Mastering Things

[PyratePhil]

True, but they can pull all that crap on you even if you don't let on about your feelings.  Loving doesn't mean consenting to ill-treatment.

Yes, but if you don't let on you're that much more protected, right?

Here's the funny part:  loving freely makes it easier for others to love you, which makes it even easier to love freely.  It is possible to find the wrong person into which to pour your love, like a drain, but that doesn't mean you should correct the situation by turning off the tap.

How does what you do in this regard (ie - loving freely) cause others to love you? What if you're a right proper ba$tard, but you love people in your own way - does that mean others will automatically love you?

I'm sure you have certain personal examples in mind, just as I do - mine is of the hippies back in the day spouting "free love", "make love not war" and "I love you, man - I really love you!" LOL. What happened to that movement?

They grew up. They realized that free love was a sham, an ideal that couldn't be reached because of the basic nature of people. They learned that they were taken advantage of when they offered unconditional love.

And you know exactly what you are virtually guaranteed to lose by keeping mum.

What? What will I lose?

You are right, loving does make you vulnerable.  Problem is, not loving doesn't make one quite as invulnerable as you let on.

I still think it can.

(I have spent rather too much of my own life hiding within myself, and still being miserable.)

I have also, but I've always understood that to be my OWN failure - the failure of not being complete in and of myself - needing someone or something else to be whole. THAT was the problem - not the lack of love, but the lack of self-sufficiency and self-love.

Also, there are the rewards to be foregone.  It's a little bit like defending against being hit by a bus by refusing to come outdoors.

Rewards such as...?

If you never come outdoors, you will indeed never be hit by a bus. Unless, of course, the bus comes through your living room window one day - something that has happened on occasion in this mixed-up world.

If I choose not to go to malls and hang out, for example - my chances of being accosted by some mall-rats are reduced to practically zero.

If I don't drive, my chances of being hit by a drunk driver are reduced considerably.

It's all about what you want, what you need, and what you're willing to pay for either one.

Only the world.  It has to do with how you view the world while loving.  And then there is what unfolds in the world as a result.  You know, I'm not sure I have the words to explain myself, about what I would have lost by not loving.  Ask my children, maybe.

Funny you should mention children - mine are one of my last indulgences. All this theory breaks down when it comes to them, but even then I can step back and look at others - what has happened in their lives with THEIR children - when they totally stop loving those children (for whatever reason). The actions that usually led to their spurning their kids were strong enough that the lost love was not felt as a loss, but as a gain.

Sick, perhaps, at least on external appearances - but if you were in their situation you might very well agree.

As for how one views the world when in love and/or when loving - sorry, that's the "Rose-Colored Glasses" syndrome. The world is still what it is at that moment - it's your perceptions that have changed. Sort of like the people that read only the "Good Times News" newspaper - it has only good and happy news, nothing bad, so you're filled with the idea that the world is a wonderful place. Likewise, I could spend my time reading "The Mountain Man's Nasty Newsletter" and view the world as a place full of danger and unrest.

One of my goals is to see the world as it IS, not how I'd LIKE it to be or how it appears with various filters placed over it.

Now, that reminds me of another quote:  "It was the very thing he liked. To edge his way along the crowded paths of life, warning all human sympathy to keep its distance, was what the knowing ones call "nuts" to Scrooge."

LOL - huzzah for Scrooge! (pre-conversion model, that is).

[PyratePhil]

You say settle as if making a selection precludes other selections, or prevents changing one's mind (True in certain social contracts). But life is about choices.

Sorry - I didn't mean to imply that. Of course there are always alternatives.

Love: an overrated, over-hyped, underachieved and expectation-filled endeavor.

Romantic love maybe, but unconditional love never.

Ahh - I wondered when someone was going to define terms. Well put.

Every aspect of the human condition has inherent risks. I do not seek love that gives me power over anyone, that is not love.

Eh, maybe "power" wasn't a good word to use. I meant the "power" to be complete unto yourself, without the need to add any externals. Not "power" in the sense of "having it over" someone.

Life is temporary, I still want to live a happy one and friends make me happy.

Then go for it. I don't mean to tell anyone how to live - I'm just relating what I do. Just know that whatever you do in life to make you happy, I think you need to recognize the dangers before you do it. "What-if" planning, I call it with my martial arts students.

Cappuccino, common grounds for friendship; careful Phil your slipping!

Gah! NO, NO, I didn't mean that! *quickly pouring French vanilla / hazelnut cappuccino down the drain*

You and I are here? Sorry - I'M here. YOU'RE there. We aren't BOTH here. But now you'll probably reply that you're HERE and I'm THERE. See how it's all an illusion?

I think you knew I meant, were both here on Earth.

Well, I try not to assume that I know what someone means...

[Caraccioli]

What? Cynicism again?

Phil, your complaint about love seems [to me] to be primarily about being used. Everybody uses each other, even those who try and shy away from it. What of it? Sometimes it's for the better, sometimes it's not. Either way, you get to chose which elements of every experience you want to focus upon and how you will define your created world in terms of them.

You sort of allude to having been burned. So have I. So what? Life is risk. From risk comes success and failure, both of which provide reward and learning. (But you already know that.) Perhaps the comments of someone who has experienced something close to both total self-absorption and total giving in her lifetime might be appropriate. "Life is either a daring adventure or it is nothing. Security does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than exposure." -Helen Adams Keller

Life is an illusion. Step back and realize how important you are and aren't. (Here's something fun to give you some perspective on that: http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift ) So what are we to get from it? I say learning. What else can we achieve of any importance? Perhaps love and friendship are about learning in the same direction.

