long enough for a child walk off alone after the split up!
This phenomenon, popularized in the Marilyn Monroe movie The Seven Year
Itch, is based on the notion that the fabric of marriage gets frayed
threadbare after seven years....
The seven cycle in numerology is the second most significant cycle.
"One" means the start of the search, with each subsequent step being
significant, until seven is reached, where people need to contemplate "what
has been going on".
This is the meaning behind the seventh day rest, in biblical terms. It is
also the end of the colour spectrum (to those familiar with the "rainbow
technique") and the begining of a new octave for those familiar with "sound
advice" :-))
BOfL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charles E Hardwidge" |
|
| Title: Re: 1941 |
18 Sep 2006 02:24:19 PM |
|
|
Personally I have come to believe that people never really change. They
may temporarily seem and act different but then they jump back into the
temperment whos strength and style was imprinted at a critical stage in
youth, much as language accents become permanent (for life).
The case does look strong.
Suggestion? Find someone who's temperment and style you like and it
will probably be likable till you die, unless[(!)!!] evolutionary
psychology is right and love only exists to make the pair bond last
long enough for a child walk off alone after the split up!
Too much desire and insensitivity, or immaturity, seems to be behind a lot
of trouble. Dropping the old rules of engagement in preference for an
anything goes society, personality becomes more of an issue. Theory,
experience, and recent studies suggest this general picture is about right.
Personally, I reckon, it's just another order and balance issue. Who we are,
how we approach things, and outcomes chase each other around like a snake
eating its own tail. Fundamentally, a marriage is a business. A more
professional approach may be better than the enthusiastic amateur way.
Most successful marriages I've come across tend to have fairly clear
divisions of labour. Both sides play to their strengths for the common good.
This results in less stress and more gain. From this, individual and team
weld into a single unit. Busy moving forward, they don't have time to argue.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: 1941 |
18 Sep 2006 10:33:25 PM |
|
|
"Charles E Hardwidge" <nojunk@nojunk.co.uk> wrote in message
news:DnCPg.21122$r61.14010@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Personally I have come to believe that people never really change. They
may temporarily seem and act different but then they jump back into the
temperment whos strength and style was imprinted at a critical stage in
youth, much as language accents become permanent (for life).
The case does look strong.
Suggestion? Find someone who's temperment and style you like and it
will probably be likable till you die, unless[(!)!!] evolutionary
psychology is right and love only exists to make the pair bond last
long enough for a child walk off alone after the split up!
Too much desire and insensitivity, or immaturity, seems to be behind a lot
of trouble. Dropping the old rules of engagement in preference for an
anything goes society, personality becomes more of an issue. Theory,
experience, and recent studies suggest this general picture is about
right.
Personally, I reckon, it's just another order and balance issue. Who we
are,
how we approach things, and outcomes chase each other around like a snake
eating its own tail. Fundamentally, a marriage is a business. A more
professional approach may be better than the enthusiastic amateur way.
Most successful marriages I've come across tend to have fairly clear
divisions of labour. Both sides play to their strengths for the common
good. This results in less stress and more gain. From this, individual and
team weld into a single unit. Busy moving forward, they don't have time to
argue.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
Sounds more like a long term compromise......
To quote Tina Turner "What's Love Got to Do With It"....my answer.
Everything.
BOfL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: 1941 |
19 Sep 2006 01:41:14 PM |
|
|
Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
Personally I have come to believe that people never really change. They
may temporarily seem and act different but then they jump back into the
temperment whos strength and style was imprinted at a critical stage in
youth, much as language accents become permanent (for life).
The case does look strong.
Suggestion? Find someone who's temperment and style you like and it
will probably be likable till you die, unless[(!)!!] evolutionary
psychology is right and love only exists to make the pair bond last
long enough for a child walk off alone after the split up!
Too much desire and insensitivity, or immaturity, seems to be behind a lot
of trouble. Dropping the old rules of engagement in preference for an
anything goes society, personality becomes more of an issue. Theory,
experience, and recent studies suggest this general picture is about right.
