Why do we love
DaKitty
lliimmpet
All men of one law stand indicted:
if you can't love with love that's unrequited,
you cannot love--no matter what you do.
God grant us grace that we may know the pain
of fruitless longing, unreturned emotion,
delightful torment as we wait in vain:
the hapless happiness of vain devotion.
For secretly I'm longing to be brave,
to warm my ice-cold heart with passion's burning;
in lukewarm love affairs enmeshed, I rave
of unrequited love and hopeless yearning.
(excerpt)
Poetry of Yevgeny Yevtushenko
Unrequited Love
1971
Translated by Michael Glenny
leda
DaK...@o-tay.com wrote on 1/21/03 1:36:
> those who don't love us?
i wasted a good part of my life recently doing this, and when i woke up
vowed it would never happen again. so far, so good. i think i learned the
lesson i needed to.
--
For info about this service, see http://anon.twwells.com/help/ or e-mail:
he...@anon.twwells.com -- for an automatically returned help message
ad...@anon.twwells.com -- for the service's administrator
ano...@anon.twwells.com -- anonymous mail to the administrator
%
"DaKitty" <DaK...@o-tay.com> wrote in message
news:GL6X9.1505$R11.19...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> those who don't love us?
>
>
don't say , " we " when you mean , " you . "
i don't love those who don't love me .
caiaa
people fall in love with us. So that's why it happens.
I like it though, you just have to get past the nasty stage where you beat
yourself up every day over not being able to be with her. Then you just
learn to enjoy the 'moments' (usually just a word here or there) with her or
just being in her presence. At least that's with me.
"DaKitty" <DaK...@o-tay.com> wrote in message
news:GL6X9.1505$R11.19...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
DaKitty
"%" <surfs@uniserve> wrote in message
news:v2qor2f...@corp.supernews.com...
But thinking about it, the driving force behind that generalization isn't
love.
"Love" would be a romanticized misnomer for a number of things...
Well, that's the short version of it...
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
%
well whatever , i don't do it so , " we " don't
Newsgroup Poster
> those who don't love us?
Color me incurably romantic, but I remain in agreement with that
famous Arab poet and mystic whose name I can't recall (Omar Khayyam??)
who relates something to the effect that "the lightning of love cannot
strike in one heart without its echoing thunder in the other
heart"....
Of course, we're looking for romance and love, not just love....
DaKitty
"%" <surfs@uniserve> wrote in message
>
> "DaKitty" <DaK...@o-tay.com> wrote in message
> news:3e2da...@news.newsgroups.com...
> >
> > "%" <surfs@uniserve> wrote in message
> > news:v2qor2f...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > "DaKitty" <DaK...@o-tay.com> wrote in message
> > > news:GL6X9.1505$R11.19...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > those who don't love us?
> > > >
> > >
> > > don't say , " we " when you mean , " you . "
> > > i don't love those who don't love me .
> > >
> > Actually, I was generalizing about things other than just me.
> > But thinking about it, the driving force behind that generalization
isn't
> > love.
> > "Love" would be a romanticized misnomer for a number of things...
> > Well, that's the short version of it...
> >
>
>
pumpkin_head
"DaKitty" <DaK...@o-tay.com> wrote in message
news:GL6X9.1505$R11.19...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
I've done that.
Michaela
|those who don't love us?
|
|
Because we want what we can't have.
Never let anyone have you completely
(that's not as deceptive as it sounds.
It's actually a very 'healthy' way to
be).
If you watch a movie and the entire
plot and ending is revealed to you in
the first 11 minutes, you aren't going
to enjoy that movie much either.
- Michaela
pumpkin_head
"Michaela" <as...@1234.co.za> wrote in message
news:3e2e693f...@news.mweb.co.za...
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 07:36:06 GMT, "DaKitty" <DaK...@o-tay.com> wrote:
>
> |those who don't love us?
> |
> |
> Because we want what we can't have.
I think it's better to say: "We can't always have what we want."
What you say sounds too certain. We don't necessarily want what we can't
have.
Eleonore Beaudoin
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 07:36:06 GMT, "DaKitty" <DaK...@o-tay.com> wrote:
>
> |those who don't love us?
> |
> |
> Because we want what we can't have.
> Never let anyone have you completely
> (that's not as deceptive as it sounds.
> It's actually a very 'healthy' way to
> be).
Again, might be your own way, but is not universal.
Thank God dare I add.
That to me is a dysfunctional dynamic.
Or a form of bland, diluted masochism.
It is also reminescent of dreaming of being a carrot and running into a
dunkey:).
Pfft:)
Nah, no thanks. If he needs games, I can tell him where to go buy tickets
to the Superbowl.
I prefer them without the diaper, what can I say:)
And I donlt mean physical age here as as they age they end up in diapers
anyway L:)
I mean...
That is exactly what makes me puke in relationships, all them friggen
gamnes...Poeple wanting to live a thrill and thinkign that is oh so loving.
