Marriage

[Edwardo Piet]

I like this thread

No I didn't say that.

I made your two conflicting statements bold?

And they don't conflict.

In the first one I say trust is important. In the second I say that I don't even trust MYSELF absolutely - they key word being absolutely. They don't conflict because I'm all FOR trust like I said in the first statement....I just don't trust ABSOLUTELY - and as I have read you say later in your post that I'm replying to here - you don't expect absolute trust. Well fine, I was just saying that even trust and love can be too absolute so that's why I don't commit. Because if commitment can never be known absolutely then no matter how certain you ARE that your 'commitment' will last forever - you could STILL break up and STILL UNcommit; or still get a divorce. So if you could be wrong because LOVE and TRUST are NOT absolute despite how they can feel that way - why commit yourself if you could love all the same without it and it's going to cause more difficulty UNcommitting if it DOES turn out that you're wrong? AND as I have said, if you can stay together and have at least a just as fantastic and long-lasting relationship WITHOUT committing - then doesn't that show you have less attachment and fear of losing each other and because the relationship is still fanastic, isn't that stronger?

If you can stay together with LESS doesn't that show that each other matters MORE? Because you don't need superficial bullshit to love each other? You don't need attachment, you don't need to commit, you just need each other?

Sure, you can WANT it.....but I think WHY would you want to commit if you can show your love for each other for just as long without feeling attached and simply appreciating each other to the MAX instead?

This is just how [ feel about it remember. If some people are happier committing then some people are happier committing! I mean duh! Fair enough! I just think that if you can love each other the same and for just as long WITHOUT commitment and attacment then that's even stronger - and perhaps love without a lot of the complications that go along with it (which I personally think stem from attachment with stems from fear. And that commitment is actually a form of attachment that is just a common way of expressing love. But love itself is where the actual Love IS - not commitment).

No one's asking for absolutes. You adhere to atheism, you state that's strong, but it isn't an absolute.

That's right

Good stuff

Ty lol

Well, me and you (being British(?))

Yep

I was pretty damn sure you were British. I read elsewhere on these forums I think (or at least some indications of it, sorry if I forget stuff :S).

Blame suggests not necessarily guilty. I've worked in a blame culture and it's not nice.

I agree. It sux.

You have to watch your back as the innocent are fair game. Actual guilt of crime deserves punishment, and that's when forgiveness comes into play. You can even forgive yourself.

I say that a person can be punished for a crime deservedly without having to blame them. Simply because they're fucking others up.

I would forgive myself in things....I have in perhaps 1 or two things but I can't remember what they were actually LOL - probably because I never really blame in the first place any more!

I tend to not forgive myself or others - because I can't because I never blame in the first place! You can only forgive someone if you blamed them in the first place - I think to not blame in the first place is better than to forgive afterwards...

Tennyson: "It's better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all"

But it's even better to have loved and despite having lost them in the sense you're no longer in a relationship with them - to still feel like they're with you and that you haven't really lost them; and to still feel love with them despite the fact they're not actually with you - as if you never lost the love and you only lost them in the sense they're no longer with YOU.

Lol - I never thought I'd find myself 'sort of' arguing against that quote (or rather - around, to find something even better) in such a strange way .

While it IS better to loved and to have lost than to never have loved at all. I think it's better to lose the relationship but never lose the feeling - and not love someone less for simply not loving/liking you in particular any more.

Giving love for the sake of it without expecting it in return but still not being a pushover

You don't have to commit to have a loving relationship. You don't have to do anything.

Indeed.

It's that you want to do it.

depends on the person. And I'm saying that I simply think that if you CAN do without it then that's an indication of one more thing you don't need because it's superficial in comparison to Love itself. Love itself is what love is about IMO - commitment is a very common form of attachment that people express when they feel love - but that doesn't imply that if they can feel that love and be loyal and stay together, just as strong and for just as long WITHOUT it that it would be less than WITH it. I think commitment gets in the way because people commit because they're attached or they attach because they're committed. Wouldn't it be better to have the same TRUE love (not attachment IOW; Love) without it because you'd have more freedom because you're not committed because you're not attached?

I think a lot of this comes down to the fact that I think that attachment is a bad thing when it comes to love; and now what love's really about. And I think people commit because they're attached and attach because they're committed - I think commitment is a form of attachment and hence bad, because as I said - when it comes to love I think attachment is bad.

So I wonder, do you think

1. Attachment is part of (and/or a GOOD part of) love?

Or do you think

2.Attachment detracts from Love and it's better if people can be together and love each other WITHOUT feeling attached and yet still stay together just as long and the love being just as strong?

I atleast; personally think 2.

It just happens. To not commit you'd have to go against what you wanted and stop yourself from committing. Deny your instinct.

Not if you don't want commitment because you think love is ideally better off without it because it's a form of attachment and hence LESS free and MORE closed-off.

Sour old spinsters talk about not trusting themselves to be hurt again. they shy away from commitment because they remember the pain of separation. What they're doing is preventing themselves from living and enjoying life.

But shying away from commitment doesn't actually imply shying away from relationships you know? Nor does it imply that you will necessarily have a less LONG or meaningful relationship. It just means you're not planning a head for a 'commitment' - you could stay together for very long and have an excellent relationship simply because you love each other so much! You wouldn't HAVE to plan to stay forever when that could end up going wrong anyway! Besides, getting your hopes up could have a NEGATIVE effect. Idealistic thinking can lead to frustration.

Shy away because of remembering the pain of separation? Hm...sounds like UNcommitting after many years of commitment to me! If this hypothetical person had been in such a relationship without making a commitment (as it sounds most like what had happened by what you said) perhaps he wouldn't have felt so hurt afterwards! And who knows, perhaps if he hadn't expected such a commitment the relationship would have worked better? Maybe he was too attached (or committed ) so his partner UNattached (or uncommitted)?

