- Moderator
- #41
Gatsu
[14] Master
8wayrun into friendzone
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The only thing I get from Moneymuffins is we're prone to be negative. He's right, but that doesn't mean we should abandon any hope of ever being happy and let science guide us. If he were to say this to some average girl(I'm guessing he won't), she'd call him a snobbish jerk.^Is every thread for you a new place to spread your oh-so-insightful nihilistic philosophies?
Yeah, so what if love is about mutual gain, so what if it isn't selfless, you make it sound like that's a bad thing. There is nothing inherently 'wrong' with being selfish.
Like I told you before, go jump off a building if life really is that grim to you, otherwise GTFO and STFU with your BS. You have your own thread that deals with that issue, why don't you keep it there mate? No one wants to hear your bullshit.
Fuck it. You are the 2nd person to reach my ignore list.
You're wrong about the "game of life". Life is not a stupid game, it's a concept that some of us have yet to understand, especially at a younger age, not to mention teens in relationships. Selfless love is existent. You just assume there isn't based on a particular group of human interaction that happens to know nothing about it, because knowing you're an absolute pessimist, that's the only place you look at. I'm a true believer in selfless love, what I suggested in this thread was merely how I felt other people saw love. You on the other hand jump the gun and assume it's not real because of how you see "fake selfless love".snip
MAY SCIENCE HAVE MERCY ON YOUR BRAIN.You're wrong about the "game of life". Life is not a stupid game, it's a concept that some of us have yet to understand, especially at a younger age, not to mention teens in relationships. Selfless love is existent. You just assume there isn't based on a particular group of human interaction that happens to know nothing about it, because knowing you're an absolute pessimist, that's the only place you look at. I'm a true believer in selfless love, what I suggested in this thread was merely how I felt other people saw love. You on the other hand jump the gun and assume it's not real because of how you see "fake selfless love".
I can tell you're a pessimist. Instead of assuming life is so bad because people know naught about the real concept of it, you should ask yourself if another group of people understand it. You look at more of the bad parts of life than the good parts.
I ADDRESSED YOU STATING THIS SAME POINT IN MY THREAD AND I DID NOT SEE YOUR RESPONSE. YOU BLATANTLY CONTRADICTED YOURSELF AND YET YOU STILL CONTINUE TO SAY THE SAME THING.over what is a completely neutral thing: life.
I THINK PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN WATCHING ME OVER THE YEARS ON THE FORUMS ARE JUST CONFUSED. THEN THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE SEEING ME POST FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, SUCH AS CAPTAIN HOOK, AND THEY CAN BE EXTREMELY QUICK TO MAKE JUDGMENTS ABOUT WHAT KIND OF PERSON I MUST BE LIKE. THE FUCKING LIAR EVEN IGNORED ME WITHOUT EVEN ADDRESSING MY COUNTER-ARGUMENTS TO HIS POINTS. HE CHOOSES TO LIVE IN HIS BUBBLE AND THEN JUMPS TO CONCLUSIONS ABOUT WHO I AM AS IF HE'S SOME ALL-KNOWING GOD JUST BECAUSE HE'S OLDER THAN ME AND IS A FATHER. THAT IS PREPOSTEROUSLY IGNORANT AND ARROGANT AND OFFENSIVE AND I HOPE SOMEBODY TELLS HIM HE SUFFERS FROM THE DUNNING-KRUGER EFFECT.Damn Vints when did you get depressing as hell?
Not to say you are wrong, but Jesus Christ.
EDIT
“So far, the existence for a truly unselfish act isn't looking good.”
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/unselfish-act2.htm
“the purpose of altruism simply is to preserve the genetic line”
http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/what-scientific-basis-for-altruism
“And if that is what models and theories show, supported by empirical observation, then perhaps true altruism is really just a dream.”
http://www.scienceinschool.org/2012/issue25/altruism
“Researchers looked at 32 studies of primates and human foragers, and the evidence points to the fact that when sharing food, we want something out of it.”
http://www.geekosystem.com/human-primate-altruism/
THERE IS ONLY SELFISH LOVE. THERE IS ONLY THE SELFISH GENE. THE BATTLE OF THE SEXES EXISTS FOR A REASON. YOUR GIRLFRIEND OR SPOUSE OR SIGNIFICANT OTHER USES YOU FOR PERSONAL GAIN, THE SAME WAY YOU USE THEM: TO FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE, TO BE IN CONTROL, TO FURTHER THE AGENDA OF THE REPLICATING DNA! THE DNA COMPETES WITH ITSELF FOR UNEXPLAINABLE REASONS, SIMPLY TO REPRODUCE BETTER VERSIONS OF ITSELF.
THINK IN TERMS OF WHAT IS FUNDAMENTALLY CAUSING US TO PLAY THE GAME OF LIFE. DON'T LOOK AT THE SURFACE OF EVERYDAY INTERACTIONS. DON’T MISTAKE ACTS OF LOYALTY AND COMMITMENT AS SIGNS OF SELFLESS LOVE. THE SURFACE DOES NOT ADDRESS THE BIGGER PICTURE. THE SURFACE DOES NOT ADDRESS WHAT WE ARE AT THE CORE. THE CORE REVEALS THAT LIFE IS A STUPID AND RUTHLESS GAME. WE ARE SLAVES TO EVOLUTION UNLESS WE REFUSE TO PLAY. SCIENCE IS THE ONLY WAY TO BEGIN TO ADMIT WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING. YOUR PSYCHOLOGY AND RATIONALIZATIONS ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE TRUTH OF LIFE AND WHAT IT DOES AND HOW IT WORKS!
