Marriage

[Edwardo Piet]

Good post Evie you kept it together there (don't mean to be condescending)

Thanks I try my best with the posting LOL

Condescending? Well don't apologise (if that IS what you're doing), not at all, feel entirely free (to me anyway, can't speak for others whatsoever of course).

Reproduction wins. Precisely. What was that study recently that modern humans are actually displaying evolutionary regression?

I think I heard something about such a study. Like DE-evolution are you referring to or something like that? I wasn't sure how strong it was though. May have kind of been borderline or a theory that wasn't particularly strong or something...I dunno. And partly - I forget.

Yup, good healthy Christian rationalising there! LOL

Lol

Natural is what happens naturally. It's not necessarily 'better' to an individual or indeed; not necessarily better to me personally. It's natural to do lots of things that we wouldn't do these days in modern life!!

Examples?

Ummm - well, by natural now I don't mean 'nature' because I believe EVERYTHING is natural in the sense we live in an entirely NATURAL (as opposed to supernatural) universe. I just mean like when someone says that in the stone age it was natural for people to be different to we are now, that that's the biologically natural way. That it's 'natural to crap your pants but that doesn't make it right' (not a very good example but I just want you to get what I mean) - in prehistory there were no laws and it was a lot more anarchic but that doesn't make that a good thing, etc.

And we naturally (as part of nature) have evolved to manipulate nature and manipulate ourselves to do UNnatural things.

Such as?!

Um, see above. I can't come up with many good examples I'm afraid but I just want you to get my drift.

Now, what's natural is often healthy and free. But not always - some things that are natural is frowned upon in modern times! (and has been for a lot longer than that). We as humans do a lot of UNnatural things that aren't always bad....

A lot of MEDICINE is unnatural. DENTISTRY is unnatural - but these things are good.

Really?!

Well (hard to detect the sarcasm again lol) - I mean natural as in the sense of what I talked about above (with my ATTEMPT at examples, etc) - I don't mean they aren't natural as in they're not part of the natural universe. Because I believe the natural universe is all there is, nature is all I know, etc. I.e.: I know of no evidence of the SUPERnatural.

Part of love IS trust yes. If you love someone you're more likely to trust them and I think if you trust them you're perhaps also more likely to love them...

You say there that you will trust, & then say you have a reason not to?

No I didn't say that. In the sense that I DO have a reason(/s) to trust but I don't know of a reason to trust ABSOLUTELY for I am agnostic about everything. But my trust can be as strong as I am certain that God and the FSM don't exist (so in a practical sense, 100% but I never claim absolute knowledge so I can't claim absolute trust. BECAUSE - it's possible for me to be wrong so I'm just being realistic).

What I meant was that love involves trust. It's an integral part. If you can't trust then you can't fully love.

I agree. But I don't need to trust anything absolutely. And that doesn't make my love any weaker than it makes my non-belief any weaker when I DISbelieve the FSM, God, etc if I felt they were ABSOLUTELY disproved. My disbelief is till practically 100% fucking strong. As my love and trust can be - it makes no practical (or remotely detectable) difference whatsoever - OTHER THAN simply having the added bonus of being more realistic Agnosticism is awesome - I will not claim ABSOLUTE knowledge or ABSOLUTE trust if I can't possibly realistically claim to know ABSOLUTELY such a thing or can't possibly realistically claim to know that I can ABSOLUTELY trust such a person.

Loving yourself is also important.

Of course. Personally more recently (i.e. this year at least) I no longer but other BEFORE me (on average) or AFTER me (on average). I treat myself like I would an outsider (in a biological sense at least, sometimes you get feelings BIOLOGICALLY that you can't necessarily control mentally 'of your own free will').

I treat myself equally to others, not greater, not less. BUT, if I feel I have done something wrong and I deserve the consequences I (at least temporarily) 'demote myself' lol. And the same for others. I think respect should be earnt. I respect everyone's common 'rights' in the first place though and treat someone with respect when I first meet them...BUT if they act very disrespectful or bad I demote them (at least somewhat) as I would myself if I were the same (at least temporarily).

So I treat self-love and love for others pretty much as one and the same now. I try and unite the two.

Yeah you're not perfect. Thing is accepting that you're not perfect and loving yourself 'despite' that is important.

. Indeed. And I've accepted this more and more over this past year. And this last few weeks I've felt brilliant and been doing great (I've also got steadily better over time in the last year or so, but this last few weeks particularly - I'm just so much more relaxed and 'at ease' - I'm doing good).