Nah. It's aform of power trip that.
"Coem closer, I'll throw you as far as I can and can measure you love by
how much it hurts and how fast you are back". Barf, in the end.
Again, good for you if it makes your married life so wow that you ain't
even lonely.
Easy to find, guys like that. Three for a dollar at K-Mart.
I'd exactly be too scared to be bored out of my wits if I married oen o'
those.
Odds are he'd be even more bored and would need to work away from ho,me to
escape it all too -or do lots of overtime.
Again, surte, if it works for you.
But it strikes me how you each time say such things as if they were a
universal Truth of sorts.
Some just got to that stage. Some just got out of it. Some elarned what
love is.
"Love is not "I will do this so he will do that, then I will feel so yummy".
Love is wanting forst to be happy, and then wanting others to eb as well,
that they be with or without us.
And gawd, if ever I meet soemoen I get along with fine, I hope he is able
to be happy without my breathign for him nor my feelign a stupid need to
throw him as far as one can to feel the joy of him coming back.
That is yoyoing and woudl definitely bore me stiff.
That to me is the definition of love illusion.
That si what I fear the most about so called love.
YUK.
Really really.
As weet as you wanna spell it and throw flowers in, that si control and
dependancy to me, and is "EEEEEEEEEEk! Run for your life!!"
Or, if one did not run soon enough and fast enough, run for a job making
you work abroad, hurry!!
>
> If you watch a movie and the entire
> plot and ending is revealed to you in
> the first 11 minutes, you aren't going
> to enjoy that movie much either.
Depends on if you are addicted to cheap thrills or like tolive the present
moment.
Depends on if you judge the movie as good depending on the thrill it
brigns YOU or if you enjoy not even watchign it cause you fell asleep on
your parners' shoulder:).
Depoends on if one cna enjoy the movie making,t he art and all, even if
they are not watching Jerry Springer like big commercial sensation stuff.
Tell me...When you elarned your baby's sex, was it all boring for you from
there on to have a child and be a mom?
Once you had the marriage proposal, did you feel you ahd less of a thrill
to live for?
I dunno, Michaela, but all that sounds so much like living an unreality to
me....
I woudl never want to have to make him love me that way:(
I'd sure hope he woudl love me of his darn own, and I coudl be smart
enough to appreciate it as is, without havign to play darn control games
to emasure this and that, nor havign that need to make a Truth our of my
illusions....
Sorry foi that sounds drastic...
Again, if fine by you, sure, But it is NOT a truth and I truely feel all
yuk inside when Is ee you recommend that others do that...just cause you
like it.
NOT mature and not healthy livign a relatinship it is.
We all tend to do that in our first loverships.
Then we learn to rid of the stupid preconceptions, for soem of us at least.
or at least I hope I am not the only one....
If it is *your* truth, great and all.
Just don't confuse it with Life and Truth, cause it ain't.
Recommending it constantly just reads to me like an invitation for others
to go on in the empotional dependancy and need for constant reassurance
rather than TRUST thing.
Man, I'd hate to be a man and have to constantly *prove* I'd love my wife.
Must be the naggiest thing on earth....The sweetness she woudl wrap it in
woudl end up feelign like asperttame and bringign shivers on my spine that
woudl not be the desire type...
Maybe expressing it that way will help convey that wahtever you think and
whatever works for now for you...It ain't life, darling.
You are in the movies and still in the granny' recipes with men...
Self respect? Precisely. To me that woudl be absolutely lackign respect to
me...and to him. Playing in his guts and all....
Ptewie.
Good for you,
Thanks but no please, not for me:)
Chloe
>
> - Michaela
--
DaKitty
"pumpkin_head" <umpkin_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xHvX9.362$pN.42940@newsfep2-gui...
Wanting what I can't have is not typical of me.
Now a limbo situation, that will get you conditioned into getting the very
minimum, going back and forth between loss, and getting just enough to get
you by, and the uncertainty of whether this time you'll get what you need,
keeps you coming for more.
But the bottom line is, it's not a healthy cycle, not a good way to be,
cause it leaves you too needy, and too open to be taken advantage of.
Tough cycle to break out of. I think I heard it's just about as tough to
break out of as an addictive habit would be tough to break.
Well, that's a more clinical explanation of "wanting what we can't have"
It's not really what we can't have, but what we can't get enough of. And
get trained to crave it. Intermittent conditioning is what I think it's
called.
Michaela
> "Michaela" wrote
> > "DaKitty" wrote:
> > |those who don't love us?
> > |
> > |
> > Because we want what we can't have.
>
> I think it's better to say: "We can't always have what we want."
> What you say sounds too certain. We don't necessarily want what we can't
> have.
I hear you. What you say makes sense, but it's not what I am
saying. We have to add the element that evokes that seemingly
wonderful feeling - CHEMISTRY - before we can even start
to make sense of it all.
Challenge invokes chemistry. I'm not at all certain if that's
all it takes to invoke chemistry, but it is certainly an
integral component.
