"Do you feel love is real?"

[Carly]

I was listening to the Smashing Pumpkins' songs today and one of the lyrics was "Do you feel love is real?"
I was just wondering what your views on love were because I know people think of love in different ways.
...plus its Valentine's Day soon

[chroot]

Love is absolutely real. Every time I have entered in a relationship deeper and more successful than my last, I have "rediscovered" love to be more than I had previously suspected.

What I have so far discerned is that you cannot love two people in the quite the same way -- the word "love" really gets redefined again and again with each new relationship. If anything, that's evidence of love's reality to me.

- Warren

[franznietzsche]

Its a matter of definition really. Is love what hallmark would like you to believe? No, thats a load of bull. Is love in the "romantic" sense real? No.

Its a set of chemical states in the brain. Nothing more. A hormonal reaction to certain stimulus. Thats all.

[chroot]

The taste of my favorite ice cream is also just a chemical state in my brain, but that doesn't diminish my appreciation of it.

Besides, Carly asked if we felt that love is real. If "love" can be identified with a discernable chemical state in the brain, then it's most certainly as real as that discernable chemical state.

- Warren

[Joel]

Oh, what a question! Of course it is! Regardless of what is causing it, there is absolutely no question about the overwhelming empirical evidence of its causes, whatever "it" actually is.

[JasonRox]

Real or not, love is great when you take it to the bedroom.

Note: Keyboards at school suck ass.

[Joel]

Real or not, love is great when you take it to the bedroom.


What's wrong with other places? :confused: :wink:

[Evo]

Love is absolutely real. Every time I have entered in a relationship deeper and more successful than my last, I have "rediscovered" love to be more than I had previously suspected.

What I have so far discerned is that you cannot love two people in the quite the same way -- the word "love" really gets redefined again and again with each new relationship. If anything, that's evidence of love's reality to me.

- WarrenWhat a romantic. :approve:

[Bladibla]

I personally dont think love is real. All it does is make people too emotional..

[Carly]

Love is absolutely real. Every time I have entered in a relationship deeper and more successful than my last, I have "rediscovered" love to be more than I had previously suspected.

What I have so far discerned is that you cannot love two people in the quite the same way -- the word "love" really gets redefined again and again with each new relationship. If anything, that's evidence of love's reality to me.

- Warren

Am really glad you think that.
Of course, there's always doubts after break-ups but thats usual.

[Moonbear]

I personally dont think love is real. All it does is make people too emotional..

If it isn't real, how does it make people so emotional?

But it can be a bit like trying to catch a glimpse of an endangered species. Elusive, rare, hiding in unexpected places, but when you finally find it, it's beautiful.

[loseyourname]

OT: You can catch glimpses of endangered species at www.arkive.org. Glimpsing them in the wild, of course, is a horse of another color.

[etc]

love lasts 5 minutes. after that it's time for a cigar.

[franznietzsche]

love lasts 5 minutes. after that it's time for a cigar.


Sounds like you've got a problem with being premature.

As i said, "love" in the romantic sense does not exist. Don't selectively wuote me and argue against that. Sure, there is a chemical state in the brain called "love", but that is not love in the "romantic" sense.

[Ivan Seeking]

Lust is chemistry.
Love is giving up your favorite Hooters shirt.

[Moonbear]

Lust is chemistry.
Love is giving up your favorite Hooters shirt.

One's interpretation of that statement depends on who is wearing the shirt when asked to get rid of it. :wink:

[Ivan Seeking]

One's interpretation of that statement depends on who is wearing the shirt when asked to get rid of it. :wink:

Should we consider this an admission? :rofl:

[Moonbear]

Should we consider this an admission? :rofl:

I admit to nothing. o:)

[franznietzsche]

I admit to nothing. o:)

When you're drunk you sure do.

[Ivan Seeking]

Does this ultimately explain the Moon part of Moonbear? :eek:

[Moonbear]

Does this ultimately explain the Moon part of Moonbear? :eek:

Uhh, nope. Moon has nothing to do with ridding oneself of shirts. :rofl:

[Ivan Seeking]

Come on Moonbear, I know you can keep up. :biggrin:

[Moonbear]

Come on Moonbear, I know you can keep up. :biggrin:

o:) o:) Why, Ivan, I have no idea what you're talking about. *bats eyelashes and flips blonde hair* :rofl:

[hypnagogue]

franz, what do you mean by "love in the romantic sense"?

[franznietzsche]

franz, what do you mean by "love in the romantic sense"?


hallmark, valentine's day, gone with the wind, anything out of hollywod. Any ideal idea of it.

[Moonbear]

franz, what do you mean by "love in the romantic sense"?

I think that goes along with the line, "I love you, but I'm not in love with you." :rolleyes:

[franznietzsche]

I think that goes along with the line, "I love you, but I'm not in love with you." :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

*Adds to list of evidence that the idea of love is a load of bs*

[hypnagogue]

How do you mean that it doesn't exist? Some people certainly act that way... and some of those people do it out of a genuine emotion.

[franznietzsche]

How do you mean that it doesn't exist? Some people certainly act that way... and some of those people do it out of a genuine emotion.


Love is a hormonal condition to create an urge to breed. Thats all. That is what i mean.

[hypnagogue]

Love is a hormonal condition to create an urge to breed. Thats all. That is what i mean.

Well, even assuming you can identify the subjective emotion with brain activity (I don't believe that, but let's not get into it here), I don't see how that makes love 'not real.' Maybe you're trying to say it's not as it seems, but that's a completely different claim. In any case, even if natural selection has selected the emotion of love to promote breeding, that doesn't demean the emotion itself.

[Moonbear]

Well, even assuming you can identify the subjective emotion with brain activity (I don't believe that, but let's not get into it here), I don't see how that makes love 'not real.' Maybe you're trying to say it's not as it seems, but that's a completely different claim. In any case, even if natural selection has selected the emotion of love to promote breeding, that doesn't demean the emotion itself.

To add to that, if one is arguing it's entirely a biological process to promote breeding, isn't that even better support that it is real?

Though, I'd argue lust is the emotion involved in promoting breeding. Love is possibly more akin to affiliative pair-bonding behavior that promotes paternal care of offspring (if you want to consider it on biological terms only).

[Astronuc]

Two other threads on the topic of Love.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=47520&page=1

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=60756


Love certainly has been used euphemistically for lust and desire, which are not love, but expression of selfishness.

How about a simple definition of love - a strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties. (I would emphasize 'affection' in contrast to 'attraction'.)

I love my parents, my wife, my children, my siblings and their families, my friends, my cats and dog, and others who are not really as close as friends. All those forms of love are however very different. All involve some degree of affection, but beyond that there is also a sense of commitment.

And I personally take Love a step further. Love is not just affection, but love involves and abiding care, concern, consideration and respect for the other(s) involved in the relationship(s), and to some degree, reciprocity and mutuality.

The latter term is particularly important in terms of equal parties in a relationship, e.g. wife and husband. A wife and husband should be mutual companions and soulmates, in a reciprocal and supportive relationship. Marriage is an interdepedent relationship, and not one of dependence. Both husband and wife can have individual as well as mutual interests and balance can be achieved.

Marriage is particularly important in the context of having children - with both parents sharing responsibility for raising and nuturing the children. And from this, children learn to be caring, considerate, thoughtful, respectful, i.e. loving persons.

Finally, LOVE is hard work, but it is also, a most profound, spiritual and rewarding experience.

[Carly]

Finally, LOVE is hard work, but it is also, a most profound, spiritual and rewarding experience.

Too true.

And to those who don't think love exists then what would you call the emotion you feel for the person you care about most?

[franznietzsche]

Too true.

And to those who don't think love exists then what would you call the emotion you feel for the person you care about most?

An illusion, and a lie.

I'm tired of arguing against people who refuse to stick to a single definition of love in arguement. I didn' say love didn't exist, i said it was nothing more than a chemical state in the brain nothing important or particularly special. No more special than my desire to eat, or th input my brain recieves from my eyes.

[Carly]

To quote Henry now,
"Unless you're a nihilist, you're affected by these chemical emotions every day in your life and therefore make the most of them and enjoy the ride as all brain activity is chemical or electronic in the end. Sometimes it's best to keep yourself inside the box or you'll end up like philip larkin."

[Astronuc]

FN, for that matter, every thought and feeling is the result of a chemical reaction in the brain. One could argue, all life is nothing more than a collection of chemical reactions. Limiting existence to that seems rather cynical (ah - another chemical state in the brain).

Life and Love are much more. :smile: :cool:

If you or anyone needs some, I've got extra. :biggrin:

[franznietzsche]

Limiting existence to that seems rather cynical (ah - another chemical state in the brain).

Find someone more cynical than me, you'd be hard pressed.



Life and Love are much more. :smile: :cool:

And that is where we disagree.

[Joel]

How about neurochemist? Scientists live and love their work and some neurochemists work with brain chemistry. So, no need to disagree, as neurochemists you can both have your way. :approve: My logic is undeniable.

I'll get my jacket... :redface:

[Astronuc]

OK Franz - look at this - http://boswell.web.aplus.net/mordor-vi.gif (animated) :biggrin:

[Qyamat]

You bet it is.And it is becoming the national game of the world.

[franznietzsche]

OK Franz - look at this - http://boswell.web.aplus.net/mordor-vi.gif (animated) :biggrin:

I had already seen that. The relevance?

[hypnagogue]

I didn' say love didn't exist, i said it was nothing more than a chemical state in the brain nothing important or particularly special. No more special than my desire to eat, or th input my brain recieves from my eyes.