The theory I like is about the myelin sheaths which are cells that form
around some nerve cells and cement or make permanent the configuration,
a configuration that would be much more plastic before seven years old
to puberty when the sheaths freeze them into place. Could the permanent
accent of a learned language and temperment have something to do with
these sheaths?
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&sa=N&resnum=0&q=myelin%20sheaths&tab=wi
Personally, I reckon, it's just another order and balance issue. Who we are,
how we approach things, and outcomes chase each other around like a snake
eating its own tail. Fundamentally, a marriage is a business. A more
professional approach may be better than the enthusiastic amateur way.
Most successful marriages I've come across tend to have fairly clear
divisions of labour. Both sides play to their strengths for the common good.
This results in less stress and more gain. From this, individual and team
weld into a single unit. Busy moving forward, they don't have time to argue.
Do you think that instincts have any influence here? I mean is it
possible that we are born with neural mechanism that create a desire to
split off after 5 to 7 years as some psychologists claim? Or do you
think this "balance of relations" is all just learned and could go any
way imaginable with no constraints from a proposed human nature. Or
some mixture of plasicity bound by instincts, or an interaction between
human nature and the environment/culture?
The mechanism by which animals and humans can perform complex behaviour
patterns without learning or conscious effort. Instinctive behaviours
are inherited and have evolved to be adaptive, fitting the organism to
its particular role. Such behaviours are thus specific to a species and
common to all its members. Instinct is of particular importance in
animal behaviours, such as courtship, mating, and other reproductive
activities. More general behaviours, such as feeding and defence may
have an instinctive base. Many birds, some grasshoppers, frogs, and a
number of other animals have song or call patterns that attract mates
and are based upon instinct. The courtship of sticklebacks is typical
of such behaviours in that it demands correct responses from each of
the participants in a complex sequence.
The claim that instinctive behaviour patterns are innate does not imply
that they cannot be modified by learning or environmental pressure.
Complex organisms like humans have fewer fixed behaviour than simpler
ones.
http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=217586&secid=.-
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 1941 |
19 Sep 2006 11:37:32 PM |
|
|
Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
Suggestion? Find someone who's temperment and style you like and it
will probably be likable till you die, unless[(!)!!] evolutionary
psychology is right and love only exists to make the pair bond last
long enough for a child walk off alone after the split up!
Too much desire and insensitivity, or immaturity, seems to be behind a lot
of trouble.
Desire does not correlate with insensitivity. If anything, if correctly
nourished, desire leads to heightened sensitivity to the other person.
That's the meaning of the poetic path.
Dropping the old rules of engagement in preference for an
anything goes society, personality becomes more of an issue.
Old rules of engagement: Buy a wife, set her in a cage, kill her if she
tries asserting herself.
New rules of engagement: People use their minds and their experience to
find what works for them on individual basis, and in so doing to
likewise add to the world's storehouse of experience so that more and
more people can find what works for them.
You were saying?
Personally, I reckon, it's just another order and balance issue. Who we are,
how we approach things, and outcomes chase each other around like a snake
eating its own tail.
Sometimes the snake actually grows, but then again that might require
leaving the comfort zone of old rules of engagement and criminalization
of desire.
Fundamentally, a marriage is a business.
As in, Hollywood?
A more
professional approach may be better than the enthusiastic amateur way.
And combining passion with experience and knowledge can be still
better.
Most successful marriages I've come across tend to have fairly clear
divisions of labour. Both sides play to their strengths for the common good.
This results in less stress and more gain. From this, individual and team
weld into a single unit. Busy moving forward, they don't have time to argue.
The complaint I heard the most when I worked in software during the
boom of late 1990s was that people did not have time to be with their
partners.
The other stuff appears right. But I doubt these are the "old rules of
engagement."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 1941 |
19 Sep 2006 09:43:43 PM |
|
|
Immortalist wrote:
ilya_shambat2004@yahoo.com wrote:
I asked a question, why do many good love relationships go bad. I was
told that if I asked a negative question I would get a negative answer.
