eyedream 1. Why do people prefer to think they are in love rather than infatuated?
2. a) they want their feelings to be deeper, sweeter, and truer than what is real.
3. b) if we can love someone is makes it more likely that we can be loved in return.
4. Is there such thing as pure love?
5. I refine: Do you love a person, or just their characteristics?
6. Marx (fucking genius) refined it to:
7. Is there more to a person than their characteristics?
8. What if their characteristics change? Has their person changed?
9. My sister (another fucking genius) said:
10. A person is a movie, not a photograph. A person is every instant.
11. I decide, people are fluid, and consistency in characteristics is not human.
12. Just because your characteristics change does not mean that you are not you.
13. People are not a set of characteristics, they are a set of changing characteristics.
14. Therefore you cannot define a person by a set of characteristics.
15. You can only define a person by their rate of change.
16. Flashback to Marx:
17. “Everything that you think/do/say, seen or not, makes up who you are.”
18. This does not rule out self-improvement…
19. (No saying, “It makes up who I am, so why should I change it?”)
20. To rule out self-improvement is unnatural and against your fluid self.
21. It’s a combination of change inflicted and change from within that create:
22. The Evolution of the Self.
23. How do we know if a change of characteristics is good or bad?
24. We don’t, we always do what we think is best, either for:
25. a) our self, or b) others
26. If we are forced to do something, we are still doing it for our ownbest”.
27. When you don’t believe you can do what isbest”, you are killing yourself.
28. To know what changes of characteristics are right and wrong, we must:
29. a) open our minds and eyes to both good and evil
30. (It is better when your beliefs are tested than when you avoid contradiction.)
31. b) love in any way you can.
32. To thrive in the fluidity of changing characteristics is unity.
33. To try to maintain one persona is to be constantly conflicted.
34. (Between your changing self and your inert self.)
35. So what is love?
36. Love is after the standard, initial infatuation and may only happen:
37. a) when the flaws are realized
38. b) when the subsequent disillusion is surpassed.
39. When we love ourselves, we are loving our own changing characteristics.
40. When we love others, we are loving their own changing characteristics.
41. There is no such thing is a flaw or a good quality.
42. Those words insinuate lasting and constant characteristics.
43. In reality, characteristics:
44. may waver occasionally, disappear sometimes, or be evicted entirely.
45. Wavering, disappearing, and evictions all count as changing;
46. Not just a characteristic being replaced by another.
47. (e.g. your compassion may waver suddenly, this is a change)
48. (e.g. your compassion may disappear temporarily, this is a change)
49. (e.g. your compassion may be lost permanently, this is a change)
50. (e.g. your compassion may be replaced by overprotectiveness, a change)
51. (e.g. your compassion may be replaced by deliberate unkindness, a change)
52. But to be anything entirely, constantly, and without change is wrong.
53. And to try to do so is to strain the fluid self and create self-guilt for failing.
54. Even the good characteristics.
55. Love is surrendering to your fluidity and that of others.
56. Marx: It is truly impossible to write of love and make one feel it.
57. There are some things one just knows.
58. There is such thing as pure love.

the end

screams like a girl
no reason you must have a wide bra strap. ;) 030912
misstree dear lord... so much here... i gotta print this out and go over it, contemplate each piece a while with a cup of coffee and a cat in my lap. fair warning to youknowwhoyouare, this is definitely coming to blathering_about_blather.

once again, stunning, eyedream.
eyedream I have trouble finding bras because I've very small but I refuse to wear padding or push-ups because they insult my beautiful breasts. 030913
x try not wearing bras? i do so sporadically, and phasally (much like everything).

i used to think like this. i have books full of it. somehow, it just stopped. i turned my focus into improving myself, and regular bouts of escapism.
She Everything you do, you do for yourself.

EG: Giving money to charity to give yourself that warm fuzzy feeling.

Nothing you do is selfless.
eyedream By that theory the only truly selfless people are murderers who's murders give them no pleasure, they are merely driven to do it but only condemn themselves.

Or suicidals.

I thought about that myself, She, and I agree with you. It's somewhere in there, where I wrote that we do what is best for ourselves, even if it is forced on us, we always have a choice, and to submit is to adopt their best as our own best....

Does that make any sense?
nom i agree that nothing you do is selfless in the sense that everything we do see feel we experience through this body form our self we call it
do you have any memory in which U are not present impossible it seems to see without some mode of deliverance i.e. sight in otherwords impossible to live without life
to be without self

that being said it is possible perhaps to try to act as little as possible in ways that one might view as harmful/of negative consequence to the ultimate self of being in all forms in the formation creation universe

alright i'm hitting blather before i refute myself
minnesota_chris I agree with the idea that we are constantly changing... we are different every day, our future self resembles our present self, but is different.

Sometimes people do kill themselves (and aren't there some creative ways to do it!). I decided a few years ago that the reason people have friends is to keep them from killing themselves.

I think part of a person's strength lies in their character... the things they usually do, the things they would NEVER do. But setting such rules is also prideful (and I feel prideful = wrong)
misstree why prideful = wrong? 030914
endless desire this has always been an issue for me.
is it even possible to have a completely selfless motive?
misstree imho, nope. nothing wrong with that either. 030914
closet ballerina I decided, when i was seventeen, that killing myself would be too hard on my parents.
Since that moment i've never seriously considered suicide and that's the only reason why.
misstree so, your decision was based on your love for your parents, and your desire not to put them through hardship. your decision was based on your desires. 030914
minnesota_chris I'll write that under: pride 030915
Closet Ballerina Well, speaking in those terms, everything we do is based on our desires, even if we "desire" to do something undesirable.

I think there's something missing in your definition.

Oh, and read "Notes from underground" By Dostoevski. He's all over this topic in that novel.
misstree define "'desire' to do somthing undesirable." 031006
phil warning: theunknown exists.

0. To explore the universal permanence and create change, is to establish your own permanence.

1. Love attains uncertain results.

2. Often you have love without recognizing you do.

3. Infacuation is a decision to have love coincide with an attractive characteristic.

4. Love is our own characteristic.

5. Love is ? impure. But mixes well.

6. A person is able to love things which are undesirable.
6b.Love requires no other experience

7. True love is desired.
7b. A person who never gives us undesirable results is our true love.

9. True love is experienced from pure love.
me-ooooooo! love is too dynamic and unpredictable an emotion or set of emotions to saddle with something as sterile and static as logic, you might as well try to herd cats 031006
misstree actually, i think that was a relatively good go at it.

and cat_herding is easy if you have jingly things. or dead mice.
crimson Desiring to do something undesirable. As in some form of masochism?

(If we're all a bit masochistic, wouldn the ultimate pleasure be denail of pain/displeasure? And if there is no bittwesweet discomfort involved, in what way would we be masochistic?)
misstree the broadest def. of masochism was on dic.com thusly: A willingness or tendency to subject oneself to unpleasant or trying experiences. plug this into my recent banner-waving for the either non-existence or extreme rarity of truly selfless acts.

also, reminds me of a joke: masochist says, "beat me?", sadist says "no." and from my experience, indeed, denial of unpleasent experience can be a more powerful and thus masochistically desirable doodad than actually getting the experience.
what's it to you?
who go