If that's true, then there's nothing particularly special about any subjective experience above and beyond any others. So why do you even bother spending your time on PF? Whatever enjoyment you might get out of it is an illusion, and a lie. :yuck:

edit: whoops, didn't mean to imply you should stop coming here, so don't take it that way. All I'm trying to say is that different experiences are relatively more or less valuable to the individual, based on how they make the individual feel. Claiming that they are 'nothing more' than chemical reactions does nothing to change that observation.

[Carly]

If that's true, then there's nothing particularly special about any subjective experience above and beyond any others.

Exactly what I was trying to say :smile: Am glad there are people who aren't negative about love :rofl:

[franznietzsche]

If that's true, then there's nothing particularly special about any subjective experience above and beyond any others. So why do you even bother spending your time on PF? Whatever enjoyment you might get out of it is an illusion, and a lie. :yuck:

edit: whoops, didn't mean to imply you should stop coming here, so don't take it that way. All I'm trying to say is that different experiences are relatively more or less valuable to the individual, based on how they make the individual feel. Claiming that they are 'nothing more' than chemical reactions does nothing to change that observation.


Yeah, that enjoyment is an illusion, this negates what i say how?

I have no problem with these conclusions, do you?

[Ivan Seeking]

franznietzsche, how do you distinguish love from lust?

[franznietzsche]

franznietzsche, how do you distinguish love from lust?


My point is that there really is no distinction.

[the number 42]

I haven't read the rest of this thread, so sorry for any duplication. But for those of you in any doubt that love is real, check this out:
http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/feb/10heart.htm

[hypnagogue]

Yeah, that enjoyment is an illusion, this negates what i say how?

I have no problem with these conclusions, do you?

Perhaps I was reading too much into what you were saying, but your insistence that love is an illusion seems to indicate that you think it's not worth experiencing. If that's not what you meant, then I'm puzzled as to why you keep insisting on this point. It's sort of like wandering into a physics discussion and saying, "When Einstein formulated general relatvitiy, all that was happening was certain chemical reactions were causing him to stain pieces of paper with ink in a systematic way." That might be true, but it doesn't seem particularly relevant to discussing Einstein or general relativity.

My point is that there really is no distinction [between love and lust].

There certainly is a distinction. Love and lust feel qualitatively different to the experiencer, and they typically are associated with drastically different behaviors. I haven't seen any evidence for this, but they very likely show up as distinct blobs of color in an fMRI scan of the brain as well. There is overlap in some cases, certainly, but that doesn't disqualify any distinctions whatsoever. I don't mean to be obnoxious or pejorative in any way when I say this, but perhaps you can't find any relevant distinction between the two because you haven't personally experienced both emotions fully.

[franznietzsche]

I haven't read the rest of this thread, so sorry for any duplication. But for those of you in any doubt that love is real, check this out:
http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/feb/10heart.htm


And this is any different from going into shock from severe pain, another chemical condition in the brain?

Other triggers, said one report, 'included a surprise party, car accident, armed robbery, fierce argument, court appearance and fear of public speaking.'



Yup, definitely caused by "love".

Stress is stress, love is nothing special.

[Moonbear]

Hmm...I may need to get myself this book.
Affective Neuroscience** - The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions*by Jaak Panksepp. http://www.oup.com/ca/isbn/0-19-517805-X

From the description:
Some investigators have argued that emotions, especially animal emotions, are illusory concepts outside the realm of scientific inquiry. However, with advances in neurobiology and neuroscience, researchers are demonstrating that this position is wrong as they move closer to a lasting understanding of the biology and psychology of emotion. In Affective Neuroscience, Jaak Panksepp provides the most up-to-date information about the brain-operating systems that organize the fundamental emotional tendencies of all mammals.

[Carly]

.

Stress is stress, love is nothing special.

Love is special though. At least, it was special to me when I was experiancing it, and I'm sure to everyone else who's ever been in love and been loved in return.

[loseyourname]

There certainly is a distinction. Love and lust feel qualitatively different to the experiencer, and they typically are associated with drastically different behaviors. I haven't seen any evidence for this, but they very likely show up as distinct blobs of color in an fMRI scan of the brain as well.

I don't know about scans (or even if there is electrical activity associated with differential emotions in general) but there are definitely different neuropeptides associated with each feeling, as well as different hormonal responses in other parts of the body.

Edit: I should mention that there are also different chemicals associated with the feeling of "being in love" and with lasting monogamous committment. So if we're going to categorize emotions based on chemical associations, we should really distinguish between three categories, not two.

[franznietzsche]

Love is special though. At least, it was special to me when I was experiancing it, and I'm sure to everyone else who's ever been in love and been loved in return.


Except those who have been loved too many times.

That which is common, is also cheap.

[Integral]

My point is that there really is no distinction.
There is your problem.

Re read Astronuc's post. He is talking about love, Not lust. There is a huge difference. Relationships which mistake lust for love cannot last, because lust does not last.

Astronuc has given a pretty good definition of love, perhaps you need to study it. You may well realize that what you have experienced so far is lust and not love.

[franznietzsche]

You may well realize that what you have experienced so far is lust and not love.


Its not a question of what i experience. Using anecdotal evidence is horribly unscientific, i would think by now i should have established that that is the sort of thing i would not do, use my own anecdotal experience as evidence.

Its about what i can objectively observe around me.

[franznietzsche]

Perhaps I was reading too much into what you were saying, but your insistence that love is an illusion seems to indicate that you think it's not worth experiencing.


Close enough. More like it doesn't matter if you experience it, but whatever.


There certainly is a distinction. Love and lust feel qualitatively different to the experiencer, and they typically are associated with drastically different behaviors. I haven't seen any evidence for this, but they very likely show up as distinct blobs of color in an fMRI scan of the brain as well. There is overlap in some cases, certainly, but that doesn't disqualify any distinctions whatsoever. I don't mean to be obnoxious or pejorative in any way when I say this, but perhaps you can't find any relevant distinction between the two because you haven't personally experienced both emotions fully.

Oh there is a percieved difference sure. I'm speaking in terms of value. I'm not being very clear in what i'm saying, but my brain is rather frtizing out on me lately.

Sure they are experienced differently. By way of analogy, death by drowning feels different from death by suffocation, but either way its still death. Love and lust have a similar relationship--percieved differently, but ultimately still the same. One is no better than the other, one is not superior, or more divine or preferable, or whatever. In terms of value, there is no difference.

[loseyourname]

Love and lust have a similar relationship--percieved differently, but ultimately still the same. One is no better than the other, one is not superior, or more divine or preferable, or whatever. In terms of value, there is no difference.

That really depends on the species you are talking about. In k-selected species, particularly highly social species that spend a good deal of time learning from their parents, monogamy is of more value. In r-selected species, it is of virtually no value and lust is far preferable. Humans are a k-selected species and so monogamy (at least as long as your child is growing up) is advantageous.

[franznietzsche]

That really depends on the species you are talking about. In k-selected species, particularly highly social species that spend a good deal of time learning from their parents, monogamy is of more value. In r-selected species, it is of virtually no value and lust is far preferable. Humans are a k-selected species and so monogamy (at least as long as your child is growing up) is advantageous.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I'm done dealing with mixing definitions. Pick one and stick with it already.

For the last bloody time: Love in the "romantic" sense, big pink hearts, valentine's day, blah, blah, blah, is BS.

Pragmatic breeding strategies are a different context from the one under consideration. If you can't stick to a single definition in a discussion, i'm not going to waste my time trying to respond to you.

[Moonbear]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I'm done dealing with mixing definitions. Pick one and stick with it already.

For the last bloody time: Love in the "romantic" sense, big pink hearts, valentine's day, blah, blah, blah, is BS.

Everyone else seems pretty consistent in definitions. You're the only one who seems to be equating love with pink hearts and Valentine's day. Those have nothing to do with love. You don't have to be in love to give someone a pink heart or box of chocolate. Theoretically, you don't even need to like them.

Pragmatic breeding strategies are a different context from the one under consideration. If you can't stick to a single definition in a discussion, i'm not going to waste my time trying to respond to you.

They aren't. The question is about whether love exists. Your own argument is that it's all a neurobiological process, which neither loseyourname nor I refutes (and I don't think hypnagogue is refuting it either). What loseyourname and I are trying to convey, however, is that love and lust are not synonymous or different degrees of the same thing. They are two different emotions, most likely produced by neurobiological/neuroendocrine processes, which serve different functions for species survival. In the one case, you have lust, which can also be more dryly called motivation for sexual reproduction. This addresses the attraction between two people (or two of any species) that involves courtship and breeding. The only function to lust, or motivation for sexual reproduction, is for mating to occur. Once sexual satiety has been reached, it ends.

On the other hand, love is more of the process associated with long-term pair bonding. This is where loseyourname's example of K- vs R- strategy breeding comes into play. For species in which there is a long-term parental investment in raising offspring to maturity, such as humans, pair-bonding becomes important because having paternal assistance in raising off-spring increases the chances those offspring will survive. In such a case, lust isn't enough. The paternal investment doesn't end with mating. However, both males and females need to experience the processes involved with pair-bonding, otherwise the females will chase off the males, so it's not just a matter of the males needing to stick around but the willingness of the females to keep them around.

Now, in both situations, there is a selfish component. In the first case (lust), it's just to breed as quickly as possible to pass on genetic material to the next generation. In the second case (love), it's also advantageous to oneself to keep their mate around to help with the offspring, but this can be better accomplished by mutual affection.