Which is why I have lately been questioning the concept of
ego love and whether it is (1.) even love or (2.) what we
should strive towards. The more I think about it the more I
think we should ignore it and strive towards attaining the
other kind of love.
The 'apparent' problem with the other kind of love is that it
doesn't appear to have all the highs and lows of ego love. It
is harmonious (which is a rather good feeling) and involves
more giving than it does taking. Iow: EFFORT. It is a lot
rarer and I experience it with my partner only roughly half the
time. The rest of the time our egos step in and we get selfish.
(Selfish is not always a bad thing, but that's another story.)
Adding challenge to my sentence might rephrase it thus:
We are challenged by what we can't have.
We don't notice or want it until it is put before us in
a "you can't have this, buster" way.
And then our egos step in and say: "Oh yeah? I'll show you!"
Yes, I know. I can have 1 000 ice creams in my freezer and eat
one a day and I will enjoy AND WANT every single one. I realise
that this contradicts the "we want what we can't have" sentence,
but I'm afraid it's one of the questions I can't answer.
Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in the compulsion an overeater
might experience: If I eat it I will gain weight, so I can't have
that ice cream. And that's precisely why I want it - because I
shouldn't be indulging. I'm not sure at all.
The words I used have a specific meaning that will only be grasped
once you start to 'get' the concept. Not very helpful, I know.
Catch-22.
I will try to illustrate with an example. I am no storyteller,
this is merely an attempt to explain a facet of the concept of
challenge as I see it. No doubt someone will find a/several
hole(s) in my story, but such is the nature of Usenet... All
I ask is that you try harder to understand what I am saying
and attempt to make analogies/parallels with experiences in
your life rather than try to pick my story apart.
Twenty-one year old Karen was unconventionally beautiful. Some
said she wasn't so attractive, it was just her shiny, wavy,
unruly, blonde hair (hair that was not unlike a cross between
Drew Barrymore, Marilyn Monroe, Mia Farrow...) that made her
stand out from other girls. She had lovely green eyes and a
flat nose with nostrils that flared nastily and unattractively
when she was angry. I thought it was her hair and her (insert
adjective like porcelain or translucent or something. All good.)
skin and her slight body that made her look frail and the guys
(hell, even I felt protective towards her) were convinced that
they needed to protect her.
Whatever, she was stunning and my impression was that anyone
who thought otherwise was usually a jealous girlfriend of
someone who had admired her. She had already done a lot with
her life by that time and came across as being supremely yet
charmingly confident.
She spoke and wrote five languages fluently, played the piano,
played soccer for her country in another country (as an
eleven-year old), sang beautifully, spent a year as an
exchange student in the US, travelled extensively, etc.,
etc.
All-in-all she loved life and it showed. There weren't too
many guys who weren't attracted to her. (I reckon even my bf
was, although it never came up.) She could charm anyone.
Karen appeared to have it all.
She had the apparently contradictory quality of being
self-sufficient yet appearing as if she needed protecting.
She had one "fault". She argued about things she didn't really
understand. And just like any other twenty-one-year old, she
knew everything.
She was a bit like that Douglas Adams quote: "I don't believe it.
Prove it to me and I still won't believe it." I know. I came up
against it a few times. And being older than her, I knew
everything.
She had met John before, but they hadn't really chatted. I have
no idea if John had been attracted to her before that day or when
he started to like her. But I know John quite well and I think he
might have made a point of not being attracted to her precisely
because all the other guys were attracted to her - but that's
neither here nor there.
One day, on a kibbutz, she started arguing with John. Initially
he participated in the argument, and then he endured her for a
few minutes, gradually getting more and more frustrated. Finally
he gave up, and characteristically (he does that quite a lot
when things get out of hand) got up and walked out the room
with an "I'd better get out of here before I do something I'll
regret later".
This was too much for Karen! No one ever got mad at her. Everyone
liked her. She had pushed John too far.
Once she'd gotten over her indignation she turned on the charm. A
couple of months later, Karen followed John back to South Africa
where I would like to say they lived happily ever after, but they
didn't and that's another story.
Does this help any?
- Michaela
Harvey @ Home
differently.
Don't squash everyone into the same box - we don't fit that way.
Using your movie analogy - sometimes you come upon a movie in which it
is already playing - you may see the end first - like recording a movie
while you are out. You watch the movie as you're coming home - ie. catch
the last bit of it - an interesting movie is still an interesting movie,
not like a ball game or football game - in which the final score matters.
As to loving someone you can't have - who doesn't love you.
Well, a relationship is based upon a mutual love - but as you know,
few marriages and relationships last long.
Whether you like it or not - you have to admit that love is always
voluntary - and the other person can desert and leave a relationship
anytime they want to - so too, can you.
Just like with good friends - a parting is inevitable in most cases.
But love is what we are here for - nonetheless.
Why we are here at all - in whatever frame of reference you understand life?
For love.
Harvey
In article <3e2e693f...@news.mweb.co.za>, as...@1234.co.za says...