As for unconditional love...it's a lovely ideal. However, like all ideals, I perceive that we poor mortals can only approach it, we cannot fully grasp it. Kind of like truth, actually. And now we're full circle. Funny how that happens.

[PyratePhil]

What? Cynicism again?

Not cynicism. Realism.

Cynicism is what an optimist calls it when they disagree. But it isn't necessarily so. It's just opposite of what the optimist sees. In this case, realism.

Phil, your complaint about love seems [to me] to be primarily about being used. Everybody uses each other, even those who try and shy away from it. What of it? Sometimes it's for the better, sometimes it's not. Either way, you get to chose which elements of every experience you want to focus upon and how you will define your created world in terms of them.

No, actually my primary "complaint" (actually, my observation) is that it is possible to do without it, and gain benefits in the doing. Not everybody uses everyone else, BTW.

And yes, I'm doing exactly what you said - I'm focusing upon certain elements of the equation, but because not many others focus upon the same ones in the same way, or haven't the experiences to draw upon as I have, they fall back on labels such as "negative" or "cynical".

..."Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than exposure." -Helen Adams Keller

I agreed 100% with this entire paragraph until this final line. It's a non-realistic view of things - for a certain time period, avoiding danger is indeed far safer than exposure. Else, my teachings of danger avoidance and verbal de-escalation skills would be worthless - which, experience has shown, are not.

Quotes are wonderful addendums to conversations such as this, but the problem with them is that you need to understand the EXACT circumstances in which they were uttered, otherwise they're pretty much window dressing.

Life is an illusion. Step back and realize how important you are and aren't. (Here's something fun to give you some perspective on that:  http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift ) So what are we to get from it? I say learning. What else can we achieve of any importance? Perhaps love and friendship are about learning in the same direction.

And once you learn something to the max, as the Taoists say, you do your best to UNlearn it. Otherwise, all you're doing in this limited life is carrying around un-needed baggage.

I'll check that link out and give my cyn...um, informed opinion. ;>P

As for unconditional love...it's a lovely ideal. However, like all ideals, I perceive that we poor mortals can only approach it, we cannot fully grasp it. Kind of like truth, actually. And now we're full circle. Funny how that happens.

Yep. The original line of this thread, lo these many words ago, was about mastery. I maintain that making the effort to divorce yourself from such things as friendship and love can be beneficial in terms of mastering yourself.

If you are not reliant upon or addicted to something, you are the master of it. In order to achieve this, however, you have to peer deep inside the thing and see its true nature.

[Caraccioli]

Love: an overrated, over-hyped, underachieved and expectation-filled endeavor. Telling someone you love them not only puts you at risk; it also surely takes away from your power.

Looks at it one way...looks at it another...looks from behind at it to see what it looks like writ backwards...

I dunno. Looks pretty cynical from my perception of it. Nothing is absolute.

As for telling someone you love them...perhaps it does take away from one source of your power, but, in a way that several people have sort of alluded to, it also expands another source of your power.

It is possible to do without, though. In fact, my experience is that I'd much rather do without than be in a situation that is basically assembled for convenience or created to fulfill some perceived expectation or need (societal or personal). One will not find outside oneself what one does not have within oneself. OTOH, keeping it all within is akin to having a fire and keeping all the oxygen away from it. Love, as I understand it, grows by giving it away, not by keeping to yourself. (Although I believe I can understand how you might disagree with this.)

As for the quote...

"Life is either a daring adventure or it is nothing. Security does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than exposure." -Helen Adams Keller

As I read it, "Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than exposure." means "hiding from danger" or even "hiding from life." (Like everyone else, I interpret quotes I like in light of the understanding I have of them - it comes back to perception as I believe all things must. Intelligent people have tried vainly to pull quotes I like apart in the past based on some different understanding they have. I figure that that's good. They have a different experience that affects their perception - we all do. So I can chose to accept or reject their interpretation if they give me good reason.)

To me, the last line is a comment on foolish things like the establishment of Homeland Security to "protect" us from danger. (What utter, fascist nonsense we will subscribe to in the illusive pursuit of nearly non-existent externally maintained "security.") Now, you could also interpret the last line of the quote to be "rushing foolishly headlong into perilous situations," but in light of the preceding line in the quote ("Security does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it."), I find that such an interpretation diverges rather widely from the on-going momentum of the ideas in the quote.

[PyratePhil]

LOL - the ball's in my court again, eh?

*takes deep inhale*

Okey-doke...

Love: an overrated, over-hyped, underachieved and expectation-filled endeavor. Telling someone you love them not only puts you at risk; it also surely takes away from your power.

Looks at it one way...looks at it another...looks from behind at it to see what it looks like writ backwards...

I dunno. Looks pretty cynical from my perception of it. Nothing is absolute.

Try this - suspend judgment for a moment...

• Overrated: love has been alluded to by poets (and Hallmark) as the single greatest thing in the Universe since sliced bread. It is claimed that it overcomes all and cannot be stopped. Look at these statements scientifically and rationally - are they not just platitudes?
  
• Over-hyped: Look at Valentine's Day - if THAT isn't pushing the concept of love to new lows, I don't know what is. Your lady won't love you unless you dump a load of cash on roses, diamonds and chocolate. Meanwhile, they have the nerve to stick little angels and animated hearts on their ads in the hopes that they'll trigger your kindergarten instincts and rush out to buy everything in sight. None of it has anything to do with love. Hearts? What does a heart have to do with love??? It's the MIND that controls the emotions, not the heart. (Chinese medical theories notwithstanding LOL)
  
• Underachieved: Can you count on one hand the number of people you know that have failed in love? It would take me a Cray computer and a few years to count them all. Yes, some "conquer" their loneliness and aloneness and "find love"; the rest are leading lives of quiet desperation (to steal a quote).
  