There are different hormones involved in the two processes. In species in which there is little to no paternal investment in rearing of offspring, and pair-bonding does not occur, pretty much your basic sex steroids (estrogen, progesterone, testosterone) are all that's required to drive mating behavior (and a complex neurological system as well). In species that have a long-term paternal investement and pair bonding, oxytocin influences this affiliative behavior. Oxytocin during parturition is also important for females to form maternal bonds with their offspring, which is another affiliative behavior that humans describe as love.

Anyway, the original question is whether love is real, not whether love is special. You can observe behavior between two people who are in love that distinguishes them from those who are only in lust (this is not to say that two people who love each other can't also experience lust for each other, but the behaviors associated with each are different). For example, we can easily observe flirtation and sexual advances that are part of lust. When you witness two people who are also in love, you can observe things such as cohabitation when there is no sex happening, or "grooming" of one another. If you attempt to watch humans objectively, which is difficult being human, you will start to see differences between lustful and loving relationships. It has nothing to do with pink hearts. Actually, one of the signs I've noticed of loving relationships is that they stop worrying about things like pink hearts and Valentine's day. Those are displays of courtship for those who are in lust, and are no longer important for those secure in the bonds of love.

[Astronuc]

I had already seen that. The relevance?

Just testing your cerebral response.

For the last bloody time: Love in the "romantic" sense, big pink hearts, valentine's day, blah, blah, blah, is BS.Totally wrong there.

Forget for a minute the tangible and materialistic expressions of love, e.g. stuff like pink hearts, cards, chocolate and more ostentious gifts like jewelry, expensive perfumes, etc.

Romantic love between a man and woman, especially when they are husband and wife, is absolutely not BS. It is absolutely wonderful. :smile:

The best part is having a soulmate and best friend with whom one can share one's thoughts and feelings, joys and concerns, and even the saddness and sorrows that are inevitable in life. The latter part is really important. The romance can be expressed in many ways - such as warm and tender embraces, tender kissing and so on. Then there is sharing music, poetry, ideas. There are shared activities, walks, watching a sunset, reading the paper, watching TV, cooking, gardening, yard work, house work, dinner out, movies, theatre, plays, musicals, concerts, parties, etc.

For a husband and wife, there is the most profound experience of childbirth. I was with my wife both times when my daughter and son were born, and it's difficult to express the profound and immense emotions of watching one's wife give birth and watching a child emerge from the womb. It's something that one has to experience to understand. And the whole time, one experiences the most postive emotions (like how really beautiful one's wife without the makeup and prep, and lack of sleep) as well as apprehension. In many cases, the woman is literally putting her life at risk to do this. That is one of the most profound human experience.

And then there are the gut-wrenching experiences with illness and death. I spent almost a year watching my youngest brother lose a long drawn out battle with leukemia. He had just started a medical practice as an obstetrical surgeon, and he was losing everything, including a 3 year old son and a young wife. My brother fought as hard as he could to hold on as long as he could for his son. In the end, he died a very slow and painful death. I was with him just before he slipped into unconsciousness. He died 4 days later, 3 days after my birthday, and 4 days after my father's birthday. I loved my brother so much, I would have gladly given my life for him then (I was 8.5 years older).

My wife helped me through that. I and my siblings helped and supported my parents as they lost their youngest son. At the gravesight, just after the ashes were interred, I held my father (very much a stoic) in my arms as he cried - the first time I had seen him cry. Love is being there to support one another in times of tremendous grief.

With Love comes great Joy, and with that also comes great risk of immense pain when that Love is lost.

Franz - Love is real, and Romantic Love is not BS.

It would appear that you have not personally experienced the Love yet. Hopefully you will someday. :smile:

[The_Professional]

Love is blind. What did Prince Charles saw in his new bride? she looks like a man

[Astronuc]

From Wikipedia Camilla Parker Bowles (born July 17, 1947) was girlfriend, then mistress, and is now the fiancée of Charles, Prince of Wales. She and the Prince of Wales have announced that they will wed on April 8, 2005.

Being 58 she is either approaching or has experienced menopause. Certainly, they are not looking at having children.

He is marrying his sweetheart. I hope it works out for them.

Doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, does it?

It's between Charles and Camilla - and that's all that matters.

May they have a peaceful and happy winter together.

[franznietzsche]

Romantic love between a man and woman, especially when they are husband and wife, is absolutely not BS. It is absolutely wonderful. :smile:

My entire contention has been the opposite, and still is.


Franz - Love is real, and Romantic Love is not BS.

It would appear that you have not personally experienced the Love yet. Hopefully you will someday. :smile:


Perhaps you're right. I won't argue against my own inexperience. But hear this:

I've had three girlfriends that were at one point all ready to start planning a wedding date, one right after the other.

What did it take to get there? Nothing at all really. Let's face the facts: I'm abrasive, egotistical. I have a superiority complex that makes john nash appear humble. Quite simply i'm an arsehole. and yet, all of them "loved" me. Simply because i knew the right things to say at the right time. Because i knew what was attractive and what wasn't. All of them made a big deal about the distinction between "lust" and "love", but all of them "loved" me. Not because love was anything magical, just because i knew what to say when.

My conclusion? "Love" is cheap, and nothing special. It is as easily gotten as it is lost.

Could i be wrong? Sure. But from watching people around me, i know what i see.

[the number 42]

I'm not being very clear in what i'm saying, but my brain is rather frtizing out on me lately.

Oh I see. They say that's the first sign of falling in love :biggrin:

Again, apologies if someone mentioned this previous to page 3 of this thread, but Sternberg (1986) suggested that the various forms of love consist of combinations of 3 elements:
Passion: "the drives that lead to romance, physical attraction, sexual consummation, and related phenomena"
Intimacy: "feelings of closeness, connectedness, and bondedness"
Committment: "the decision that one loves someone else and ... the commitment to maintain that love"
http://psyche.tvu.ac.uk/phdrg/atkins/atws/document/280.html

Thus romantic love (flowers & chocolates) is the combination of passion & intimacy, but without any real committment. Passion doesn't get a category to itself, which I guess reflects Sternberg's view that this, by itself, isn't a form of love. However, the kind of love that involves real committment (as shown in marriages that survive life's problems) is called consumate love, and is the kind of love that people often think they are experiencing when they are really only experiencing romantic love. Franznietzsche, lust is a quickie without any illusions about how wonderful the other person is. Romantic love is a quickie with the person who is most perfect for you in the world. Consumate love is hoping the missus doesn't have another one of her headaches.

[Evo]

I've had three girlfriends that were at one point all ready to start planning a wedding date, one right after the other.

What did it take to get there? Nothing at all really. Let's face the facts: I'm abrasive, egotistical. I have a superiority complex that makes john nash appear humble. Quite simply i'm an arsehole. and yet, all of them "loved" me. Simply because i knew the right things to say at the right time. Because i knew what was attractive and what wasn't. All of them made a big deal about the distinction between "lust" and "love", but all of them "loved" me. Not because love was anything magical, just because i knew what to say when.

My conclusion? "Love" is cheap, and nothing special. It is as easily gotten as it is lost.

Could i be wrong? Sure. But from watching people around me, i know what i see.I can see why you are skeptical. Just because you feel you were false with them doesn't mean that what they felt wasn't real, it just means that they fell in love with something that wasn't real.

You won't find real love until you find a girl that you can be yourself with. Don't be afraid to be yourself. What do you want? Do you want girls attracted to something you're not or do you want someone that loves "you"? Being accepted with all of your flaws and quirks is what real love is about.

[The_Professional]

I've had three girlfriends that were at one point all ready to start planning a wedding date, one right after the other.

What did it take to get there? Nothing at all really. Let's face the facts: I'm abrasive, egotistical. I have a superiority complex that makes john nash appear humble. Quite simply i'm an arsehole. and yet, all of them "loved" me. Simply because i knew the right things to say at the right time. Because i knew what was attractive and what wasn't. All of them made a big deal about the distinction between "lust" and "love", but all of them "loved" me. Not because love was anything magical, just because i knew what to say when.

My conclusion? "Love" is cheap, and nothing special. It is as easily gotten as it is lost.

Could i be wrong? Sure. But from watching people around me, i know what i see.

Sounds like they broke up with you. Perhaps you're bitter due to past experiences..

Romantic love doesn't really last very long it eventually turns into companionate love. Less of lust and more of wanting and being attached in a long term with a partner.

I've read an article stating that there's also a decrease in dopamine and norepinephrine as it turns into companionate love. The two chemicals are usually high during the beginning stages of lust.

However, an increase in oxytocin was also observed in the stage of companionate love.

[the number 42]

I've read an article that there's also a decrease in dopamine and norepinephrine as it turns into companionate love. The two chemicals are usually high during the beginning stages of lust.

However, an increase in oxytocin was also observed in the stage of companionate love.

Not to mention the strong correlation between romantic love and levels of chocolates :rolleyes:

[The_Professional]

Not to mention the strong correlation between romantic love and levels of chocolates :rolleyes:

The chemical Phenylethylamine can be found in chocolate which is also secreted(?) in the brain when a person is in love. Which is most likely what gives that "great, loving feeling high".

[Ivan Seeking]

franznietzsche
Confidence is often found to be appealing. They were probably attracted for reasons that they don't understand. This happens to all of us esp when we're young.