I got an answer, at least as it affects some people.
Personally I have come to believe that people never really change. They
may temporarily seem and act different but then they jump back into the
temperment whos strength and style was imprinted at a critical stage in
youth, much as language accents become permanent (for life).
Well, people's style actually does change a lot. I looked like a geek
at one age, a muscle man at another, and a shaman at another still.
People's choices also tend to change a lot, as do their lives (I've
been up, down, all around, and so have the more interesting people I
know). I am of the belief that there are essences, and they take
different manifestations. And what one does with them, is also
critical.
There are things that change, and there are things that don't change.
I'll never be 6'4", but there are many things that I am choosing to get
better about.
Suggestion? Find someone who's temperment and style you like and it
will probably be likable till you die, unless[(!)!!] evolutionary
psychology is right and love only exists to make the pair bond last
long enough for a child walk off alone after the split up!
There is merit in that, yes. Compatibility in things that don't change,
combined with choice to do the right thing about the ones that do.
Evolutionists feel that the seven-year span is to humans what a
breeding season is to birds. Apparently, natural selection has designed
us to withstand the rigors of marriage for at least long enough to
raise a child to the point that it has a reasonable chance of survival
without a father.
If Armageddon people are right, none of us will live seven years from
now.
And if we still do, we will have to do a lot of work on renegotiating
the things that people accept as foundational to the world's ethical
systems.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tracy" |
|
| Title: Re: 1941 |
18 Sep 2006 12:54:14 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I asked a question, why do many good love relationships go bad. I was
told that if I asked a negative question I would get a negative answer.
I got an answer, at least as it affects some people.
The answer I got is that there are right ones and wrong ways to handle
disagreements and arguments - disagreements and arguments that are, if
not inevitable in every relationship, at least happen in the vast
majority. The wrong way being, in many cases, the blame game. Thus,
something one says to another about something bad he has done is
matched by him bringing up something bad she has done; people one-up
one another in the wrong the other has done (or has in their
character); an attack is matched by an opposing attack; and pretty soon
the relationship devolves into one of intrnecine conflict, in which the
point of the game becomes, not to be one's best to the other person,
but to convict the other person and make them carry the wastebasket for
the ongoing production of psychic rubbish in the relationship. The
point of the game becomes, not to be one's best, but to make one's
partner appear the worst.
Or in the words of Fretblanket, "Whoever shouts the loudest wins... you
say you're fighting fascism, build your own little 1941."
After an argument in which I saw potential for such things developing,
I wrecked my head for hours trying to come up with the solution.
And the solution I got -
Is to take responsibility for the wrong in oneself -
Make sure that it does not affect the partner -
And put a stop to the blame game at the root.
Totally got it, Ilya! Here's a question for you! So..... there are
two in the relationship, but only one uses the solution - the other
continues the blame game, denies any responsibility and continues to
affect the partner. What should each of them do?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: 1941 |
18 Sep 2006 10:05:11 PM |
|
|
"Tracy" <sistermoonconstant@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158602054.474069.236640@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
ilya_shambat2004@yahoo.com wrote:
I asked a question, why do many good love relationships go bad. I was
told that if I asked a negative question I would get a negative answer.
I got an answer, at least as it affects some people.
The answer I got is that there are right ones and wrong ways to handle
disagreements and arguments - disagreements and arguments that are, if
not inevitable in every relationship, at least happen in the vast
majority. The wrong way being, in many cases, the blame game. Thus,
something one says to another about something bad he has done is
matched by him bringing up something bad she has done; people one-up
one another in the wrong the other has done (or has in their
character); an attack is matched by an opposing attack; and pretty soon
the relationship devolves into one of intrnecine conflict, in which the
point of the game becomes, not to be one's best to the other person,
but to convict the other person and make them carry the wastebasket for
the ongoing production of psychic rubbish in the relationship. The
point of the game becomes, not to be one's best, but to make one's
partner appear the worst.