Michaela
> > - Michaela
There is nothing mature about laying one's insecurities
on one's partner. Better to recognise them as insecurities
and try to be objective and fair and work on them.
A for instance: if i want to see my partner more than he
wants to see me, is it fair for me to nag/cajole/threaten/
force him?
I think not. The pleasure will soon turn to pressure. People
do not react well to pressure. People prefer doing something
because THEY want to do it.
No. A mature approach would be to give him the freedom to
choose when he wants to see me DESPITE my neediness.
It is important to not lose sight of one's own life and
goals. If I can't respect his need for space - well, I
probably don't have a life of my own. Is that mature of
me?
Or is it better to merge yourself totally with your partner?
As long as we have egos, we will fall in "love" in this way.
But is it love?
- Michaela
Eleonore Beaudoin
Exactly, eh.
>
> A for instance: if i want to see my partner more than he
> wants to see me, is it fair for me to nag/cajole/threaten/
> force him?
Nope, but you talk of ways to make it be so...Of ways to make him "loive
you", calculating on not always being available or eadily so or this or
that, that it be oen thing or the other...That kind of ways just nrings
oen to think "I did this *therefore* he "loves" me. First, as you say
below, it ainlt love. Second, if he ""loves"" for what the other does,
then he does not love the other, but what the other does only.
This entirire way of havign and doing..."having" a partner...
Having a car, having this and that....
Is not loveabout being? We say we ARE in love, not we have in
love...Though soem woudl be closer to threir truth woudl they word it in
the "have" form;-)
And if one is about "being" and not having, then they are happy to be,
alone or with anther, and woudl they be with another, woudl not be out of
needing to "have". The "have" part rings like dependancy...
And to "have" him stay cause you donlt show him the end of the movie,
well, that is like the carrot and dunkey thing to me....
And I don't wanna marry a dunkey:), nor date oen:):).
Even if granny woudl write an encyclopedia about the 200 ways to hold a
carrot and "have" them turn left, right, stop, go, trot, run, etc;-).
> > I think not. The
pleasure will soon turn to pressure.
Exactly.
To me, this calculative way of "I better not this and that and instead do
this and that" is all about pressure on one;s self, and pressure on
the other.
People > do not react well to
pressure.
Voila.
Now if poeple coudl realize what they
do" that brigns pressure on other,s they'd maybe readily cut it out, for
soem at elast. Others woudl not cause they woudl feel insecure and all
without doing this to see if he does that, wehre if he does, he loves
her, if he does not, he loves her not. Like playing that daisy gane
till no petals are left....
Riping each other of their real essence in the process and killign that
very thing that made love be in the forst place -in the cases where it was.
People prefer doing something > because THEY want
to do it. >
Might come as a shock, but there are other lnes and ways of life than
doing and having....
And no, being is not vegetating. It is very ACTIVE, not passive a thing.
> No. A mature approach would be to give him the freedom to
> choose when he wants to see me DESPITE my neediness.
Mature woudl be to not even have to give it, cause you;d not make him feel
trapped to start with, yes;-).
Just today once more I heard that "What you love set it free: if it loves
you it will come back".
WEach time my ears roing when I hear that one and I froiwn: if you love
him...Howcome you;d need to free him? Was he trapped in the first place?
What you love, want it happy.
That it is with or without you.
Period.
>
> It is important to not lose sight of one's own life and
> goals.
Yes, love yourself foirst. As I said, loving is forst wanting to be happy
our own self, then after that being able to wish others happy too. Never
at the expense of the self, sure., But it is all in a Being way, not in a
having way. A having way depends on if the other is there to have, instead
of on if he just is, that he is there or not:).
If I can't respect his need for space - well, I
> probably don't have a life of my own. Is that mature of
> me?
Nope, that woudl be dependant.
And to then do things to have him closer? That si dependant too and
...controlling.
Bugger is t exactly wait and find soemoen that HAPPENS to be happy, when
you too are able to want to be happy on your won, and where both's way of
wantign to be happy remain and happen to fit the other's way, not
jeopardize it nor make pressure in any way. Very rare. When Is ee poeple
marrying everyday, I sigh. Gawd, what is it for them? Being able to say
they HAVE a white dres,s they have a partner, they haeve normal>? No one
has normal. Heck, it's a hard thing even BEING normal, forget havign it LOL:)
Pfft:) Just beign silly here:)
> Or is it better to merge yourself totally with your partner?
Erm I don't "have" a partner. Therefore I guess you meant yourself by the
use of "you" here?
Even that question. Is it better if I do this or if I do that?
N/A.
It is not about doing...
Sure, daily chores and tasks and responsibilities anbd all that coem
along, and that needs done, But that si not what LOVE is. We do it when
alone too, eh.
Love, for its adult or romantic or erotic side (many kinds of love) is about
Being and Being well two together.