This is exactly why it is so important to realize what is nature calling - lust, blind attraction, love at first sight [usually, IMO], dirty magazines and Hooters - and what is love - a heartfelt connection, a soulmate, a companion, as person who shares common desires and beliefs, a person that you love to spend time with, a person who becomes an integral part of your life that you don't want to live without, and so much more. These are the things that come from or define real love. If this hasn't happened for you then you haven't fallen in love yet; and that's okay. It doesn't happen very often. But I also agree with you in that many people marry for lust. I think its an easy trap for most of us to fall into when driven by hormones. this is why parents usually want their kids to grow up a little before they marry. They realize how much growing up we do in our late teens and early twenties. There are no guarantees but maturity helps. I nearly married the wrong girl when I was twenty. Some years later Tsu and I met and I was ready for a serious relationship, and not just playing house.

Of course, as soon as Tsu saw me she was a helpless, but I was a complete gentleman. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[franznietzsche]

I can see why you are skeptical. Just because you feel you were false with them doesn't mean that what they felt wasn't real, it just means that they fell in love with something that wasn't real.

That wasn't quite what i meant. I never lied to any one of them. I never acted as anything other than myself. That was the problem. I tend to be very machiavellian when i'm dealing with people in general, its almost instinctive, and not something i'm particularly proud of. Its never something i tried to do--i just did it. If something would go wrong, i would just start talking, and everything just comes out right, without even really trying to fast talk my way out of--or into anything.

I wasn't saying what they felt wasn't real, i'm saying that it was nothing special. When they were saying these things after as little as 3 weeks(well, one of them anyway), that would be a logical conlcusion.

As a side note, after those experiences, i tend to disclaim myself whenever i hear those words coming from women's mouths--i don't want them to feel that way about me when i don't feel that way about them, i don't want to hurt them--with those three i was very inexperienced, and still believed in romantic notions of love. I even thought i loved them.

You won't find real love until you find a girl that you can be yourself with. Don't be afraid to be yourself. What do you want? Do you want girls attracted to something you're not or do you want someone that loves "you"? Being accepted with all of your flaws and quirks is what real love is about.

I want an equal and a challenge.

What i want is a person who is fully my equal. A person who when my mind kicks into its machiavellian mode isn't even fazed, and walks right through every hoop with ease--a worthy opponent in the art of verbal fencing so to speak.

And i've never met one.

[franznietzsche]

Sounds like they broke up with you. Perhaps you're bitter due to past experiences..

That might make sense...if it was true. Well, actually one of them did. The other two didn't. Either way, don't see how thats applicable. Two of them i broke up with because i got bored being with them--i'm sorry to say, it sounds callous, but that is what it came down to.

[franznietzsche]

Of course, as soon as Tsu saw me she was a helpless, but I was a complete gentleman. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Yeah, sure :rolleyes:

[Moonbear]

I wasn't saying what they felt wasn't real, i'm saying that it was nothing special. When they were saying these things after as little as 3 weeks(well, one of them anyway), that would be a logical conlcusion.

After only 3 weeks, they were probably confusing lust with love. It happens often among the young, as Ivan has already noted. I don't believe in love at first sight, I do believe in lust at first sight. Love takes a little more time to develop. You're still young, so it's not at all surprising that you haven't found real love yet.

I want an equal and a challenge.

What i want is a person who is fully my equal. A person who when my mind kicks into its machiavellian mode isn't even fazed, and walks right through every hoop with ease--a worthy opponent in the art of verbal fencing so to speak.

I'm not so sure about the "challenge" part, but looking for someone you consider your equal is important. However, keep in mind that finding your equal may not mean finding someone exactly like yourself, but instead, someone who complements you. She may have strengths you lack and weaknesses which are your strengths. Try to keep your mind open to that possibility. That's all part of what dating is about, finding out about a person enough to decide if they are someone you are compatible with or not. There's nothing wrong with taking your time to find the right person. True love doesn't happen all that often. You'll know it's real when it's like nothing else you've ever felt before, and only gets better every day you're with the person who stirs that feeling in you.

[Chronos]

Complicated explanations. Why not just let it happen? If it does, that's wonderful. If it doesn't, move on. I'd rather be alone than apologize for why I'm not.

[the number 42]

I want an equal and a challenge.

What i want is a person who is fully my equal. A person who when my mind kicks into its machiavellian mode isn't even fazed, and walks right through every hoop with ease--a worthy opponent in the art of verbal fencing so to speak.

And i've never met one.

You don't need a girlfriend, you need a debating society.

[cragwolf]

"Do you feel love is real?"

No, I feel love is a mixture of real and imaginary. Love is complex!

[franznietzsche]

You don't need a girlfriend, you need a debating society.


Yeah, i get bored at those too.

[The_Professional]

I don't think a girl who'll constantly argue, nag and debate is good long term relationship material. After a while of incessant debating, arguing, nagging you'll get sick of her too

[Moonbear]

You don't need a girlfriend, you need a debating society.

:rofl: That's only what he thinks he needs. What he really needs is one who will put up with him and when he gets too full of himself can just tell him, "Shut up and kiss me."

franz, there's more to life than academics and debating. I hope you'll find a woman who can show you how to not take everything in life quite so seriously.

[Astronuc]

You don't need a girlfriend, you need a debating society.I was thinking along the lines of a sparring partner.

But that would seem to be a mutually destructive relationship. :uhh:

[the number 42]

"Shut up and kiss me."

:surprised Mooners, I remember a time when you could barely bring yourself to whisper the word 'reproduction'. Now its all "lets all have a massage" and "kiss me kiss me". I was a bit wary of you during your nun phase, but there seems to be some sort of rebound effect kicking in. That or you are running trials on Prozac at your lab? :biggrin:

[the number 42]

Yeah, i get bored at those too.

What about a debating society in a skirt?

[the number 42]

I was thinking along the lines of a sparring partner.

But that would seem to be a mutually destructive relationship. :uhh:

Hmmm. I can't see how a girl punching the living solids out of me could be much of a turn on. It would only be mutually destructive if I could get a couple of low blows and rabbit punches in. (Did I just say "low blows"?).

[hypnagogue]

Its not a question of what i experience. Using anecdotal evidence is horribly unscientific, i would think by now i should have established that that is the sort of thing i would not do, use my own anecdotal experience as evidence.

Its about what i can objectively observe around me.

It completely is a question of what you experience! Unless you think you have solved the problem of other minds, that is. One cannot fully understand what it feels like to be in love, or to feel any other kind of subjective experience for that matter, unless one has experienced the relevant quality for one's self. (Some might argue that a complete, objective neuroscientific description of the brain would give us a complete understanding of subjective experience, but as we do not have such a complete neuroscientific description, this contention is irrelevant to the immediate conversation here.)

I've had three girlfriends that were at one point all ready to start planning a wedding date, one right after the other.

What did it take to get there? Nothing at all really. Let's face the facts: I'm abrasive, egotistical. I have a superiority complex that makes john nash appear humble. Quite simply i'm an arsehole. and yet, all of them "loved" me. Simply because i knew the right things to say at the right time. Because i knew what was attractive and what wasn't. All of them made a big deal about the distinction between "lust" and "love", but all of them "loved" me. Not because love was anything magical, just because i knew what to say when.

My conclusion? "Love" is cheap, and nothing special. It is as easily gotten as it is lost.

Is that anything more than anecdotal evidence?

In any case, since you cannot have leapt into your former girlfriends' minds, you cannot know what it was that they were emotionally experiencing. Very likely, at least one of them did feel genuine emotions for you, and not just in a lusty way. The relatively short lasting, brightly burning feeling of "being in love" can be ignited in short term circumstances. The question of under what conditions this emotion can be 'turned on' for certain people does not address the experiential quality of the feeling itself. The feeling of "being in love" or "romantic love" itself, as other people have described, is probably one of the most wonderful and intoxicating emotions a human can experience; it is really quite different from feeling lust. One who has experienced both emotions will be quick to tell you as much.

[Astronuc]

hypnagogue, I just noticed your location. While your in there, please find out what's going on. I'd like to know - sought of a sanity check, if you will. :rofl:

[loseyourname]

I want an equal and a challenge.

What i want is a person who is fully my equal. A person who when my mind kicks into its machiavellian mode isn't even fazed, and walks right through every hoop with ease--a worthy opponent in the art of verbal fencing so to speak.

And i've never met one.

Dude, you're 17, aren't you? How many girls have you been even peripherally involved with that weren't teenagers? Plenty of women of the type you describe are out there (though admittedly, I generally found them outside of southern California). You have to consider that men who are arseholes like yourself tend to attract weak-minded women that crave abuse. I'd be wary of anyone that was attracted to me if I were you. It would be better if you found someone that you were actually attracted to (and not just physically, as there is an obvious mental component that sounds important to you). It's easy to be confident when confronted with a woman who will fall for you no matter what. If you really want to call yourself confident, find someone who is a challenge. Don't just wait for her to come along; challenge yourself, and don't try to tell me that you can't find a single person that fits your criteria. I know they're out there.

[hypnagogue]

hypnagogue, I just noticed your location. While your in there, please find out what's going on. I'd like to know - sought of a sanity check, if you will. :rofl:

That's meant more as a tongue in cheek way of saying that your acquaintance with me is nothing more than your internal mental construct of who I am. So technically, I suppose you could imagine how I might assess what's going on in your head given what you think you know about who I am and how I think, but for this delicate matter I advise sticking with your own self-construct of Astronuc as opposed to using Astronuc-simulating-hypnagogue. :wink:

[Moonbear]

:surprised Mooners, I remember a time when you could barely bring yourself to whisper the word 'reproduction'. Now its all "lets all have a massage" and "kiss me kiss me". I was a bit wary of you during your nun phase, but there seems to be some sort of rebound effect kicking in. That or you are running trials on Prozac at your lab? :biggrin:

:rofl: I think all those little candy hearts in my avatar are having some weird effect on how my words are taken. Hmm...trying to decide if that means I should keep the avatar or ditch it. :tongue2:

I think I get all my Prozac from the water supply. :bugeye: :tongue:

[franznietzsche]

Dude, you're 17, aren't you? How many girls have you been even peripherally involved with that weren't teenagers?