Or in the words of Fretblanket, "Whoever shouts the loudest wins... you
say you're fighting fascism, build your own little 1941."
After an argument in which I saw potential for such things developing,
I wrecked my head for hours trying to come up with the solution.
And the solution I got -
Is to take responsibility for the wrong in oneself -
Make sure that it does not affect the partner -
And put a stop to the blame game at the root.
Totally got it, Ilya! Here's a question for you! So..... there are
two in the relationship, but only one uses the solution - the other
continues the blame game, denies any responsibility and continues to
affect the partner. What should each of them do?
Learn to miss each other :-)....
In the "dance of synchronicity" people connect for one of two reasons. One,
is to learn about love, the other is because they have learned.
There are absolutely no mistakes in this dance.
BOfL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 1941 |
18 Sep 2006 03:47:27 PM |
|
|
Tracy wrote:
Totally got it, Ilya!
Thank you. It was an emotionally expensive lesson to learn.
Here's a question for you! So..... there are
two in the relationship, but only one uses the solution - the other
continues the blame game, denies any responsibility and continues to
affect the partner. What should each of them do?
I suppose that happens often, doesn't it?
I suppose if the other person continues the blame game, then the first
thing I would recommend (and this is totally off the top of my hat) is
bringing it to their attention.
If they choose to continue, then I would recommend bringing to their
attention the fact that if they choose to do such a thing then whatever
notions they may have (and many people who do that claim to have
notions) about ethics, morality or traditional values are violated by
their own behavior.
If they continue doing it, then I would recommend bringing to their
attention the fact that there are many people in the world who would
not do such a thing, and that you are tired of being their garbage
dump.
If they choose to continue doing it even then, then I would recommend
bringing to their attention the fact that you are leaving the
relationship.
Cheers,
Ilya Shambat
http://ibshambat.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Akira Bergman" |
|
| Title: Re: 1941 |
18 Sep 2006 05:27:23 PM |
|
|
How about getting rid of the long term commitments altogether? My cat
Rupty seems pretty happy with an independent life. The success of
humans through long childhood has also become a curse. Nature had to
devise a way to bond the couple long enough so that children can
survive by themselves. Hence you got the macho man and the beautiful
woman with fomidable sexual and charm weapons.
The problem of long term commitment became worse with the advance of
farming culture and monotheistic religions. Everyone loves freedom but
we are imprisoning ourselves more and more. Now we got the long term
commitment to a career and a mortgage. My ideal life style would be
solitary with occasional flings, both for pleasure and business.
A lot of the time we willingly surrender our freedom because it is the
done thing. Humanity look like an ant colony more and more. Will humans
ever learn the true value of freedom?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: 1941 |
18 Sep 2006 10:12:33 PM |
|
|
"Akira Bergman" <akirab@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:1158618443.295412.66530@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
How about getting rid of the long term commitments altogether? My cat
Rupty seems pretty happy with an independent life. The success of
humans through long childhood has also become a curse. Nature had to
devise a way to bond the couple long enough so that children can
survive by themselves. Hence you got the macho man and the beautiful
woman with fomidable sexual and charm weapons.
The problem of long term commitment became worse with the advance of
farming culture and monotheistic religions. Everyone loves freedom but
we are imprisoning ourselves more and more. Now we got the long term
commitment to a career and a mortgage. My ideal life style would be
solitary with occasional flings, both for pleasure and business.
Thats how I have lived for most of my adult life although I never went into
a relationship with "fling" in mind.
One of the most corrupting addictions is to "flings".......
With greater awareness "flings aint what they used to be" :-).
Like eating junk food. You always wished you hadnt afterwards (for very good
reason).....
A lot of the time we willingly surrender our freedom because it is the
done thing. Humanity look like an ant colony more and more. Will humans
ever learn the true value of freedom?
This is "your view" expanding. The colony doesnt change.
Freedom has nothing whatever to do with your circumstances.