And thatc an only be if both *are* and care about being, and about being
happy, not making the other one *have* happy, but know how to will to be
it each themself and how to wish the other so as well, not stading in the
way of their happiness, just happenign to wish them happy and fittign each
other in that.
>
> As long as we have egos, we will fall in "love" in this way.
Is that anothyer Truth...?
Nope it is not:)
Falling in love says it: that si STATIC and passive.
Hit a wall and you fall out of love too;-)
Lovign is NOT falling in love.
Loving is very active, being is very active.
Falling is totally passive.
Snd the rpessure soem put on pothers to keep them falling for 30 some
years is just near cruelty, in the end....
>
> But is it love?
Love is wanting the other to be happy with or without you. Love is never
havign to let him go to see if he loves you, cause lovign never traps to
start with. It doe snot want to have, it wasnts to be (happy) and wants
the other to be (happy) too.
If one's happiness depends on havign anther, then it is not love. It is
possessiveness.
It is thrill, not a feeling.
A sensation or emotion, not a feeling.
And it is superficial, not truely intimate then and not love.
This being said, I think you do love your hubby.
You don't have anythign you need do for that to be:).
When eh forst saw you and you had not done this and that yet, and he was
attracted to you, how do you explain that one?
It;s like them pressures some women put on themself. "I'll make him the
same supper as we had that day when we...".
They will work madly to make it fit in a day wehre it did not happen to fit.
And for all the hard work they did, *he better smile and better say "POh,
the same supper as we had when we..." and be all romantic!!
If he comes home and he just wants to nap? he is dead meat:):)
Now that I amde that all clear, let's get you all confusedl;)
All in all the difference is not in what one DOES.
Not at all.
It IS in the attitude, and in adult love, that attitude can be two so
easily, we can slip from oeninto the other faster than we can blink.
Two can do the same things at the limit. But maybe oen does it beacuse
they love...They other because they want to be loved.
In that little difference is the big difference bvetween love and dependancy.
And between pressures and break up, heavy days or light mellow days...
Chloe
\ > > - Michaela
--
That Guy Again
That's a tough one. It could be simple masochism, or it could be an
"opposite" that we feel attracted to because that person seems so
different and exotic. Sadly, the attraction which opposites can have
for each other, tends to be painfully short-lived... this is why DIY
relationship books advise us to fall in love with ***someone who has
the most traits in common with us!!!!!*** It certainly makes common
sense to me... now that I think about it, I'm much, much more
attracted to a woman who's more of a female version of myself, than I
am to some fascinatingly exotic diva.
Guy
Michaela
Please tell me exactly what you are trying to say.
This is not very clear.
- Michaela
bc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Eleonore Beaudoin) wrote in message news:<b0pqif$qc1$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
Michaela
I get the impression in most cases where people attack opinions
and ideas using the tried and tested responses, that they don't
really make any attempt to think about what that person is saying.
I know so many people who are adamant that they "don't play games"
and who say they wish their bf/gf's/colleagues/acquaintances/
friends/family members/etc. wouldn't try to play them - all because
their conditioning has taught them that game-playing implies devious,
sly and manipulative tactics.
But then I watch them and see that they are masters at their
own little games... Iow, they don't play OTHER PEOPLE'S GAMES,
just THEIR OWN. You play them too, Chloe.
Games are a vital tool of survival in this world of ours.
I stopped dropping my jaw at people's hypocrisy (denial?) a long
time ago.
Try to really consider what I am saying - and don't reactively
respond to my words. Try to think of examples where it could work.
Some are so keen to shoot something that challenges their status
quo down - which contradicts the reasons for them being in these
newsgroups in the first place!
You, Chloe, have only tried to prove me wrong and have not
entertained the idea that while my ideas are not The Official
Word they do have some valence.
In these interactive groups the concept is to learn from others
and to expand personal horizons. In order to do this people
participating need to be more receptive and willing to experiment
with theories rather than churn out automatic responses based
on conditioning and traditional folklore. All good and well
these traditions, but where do you think new concepts and theories
are developed?
- Michaela
arie
<3271bf15.0301...@posting.google.com>...
>
>I know so many people who are adamant that they "don't play games"
The moment they say that, i start wondering why they would say something
like that.
>Games are a vital tool of survival in this world of ours.
Where's the line between games and life itself? In games, you can cheat and
get away with it. Can we cheat life? I think we can, but only temporarily:
in the end we only cheat ourselves. The problem with life is, there are no
written rules. Some people say the bible or the koran or the thora is the
only true set of absolute rules. I don't think so. I think we have to find
out ourselves, which are the rules we want to live by. I do believe there
are universal rules, but i don't think we can explicitly and rationally
determine them. We can only approach them. So, it's impossible not to cheat,
as long as we don't know the rules. That's life.
Arie
Newsgroup Poster
>
>
> Does this help any?
>
> - Michaela
Yes, to risk minimizing its profundity I would summarize it as the ol'
"playing hard to get" kinda attitude (without quite meaning to
either).