Only one of those three was actually. I've never dated a women my age or younger actually.

Plenty of women of the type you describe are out there (though admittedly, I generally found them outside of southern California). You have to consider that men who are arseholes like yourself tend to attract weak-minded women that crave abuse. I'd be wary of anyone that was attracted to me if I were you.

So i've learned.
It would be better if you found someone that you were actually attracted to (and not just physically, as there is an obvious mental component that sounds important to you). It's easy to be confident when confronted with a woman who will fall for you no matter what. If you really want to call yourself confident, find someone who is a challenge.

I never said i was confident, Ivan was the one who used that word. I just said that somehow i managed to always say the right thing, at the right time, without ever losing control of a situation (or it seems like that sometimes, i don't know how true that really is)

[Astronuc]

That's meant more as a tongue in cheek way of saying that your acquaintance with me is nothing more than your internal mental construct of who I am. I have to remember not to take what I read so literally. :wink:

. . . your own self-construct of Astronuc Hmmm, I don't have one of those. Got any idea where to get one? :wink:

[Smurf]

Of course love is real, love is a chemical reaction to hormones in the brain, how is it not real? What nonsense is this.

[the number 42]

...arseholes like yourself tend to attract weak-minded women that crave abuse. I'd be wary of anyone that was attracted to me if I were you. It would be better if you found someone that you were actually attracted to (and not just physically, as there is an obvious mental component that sounds important to you).

Insightful stuff (the whole post), and suggests a knotty pattern:

Pattern 1:
A/ Weak-minded masochistic women are attracted to Arseholes.
B/ Arseholes are not attracted to weak-minded masochistic women.
C/ They start dating and it ends in tears.

Pattern 2:
A/ Arseholes are attracted to women who are: an equal, a challenge, very patient, excellent debating skills, attractive. These women are very scarce if they exist as a species at all. Lets call them Penthouse Amazons.
B/ Missing data: Are these women attracted to Arseholes? If we can generalise from Pattern 1 to Pattern 2, then we would predict that Penthouse Amazons are not attracted to Arseholes. (It could be that they are attracted to some other species that exists only in their superb imaginations).
C/ Missing data: If Arseholes and Penthouse Amazons start dating, does it work out well? Again, extrapolating from Pattern 1, they soon realise that they are not getting what they need from each other, and it ends in tears.

I'd like to end this post with some words of wisdom, but.... uh... I can't think of anything. How about a few words of wizdumb instead? This is from William James (on drugs):
"Women are monogamous
Men are polygamous.
Higgamous Hoggamous
Hoggamous Higgamous".

[Astronuc]

I have some answers to 2B and C, but it'll have to wait.

Along the lines of the Golden Rule - Do unto others as one would have done unto onself. (This does not apply to masochists).

Back later.

[the number 42]

I have some answers to 2B and C, but it'll have to wait.

Along the lines of the Golden Rule - Do unto others as one would have done unto onself. (This does not apply to masochists).

Back later.

Back later? What are you doing, cruising the bars for Penthouse Amazons? I hope you don't expect a grant for this 'field research'.
:grumpy:

[franznietzsche]

Back later? What are you doing, cruising the bars for Penthouse Amazons? I hope you don't expect a grant for this 'field research'.
:grumpy:


Its a special kind of "grant" he's looking for. Besides its friday, thats what friday's are for.

[loseyourname]

I have some answers to 2B and C, but it'll have to wait.

Along the lines of the Golden Rule - Do unto others as one would have done unto onself. (This does not apply to masochists).

Back later.

I've always lived by the rule "Do unto oneself as you would have others do unto you." I've never thought it a good idea to rely on other people to treat you well. Treat yourself well and be happy with that.

[Moonbear]

Its a special kind of "grant" he's looking for. Besides its friday, thats what friday's are for.

franz...I think you missed a day somewhere! :eek: It's Saturday!!

[franznietzsche]

franz...I think you missed a day somewhere! :eek: It's Saturday!!


Hmmm...well i thought it was odd that a party that wild happened on a thursday. THis explains so much.

[Astronuc]

Back later? What are you doing, cruising the bars for Penthouse Amazons? I hope you don't expect a grant for this 'field research'. No, I spent time with my son today - kind of a father-son day. He had to get a hair cut, and I took him to a local festival. Then to a music store. Came home.

I don't cruise bars. I never have, and I never will.

As for Penthouse Amazons - interesting. But my response will have to wait.

[Astronuc]

Pattern 2:
A/ A******s are attracted to women who are: an equal, a challenge, very patient, excellent debating skills, attractive. These women are very scarce if they exist as a species at all. Lets call them Penthouse Amazons.
B/ Missing data: Are these women attracted to A******s? If we can generalise from Pattern 1 to Pattern 2, then we would predict that Penthouse Amazons are not attracted to A******s. (It could be that they are attracted to some other species that exists only in their superb imaginations).
C/ Missing data: If A******s and Penthouse Amazons start dating, does it work out well? Again, extrapolating from Pattern 1, they soon realise that they are not getting what they need from each other, and it ends in tears.

I have known quite several attractive women who would qualify as Penthouse Amazons, and all of them seem to have attracted the 'wrong' kind of men. Most have married and divorced at least once. Several now live alone.

One of the women I dated during my early years in university went on to pose for Playboy, after she and I had gone separate ways. She was feeling 'rebellious' and just did it. She then married one of the 'popular' guys from the university. I and others thought it was a big mistake.

Down the road, I ran into her at a university function after both of us had been married about one year. She was carrying her months old son with her, while her husband was off somewhere with his buddies. When I mentioned how great it was to be married, she responded "well for some people". After further brief disucssion, it was clear she was miserable. When I had dated her, she was studying Italian (already fluent in English and German), economics and international relations. She had planned a career in international business and finance. When I saw her years later, she had sacrificed all of her dreams for a man who didn't care or had no clue. :grumpy:

I have known several women with similar experiences. So the answer to Pattern 2 B and C, is quite often yes -

2B - Attractive woman falls for the 'wrong' man.
2C - More often however, it is the woman who does not get what she really wants, and the man is clueless (IMO).

I didn't realize that 'franznietzsche' is not quite 18 years of age, until loseyourname pointed it out.

FN, IMO, you're still too young to know whether Love is real or not. Young people think infatuation (desire or lust) is Love. It isn't.

Love is based on mutual respect, honesty/truthfulness, loyalty. Without those attributes, Love does not exist. Also, mutual respect is only possible when a person has self-respect. From self-respect arises "do unto others, as you would others do unto you."

BTW - lose the egotism.

=============================
And the rest of the gentlemen, consider:

Do right by your woman, she'll do right by you. (Bad Company) :cool:

[franznietzsche]

One of the women I dated during my early years in university went on to pose for Playboy, after she and I had gone separate ways. She was feeling 'rebellious' and just did it. She then married one of the 'popular' guys from the university. I and others thought it was a big mistake.

Down the road, I ran into her at a university function after both of us had been married about one year. She was carrying her months old son with her, while her husband was off somewhere with his buddies. When I mentioned how great it was to be married, she responded "well for some people". After further brief disucssion, it was clear she was miserable. When I had dated her, she was studying Italian (already fluent in English and German), economics and international relations. She had planned a career in international business and finance. When I saw her years later, she had sacrificed all of her dreams for a man who didn't care or had no clue. :grumpy:

This is exactly what i don't want. What's the point of a "penthouse amazon" if she loses her independence? She then ceases to be who she is. I've never met a woman for whom this hasn't been a problem though--its one of the classical problems in feminist literature--how does a woman define herself? As a mother, a wife, a girlfriend, but does a woman ever define herself simply as 'Me'?

Any woman who does not define herself simply as 'me' and isntead defines herself in terms of her realtion to others fails to be a 'penthouse amazon', and is patently unattractive, IMO.



Love is based on mutual respect, honesty/truthfulness, loyalty. Without those attributes, Love does not exist.

By definition.

Also, mutual respect is only possible when a person has self-respect. From self-respect arises "do unto others, as you would others do unto you."


I disagree. In fact, i don't see any of the logic behind that.

I can't respect a person who isn't independent, who doesn't exist on her own. It just doesn't work.

A person who does not define themselves independent of those around them, particularly independent of myself, cannot be challenging or interesting. It just doesn't work. That woman you mentioned that you knew, she failed to define herself independently, and isntead defined herself in terms of her realtionship to her husband--her husband defined himself as independent of her--so of course she was going to be miserable.

BTW- lose the egotism

Again, i define myself as independent of others. I exist, whether or not people recognize it, i am who i am regardless of them. If everyone else died tomorrow, and i was the last human being, i would still be exactly who i am today.

To lose the egotism would be to lose that fundamental independence.

[The_Professional]

I have known quite several attractive women who would qualify as Penthouse Amazons, and all of them seem to have attracted the 'wrong' kind of men. Most have married and divorced at least once. Several now live alone.