• Expectation-filled: This is perhaps the most insidious trait of all. Tell me you don't automatically gain new expectations when you "fall in love"..."Oh, the sunrise is SOOOOoooo beautiful this morning...life is SOOOOooo wonderful...everything's coming up roses!"
  Then they get hit by the runaway 18-wheeler...
  People for the most part expect love to last forever - they even frequently claim that it lives on beyond the grave. When the love changes, as everything must, they act all surprised and upset - *weeping* "I thought he'd love me forever..."
  NOTHING is forever, but don't tell that to the diamond merchants. They want you to believe in that myth so you keep buying those slave-labor rocks.
  

As for telling someone you love them...perhaps it does take away from one source of your power, but, in a way that several people have sort of alluded to, it also expands another source of your power.

Power, like everything else, can be real and illusory at the same time. Often, true power is confused with the ability to muscle through obstacles, or to feel good when you normally would not. That isn't power - that's channeling your intent. If that's a form of power, so be it. But I wouldn't want to rely solely upon the power I had gained from love to lift a refrigerator or overcome an assailant.

It is possible to do without, though. In fact, my experience is that I'd much rather do without than be in a situation that is basically assembled for convenience or created to fulfill some perceived expectation or need (societal or personal). One will not find outside oneself what one does not have within oneself.

ExACTLY what I think.

OTOH, keeping it all within is akin to having a fire and keeping all the oxygen away from it. Love, as I understand it, grows by giving it away, not by keeping to yourself. (Although I believe I can understand how you might disagree with this.)

Eh - you took the wind out of my sails on this point by understanding me LOL!

As for the quote...

...As I read it, "Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than exposure." means "hiding from danger" or even "hiding from life."

A valid interpretation, IMHO.

Just, I see "hiding from danger" as impossible. It's reducing the odds that I'm most concerned with...so by being a hermit, the chances of danger coming calling are reduced. Not eliminated...just reduced. Sometimes, all you need is a few percentage points to get by.

To me, the last line is a comment on foolish things like the establishment of Homeland Security to "protect" us from danger. (What utter, fascist nonsense we will subscribe to in the illusive pursuit of nearly non-existent externally maintained "security.")

Totally agree.

Now, you could also interpret the last line of the quote to be "rushing foolishly headlong into perilous situations," but in light of the preceding line in the quote ("Security does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it."), I find that such an interpretation diverges rather widely from the on-going momentum of the ideas in the quote.

OK - good explanation - thank you.

[LongTom]

If you are not reliant upon or addicted to something, you are the master of it. In order to achieve this, however, you have to peer deep inside the thing and see its true nature.

If you avoid something because it might hurt you, you are not the master of it.

I don't entirely follow your use of the word "reliant". The master relies on his tools. A master woodcarver does not, by dint of his sheer mastery of woodcarving, produce masterpieces with his bare hands. He cannot produce without them, and yet he is still a master.

Addicted, I follow. However, loving and being addicted to love are not synonymous. I think that perhaps much of what makes love fail is external to love itself: personal or societal baggage of various sorts.

I remain unpersuaded that you have seen its true nature. Have you checked the color of your own glasses recently?

[oderlesseye]

Nothing is absolute

wot an oximoron! Notice the statement is Absolute.....

Relativism is a new age lie! Or should i be kind and call it a Philosophy...eerrr.

' All significance is assigned ' It Is !

[Caraccioli]

Back and forth. Ok, truce on back and forth. We don't agree on everything, but I knew that. (I find your definition breakdown to be quite cynical. )

I think the notion of romantic love is about at least two things. Just as I think goals are about two things. And I think success in life is about two things. And most other things are about two things. The two things? The short- and long-term.

In the short term love arena, you have lust and passion, infatuation and idealized romance. Basically, it's about short term sparks. Man cannot love on broad alone, however. If we were constantly in a state of infatuation, we'd accomplish little and wander about dazed and distracted. So infatuation has a stop-loss order: reality sets in. Our mate is human. Oh, fie!

In the long term lover arena, you have acceptance and courtesy, learning and growing together. Basically, it's about perseverance, although not in a dry, dull way, but in an accepting, trusting way. Man can live well and learn a great deal by persevering. Your partner becomes your helpmeet, your companion, you co-conspirator.

Romantic? Sure, I suppose so. There's the arguing and disagreements and whatnot, too. Muscles become stronger through resistance. The heart is essentially one big muscle. (Ok, I'm mixing metaphors.)

Hey, I just saw Infinity recently - a splendid, romantic movie that explains a little about love in a way not quite like most other movies. Everyone should run off and watch it and maybe you'll understand love betterer.

[Caraccioli]

Nothing is absolute

wot an oximoron! Notice the statement is Absolute.....

Nothing is not absolute? What can be more absolute than nothing? (I'm being cheeky.)

Relativism is a new age lie! Or should i be kind and call it a Philosophy...eerrr.

Let's us approach it scientifically. Name me an absolute. (We need a little devil emoticon.)

' All significance is assigned ' It Is !

But we agree! This is another way to say that you define your own world via your perceptions. However, if this is true, how can there be absolutes? Everyone's world is defined by the significance they assign to various aspects of it. Everyone's viewpoint is colored by their perspective.