Nothing wrong with realism and a level head. Love demands your brain sometimes!

Sometimes? I would THINK it would be always actually (based on what I think you mean that anyway) - but I don't claim to know that absolutely

I mean - the feeling of love comes from the brain doesn't it? So it always requires the brain...

And if you mean that a loving relationship requires thought - of course it does, you'd be dead without thought! If you mean intelligent thought, well, I'd say pretty much always because Love is pretty complicated! Emotional intelligence can be at least as demanding as intellectual intelligence I say.

---

Love them enough to let them go. Yeah. Personally it isn't even an issue because the trust is a given. To trust to the extreme could also be a lack of caring.

Perhaps it could yeah. That's why I don't ABSOLUTELY trust anything or anyone (including myself). And if someone is the sort of person to ABSOLUTELY trust then it sounds to me like that person is rather cocky or at least ignorant and overly idealistic. Such a person might be quite careless because it's harder to care if you let go of part of your brain. In this case it would be the part that you could be using to realise that you could be wrong!! You can't rationally ABSOLUTELY trust or know something because it could be wrong.

But I know what you're saying. The ultimate sacrifice would to be to let your love go. Nothing wrong with that, isn't it just another way of expressing love.

I agree. Although if you don't hold on in the first place you can still experience ALL the love but without the sadness of letting go

This doesn't discount commitment though. You can't dismiss one with the other.

Well you can't 'let go' and endure that sadness yet acceptance (the 'better to love and to have lost than to never have loved at all' thing) if you don't hold on in the first place! It's better to 'let go' and accept - to have loved and to have lost than to have never loved at all - than to not commit in the first place. But it's even better than to experience the same love and for just as long WITHOUT the commitment and attachment! If you lose the love THEN then it wouldn't feel as bad and you don't have to fear losing the person DURING either yet you still love them just as much!! You love them for them and not for them WITH YOU - if they're with you then that's just a bonus lol .

It's better to have loved and to have lost than to never to have loved at all, and if you lose your relationship but not your love for them despite the fact they're not with you specifically - then it never quite feels like you lost them - you still love them; but for them and not for them with you.

Yep exactly... you throw away the key. You say 100% I'm in. You may be mistaken sure, things may go sour, who knows. You have to commit first though, or you'd never find out.

OR you could close the door but keep it unlocked and keep the key. And show that you love the person so much that you CHOOSE to not unlock the door (and perhaps walk through it and 'leave them' might work here lol) rather than simply not being CAPABLE of doing so because you 'threw away the key' ( which is a form of self-sabotage arguably IMHO, regardless if it's done in love or in 'best intentions' I don't think it's part of love itself just because it's a common way of expressing it.). You love them so much that you can stay together and continuously CHOOSE not to abandon them rather than simply have committed so it is very difficult for you to even if you wanted to (in which case if you don't leave them it might actually be because you've made it hard FOR you to leave - so the fact you're not leaving is less of an indication that it's actually because of love. Whereas if you didn't commit in the first place but you're not leaving then that's much more likely to be out of LOVE that you're not leaving - because it's less difficult for you to leave if you wanted to! So it's not simply because of the problems it would cause IF you left!)

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....

No, that's the opposite of love. That's what the old spinster is doing. Locking away the key out of fear. It's the same the other way around. Both limit life.

Locking AWAY the key? Are you referring to KEEPING the key, like keeping it locked away safely with ANOTHER key as the lock? Or are you referring to what I said, THROWING AWAY the key?

Well, KEEPING the key, what's wrong with that? It means you have more of a choice. A choice to use it or to not use it. If you throw it away then you can only NOT use it (because you don't have it) so that's LESS choice.

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?

No. You always have options. You have the choice to stay non committal on everything.

I do

Again, where is life?

Huh? Did I miss a meeting? Did you ask this question before? I didn't see it.

Compassion is fine in it's place. Love is what your built for.

Well compassion is when you care for people and you FEEL IT - right? Love contains this too...and/or other aspects of love.

I THINK genuine almost unbounded (or at least seemingly lol) compassion is the most profound aspect of love, I can't think of another aspect of love that's MORE profound, and probably not equal too either? Not right now at least anyway. Can you?

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?

No way.

Lol. To each his own. I mean I think if there was a minimum standard it would be a hell of a lot of compassion, without commitment. Commitment without compassion on the other hand I think would be really shit. Committing to each other despite you don't feel any compassion for each other! And I personally think if it was simply the two things that could be in a relationship...I think compassion ALONE is better than compassion + commitment - if only because commitment means you're 'committed' so you might have you're hopes too high and have less of a focus on the present. And it's harder to leave an UNcompassionate relationship if you're 'committed' too. And you can love each other for just as long without commitment.

If you can love whilst being in the moment and STILL keep it going surely that's better than committing, planning ahead and thinking of the future and how it could go wrong (attachment) , or if not that how it WON'T go wrong and expecting it to NOT and then being in for a shock IF it does and you have to UNcommit (shock of detachment that comes after years of attachment).

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!!

You could look back on your relationship and say "WoW! Weren't we committed and attached"

OR:

You could have never been attached but simply split up naturally, decided to, or decided it's for the best. You could still love each other all the same but decide it's best to not be in a relationship anymore. Or if you're partner has stopped loving you and left you then you can still love them back because you were never attached or committed so the detachment or uncommitting - didn't upset you so much that you stopped loving THEM, you just can no longer love them WITH you but you can still love them WITHOUT you - because ULTIMATELY you love them for them and not just for them with YOU.

And vice-versa. Hopefully (ideally I think) if it was the other way around they'd be the same way about you.

EvF