The ultimate reltionship is two totally free people bonded by love.
BOfL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 1941 |
18 Sep 2006 06:45:25 PM |
|
|
Akira Bergman wrote:
How about getting rid of the long term commitments altogether?
Works for some people. Sometimes though you meet someone whom you love
so much, you want to spend the rest of your life with them. And that
works for many people as well.
My cat
Rupty seems pretty happy with an independent life. The success of
humans through long childhood has also become a curse. Nature had to
devise a way to bond the couple long enough so that children can
survive by themselves. Hence you got the macho man and the beautiful
woman with fomidable sexual and charm weapons.
And then there's other innovations like caring and compassion that can
make for a better life still.
The problem of long term commitment became worse with the advance of
farming culture and monotheistic religions. Everyone loves freedom but
we are imprisoning ourselves more and more. Now we got the long term
commitment to a career and a mortgage. My ideal life style would be
solitary with occasional flings, both for pleasure and business.
Who's keeping you from doing that? Go ahead, live that way if you'd
like.
A lot of the time we willingly surrender our freedom because it is the
done thing. Humanity look like an ant colony more and more. Will humans
ever learn the true value of freedom?
Sometimes freedom means also freedom to love and be loved.
Perhaps if you meet the right person, you might discover the worth in
that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: 1941 |
18 Sep 2006 10:25:12 PM |
|
|
<ilya_shambat2004@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158623125.700854.17990@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Akira Bergman wrote:
How about getting rid of the long term commitments altogether?
A "long term commitment" is a throw back to religious dictatorial days.When
you are with the right one, there is no "long term commitment" It "just
is"....
Works for some people. Sometimes though you meet someone whom you love
so much, you want to spend the rest of your life with them. And that
works for many people as well.
That becomes less likely as people grow.Growth means navigating and
overcoming illusions, and most relationships are "illusionary". Meaning they
usually fall in love (the word "fall" is highly significant), with their
projected image of the other, which, if for love, is a revisit to unresolved
interactions with their parents.
Harvard anthrapologists have come up with some recent compelling data to
back this up.
My cat
Rupty seems pretty happy with an independent life. The success of
humans through long childhood has also become a curse. Nature had to
devise a way to bond the couple long enough so that children can
survive by themselves. Hence you got the macho man and the beautiful
woman with fomidable sexual and charm weapons.
And then there's other innovations like caring and compassion that can
make for a better life still.
The problem of long term commitment became worse with the advance of
farming culture and monotheistic religions. Everyone loves freedom but
we are imprisoning ourselves more and more. Now we got the long term
commitment to a career and a mortgage. My ideal life style would be
solitary with occasional flings, both for pleasure and business.
Who's keeping you from doing that? Go ahead, live that way if you'd
like.
This is the point of my comment re illusions Illya. There is a huge gap
between wanting and having. Most people are left "wanting", literally and
figuratively.(Whether they stay or leave)
A lot of the time we willingly surrender our freedom because it is the
done thing. Humanity look like an ant colony more and more. Will humans
ever learn the true value of freedom?
Sometimes freedom means also freedom to love and be loved.
Perhaps if you meet the right person, you might discover the worth in
that.
We are all free to face the consequences of our actions. Awareness is more
fitting than "free to" in this instance.
If what you see isnt right "here and now" it wont be right "there and then".
BOfL
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 1941 |
19 Sep 2006 01:08:47 PM |
|
|
Brian Fletcher wrote:
Works for some people. Sometimes though you meet someone whom you love
so much, you want to spend the rest of your life with them. And that
works for many people as well.
That becomes less likely as people grow.
NOt if they grow the right way.
Growth means navigating and
overcoming illusions, and most relationships are "illusionary". Meaning they
usually fall in love (the word "fall" is highly significant), with their
projected image of the other, which, if for love, is a revisit to unresolved
interactions with their parents.
As I said in another post, learning wrong lesson is worse than learning
no lesson at all.
And deciding on a fallacious ideology is worse than being left
rudderless.