[PyratePhil]

If you avoid something because it might hurt you, you are not the master of it.

I can and do avoid situations (when possible) where I can be hurt. Yet I consider myself masterful at resolving those very same situations when forced into them.

Therefore, I avoid harmful things, yet know I am master of them. A true Master doesn't need to test himself constantly. He just Is, and is comfortable with that knowledge.

Now if I were to avoid those situations out of irrational fear, then yes, that would be "bad". I avoid them, not because i fear them, but because I know what I am capable of doing - and do not wish to pay the price society demands for doing it.

I don't entirely follow your use of the word "reliant".  The master relies on his tools.  A master woodcarver does not, by dint of his sheer mastery of woodcarving, produce masterpieces with his bare hands.  He cannot produce without them, and yet he is still a master.

A master relies on his tools. A REAL Master goes beyond them - he NEEDS no tools to create his works (ie - Master-pieces).

Norm Abrams is a Master Carpenter, right? Why? Because he's a whiz at using a band saw and a router? No - he's a Master Carpenter because he KNOWS THE PROCESS and HAS MUCHO EXPERIENCE. Sure, he USES the tools - but let me tell you, if I was stuck on a remote island with Norm and we had no tools at all, who do you think I would prefer to build a raft - me or him?

A tool in the hands of a Master is just an extension of that Master. Handy, but not essential. Otherwise, it would be a crutch.

Addicted, I follow.  However, loving and being addicted to love are not synonymous.  I think that perhaps much of what makes love fail is external to love itself: personal or societal baggage of various sorts.

Agreed. But the common conception, and even execution, of love is made up of those very pieces of baggage. Only rarely does true love happen, and with nowhere near the frequency as "conventional wisdom" would have you believe.

I remain unpersuaded that you have seen its true nature.  Have you checked the color of your own glasses recently?

I'm sorry, but I'm not here to persuade anyone of anything - merely reciting my own personal mantra for the enjoyment and, perhaps, mental stimulation of others.

As for the color of my glasses - I've been using them intimately for over 49 years now - I have a small amount of experience with them, and they fit ME fine. I DON'T expect them to help the vision of anyone else, however.

[PyratePhil]

Back and forth. Ok, truce on back and forth. We don't agree on everything, but I knew that. (I find your definition breakdown to be quite cynical.  )

*steam comes out Phil's ears as a cartoon whistle effect is heard*

I think the notion of romantic love is about at least two things. Just as I think goals are about two things. And I think success in life is about two things. And most other things are about two things. The two things? The short- and long-term.

And as the Chinese would say, in-between those two things are the ten thousand things...but go on...

In the short term love arena, you have lust and passion, infatuation and idealized romance. Basically, it's about short term sparks. Man cannot love on broad alone, however. If we were constantly in a state of infatuation, we'd accomplish little and wander about dazed and distracted. So infatuation has a stop-loss order: reality sets in. Our mate is human. Oh, fie!

Lust, passion, etc. are not love, but see - because of societal conditioning, you make that connection. LOL

"Love on broad alone" - I like that - can I get a franchise license on that?

But ok - I'll grant you that initial attraction to another is often based on such physical longings. Continue, please...

In the long term lover arena, you have acceptance and courtesy, learning and growing together. Basically, it's about perseverance, although not in a dry, dull way, but in an accepting, trusting way. Man can live well and learn a great deal by persevering. Your partner becomes your helpmeet, your companion, you co-conspirator.

Meh - the same would be true in an ideal society - universal love, as my hippie friends would have said - but it didn't work then, and I see only very few instances of it working now.

Romantic? Sure, I suppose so. There's the arguing and disagreements and whatnot, too. Muscles become stronger through resistance. The heart is essentially one big muscle. (Ok, I'm mixing metaphors.)

Whoa, my little head is spinning after THAT witch's brew!

Maybe that's my problem, though - I don't resist, so my heart must be very weak. *slumps over computer keyboard suddenly*

Hey, I just saw Infinity recently - a splendid, romantic movie that explains a little about love in a way not quite like most other movies. Everyone should run off and watch it and maybe you'll understand love betterer. 

Well, I've always believed that you learn by doing, not by watching. Believe me, I've learned a lot. And what I write here is a partial sampling of what I've learned. As I said to Long Tom, I don't expect my views to be anything but amusement and, possibly, food for thought for one or two kindred souls.

But if y'all DON'T listen to me and follow my rules, I'll be comin' for ya'!

[PyratePhil]

Nothing is absolute

wot an oximoron! Notice the statement is Absolute.....

Nothing is not absolute? What can be more absolute than nothing? (I'm being cheeky.)

Absolutely!

[Caraccioli]

Back and forth. In the short term love arena, you have lust and passion, infatuation and idealized romance. Basically, it's about short term sparks. Man cannot love on broad alone, however. If we were constantly in a state of infatuation, we'd accomplish little and wander about dazed and distracted. So infatuation has a stop-loss order: reality sets in. Our mate is human. Oh, fie!

Lust, passion, etc. are not love, but see - because of societal conditioning, you make that connection. LOL

Well, there is an initial phase to any relationship that is all fascination and adoration. So it's not just a societal construct. (It has been built up to epic proportions, but I don't quite see how you can just dismiss it as mass hysteria.) In essence, I agree with you. But this brings forth the question in my mind...how can you have knowledge of love if you don't experience what I call the "Long-term" phase? Many romances break up because "the passion is gone" or some such, which is code for "the infatuation is over and now I must face that fact that this person snores and leaves bits of toothpaste in the sink, etc." A relationship can sometimes last years before it finally reaches this quandary. (The Seven Year Itch and other cliches come to mind.) Unless you don't see my long-term description as being love? (Of which I'm not certain. You seem to be lightly dismissing it as being idealistic despite my attempt to offer both sides of it in the above post.)