Certainly the challenge of being with my ex is what had, in great
part, fueled my own redoubtable (and I do think I'm being modest!)
efforts...I was the engine of the relationship, she was just a
passenger along for the ride.
Certainly it appealed to my sense of masculine vanity to exert myself
ever more in order to proof to her that I really loved her and cared
for her. I guess I was playing the role of The Great Lover. She gave
me a standing ovation for it -- but that was years ago.
"Challenge" is certainly an interesting concept...one of the hardest
things to learn in life is that some of the best things truly are
free.
Eleonore Beaudoin
> Certainly the challenge of being with my ex is what had, in great
> part, fueled my own redoubtable (and I do think I'm being modest!)
> efforts...I was the engine of the relationship, she was just a
> passenger along for the ride.
>
> Certainly it appealed to my sense of masculine vanity to exert myself
> ever more in order to proof to her that I really loved her and cared
> for her. I guess I was playing the role of The Great Lover. She gave
> me a standing ovation for it -- but that was years ago.
>
> "Challenge" is certainly an interesting concept...one of the hardest
> things to learn in life is that some of the best things truly are
> free.
Tadah!:)
Well put.
Chloe
--
Michaela
> (Michaela) wrote
> >
> >
> > Does this help any?
> >
> > - Michaela
>
>
> Yes, to risk minimizing its profundity I would summarize it as the ol'
> "playing hard to get" kinda attitude (without quite meaning to
> either).
In this instance yes, that's all it means. But there's so very much
more to being a challenge than this example suggests.
Being a challenge in a ltr might mean being able to stand up
to/challenge your partner when he/she unfairly takes his/her
irritations out on you.
Or not giving in when you really believe your needs are more
important than his. (I have assumed that the "you" in this
sentence is able to be objective and fair.)
[Badly written paragraph up ahead. I am a bit pressed for time but
wanted to reply anyway.]
In short, if I challenge my partner, he will willingly make an
effort to please me because it's in his best interests to do so.
If I don't challenge my partner, it will take more to motivate
him to please me (because he becomes complacent and takes me for
granted). If I don't challenge him and he still makes an effort
to please me, then that is truly loving behaviour.
> Certainly the challenge of being with my ex is what had, in great
> part, fueled my own redoubtable (and I do think I'm being modest!)
> efforts...I was the engine of the relationship, she was just a
> passenger along for the ride.
So despite being the engine and doing all the work you actually got
more out of it than she did?
Or did you challenge her in some ways too? Surely you challenged her
on an intellectual level? You appear to be very intelligent.
From what I can make out, this wasn't a short relationship. So something
must have kept her around...
> Certainly it appealed to my sense of masculine vanity to exert myself
> ever more in order to proof to her that I really loved her and cared
> for her. I guess I was playing the role of The Great Lover. She gave
> me a standing ovation for it -- but that was years ago.
So she did appreciate you on certain levels?
> "Challenge" is certainly an interesting concept...one of the hardest
> things to learn in life is that some of the best things truly are
> free.
I'm not 100% certain, but I think I understand what you are driving at
here. If I do, I think it makes sense too.
Newsgroup Poster, but I am hoping you are going to stick around, you've
made some interesting, dare I say, insightful comments. Again, I'm
somewhat short of time, so I hope this post isn't too confusing.
- Michaela
Michaela
> Michaela wrote
> >
> >I know so many people who are adamant that they "don't play games"
>
>
> The moment they say that, i start wondering why they would say something
> like that.
>
> >Games are a vital tool of survival in this world of ours.
>
> Where's the line between games and life itself? In games, you can cheat and
> get away with it. Can we cheat life? I think we can, but only temporarily:
Can you elaborate here? Example perhaps?
> in the end we only cheat ourselves. The problem with life is, there are no
> written rules.
But there is something called "society*.
Some people say the bible or the koran or the thora is the
> only true set of absolute rules. I don't think so. I think we have to find
> out ourselves, which are the rules we want to live by.
I am getting a glimpse of that thinking too.
I do believe there
> are universal rules, but i don't think we can explicitly and rationally
> determine them. We can only approach them. So, it's impossible not to cheat,
> as long as we don't know the rules. That's life.
Arrgghh! I'm confused now. More?
> Arie
I just stumbled on this post which I didn't see til now.
Something you said made me think of the following game...
One of the most frequently played games is the one where people
try to "fit in" because they know that people don't like
people to be too different from themselves because then they
are "difficult" or something.
By the time I discovered this game I was too old to learn to
play it. Otoh, I might have heard about it but didn't give it
much thought as I valued my individuality too much to give in
just to become popular. It's a trade-off.
Is it wrong to play this "fit-in" game?
+
There is this lady who cleans offices.
Every day, the girls in that office get her to go to the local
shopping centre for them. They send her all over the shopping
centre for all sorts of things. She comes back laden with heavy
parcels. It doesn't matter how hot it is, she puts up with it.
The shops aren't that close by either.