Snake: I'm going to save Meryl no matter what it takes.
Naomi: ..............
Snake: What's wrong. Naomi?
Naomi: Nothing.... I'm just surprised you're willing to sacrifice yourself. You've got the genes of a soldier, not a saviour
Snake: You trying to say I'm only interested in saving my own skin?
Naomi: I wouldn't go that far but....
Snake: I don't know what the hell my genes look like and I don't care. I operate on instinct.
Namoi: Like an animal?
Snake: I'm going to save Meryl. I don't need an excuse.
Naomi: Okay...
Snake: And I'm not doing it for someone else either. I'm going to save Meryl for myself. Colonel. Don't Worry!
The thing it keeps coming back to is BALANCE. Fucking love that word. BALANCE.
Two people love each other for selfish reasons? Maybe some do, or more rather its a mutual benefit of each others company. Oh there it is again. BALANCE.
LOVE IS JUST AN EMOTION MEANT TO INDUCE HAPPINESS. AND HAPPINESS IS A DELUSION DESIGNED TO KEEP YOU PLAYING THE "GAME OF LIFE". SO IN ESSENCE, YOU SHOULD'NT LOVE, FOR WE ALL DIE EVENTUALLY AND THE LOVE WILL TURN TO SORROW! PEOPLE FIGHT AND DIE IN THE NAME OF LOVE, IT'S MEANING IS SELF INDULGING, AND ONLY LEADS TO JEALOUSY! [OBLIGATORY SWEAR WORDS AND INSULT]
And by the way... I'm TOTALLY not being negative! >:]
Approaching intimacy authentically is to sincerely ask the question:
“What is love?”
We are in error if, after asking such a question, we then attempt to use our intellect to provide the answer. Such an approach would be the same as a child in kindergarten attempting to come to terms with The Theory of Relativity.
An experiential awareness of what love actually is comes to us from what we do not know.
The capacity to authentically intimately comprehend love is given, not gotten, because attaining it is beyond our current physical limitations, mental understandings, and imprinted emotional predicament. However, this does not for a moment mean we cannot dive into its unfathomable depths. On some divine level this ‘diving into an experiential awareness of what love is’, and most likely ‘drowning what we currently assume about ourselves in the depths of what is revealed’, is what we are here for.
Love is what I am here for.
What we may trust is that by sincerely asking “What is love?” we invite a wave of unexpected dismantling and re-framing of everything ‘we thought love was’. This means a dismantling and re-framing of everything as we thought we knew it, us, and our world to be. This dismantling and re-framing of everything is what most of us are alluding to when we declare: “On some level the idea of exploring intimacy frightens me.”
It is therefore important to approach an exploration into intimacy as humbly as possible. We are to expect to, at times, to be humiliated along the way as our assumptions shatter. It is important to ask the question “What is love?” from the point of view of one who sincerely admits to knowing anything about it – even if we still mentally assume we do. Asking “What is love?” is the same as asking “What am I?” or “What is God?” There are no greater questions – and when asked sincerely – the experience we are setting ourselves up for cannot be surpassed or in any way anticipated.
What is also useful, when asking such a question, is to remind ourselves we are living in an ‘ask and receive’ and not an ‘ask and go get’ universe. This may not be obvious to us right now, because we live on a planet infatuated with seeking answers, not asking the questions. Whenever we ask a question we automatically seek a fast food version of the answer – one that can be instantly transmitted to us through a book or through mental communication from someone we assume ‘knows’.
Others may impart 'their understandings' to us – but only we have the capacity to truly ‘know’. ‘Knowing’ is a deeply, intimately, personal experience.
Accepting others understandings as being ‘the answer’ won’t wash if we are serious about exploring intimacy. Our task is not to answer the question, “What is love?” - our only task is to ask it. The question is causal – the answer if the effect. We currently live in a cause and effect paradigm, and this arrangement works well for us when we work it. It also works against us when we ignore it – or are ignore-ant of it.
Whenever we ask a question and ‘go get’ the answer using our limited physical, mental, and emotional capacities – we confine the calibre of the answer gained. What love is cannot be know through any level of confinement. For many – such limiting answers may be enough. Most of us believe what we read in books and see on TV over and above what our experience is actually revealing to us in each moment. Such an approach won’t benefit us if we intend exploring intimacy authentically.
Approaching intimacy authentically requires embracing our experience as it is unfolding in each moment as being our most highly honoured teacher. When we ask “What is love?” we are served best by not trying to figure out how to answer this question emotionally, mentally, and physically. The most efficient approach is to stay in the question – to remain in a causal-consciousness about it.
When we approach the adventure of exploring intimacy in this way the answer unfolds organically - in an integrated manner - somehow revealing itself miraculously through the limited parameters of our ongoing emotional, mental, and physical experience. Only love itself knows how to accomplish an intimate response to our seeking. Being integrated and organic, the answer to this question unfolds in a manner tailored specifically for us – in a manner we are able to experientially contain according to our current perceptual capacities.
We commence such a profound journey by simply and sincerely asking:
“What is love?”
I know it's a bit late for this. but it just now occurred to me that people just flat up don't give that much of a shit about their relationships, only lust. Now it all makes sense.
Love is commitment. It's putting up with the rain and sunshine. Granted I never been in a relationship with any lady, SO I DON'T know what to look for in one.
Also, there is a damn good reason why long-term married couples don't have sex as often as they used to. Do you have any idea how boring it would get after having daily sex for months, years even? They space it out as to not get bored.
Wait, are we talking about birds or humanity?a cupcake