Because most of these genetic celebrities have low self-esteem. And depending on how she was raise and her relationship with her dad, being involve with a bad boy is an unconscious way of giving the finger to her father.

[Astronuc]

To lose the egotism would be to lose that fundamental independence.Actually, I am wondering whether or not you mean 'egoism' or 'egocentrism' as opposed to 'egotism'. The former being more self-centered as opposed to simply conceited.

Actually, in either case, the egoistic and egotistic persons are by definition 'dependent' on others to 'feed' their egos, i.e. egoists/egotists 'need' an audience.

To lose 'egoism' or 'egotism' is the true path to independence. :biggrin:

As for independence - successful relationships are based on "inter-dependence". My career is quite independent of my wife and family, however, my career enables me to support my family. My wife's work is independent of the family, but she uses her job to enhance the standard of living of the family. In other words, we both contribute to something in which we both share (example of mutuality).

As for "Penthouse amazons", I really dislike that term. The attractive women I knew did not go as far as exposing their most intimate anatomy to the world as do the women in magazines like Penthouse and Playboy. In fact, all the women I dated or new as friends were, and probably still are, quite modest. They just seem to have met the wrong men.

[JasonRox]

In fact, all the women I dated or new as friends were, and probably still are, quite modest. They just seem to have met the wrong men.

So you admit to being one of the "wrong men"?

[Astronuc]

So you admit to being one of the "wrong men"?Actually, no.

I am on good terms with all the women I dated or knew as friends. I was honest and respectful, and perhaps too reserved.

As I was a university student, then graduate student, my future was uncertain, especially when I changed academic paths from physics to nuclear engineering. Accordingly, my relationships with my girlfriends were all on a friendly (platonic) basis.

In a couple of cases, I declined a level of intimacy for which I was simply not ready, because there was no commitment of marriage. What can I say, I am simply 'old-fashioned'. The women then broke the relationships at that point.

[The_Professional]

In a couple of cases, I declined a level of intimacy for which I was simply not ready, because there was no commitment of marriage. What can I say, I am simply 'old-fashioned'. The women then broke the relationships at that point.

This is a first in the history of mankind: A guy turning down playboy playmates! my hats off to you

Girls just want to have fun :biggrin:

[franznietzsche]

Actually, in either case, the egoistic and egotistic persons are by definition 'dependent' on others to 'feed' their egos, i.e. egoists/egotists 'need' an audience.


Thats narcissism. I don't need any one's approval to fuel my ego, i do that just fine on my own. I could be the only one left alive, i would still have the same mount everest sized ego.

As for independence - successful relationships are based on "inter-dependence".

I disagree. Interdependenc will tend towards co-dependence, especially with weak-willed people, and i ahve absolutely no interest in anyone who becomes co-dependent in a relationship, it kills any sort of attraction. If the relationship were to end right there, and who she is would change, because she chooses to define herself by her relationships to others, that is too dependent. It is a very fine line between inter-dependent and co-dependent, and one i would prefer to stay away from.

I thought of a better way to describe my opinion, and situation in this matter. Seen the movie Intolerable Cruelty?

Let's just say i feel like miles massey.

[the number 42]

i define myself as independent of others. I exist, whether or not people recognize it, i am who i am regardless of them. If everyone else died tomorrow, and i was the last human being, i would still be exactly who i am today.

To lose the egotism would be to lose that fundamental independence.

Keep the egotism/egoism/ergoschism or whatever, dude. If I was half as cool as you at 17 years old, I'd be several times the geezer I am today. Just keep being yourself.

[Polly]

Franz I'd clap my hands for everything you say on this post, but I can also cry for you for thinking that way, you will be a misfit and you will find that life and people can be very hard to anyone not willing to conform. Some people will try to crush you for the sheer reason that you by trying to be youself, makes them look bad. I know for I have been there. It's a sad sad world and I can cry a river. Nonetheless, we must have courage to do what we believe in and the wisdom to review and adjust. I'd say also, keep being you.

[franznietzsche]

Keep the egotism/egoism/ergoschism or whatever, dude. If I was half as cool as you at 17 years old, I'd be several times the geezer I am today. Just keep being yourself.


Why do i sense thinly veiled sarcasm?

[Monique]

I think that at the age of 17 one is hardly in a position to talk about love: these are feelings that develop over time and depend on other things besides infatuation. I do believe that some people will never experience true love, you've got to meet the right person and invest the right kind of energy.

Stress is stress, love is nothing special. My conclusion? "Love" is cheap, and nothing special. It is as easily gotten as it is lost.The fact that you've never experienced love, says that in fact love is hard to acquire. You're confusing love with infatuation. In my book, caring about someone is not cheap, truely bonding with someone is not easily gotten and won't be easily lost.

[franznietzsche]

The fact that you've never experienced love, says that in fact love is hard to acquire. You're confusing love with infatuation. In my book, caring about someone is not cheap, truely bonding with someone is not easily gotten and won't be easily lost.


Yes my statements are based on what i see in everyone else. The only way to make objective observations. I'm not going to base my understanding of an emotion on how i feel that emotion--that is subjective. I'm only interested in objective understandings of anything--the obvious universal that an outsider can see by watching someone else experience that emotion. And i know what i have seen.

Since all of you insist on bringing in whether or not i've ever felt love, i will say that once i felt what i would have qualified as love. It certainly wasn't lust, and you can call it infatuation, but i don't think so. Let's just say she was the only girl that ever met my criteria of being an equal and a challenge. Things just didn't work out unfortunately, despite my best efforts.

[Monique]

Yes my statements are based on what i see in everyone else. The only way to make objective observations.Well, how do you evaluate the emotions of other people, and which group of people did you observe? True love is not ubiquitous.

[the number 42]

Why do i sense thinly veiled sarcasm?

Because you are a dipstick.

[franznietzsche]

Because you are a dipstick.
I <3 you too?

[the number 42]

I <3 you too?

Well it is Valentine's Day :rolleyes:

[franznietzsche]

Well it is Valentine's Day :rolleyes:

Will you be my valentine?

[the number 42]

Only if you have good taste in blokes :blushing:

[the number 42]

Is it too late to rephrase that?

[the number 42]

Since all of you insist on bringing in whether or not i've ever felt love, i will say that once i felt what i would have qualified as love. It certainly wasn't lust, and you can call it infatuation, but i don't think so. Let's just say she was the only girl that ever met my criteria of being an equal and a challenge. Things just didn't work out unfortunately, despite my best efforts.

So which bit of love isn't real then? The bit where you don't both live happily ever after together, & have 2.4 kids? Love may not work out, but it doesn't mean its not real. It can be a real pain.

[Polly]

Don't think many of us have had the experience of being in love and in a depression at the same time, most of the time it felt like a joy secretly and slowly seeping through a thick layer of numb pain. Now that the depression is dissipating, I am starting to feel a die-hard anxiety wrestling with gentle euphoria, and I am but a stranger in my own world...love is real-ly unreal.

[the number 42]

...the Golden Rule - Do unto others as one would have done unto onself. (This does not apply to masochists).

If you make the assumption that what you like (e.g. Mozart) is what others will like (e.g. heavy metal fans) you'll soon find that 'doing unto others' can backfire more times than not. I was told the Golden Rule is 'see things from the other person's perspective'. If you try to find out what others like, and do that unto them, they'll be a lot happier about it.

Anyway, what have you got against masochists?

[Astronuc]

If you make the assumption that what you like (e.g. Mozart) is what others will like (e.g. heavy metal fans) you'll soon find that 'doing unto others' can backfire more times than not. That is an misinterpretation of the rule. If one would not wish anyone to 'impose/force' their views/likes/dislikes/rules upon one, then do not do that to others.

I was told the Golden Rule is 'see things from the other person's perspective'. Or, 'walk in the other's shoes.' Good perspective.

Anyway, what have you got against masochists?Nothing, as long as they do not harm others.

[the number 42]

That is an misinterpretation of the rule. If one would not wish anyone to 'impose/force' their views/likes/dislikes/rules upon one, then do not do that to others.

So 'don't do unto others as you would not have them do unto you'. This is logical, but has the same problems e.g. if you made a living will stating that you didn't want to be resusitated in the event of certain conditions, then you wouldn't last long as a paramedic if you applied this rule to others. Unless I'm misinterpreting the rule again?

[franznietzsche]

So 'don't do unto others as you would not have them do unto you'. This is logical, but has the same problems e.g. if you made a living will stating that you didn't want to be resusitated in the event of certain conditions, then you wouldn't last long as a paramedic if you applied this rule to others. Unless I'm misinterpreting the rule again?


Its more misapplication than misinterpretation. your looking too much at the details. A person with a living will has one because they don't want to suffer. So being a paramedic making sure your patients don't suffer is a good thing.

[the number 42]

Its more misapplication than misinterpretation. your looking too much at the details. A person with a living will has one because they don't want to suffer. So being a paramedic making sure your patients don't suffer is a good thing.

Yeah, but isn't it just way too easy to come up with these 'misapplications'? If a rule is something that is expected to be broadly generalisable, then the 'do unto others' rule just has too many exceptions to be a proper rule. Its more of an advertising jingle, something that we learned as kids that sticks in our heads and we don't really question.

[Moonbear]

Yeah, but isn't it just way too easy to come up with these 'misapplications'? If a rule is something that is expected to be broadly generalisable, then the 'do unto others' rule just has too many exceptions to be a proper rule. Its more of an advertising jingle, something that we learned as kids that sticks in our heads and we don't really question.