If not, how do you perceive "romantic" love of another? What are the elements of it? Do you perceive it as even being possible? Are relationships nothing more than devices for reproduction? If so, is mating nothing more than an instinctive continuation of the race? (That's the only way I can presently see the dismissal of the L-T aspect of love. It would explain infatuation rather handily, although it might confound the Darwinian aspects of protection of the offspring, child-rearing and survival of what has to be one of the most helpless of new born creatures.)

"Love on broad alone" - I like that - can I get a franchise license on that?

Actually, that's a typo, so you can use it free of charge. The comment should have been "Man cannot live on broad alone." (Which is paraphrased from "Har to Har," written by Lou Silverstone, Mad Magazine, July 1981, p. 43)

[PyratePhil]

Well, there is an initial phase to any relationship that is all fascination and adoration.

ANY relationship? What about when a guy and a gal grow up together from childhood - they play together, go to school together - they're best of friends - and they finally tie the knot. Isn't it possible that there wasn't lust, or passion, fascination, adoration, sex...

Just plain ol' buddies. Friends. Soul-mates, if you'll indulge me my favorite phrase.

That might very well be the ultimate coupling, if there is such a beast.

So it's not just a societal construct. (It has been built up to epic proportions, but I don't quite see how you can just dismiss it as mass hysteria.)

Eh...I tend to overemphasize certain points, granted...

In essence, I agree with you. But this brings forth the question in my mind...how can you have knowledge of love if you don't experience what I call the "Long-term" phase? Many romances break up because "the passion is gone" or some such, which is code for "the infatuation is over and now I must face that fact that this person snores and leaves bits of toothpaste in the sink, etc." A relationship can sometimes last years before it finally reaches this quandary. (The Seven Year Itch and other cliches come to mind.)

If your definition of love includes long-term stability and caring then yes, that's a go.

Unless you don't see my long-term description as being love? (Of which I'm not certain. You seem to be lightly dismissing it as being idealistic despite my attempt to offer both sides of it in the above post.)

Who am I to judge what's valid or not? Love can be and is both long- and short-term...

"Man, I loved that movie!"

...or...

"I've loved you all my life"

To me, anytime you invoke human emotions you're getting into certain idealistic mindsets, along with their associated weaknesses and strengths. That's probably why I appear to be dismissing your comment (although I don't really mean to).

If not, how do you perceive "romantic" love of another? What are the elements of it? Do you perceive it as even being possible? Are relationships nothing more than devices for reproduction? If so, is mating nothing more than an instinctive continuation of the race? (That's the only way I can presently see the dismissal of the L-T aspect of love. It would explain infatuation rather handily, although it might confound the Darwinian aspects of protection of the offspring, child-rearing and survival of what has to be one of the most helpless of new born creatures.)

Whew - this will be a long one, I fear...

Of course, this will bugger the question, "what is romantic". That might well be left as a conversation for another few weeks in the future. :>)

Of course I perceive it as possible - I've experienced it. Many times. I'm a romantic from way, way back. I wouldn't have a file cabinet full of love poems I've written to women over the years if I wasn't. It's only after my train-wreck of a philosophical awakening, coupled with a long string of nasty let-downs, that I've changed my tune. Call it bitter, if you like - there's probably a goodly amount of truth in that. But also call it personal experience, for that's exactly what it is. And if there's one thing I do well these days, it's learning from my experiences - good AND bad.

What are the elements of it? Different for everyone, of course. My ideas and yours would probably differ quite a bit...my ideas and the next guy's might also. In fact, I'm pretty sure they would.

But (and here, get ready to groan) a rose is still a rose. The effect that we're trying for is probably universally the same. Once again, all of us guys (I speak only for guys, for after all these years and experiences I STILL don't understand women - I just appreciate them) are going to the same place - just taking different paths.

A very close friend of mine is married to a man for about ten years now. They got married with both of them defining their terms: he wanted a house slave - someone that would cook, clean and take care of the kid; she had to look good on his arm and not raise a fuss if he worked a lot of overtime.

Her list was just as basic - she wanted someone to bring home the bacon, to provide the overhead. She was fine with that agreement at that time.

Each had what they considered to be valid reasons for their desires - and who are we to say "Yea" or "Nay"?

The word "love" never entered their equation. Yet their business bond now is almost as strong as when they first got married. Emotionally, they're both a wreck...but business agreement-wise, they're fine. Now, how many other conventionally-paired couples are the same way? Outwardly, they're Ward and June - inwardly, they're a mess. Sometimes, that mess is produced by the idea that they HAVE to stay together, for whatever reasons. To me, that goes against common-sense, and it especially goes against nature. Yet they think that love exacts such a price, so they flush their lives away, along with those nearest and dearest to them.

As for the bearded guy that plays with tortoises - I think that's a totally different subject. Love and reproduction have nothing to do with each other - it's more likely the morality and rules drilled into the heads of people by the early Christian dogma that have kept that association going for so long.

As we see now with the advent of high-tech, women don't even NEED a guy anymore to conceive. Where's the love/reproduce equation there? Purely logical, cold, and planned reproductions - and not a candle-lit dinner in the lot of them.