I rightly or wrongly (is it right to let someone know that you
think that the are being taken advantage of if they don't have
the self esteem to know that thing for themselves?) asked her
often why she put up with it. She would always say: "I don't
mind." Actually, she would say "Dit pla my nie", but you're
the only one who would understand that.
The girls didn't care that they were taking advantage of her
and they hardly ever gave her anything for her troubles.
Okay, so who is wrong here? The lady who was being taken
advantage of or the girls?
Is it just that no one is to blame? Is everyone just doing the
best they can with what they know?
- Michaela
arie
<3271bf15.03020...@posting.google.com>...
>"arie" wrote
>> Michaela wrote
>> >
>> >I know so many people who are adamant that they "don't play games"
>>
>>
>> The moment they say that, i start wondering why they would say something
>> like that.
>>
>> >Games are a vital tool of survival in this world of ours.
>>
>> Where's the line between games and life itself? In games, you can cheat
and
>> get away with it. Can we cheat life? I think we can, but only
temporarily:
>
>Can you elaborate here? Example perhaps?
Well i think that if you play unfair in life, it will get back at you
eventually. It's an old saying, and it sounds reasonable and fair, so i'm
inclined to believe it. What goes around, comes around, stuff like that.
Behave irresponsably, and you will be faced with the consequences.
I know it's not entirely rational. It's just a way to cope with life. The
rational part is, that it _works_ for me. I've become more and more
pragmatic, and just try things out. If something works, i'll keep it, if it
doesn't work, i'll throw it out. And believing that life is fair is just one
of those things that seems to work.
Many times it's not clear how cause and effect are related, for instance if
somebody gets an incurable disease or something, or if people get killed by
terrorist attacks. We _know_ that we don't see the totality of reality, we
see only part of it. That's something rationally defendable. Often it seems
like life is irrational and unfair. But just as often we _can_ see cause and
effect. So although it's impossible to rationally prove it, if we're really
all part of the same reality, then it kind of makes sense to assume that
life is fair.
>> in the end we only cheat ourselves. The problem with life is, there are
no
>> written rules.
>
>But there is something called "society*.
Yea. That complicates it a little bit. Because society doesn't necessarily
have to be fair. The 'rules' of society have always proven to be false,
temporary, and stupid. In any period, if you look at society 10 years ago,
or 100 years ago, things were "stupid" back then. It's a given, society is
stupid. So no matter what society says, i prefer to think for myself.
> Some people say the bible or the koran or the thora is the
>> only true set of absolute rules. I don't think so. I think we have to
find
>> out ourselves, which are the rules we want to live by.
>
>I am getting a glimpse of that thinking too.
:-)
> I do believe there
>> are universal rules, but i don't think we can explicitly and rationally
>> determine them. We can only approach them. So, it's impossible not to
cheat,
>> as long as we don't know the rules. That's life.
>
>Arrgghh! I'm confused now. More?
In other words, we need to learn from experience, not from indirect
knowledge, like books or talking to others. Books and talking to others can
give you hints in which direction to look, but in the end you have to decide
yourself what's true and what's not. It's impossible to put life experience
to words exactly, so we never have an exact image of reality, or of
ourselves. The only thing that is absolute, is our being.
Knowledge and logic are dualistic (high/low, warm/cold, good/bad,
true/false, cause/effect, ...), while reality is basically just _one_ thing.
You can't consistently describe reality in dualistic terms. Reality is
beyond logic. Sounds logical, doesn't it.
>> Arie
>
>I just stumbled on this post which I didn't see til now.
>Something you said made me think of the following game...
>
>One of the most frequently played games is the one where people
>try to "fit in" because they know that people don't like
>people to be too different from themselves because then they
>are "difficult" or something.
>
>By the time I discovered this game I was too old to learn to
>play it. Otoh, I might have heard about it but didn't give it
>much thought as I valued my individuality too much to give in
>just to become popular. It's a trade-off.
>
>Is it wrong to play this "fit-in" game?
Depends. If it goes against your feelings, and you still try it, then it's
probably wrong for you. If it feels good and it makes you happy, then it's
right. "Right" and "wrong" are never absolute, if you catch my drift.. Just
extremes on the same scale.
>+
>There is this lady who cleans offices.
>Every day, the girls in that office get her to go to the local
>shopping centre for them. They send her all over the shopping
>centre for all sorts of things. She comes back laden with heavy
>parcels. It doesn't matter how hot it is, she puts up with it.
>The shops aren't that close by either.
>
>I rightly or wrongly (is it right to let someone know that you
>think that the are being taken advantage of if they don't have
>the self esteem to know that thing for themselves?) asked her
>often why she put up with it. She would always say: "I don't
>mind." Actually, she would say "Dit pla my nie", but you're
>the only one who would understand that.
>
>The girls didn't care that they were taking advantage of her
>and they hardly ever gave her anything for her troubles.
>
>Okay, so who is wrong here? The lady who was being taken
>advantage of or the girls?