You're actually arguing semantics of the "do unto others" rule? How about instead of arguing the semantics, embrace the actual intent of it. It doesn't mean to force your ways upon them (because you wouldn't want them to force their ways upon you), it means to respect them and their wishes the same way you'd want others to respect you and your wishes.

[the number 42]

You're actually arguing semantics of the "do unto others" rule? How about instead of arguing the semantics, embrace the actual intent of it. It doesn't mean to force your ways upon them (because you wouldn't want them to force their ways upon you), it means to respect them and their wishes the same way you'd want others to respect you and your wishes.

The "do unto" part suggests an action rather than an attitude, which colours the entire spirit of the saying. "Respect others and their wishes the same way you'd want others to respect you and your wishes" is much less prone to misinterpretation, but I prefer the more proactive "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them".

[franznietzsche]

Yeah, but isn't it just way too easy to come up with these 'misapplications'?

ONly because whoever worded it assumed people were obviously smarter than that.

If a rule is something that is expected to be broadly generalisable, then the 'do unto others' rule just has too many exceptions to be a proper rule. Its more of an advertising jingle, something that we learned as kids that sticks in our heads and we don't really question.

It wasn't an exception. It was a stupid interpretation of what a person wanted.

[the number 42]

ONly because whoever worded it assumed people were obviously smarter than that.

It wasn't an exception. It was a stupid interpretation of what a person wanted.

Ooh Nitchy, you are in a bad mood :biggrin:

[franznietzsche]

Ooh Nitchy, you are in a bad mood :biggrin:


When am i ever in a good mood?

[the number 42]

When am i ever in a good mood?

I can't argue with that. Nitchy, you need the love of a good woman. Or at least hmup a bad one.

[the number 42]

(PS Sorry - were you trying to kill this thread?)

[tribdog]

(PS Sorry - were you trying to kill this thread?)
lol, that's funny

[franznietzsche]

I can't argue with that. Nitchy, you need the love of a good woman. Or at least hmup a bad one.


I've *had* more than a few bad ones.

The good ones are no where to be found.

[the number 42]

I've *had* more than a few bad ones.

The good ones are no where to be found.

Have you considered the ancient practice on onanism, as a temporary measure of course.

[Polly]

The good ones are no where to be found.

A good woman with a fine mind, that's tough tough tough Franz. So far in my life I have only met one who measures up - a Taiwanese history major, sweet natured and highly evolved. Unfortunately for you she is married with two kids.

Ever considered learning Chinese and coming to China/Taiwan to explore? Most of us in Hong Kong though are superficial and frivolous/strong, cold and hard.

In the affairs of the heart, one does need tonnes and tonnes of luck.

[franznietzsche]

A good woman with a fine mind, that's tough tough tough Franz. So far in my life I have only met one who measures up - a Taiwanese history major, sweet natured and highly evolved. Unfortunately for you she is married with two kids.

I've met one. She's a psych major down at UCLA. Absolutely fascinating person she is. I love debating and arguing with her, because whenever we discuss philosophy, we always start from certain assumptions (everyone does), our world view. She's the only liberal i've ever met, who, if i accept her world view as a starting point, i will in fact arrive at the same conclusions as her. Of course, i don't accept her world view as correct, but thats a matter of opinion, world views are inherently a priori.

Furthermore, she's one of very few people i've ever met smart to actually understand that people having a different world view does not make them 'stupid' or 'morons', because world views are not something determined rationally--they are inherently assumed, on the basis of a value judgement, and all value judgements are a priori. There is no way to prove something is better than anything else (morally, ethically, etc.) without making an assumption. (a fundamental premise of Nietzsche's rejection of the concepts of good and evil as polar opposites).

Dear god. Look at this, just thinking about her gets me into a discourse on philosophy.

Problem with most women (most people to be fair, but i'm not interested in guys, so they're not an issue) is that they have nothing interesting to say or on their minds. She always does. WE can talk literature, philosophy, science, religion (i'm an atheist, she's a fairly devout christian) and its always interesting and captivating.



Ever considered learning Chinese and coming to China/Taiwan to explore? Most of us in Hong Kong though are superficial and frivolous/strong, cold and hard.

In the affairs of the heart, one does need tonnes and tonnes of luck.

Thailand maybe :wink:

Unfortunately luck is a rather scarce quantity, its like a zero sum game, for every person with x amount of good luck, there's a guy with x amount of bad luck (or a group of people with bad luck totaling x, but you get the idea).

[scarecrow]

Love is definitely an attraction of forces. I like to say that love is when you can feel the other person's heart pumping your own blood.

[The_Professional]

the right skill and some luck...

[Danger]

I was wondering how the hell this thread got so big, so fast, until I thought to look at the posting dates. I don't have time to read it, but if I may quote Harlan Ellison: "Love Ain't Nothin' But Sex Misspelled" (capitalized because it was a title). I don't actually believe that, but it makes as much sense as anything else.

[hypatia]

"Do you feel the wuv tonigh" William Hung

[Danger]

"Do you feel the wuv tonigh" William Hung
I did, until you went to sleep on me. :wink:
What are you doing up again so soon?

[motai]

Problem with most women (most people to be fair, but i'm not interested in guys, so they're not an issue) is that they have nothing interesting to say or on their minds. She always does. WE can talk literature, philosophy, science, religion (i'm an atheist, she's a fairly devout christian) and its always interesting and captivating.

franznietzsche, from my past experiences those qualities are extremely rare in people nowadays. I can't talk to girls for less than a minute without losing their attention. Most of the time, they are the extremely superficial type "Oh my GOD! Did you see what she wore today??!!!" that I don't get along with very well. Everything else glazes over their heads and its difficult to maintain conversation. Im just looking for someone who would actually care about me, without ulterior agendas, without monetary interference, and someone who I can talk without about anything, anytime. Its not much, but so far it has been extremely difficult.

Oh, and adding to my bad luck, I have only personally met two girls who fit your descriptions, and both have boyfriends :frown:. Erggghhhh. Life sucks like that. Further compounded by the fact that I have a lot of pent up compassion that I want to express, but have not the means to do so.

[franznietzsche]

franznietzsche, from my past experiences those qualities are extremely rare in people nowadays. I can't talk to girls for less than a minute without losing their attention. Most of the time, they are the extremely superficial type "Oh my GOD! Did you see what she wore today??!!!" that I don't get along with very well. Everything else glazes over their heads and its difficult to maintain conversation. Im just looking for someone who would actually care about me, without ulterior agendas, without monetary interference, and someone who I can talk without about anything, anytime. Its not much, but so far it has been extremely difficult.

Oh, and adding to my bad luck, I have only personally met two girls who fit your descriptions, and both have boyfriends :frown:. Erggghhhh. Life sucks like that. Further compounded by the fact that I have a lot of pent up compassion that I want to express, but have not the means to do so.

WEll she's the only one i've met so far, and she had a boyfriend when i met her, though that certainly didn't stop me from trying. A year and a half later, it looks like things are finally starting to work out--well, as much as they ever have. WE're still some 250 miles apart, but things are looking much better right now than at any point before.

And as for the superficial types, i know what you mean. I've basically come up with a number of subtle jokes and allusions i always use on first dates--if she doesn;t get them, i'm not wasting my time with a second date. Needless to say, i haven't had a second date since going away to college.

[faust9]

"Do you feel the wuv tonigh" William Hung

"This concept of 'wuv' confuses and infuriates us!" Lur, Ruler of the planet
Omicron Persei 8

[motai]

WEll she's the only one i've met so far, and she had a boyfriend when i met her, though that certainly didn't stop me from trying. A year and a half later, it looks like things are finally starting to work out--well, as much as they ever have. WE're still some 250 miles apart, but things are looking much better right now than at any point before.

In my case its more like 1500 miles...

And as for the superficial types, i know what you mean. I've basically come up with a number of subtle jokes and allusions i always use on first dates--if she doesn;t get them, i'm not wasting my time with a second date. Needless to say, i haven't had a second date since going away to college.

I tend to do that when I first meet people just to see who they are like, its pretty much the only way im able to find friends anymore.

[hypatia]

wuv is a many splendor thing faust9

[Monique]

people having a different world view does not make them 'stupid' or 'morons', because world views are not something determined rationally [..] There is no way to prove something is better than anything else (morally, ethically, etc.)
[..]
Problem with most women is that they have nothing interesting to say or on their minds. That is some superficiality on your side. They have nothing interesting to say, since you are not interested in them. When I talk to other people, I notice that they've got a lot of interesting things to say (ask the right questions and listen). Being big-headed and a know-it-all really puts off people to share their views.

Notice in your quote how you look down on women, while you just stated that you shouldn't judge.

[Danger]

wuv is a many splendor thing faust9
Wuv is nice, but thex doesn't cost as much. :wink:

Incidentally, git thee down to "Old TV Shows" #27.

[franznietzsche]

That is some superficiality on your side. They have nothing interesting to say, since you are not interested in them. When I talk to other people, I notice that they've got a lot of interesting things to say (ask the right questions and listen). Being big-headed and a know-it-all really puts off people to share their views.

Notice in your quote how you look down on women, while you just stated that you shouldn't judge.


No, i look down on people who talk about nothing except what was on TV last night(if one more person asks me if i saw the previous night's episode of The OC, i swear to god, i'm throwing them off the cliffs at pismo). And to be fair, everything is i say of women is usually also true of men, but being that i am not interested in dating men, i don't tend to bother noticing.

If you think i'm superficiaul because i'd rather have a discussion about dostoevsky than brad pitt's backside, then fine, i'm a shallow bastard. Whatever you say Monique.