Actually, that's a typo, so you can use it free of charge. The comment should have been "Man cannot live on broad alone." (Which is paraphrased from "Har to Har," written by Lou Silverstone, Mad Magazine, July 1981, p. 43)

LOL - it figures - the deepest, most philosophically-valid point I can agree with, and it comes from MAD magazine

[Caraccioli]

Well, "every" is probably a bad word to have used. Although, even in an old friendship, there is a moment of discovery that I suggest will still lead to the good ol' initial phase. Otherwise, isn't it really just a different example of your two friends who are together in a sort of business-like arrangement of convenience? But I am splitting hairs... (I don't know that an honest business-like arrangement is all that bad, myself. Devoid of any passion, it's more like a tax dodge or something, but there is still something I can see in it... I suppose it depends on on what form you expect an exclusive relationship. (If you know what you expect. I suspect most people don't.)

As for the rest of it...very candid. Thanks.

I sort of suspected you chose to have a romantic streak in your view. Admittedly, I choose not to be much of a romantic for the most part. (I knew that would shock everyone.)

"You are quoting Snoopy the Dog, I believe?"

"I'll quote the truth wherever I find it, thank you."

-Richard Bach

Or perhaps I'll just quote whatever it amuses me...I probably haven't read that line in the magazine since 1981. Yet ask me to remember someone's name I just met... Kind of like the term "the crawling rot of the cranium." I spent hours leafing through my collection of ancient Cracked! magazines to find that panel so I could scan it in and play with it. All I could remember was the style of the drawing... (I do so love words, phrases and worldplay.)

[PyratePhil]

- I'm the same way with Bugs Bunny - I can quote verbatim from any of his hundreds of toons, but I have trouble zipping my fly.

...

...not THAT way...I mean....awww, hell...

[Caraccioli]

"Finster shaving at his age? And tattooed? And smoking a cee-gar?"

Oops! Forget the philosophical angles:

"Carrots, wait for no one

So I'll pick them now.

Before they are eaten,

By some slobby cow."

"One of these days these scientists are going to invent something that can OUTSMART a rabbit."

"I wonder if he's stubborn enough to open all those doors? (Explosion) Yep. He's stubborn enough."

"You can't blow up the earth! All the people I know are there!"

Daffy?

"Shoot me again, I enjoy it! I love the smell of burnt feathers! And gunpowder! Look! I'm an elk! Go ahead and shoot me! It's elk season! I'm a fiddler crab! Why don't you shoot me? It's fiddler crab season!"

"That's funny, suddenly I don't feel myself. Oh, I feel ok, it's just that...EEEK! You know better than that!"

Or Yosemite Sam:

"Surrender, rabbit! I gotcha outnumbered, one ta one!"

"I paid my four bits ta see the high divin' act and I'ma gonna see the high divin' act."

"You throw one more match down there and I ain'ta goin' to get it."

Bugs and Wile E. (one of my personal favorite combos):

"What kind of wine goes best with wild game? You are game, aren't you?"

"Oh, uh, I'm game alright."

[LongTom]

I can and do avoid situations (when possible) where I can be hurt. Yet I consider myself masterful at resolving those very same situations when forced into them.

Therefore, I avoid harmful things, yet know I am master of them. A true Master doesn't need to test himself constantly. He just Is, and is comfortable with that knowledge.

I don't think I would call it needing to test himself constantly (in the sense that I seem to find in your wording) for a master to daily take up his tools, which doubtless carry some risk, and use them. On the other hand, he probably learns, in the course of extending his craft, to be capable of feats with those tools that would be exceedingly dangerous in the hands of someone less experienced. Sam Maloof does some things with freehand bandsaw cutting that are a marvel to behold. He says in his videos, "Don't try this. It is horrible technique, and appallingly dangerous. Just don't."

Now if I were to avoid those situations out of irrational fear, then yes, that would be "bad". I avoid them, not because i fear them, but because I know what I am capable of doing - and do not wish to pay the price society demands for doing it.

Fair enough. I thought you were saying that love was by definition a fool's errand, rather than that you find yourself unsuited to it. Perhaps I misunderstood. (Me? Misunderstand? Imagine that! )

A master relies on his tools. A REAL Master goes beyond them - he NEEDS no tools to create his works (ie - Master-pieces).

Explain this. Michelangelo chiseled his hunk 'David' out of a hunk of marble using his teeth?

Norm Abrams is a Master Carpenter, right? Why? Because he's a whiz at using a band saw and a router? No - he's a Master Carpenter because he KNOWS THE PROCESS and HAS MUCHO EXPERIENCE. Sure, he USES the tools - but let me tell you, if I was stuck on a remote island with Norm and we had no tools at all, who do you think I would prefer to build a raft - me or him?

I know he's a whiz with kiln-dried pine and Delta power tools, but is he conversant with wet, spongy, tropical tree trunks and a stone hand-adze? Probably more than me, that's for sure. But enough to call himself a Master in that situation?

A tool in the hands of a Master is just an extension of that Master. Handy, but not essential. Otherwise, it would be a crutch.

Again: Michelangelo as a beaver in the Petrified Forest. Mastery of a craft involves mastery of the tools: striving to do more with them, not striving to do without them.

Agreed. But the common conception, and even execution, of love is made up of those very pieces of baggage. Only rarely does true love happen, and with nowhere near the frequency as "conventional wisdom" would have you believe. 

I think one of the secrets to achieving a lasting love is to strip away the misconceptions as to what it is supposed to look like. When people realize that into every life a little rain must fall, but that doesn't mean everything is going to melt, things get more manageable. You mop up the mess and continue on.