>
There's injustice going on in this world, on a far bigger scale than your
example. I've been having great difficulties accepting that. Still am, by
the way. I'm now trying to accept the situation as it is, trying to take
responsibility only for myself, not for the rest of the world. People hurt
each other, and you can't really do much about that. All you can do is try
to understand why it happens, and if people ask for it, help them understand
it too.
Whenever i'm bothered by some kind of injustice, i try to identify with both
parties: the victim and the 'aggressor'. In both cases, they have
feelings/attitudes which they are unaware of. The victim may for example
have too low self-esteem, the 'aggressor' probably suffers from a similar
but opposite condition. Many people with low self-esteem tend to identify
with the victim. I've done that too. But there's always two sides. The
'aggressor' feels exactly as bad as the victim, only he/she won't show it.
He/she may not even be aware of the fact he/she feels bad.
>Is it just that no one is to blame? Is everyone just doing the
>best they can with what they know?
No, not everybody is doing the best they can. I can safely say that because
i know i'm not. But i do my best to improve. So i can understand people who
do stupid things, because i do stupid things myself. Just some people do
more stupid things than others. But eventually, as i said before, i think
the universe is essentially fair, so that if you do something stupid, you
will suffer, but you always get another chance, and if you keep doing stupid
things, you keep suffering, and keep getting another chance, until you learn
not to do stupid things anymore. I think it works like that, sort of.
Arie
Michaela
> Michaela wrote
> >
> >I know so many people who are adamant that they "don't play games"
>
> The moment they say that, i start wondering why they would say something
> like that.
Please elaborate. I sometimes think that people aren't
aware they are playing games - maybe it's a 'hidden'
(or they cloak them in more acceptable terms to 'justify'
their use???) motivation that drives them to these games
in the first place. Is it possible that their defense
mechanisms are preventing them from seeing stuff clearly?
Or what?
Help me to understand, because playing games is what we 'all'
do.
- Michaela
arie
<3271bf15.03021...@posting.google.com>...
>"arie" wrote
>> Michaela wrote
>> >
>> >I know so many people who are adamant that they "don't play games"
>>
>> The moment they say that, i start wondering why they would say something
>> like that.
>
>Please elaborate. I sometimes think that people aren't
>aware they are playing games
Yep, i've discovered that too. They may be aware that their motives aren't
pure, but they don't want to see it or admit it.
>- maybe it's a 'hidden'
>(or they cloak them in more acceptable terms to 'justify'
>their use???) motivation that drives them to these games
>in the first place. Is it possible that their defense
>mechanisms are preventing them from seeing stuff clearly?
Yes, absolutely.
>Or what?
Well, you said it quite clearly. Example: when two people get to know each
other, one of them may become afraid to lose the other one, and change
his/her behaviour to make sure the other one will not bail out. In other
words they will start manipulating. This person may have "good" motives,
genuinely like the other person, but still be afraid to lose him/her. The
fear makes them do stuff that's not quite genuine, dramatized, too fluffy,
based on projection, ... not because that person is bad, but because he/she
is afraid. In the extreme case the fear takes control, love transforms to
hate. The warm feelings that were originally there, become so much of a
threat, they have to be actively denied and eliminated. I've experienced
this, both on the giving and on the receiving end.
>Help me to understand, because playing games is what we 'all'
>do.
You're well underway, as far as i can tell.:-)
Arie
>- Michaela
hoani
absolutely michaela, the ego kids itself. we must entertain it.
certain realisations do not compute. there are many things that
cannot be regretted/remembered/faced up to.
we love because we are born to breed, but i think some people
prefer/aspire to an innocent kind of love, as others just dont seem
real or worth anything. honesty, purity and all that palava that
deludes us. some people just like seeing the effect they can have on
others, through joy and/or pain. well, everyone does, but most prefer
the less destructive emotions. and some like peace, some like action.
depends what you were born and grew up with. its often a matter of
how much of yourself you give away by your character. and how much
your games you like/have to play hurt others.
but im starting to worry that self-hatred turns itself outward, and i
dont feel such an angel so often anymore. anger overflows. perhaps i
will turn into one of these people i used to perceive as aliens?
well, i could only pretend to have their confidence.
my (the?) last g-friend fell asleep in my arms one night, and wandered
naked into my friends room next door. the base obvious happened, and
at stupidly attempting to be patient, and in an effort to try and
understand/like/love people this different from me, i kept relations
with both. i hadnt been seeing her long, but id known teh guy for
years. it was interesting (hmmm, was i playing a game?) but i dont
think i learnt much from either of them, except i didnt really like
them as much as i'd thought. but she (and he) just 'did' things,
everything, and they didnt seem to need to explain it to themselves:
life is momentum, the past is buried. i did get the impression she
was a running deer, an arrow embedded bloodily in its side, running
too startled to realise its wound. but that would be my ego defending
itself.
hoani
michaelamack...@yahoo.com (Michaela) wrote in message news:<3271bf15.03021...@posting.google.com>...