When did i say i shouldn't judge? I don't recall ever saying that...

[Monique]

That's called small talk, social interaction. I'm saying that it is superficial to think that people who engage in small talk have nothing interesting to say. You should first find out what their true interests are.

Maybe you're interacting with people in an age group that haven't fully developed their views yet, very likely.

I've met people who were not into science, but who I've borrowed some of my books to that lead to discussions. Others were against intellectual discussions, but now take a lead in bringing up topics. Also they bring up social and economical issues, where I learn a lot from them. None of them are bookworms.

You mentioned yourself that you shouldn't judge someone on their worldview: people having a different world view does not make them 'stupid' or 'morons' I've met many people who have a lot to say, but you can't constantly talk only about a single topic. You're not a shallow bastard, I can't claim that I know you :tongue:

[franznietzsche]

That's called small talk, social interaction. I'm saying that it is superficial to think that people who engage in small talk have nothing interesting to say. You should first find out what their true interests are.

Maybe you're interacting with people in an age group that haven't fully developed their views yet, very likely.

Yeah, still makes them shallow and uninteresting. Changes nothing i've said.

I've met people who were not into science, but who I've borrowed some of my books to that lead to discussions. Others were against intellectual discussions, but now take a lead in bringing up topics. Also they bring up social and economical issues, where I learn a lot from them. None of them are bookworms.

I live with the people i'm talking about, i hear what they're saying all the time--and they're all saying the same inane pointless crap. And the few times they venture into anything more intellectually challenging than their hairstyles, its something that was spoon-fed to them that they just regurgitate, without rhyme or reason. They are completely boring. No originality in anything they say. Spouting off something intelligent does not make you intelligent. Being intelligent allows you to say something intelligent that you haven't been told to say by someone else. And so very very few people have that capacity.

You mentioned yourself that you shouldn't judge someone on their worldview:

Since you seem to be neglecting the presence of the word worldview:

Worldview: 1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.

Idiocy is not inculded. Repeating endlessly the opinions which other people spoon-feed you is not included. Being trite, shallow, or inane are not included. There's plenty i feel perfectly free to be judgemental about. I simply said i cannot judge people for an a priori assumption that is in no way more valid than my own a priori assumption. Thats a fairly limited field compared to the wide range of things one can be judgemental about.



I've met many people who have a lot to say, but you can't constantly talk only about a single topic.

Oh they manage to all the time. The same trite crap endlessly.

You're not a shallow bastard, I can't claim that I know you :tongue:

Well which is it? If you can't claim to know me, then you really can't say I'm not a shallow bastard, you wouldn't know. Can't have it both ways.

[motai]

I live with the people i'm talking about, i hear what they're saying all the time--and they're all saying the same inane pointless crap. And the few times they venture into anything more intellectually challenging than their hairstyles, its something that was spoon-fed to them that they just regurgitate, without rhyme or reason. They are completely boring. No originality in anything they say. Spouting off something intelligent does not make you intelligent. Being intelligent allows you to say something intelligent that you haven't been told to say by someone else. And so very very few people have that capacity.

Yes, this is true, but they also probably see us as being incredibly boring with our intelligent conversations. "Dostoyevsky? Thats boring!" they will say as they continue to talk about their hair and what color they dyed it this morning.

"What, are you talking about calculus again?! Stop it!"
"Physics is boring. So are you."
"Why are you doing math again!"
"You do one more equation on that board and ill throw this book at you"

etcetera

We are just as boring as they are. Sure, to us, we try to find meaning and purpose, but to them, we are probably just as shallow. Nothing we can do about it, and we can't change them. We just have to find our own kind, a group that is becoming exceedingly rare.

Kinda weird how perception colors things?

[franznietzsche]

Yes, this is true, but they also probably see us as being incredibly boring with our intelligent conversations. "Dostoyevsky? Thats boring!" they will say as they continue to talk about their hair and what color they dyed it this morning.

"What, are you talking about calculus again?! Stop it!"
"Physics is boring. So are you."
"Why are you doing math again!"
"You do one more equation on that board and ill throw this book at you"

etcetera

I'm usually the one throwing books and chasing them off. But i can be a militant little bugger. And i always have my purely machiavellian nature to fall back on. I have no problem charming people, its jsut whether its worth putting up with them.


We are just as boring as they are. Sure, to us, we try to find meaning and purpose, but to them, we are probably just as shallow. Nothing we can do about it, and we can't change them. We just have to find our own kind, a group that is becoming exceedingly rare.

Kinda weird how perception colors things?

Nah, not weird. Predictable. These people are easily manipulated. They might think what i like is boring, but i rarely give up enough control of a social situation for it to matter what they think about me. The determining factor, 4 times out of 5 will be if i can tolerate what comes out of their mouth, not the other way around. I may be a geek, but i'm a slick one.

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I know what your saying Franznietzsche; however, I'd like to add another variable to the equation: the annoying intellectuals. While I crave conversation with individuals on intellectual ability and insight, I encounter people who are intelligent but repetitive and boring. For example, it can be boring when an intelligent person wants to do math constantly - yes, the concept was interesting, but after a few problems you've got it comprehended - algebra isn't always that interesting. Unfortunately, sometimes I fall into the category of the "annoying intellectual."

It isn't always intellectual conversation that is needed, but insight which requires intelligence but doesn't always result from it. Small talk is generally pointless and irritating, and conversation with the average person is almost always a waste of breath. Unfortunately, I'm forced to deal with people often have to tolerate, but I cope - my strategy is talking about complete nonsense to cause laughter which, even if it's at something stupid, is usually contagious; furthermore, it's easy to get the average person to laugh.

[franznietzsche]

It isn't always intellectual conversation that is needed, but insight which requires intelligence but doesn't always result from it.

I consider intellectual conversation to be inseperable from said insight. But i that might be because i have a higher standard of what i would even call intelligent. Your typical honors student is still an idiot, IMO. I was surrounded by them in high school, all IB classes, which the last two years were fairly selective in terms of who could even be in them, and i could still count on my hands the number of non-morons in the whole lot of 50 or so (without using binary).

Small talk is generally pointless and irritating, and conversation with the average person is almost always a waste of breath.

Is always a waste of breath. No almost.

Unfortunately, I'm forced to deal with people often have to tolerate, but I cope - my strategy is talking about complete nonsense to cause laughter which, even if it's at something stupid, is usually contagious; furthermore, it's easy to get the average person to laugh.

I play mind games with them. I'm a real jerk sometimes to stupid people, sorry to say, but i am. I'll screw with them as much as i possibly can. If they ever figure it out, and the smarter ones do, oh well, they can take a number and get in line if they've got a problem with me. The only people who's opinions matter to me, are the ones who have anything worthwhile to say. And those are the people i usually can't screw with, even if i try.

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Are you nihilist? I thought I was fairly eccentric when it came to my personal anthropologic views, but my opinions seem like silhouette of yours; however, I'd still disagree that converation with the average person is always a waste of breath, from the context of our conversation. Nevertheless, if you're looking at it from a more philosophical perspective or other viewpoint, I might agree. Also, if the subtleties in your message were intentional, they were cleverly designed. Either you or my paranoia messed with my head for a moment.

[franznietzsche]

Are you nihilist?

Nihilist? Well, i suppose one could use that word, but the dictionary definition is going a bit far. As my name should hint, i'm a huge fan of Nietzsche, and if you read The Will To Power (one must keep in mind that it was edited by his proto-fascist sister, not by him however) we read:

Radical nihilism is the conviction of an absolute untenability of existence when it comes to the highest values one recognizes; plus the realization that we lack the least right to posit a beyond or an in-itself of things that might be "divine" or morality incarnate.

...

The logic of pessimism down to ultimate nihilism: what is at work in it? The idea of valuelessness, meaninglessness: to what extent moral valuations hide behind all other high values.
Conculsion: Moral value judgements are ways of passing sentence, negations; morality is a way of turning one's back on the will to existence

...

Nihlism represents a pathological transitional stage(what is pathological is the tremendous generalization, the inference that there is no meaning at all): whether the productive forces are not yet strong enough, or whether decadence still hesitates and has not yet invented its remedies.
Presupposition of this hypothesis: that there is no truth, that there is no absolute nature of things nor a "thing-in-itself." This, too, is merely nihilism--even the most extreme nihilism. It places the value of things precisely in the lack of any reality corresponding to these values and in their being merely a symptom of strength on the part of the value-positers, a simplifcation for the sake of life.

I agree with the rejection of a priori values--a prejudice born of a more scientific mind--if i can't prove it, its worthless. To say good is better than evil is worthless, it cannot be proven without an assumption. Any proof is only as good as that assumption. Nietzstche goes still further to reject the idea of good and evil as opposites, and the rejection of opposite values in general, arguing rather that they are merely two different degrees. My agreement with this is not born of some liberal ideal of there being no such things as evil, quite the opposite really. Its born of my insistence on proof for every conclusion, one cannot good and evil to be truly opposites, it is an a priori.

I thought I was fairly eccentric when it came to my personal anthropologic views, but my opinions seem like silhouette of yours; however, I'd still disagree that converation with the average person is always a waste of breath, from the context of our conversation. Nevertheless, if you're looking at it from a more philosophical perspective or other viewpoint, I might agree. Also, if the subtleties in your message were intentional, they were cleverly designed. Either you or my paranoia messed with my head for a moment.

Some of the subtleties were intentional, some might have just been your paranoia. :wink:

[fifiki]

In answering the original