By the way, you know that 50% divorce rate? Apparently 80% of first marriages are permanent. 20% of the people are causing 50% of the marriages (and all of the divorces). I forget where I read that. I'll have to go find it again.

As for the color of my glasses - I've been using them intimately for over 49 years now - I have a small amount of experience with them, and they fit ME fine. I DON'T expect them to help the vision of anyone else, however. 

Just checking. You seem quite confident my glasses are rose-colored. Fair enough; guilty as charged. However, from my perspective, your goggles appear rather jaundiced. Having worn a pair of that approximate shade myself for a good part of my life, I dare to imagine I recognize a kindred pair. (In some ways, I wear the rosy ones on top of the others.)

[Caraccioli]

A master relies on his tools. A REAL Master goes beyond them - he NEEDS no tools to create his works (ie - Master-pieces).

Explain this. Michelangelo chiseled his hunk 'David' out of a hunk of marble using his teeth?

Let me take a whack at it...the master's skills do not disappear without the use of tools. I think most of what we think of as mastery in this situation is mentally contained ability. This is achieved through practice (perseverance again), deep understanding and thought. (Phil may not totally agree, although his later comments suggest to me that he does, but I don't actually know.)

Norm Abrams is a Master Carpenter, right? Why? Because he's a whiz at using a band saw and a router? No - he's a Master Carpenter because he KNOWS THE PROCESS and HAS MUCHO EXPERIENCE. Sure, he USES the tools - but let me tell you, if I was stuck on a remote island with Norm and we had no tools at all, who do you think I would prefer to build a raft - me or him?

I know he's a whiz with kiln-dried pine and Delta power tools, but is he conversant with wet, spongy, tropical tree trunks and a stone hand-adze? Probably more than me, that's for sure. But enough to call himself a Master in that situation?

Me, I'd take Norm's boat over Phil's. (No offense, Phil. ) Norm knows wood.

A tool in the hands of a Master is just an extension of that Master. Handy, but not essential. Otherwise, it would be a crutch.

Again: Michelangelo as a beaver in the Petrified Forest. Mastery of a craft involves mastery of the tools: striving to do more with them, not striving to do without them.

Yeah, but the tools are only elegant in the hands of someone who knows how to use them. The knowledge of how to wield it is far, far more important than the axe.

Speaking of Michelangelo, he was once asked "How did you do it – make such a magnificent piece [as the statue of David]?" Michelangelo supposedly said, "I just removed everything that wasn’t David."

Mastery is achieved through experience, knowledge and (a key secret of all masters) knowing the shortcuts that those two things impart. Plus it involves a sort of learned (and possibly innate) intuition.

I was reading something or other recently that was talking about the fact that Bobby Fischer wasn't a great chess player because he thought 30 moves ahead. He was a great chess player because he almost intuitively recognized certain, typical patterns that were common board arrangements in a chess game. He learned this through experience and created shortcut responses. I also read that when he was young, Fischer was playing a game with some far more experienced chess players when he decided to sacrifice his queen. When he did it, everyone agreed that it was a foolish move. However, twelve moves later, the reason for doing so proved that he had made a very good strategic move. When asked how he had figured this out, Fischer said something like, "I didn't. I just felt it was the right thing to do."

I think one of the secrets to achieving a lasting love is to strip away the misconceptions as to what it is supposed to look like.  When people realize that into every life a little rain must fall, but that doesn't mean everything is going to melt, things get more manageable.  You mop up the mess and continue on.

Sounds like a good thimblized philosophy to me.

[oderlesseye]

Relativism

[PyratePhil]

Relativism

Interesting, up to this point-

Furthermore, I believe cognitive relativism is easily refutable with the following example of a logical absolute:

        Something cannot bring itself into existence.

    My proposed logical absolute is indeed logical and always true. Let’s look at this. For something to bring itself into existence it must first exist. If it first existed then it cannot bring itself into existence because it already is existing.  Likewise, if something does not exist then it is not possible for it to bring itself into existence since it isn't there to do anything.

    This is an absolute truth and it is knowable. Since it is absolutely true, cognitive relativism, which states that all truth is relative, is false.

There's a glaring fallacy there - they're proceeding from a false assumption.

They assume that everything in the Universe behaves in ways that they can and already do understand.

Therefore, cognitive relativism is still valid.

[PyratePhil]

I don't think I would call it needing to test himself constantly (in the sense that I seem to find in your wording) for a master to daily take up his tools, which doubtless carry some risk, and use them.

There was once a Japanese warrior (the name escapes me at the moment) who came up with the line:

"After the ten-thousandth time, still a beginner"

A True Master (I'm gonna' trademark that puppy yet! LOL) rises in the morning and, like a good student, erases his mental chalkboard so that he can learn the day's lessons anew. Nothing is taken for granted, nothing is expected - he is a blank slate upon which experience can write.

On the other hand, he probably learns, in the course of extending his craft, to be capable of feats with those tools that would be exceedingly dangerous in the hands of someone less experienced.  Sam Maloof does some things with freehand bandsaw cutting that are a marvel to behold.  He says in his videos, "Don't try this.  It is horrible technique, and appallingly dangerous.  Just don't."

Granted. A Master makes it look deceptively easy until WE try to imitate them.

Now if I were to avoid those situations out of irrational fear, then yes, that would be "bad". I avoid them, not because i fear them, but because I know what I am capable of doing - and do not wish to pay the price society demands for doing it.