If something don't work for you, you don't automatically assume it
can't work. You look deeper.
And then you learn true lessons, or decide that there's no lesson to be
learned.
Harvard anthrapologists have come up with some recent compelling data to
back this up.
They haven't written the kinds of things I've written.
And they haven't seen the kinds of things I've seen.
The problem of long term commitment became worse with the advance of
farming culture and monotheistic religions. Everyone loves freedom but
we are imprisoning ourselves more and more. Now we got the long term
commitment to a career and a mortgage. My ideal life style would be
solitary with occasional flings, both for pleasure and business.
Who's keeping you from doing that? Go ahead, live that way if you'd
like.
This is the point of my comment re illusions Illya. There is a huge gap
between wanting and having. Most people are left "wanting", literally and
figuratively.(Whether they stay or leave)
Not if they know what they're doing.
A lot of the time we willingly surrender our freedom because it is the
done thing. Humanity look like an ant colony more and more. Will humans
ever learn the true value of freedom?
Sometimes freedom means also freedom to love and be loved.
Perhaps if you meet the right person, you might discover the worth in
that.
We are all free to face the consequences of our actions. Awareness is more
fitting than "free to" in this instance.
If what you see isnt right "here and now" it wont be right "there and then".
People change their minds all the time, and it works for a lot of them
-
- when, that is, the lesson being learned is a true one.
You've learned several wrong lessons.
One, that you can't help anyone else. Transparently ridiculous; people
help others (and hurt others) in different ways all the time.
Two, that love is illusory. Likewise ridiculous; I've seen love
relationships last and be happy for decades.
You have a good heart, but you've been consuming snake oil. Please stop
trying to sell it to me.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "*H7%$#" |
|
| Title: Re: 1941 |
02 Oct 2006 03:03:52 AM |
|
|
Akira Bergman wrote:
How about getting rid of the long term commitments altogether? My cat
Rupty seems pretty happy with an independent life. The success of
humans through long childhood has also become a curse. Nature had to
devise a way to bond the couple long enough so that children can
survive by themselves. Hence you got the macho man and the beautiful
woman with fomidable sexual and charm weapons.
The problem of long term commitment became worse with the advance of
farming culture and monotheistic religions. Everyone loves freedom but
we are imprisoning ourselves more and more. Now we got the long term
commitment to a career and a mortgage. My ideal life style would be
solitary with occasional flings, both for pleasure and business.
A lot of the time we willingly surrender our freedom because it is the
done thing.
Oh its a lot more than that. Its genetic and you have no control over it,
literally. Ever had sex? Extrapolate that out. Ever held a job? Worked?
Bought a meal? Opened a can of soup? Loved or just liked somebody
including a pet? Stayed sane under stress? Gone nuts when you could
stand something no longer? Allowed yourself to sleep? Stopped yourself
from sleeping? Had pleasure. Denied pleasure to work?
Yes humanity looks like an ant colony more and more and I hate it also -
but we are Human genetically, at least for the time being. That implies an
upper limit of some kind. Maybe the robots and the smart crooks will
inherit it all. I dont care. I owe Nature nothing. It owes me everything!
(smile)
Humanity look like an ant colony more and more. Will humans
ever learn the true value of freedom?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Akira Bergman" |
|
| Title: Re: 1941 |
02 Oct 2006 05:56:23 PM |
|
|
Nature owes you everything? I used to think that, and I still do
sometimes. It has a victimhood aspect that pacifies the self. The
feeling was strong during childhood. I blamed my parents for
everything, and I still do sometimes. Then it transformed to blaming
the nature. I didn't ask for it, I am not responsible. The I started
blaming myself.
Then I realised that it was covering a guilt that I was cherishing
during the times of powerlesness. If you feel powerless to deal with
life, you devise a cover to stabilise the consciousness until things
settle down. But when they don't, the cover hardens and locks the
psychosis under consciousness. The route to healing starts when you
take responsibility for your self and claim your free will. Will is
free, maybe also trancendental. A long episode of searching outside for
security introduced me to many people like myself and amplified the
problem. The pain of wrong relationships made me have more of the same.