The only thing is PHYSICALLY I'm not doing so good but that's simply because I've got a pretty nasty cough and a bit of a bad cold since 2 days ago. Mentally I'm doing awesome though I'd say

In the mental health sense I mean at least. I'm not saying I'm (at least necessarily) particularly smart lol.

I can't think of this without thinking of my religious understanding. The Christian rationale about our inadequacies and how perfect love accepts and forgives that brings us closer to love. Sorry that's gonna throw you but I had to add it in.

Well, me and you (being British(?)) live in a 'Christian culture' so some of it is going to rub off on me. But you don't need to actually BELIEVE any of that stuff to pick any of it up of course. And many different cultures (and religions) have taught the same thing in different ways. I mean it all stems out of empathy and genuinely caring really..

Anyway, I myself agree with that way of living (the religion part taken out and just with that moral bit here) - I don't hold grudges. I forgive people. That is - I forgive people IF I've already blamed them. I don't forgive people when I can't because I never blamed them in the first place

To forgive you first have to blame. Forgiveness is good - but it would be better to not blame in the first place if you're going to forgive anyway yeah?

Funnily enough, kind of sounds like an analogy might work here...or at least some sort of semi- analogy lol.

To UNcommit from what's turned out to be a consistently unloving relationship you first have to commit. Commitment is good - but it would be better to not commit in the first place if there's a chance you could (perhaps quite easily, it's relatively common actually) 'break up' or divorce anyway.

: BUT you don't have to COMMIT to have a loving relationship. Just as you don't have to FORGIVE people to show that you're caring. You could always just not blame them in the first place - and I personally think that's better.

What's the point of blaming someone in the first place and then forgiving them if you could learn not to blame? What's the point of committing to someone in the first place and then breaking up (IF you DO break up I mean), UNcommitting if you could learn to just basically love the person? And love them whether they're with YOU or not?

If that makes any sense/helps you understand what I'm 'on about' lol?

I have a heart and I trust people and I have trust in myself. But I also have a brain and doubt people and have doubt in myself. I think both are valuable and both are healthy. I never trust anyone ABSOLUTELY that's true. But it's just the way I am - I wll never 'let go of my brain' (again :S). And I think that's a very good think.

Absolutely it'd be bad not to be realistic, not to have your eyes wide open. Again I think the words trust and love are interchangeable here.

Yeah, I think I pretty much agree. At least for arguments sake let's just say I do, not to get into any details there might be. They're too different words...but yeah, to love you need to trust.

Where did you get this warped IMHO idea that when people commit to each other they're doing it out of fear? That's completely arse about face IMO

Because they 'commit' because they want to 'stay' because they don't want to relationship 'to go' because they're attached. Now that's usually BECAUSE they love each other. But I think the fact that they feel this way because they love and care about here does not imply that they can't love and care about each other WITHOUT it. I think you can love and care about someone but still be detached from them and 'let go' of them (while them still being there PHYSICALLY and 'with you' emotionally).

And if you're not attached why would you commit? If you'd still be happy without them DESPITE how much you love them?

Perhaps my point is that I think that you can love someone enough so that you will love them EVEN IF they're not with YOU. So you don't need to commit, you can 'let go' you're not attached. You love them and feel for them, you'd prefer to be with them for the BOTH of you....BUT - you can still love them even if they're not with YOU (the hypothetical 'you' that is).

Yeah.. "care free and easy going" ..love is caring for another person - not being 'care free'.

Well. I care totally - perhaps it portrays what I mean better if I said WORRY free and easy going instead. In the sense that I don't worry about others WHEN - I know I can do nothing about it. Just like I don't constantly worry myself to death about all the horrible shit that goes on in the world, and all the suffering. DESPITE the fact I DO care deeply. I just don't worry when I know it does no good and I'd be better for myself AND OTHERS if I didn't worry about it.

Care free suggests someone avoiding commitment and responsibility.

What I mean is that I don't worry about people when they're beyond my control. And I know that a 'commitment' doesn't actually make any difference if the FEELINGS are the same. It might mean more to the OTHER person (because they see differently) but if they can love me WITHOUT it (as I do them) then I think that shows the love is stronger...and if we BOTH have that point of review - the relationship might actually have a chance of lasting LONGER! - It's just very uncommon that people quite have this attitude (in the same way) I think.

Now, I do not think that commitment implies responsibility. Perhaps responsibility often LEADS TO commitment....but I think if you're not 'committed' (or attached) then you have freedom to be MORE responsible.

Because if you're committed to a certain path or way or whatever for example....what do you do if the most responsible option goes AGAINST your 'commitment' and what (or who) you're attached to?