Fair enough. I thought you were saying that love was by definition a fool's errand, rather than that you find yourself unsuited to it. Perhaps I misunderstood. (Me? Misunderstand? Imagine that! )

I'm not so much unsuited to it, as it to me.

A master relies on his tools. A REAL Master goes beyond them - he NEEDS no tools to create his works (ie - Master-pieces).

Explain this. Michelangelo chiseled his hunk 'David' out of a hunk of marble using his teeth?

Actually, Mr. C. did a great job of explaining. (Yes, I agree :>P). The Mastery is not in the tools - it's in the Master. Tools are just that - tools. Il Divino could probably have created the Pieta with a spoon and a few sharp rocks, if need be. But common sense dictates, even to Masters, that you take advantage of whatever tools are at hand.

Norm Abrams is a Master Carpenter, right? Why? Because he's a whiz at using a band saw and a router? No - he's a Master Carpenter because he KNOWS THE PROCESS and HAS MUCHO EXPERIENCE. Sure, he USES the tools - but let me tell you, if I was stuck on a remote island with Norm and we had no tools at all, who do you think I would prefer to build a raft - me or him?

I know he's a whiz with kiln-dried pine and Delta power tools, but is he conversant with wet, spongy, tropical tree trunks and a stone hand-adze? Probably more than me, that's for sure. But enough to call himself a Master in that situation?

LOL - he'd still be more Masterful than me, let me assure you! I'd be putting palm fronds on the water, hoping to drift home on top of them...

A tool in the hands of a Master is just an extension of that Master. Handy, but not essential. Otherwise, it would be a crutch.

Again: Michelangelo as a beaver in the Petrified Forest. Mastery of a craft involves mastery of the tools: striving to do more with them, not striving to do without them.

Actually, in my Taoist learnings and leanings, the idea is to REDUCE your need for tools - or for anything, for that matter. Hence my take on things like love and friendship.

And I think mastery of a craft means just that - mastering the CRAFT, not necessarily the TOOLS. Yes, the craft will include tools - but you go beyond them - and I'll maintain that to my dying day. (Any time now *tapping foot* LOL)

I think this might be one of the divides between Western and Eastern style thinking. Western tends to be immediate, outgoing and results-oriented - Eastern, long-term and introspective.

I think one of the secrets to achieving a lasting love is to strip away the misconceptions as to what it is supposed to look like.  When people realize that into every life a little rain must fall, but that doesn't mean everything is going to melt, things get more manageable.  You mop up the mess and continue on.

Nice.

By the way, you know that 50% divorce rate?  Apparently 80% of first marriages are permanent.  20% of the people are causing 50% of the marriages (and all of the divorces).  I forget where I read that.  I'll have to go find it again.

Yeah, I've heard that bandied about before, but something still doesn't seem right with the stats. One of the things to check out is the sampling base - they only count people who (1) they give the questionnaire to, {2} actually RESPOND to the questionnaire, and (3) are probably older, more settled and less likely to be divorced.

Stats are funny things - you can make them dance any tune you like if you're a Master of them.

As for the color of my glasses - I've been using them intimately for over 49 years now - I have a small amount of experience with them, and they fit ME fine. I DON'T expect them to help the vision of anyone else, however. 

Just checking. You seem quite confident my glasses are rose-colored. Fair enough; guilty as charged. However, from my perspective, your goggles appear rather jaundiced. Having worn a pair of that approximate shade myself for a good part of my life, I dare to imagine I recognize a kindred pair. (In some ways, I wear the rosy ones on top of the others.)

In Yang there is Yin; in Yin, Yang.

Within your pretty glasses are a dark pair of welder's goggles; within my "Man Without Eyes" aviators are a cute pair of Elton John shades.

[oderlesseye]

There's a glaring fallacy there - they're proceeding from a false assumption.

They assume that everything in the Universe behaves in ways that they can and already do understand.

Therefore, cognitive relativism is still valid.

It's hard to continue to put things in quantitive bucket bites of this is or is not

relative for even when relativism is spoken in such a manner it in itself becomes an absolute. There fore I draw my conclusion that both Absolutes and relativism co-exsisit because there are multiple dimensions, points of view, and a wholistic way of things thru Quantive mechanics...now i am getting too deep and need to pull me boots up. Personally I believe and side more with Absolutes be cause the chair i sit in though relative to my arse is still a chair!

[Caraccioli]

Personally I believe and side more with Absolutes be cause the chair i sit in though relative to my arse is still a chair!

Speaking of quantum mechanics...I was trying to find the quote Richard Feynman gave on this topic in his priceless Lectures on Physics. I couldn't find it on-line, however. I'd go back and fish it out of my tapes except 1) There are literally dozens of them and I'm not exactly sure which tape it was on and 2) GM stopped putting tape players in trucks in 2002 or 2003. (Farging iceholes!) I'd buy the lectures on CD, but they were expensive enough the first time...

So this will have to do...

"An atom resists forces around it. Even though mostly empty space, an atom wards off other atoms by repulsing the would-be trespasser with an electric force emanating from its electrons. It's a war of surface electrons. If another atom gets close enough (but doesn't combine to make a molecule), the first atom's surface electrons repel the second atom's and keep the second atom at bay. The only reason our feet don't fall through the floor is because the foot atoms push against the floor atoms in this way." (From USA Today, of all places... http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/apr...om-energy_x.htm )

So even your chair, on a subatomic level, is sort of illusionary and primarily consists of empty space. Hardly an absolutely solid surface, eh?