To get out of a dump, you have to minimise the variables and take stock
to defend yourself. I found that following your deepest and simplest
desires is the way to go. Like slumber. Like going for a walk whenever
you want. Like the old monk custom of retreating to a cave. Music is
great help, specially playing or singing. Long walks are also good.
They clear the mind and bring apetite. Adopting a cat helps a lot too
(not buying a pet).
Truth is within, and then without. I found much happiness by accepting
responsibility for my own actions. This in turn made me more
compassionate to others. But I am not at that stage of loving someone
like GWBush. I'll live with that.
AB
*H7%$# wrote:
Akira Bergman wrote:
How about getting rid of the long term commitments altogether? My cat
Rupty seems pretty happy with an independent life. The success of
humans through long childhood has also become a curse. Nature had to
devise a way to bond the couple long enough so that children can
survive by themselves. Hence you got the macho man and the beautiful
woman with fomidable sexual and charm weapons.
The problem of long term commitment became worse with the advance of
farming culture and monotheistic religions. Everyone loves freedom but
we are imprisoning ourselves more and more. Now we got the long term
commitment to a career and a mortgage. My ideal life style would be
solitary with occasional flings, both for pleasure and business.
A lot of the time we willingly surrender our freedom because it is the
done thing.
Oh its a lot more than that. Its genetic and you have no control over it,
literally. Ever had sex? Extrapolate that out. Ever held a job? Worked?
Bought a meal? Opened a can of soup? Loved or just liked somebody
including a pet? Stayed sane under stress? Gone nuts when you could
stand something no longer? Allowed yourself to sleep? Stopped yourself
from sleeping? Had pleasure. Denied pleasure to work?
Yes humanity looks like an ant colony more and more and I hate it also -
but we are Human genetically, at least for the time being. That implies an
upper limit of some kind. Maybe the robots and the smart crooks will
inherit it all. I dont care. I owe Nature nothing. It owes me everything!
(smile)
Humanity look like an ant colony more and more. Will humans
ever learn the true value of freedom?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rosepetal" |
|
| Title: Re: 1941 |
21 Sep 2006 02:31:03 AM |
|
|
wrote:
I asked a question, why do many good love relationships go bad. I was
told that if I asked a negative question I would get a negative answer.
I got an answer, at least as it affects some people.
The answer I got is that there are right ones and wrong ways to handle
disagreements and arguments - disagreements and arguments that are, if
not inevitable in every relationship, at least happen in the vast
majority. The wrong way being, in many cases, the blame game. Thus,
something one says to another about something bad he has done is
matched by him bringing up something bad she has done; people one-up
one another in the wrong the other has done (or has in their
character); an attack is matched by an opposing attack; and pretty soon
the relationship devolves into one of intrnecine conflict, in which the
point of the game becomes, not to be one's best to the other person,
but to convict the other person and make them carry the wastebasket for
the ongoing production of psychic rubbish in the relationship. The
point of the game becomes, not to be one's best, but to make one's
partner appear the worst.
Or in the words of Fretblanket, "Whoever shouts the loudest wins... you
say you're fighting fascism, build your own little 1941."
After an argument in which I saw potential for such things developing,
I wrecked my head for hours trying to come up with the solution.
And the solution I got -
Is to take responsibility for the wrong in oneself -
Make sure that it does not affect the partner -
And put a stop to the blame game at the root.
Ilya Shambat
http://ibshambat.blogspot.com
Public display of a relationship issue, may humiliate your partner.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 1941 |
21 Sep 2006 12:36:13 PM |
|
|
Rosepetal wrote:
Public display of a relationship issue, may humiliate your partner.
My heartfelt apologies to anyone I might have hurt by making this post.
I know I have a lot to learn.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: 1941 |
18 Sep 2006 12:34:20 PM |
|
|
hi
.
|
|
|
|
|