Do you stay committed even if in that case the option's LESS responsible? What if it's a BAD commitment? And if you DON'T stay committed then it wasn't exactly much of a committment was it? So why did you 'commit' (or attach yourself, cut-yourself off (however 'nice' it may be (or appear))) in the first place?

Such a person is scared to death of love, attachment and trust.

I'm certainly not SCARED of ANY of those things. I love love itself (but I'm not attached to it ) - and since you say that love is the opposite of fear......then I don't fear love but I 'love it' is perhaps the correct expression as opposed to fearing it! lol. I love love itself hehe.

Trust as I've said I agree with you is an important part of love. It's hard to love someone if you don't trust them.

Now, attachment. I do not see what's good about attachement. If you attach yourself then you're closing yourself off...it's like throwing away the key....BUT you can still UNattach yourself anyway!!

I mean....it's like locking away some items that 'mean a lot to you' but 'you don't need anymore' but you 'want to keep them in mint condition because they're very precious to you' and then throwing away they key.... - and then IF you DO change your mind....having to bash your way in to get the precious items when you could have just kept the key and unlocked it later when you change your mind....

Now throwing away the key may be a SIGN that you want to keep those 'precious items' in mint condition or whatever - that you really care about them so you don't want to spoil them in any way whatsoever or whatever....but you CAN just change your mind anyway it's just more difficult...

And if you can have the will to not get them back WITHOUT making it more difficult yourself by throwing away the key, attaching yourself, taking away your options and 'committing' to that decision - doesn't that show GREATER strength IF you CAN do that?

And like I said if you CAN just change your mind anyway you've just made it more difficult for yourself by committing and attaching, 'throwing away the key' - I think it's kind of superfical because it may be SAID to be a committment - but in reality it can be changed anyway and it would be cool if what's important to you could stay WITHOUT being attached, without 'throwing away the key' without committing.

Such a person would classically exist on short term relationships.

Commitment is a common way to show true love and long relationships often have 'commitment' 'attached' to them....

BUT I don't think it's the best. I think it's just a common way of showing it because most people DO LOVE the other person but they couldn't love them as much if they weren't with specficifically THEM for example. They are attached. Hence why they want/need 'commitment'.

I think it's possible and better to love without commitment and attachment. And to love someone FOR THEM with or without you. You'd really LOVE IT if they'd love YOU and be with YOU - but you still love them anyway regardless - that I think is stronger.

You love them and respect their decision to not be with you and you love and respect them even IF they don't love YOU.

You'd just love it if they WERE with you (obviously that would go without saying).

I think this that I speak of is stronger than attachment and commitment. I think it's compassion.

This seems like loving in the sense that a distant relative might love you. Without any attachment the things we trust other people for, daily practical things, wouldn't be possible. Love in the end creates families. Families are a trust group. Blood ties are strong. The binding glue is love.

You can trust without attachment.

I can trust people without being attached for example. I trust that they will help me and be loyal. But I'm not attached because if it turns out that I'm wrong I'm O.K with that.

Compassion suggests non attachment.

Indeed, I agree. That's why I think emotional attachment (or dependency) is a BAD thing (cos I'm all for compassion obviously).

I think it's better to have compassion for someone to be attached to them, or indeed - 'committed' to them. If you love someone and care about them (compassion) then isn't that enough? - You stay with them because of that?

To love outside yourself I think it helps to be confident and secure in your own loved status. If you're worried about your own relationships and need to focus on it because the trust has to be continually spontaneous, then surely your going to be far weaker when it comes to giving out love to others?

Of course. And if you can love without then you can love easier within too (at least in my experience).

Love on the inside helps the outside yes. And many say this. But in my experience it certainly goes both ways. If you love on the outside it also helps more within ( sometimes within is just like too close to reach in my experience. Sometimes I think you have to 'start' on the OUTside).

---

Had to DP lol:

I think quite often emotions attract opposite (or almost opposite) emotions that's the thing.

Hard to love someone without fearing for them for example and to still care deeply.

Nothing wrong with that though is there? If you love someone you also care about them. You're concerned for them. You don't want this?

I'm NOT suggesting that I don't want to care because I'd have to fear. I'm suggesting that it can be hard to care without fearing and worrying....but that it CAN be DONE.

I'm referring to 'Living together' as non commitment. Maybe incorrectly. It's a common phrase. That's what it appears to be to me, ie non commitment.

Well...if you can 'live together', deeply love each other, have a truly awesome long-lasting and meaningful relationship (and all the rest) WITHOUT commitment and being attached to each other - then I think that's pretty cool to say the least!!

Yes, sorry. That's entirely sarcastic.

Ok

EvF