She doesn't have a mature outlook on what a relationship is. Who cares about falling in love. The point is TO LOVE.
Every life lesson you'll ever learn is somehow connected with love. If you learn to kick the bad habit of drugs, you learn to love yourself (specifically your body). If you fall in love and the person cheats on you, you learn to love yourself when rejected. If you fail at school, you learn to love yourself. If you don't learn to love yourself in any of these situations, you'll fall further and further into a pit of self hate.
However, in each instance, you could learn to love others... that's the main lesson that goes unnoticed. Once you learn to love yourself, you are able to love every single person on this earth - no matter how evil they are. Because, you'll have compassion towards even the most wicked, the ugliest, the rudest. Why would you have compassion? Because you'll realized that they don't love themselves and that's the greatest loss for anyone.
So screw falling in love - the point of relationships isn't about attention, about sex, about any of those things that people crave - like sharing literature in a childish way. But, it's about learning to love oneself and the other person unconditionally. Once you have mastered this, it will be easier to love others. This love is about humanly love. This love is not sexual. This love is not what you can feel all the time. This is a higher love that over powers all love. This love is accomplished with freedom.
But, maybe you shouldn't be so hard on people who fall in love, because they are just trying to find a way to experience this love.
Your argument is compelling, but it seems to eliminate the need for relationships at all. My joke about the Freudian relapse kind of overshadowed my real point, that it is terrible if having a relationship "where i can share things with my significant other" is something that isn't assumed in the very meaning of relationship. I criticize the weakness of the human will for allowing people to get in unhealthy relationships where partners cannot even share things. I mean, isn't a relationship about sharing your life with someone else?
If I can love the world in such an impersonal, universal, but at the same time, sincere way, then why devote a larger share of my love to a specific person? (excluding, of course, family, though I can debate that to some extent to) If one could reach this ideal state of loving all people, even the need for a few good friends goes away. As the saying goes, "no man is an island." It seems as if "falling in love" is a stepping stone toward this universal love. This is something I can accept to support my own views, since I don't find the need for the love involved in a romantic relationship.
However, humans have needs. Attention and sex are among them. Having promiscuous sex with various individuals makes the need for positive attention to be virtually unattainable, for lack of constancy. This is where a line can be drawn between men and women. Women, by their very nature, need constant attention for one direction because they rely on a mate in times of pregnancy. Of course, times are changing, and there are many single mothers out there. Men, following their instinctual nature, go out and spread their seed to various females, and generally have a much smaller need of such constant attention. Therefore, the leap into a relationship involves a little more than pure instinct. However, the fact that relationships are based on instincts in the first place, means that there is room for manipulation on one or both parties.
I could get into further specifics, but the bottom line is that they are something that we do when we are bored and when we need a game to play, while simultaneously exploring our emotional spectrum and fulfilling the needs of our bodies as dictated by our instinctual pleasure centers. All of these things contribute to our being human, but are not completely necessary for survival. These are just instincts we are born with, and our brain is preprogrammed with a bias toward reproduction and emotional activity. It is the part of our conscious that determines to what extent we let our heart rule our brain, so to speak, that determines to what extent we partake in these activities, or if we avoid them completely.
To answer you, you're correct. My arguement does eliminate need for relationships in a 1:1 ratio (meaning for every x, there is a unique y) (sorry about the math analogy.. but it's the best I can describe it). If you have ever looked at various enlightened people who walk this earth, you'll notice that most of them are not in any kind of relationship with anybody. The thing is, is they cannot just love one person... they love all. If one ever does get to this state, you do not lose relationships, but rather gain a greater understanding of all things and therefore you will not feel alone or afraid, or needy - because at this point you will know the truth. The truth is, at least from my experiences, is that when you love everything, you'll understand and know that EVERYTHING loves you back. You'll exist in a state of constant love - you will not have need, for you are fullfilled, you will not be lonely, for you will always be one with everything. Further, you will surpass human instincts and work on a spiritual plane where these bodily instincts have no reign. This is the ultimate enlightenment. The one everyone seeks, even if they do not realize it.
Every life lesson you'll ever learn is somehow connected with love. If you learn to kick the bad habit of drugs, you learn to love yourself (specifically your body). If you fall in love and the person cheats on you, you learn to love yourself when rejected. If you fail at school, you learn to love yourself. If you don't learn to love yourself in any of these situations, you'll fall further and further into a pit of self hate.
However, in each instance, you could learn to love others... that's the main lesson that goes unnoticed. Once you learn to love yourself, you are able to love every single person on this earth - no matter how evil they are. Because, you'll have compassion towards even the most wicked, the ugliest, the rudest. Why would you have compassion? Because you'll realized that they don't love themselves and that's the greatest loss for anyone.
So screw falling in love - the point of relationships isn't about attention, about sex, about any of those things that people crave - like sharing literature in a childish way. But, it's about learning to love oneself and the other person unconditionally. Once you have mastered this, it will be easier to love others. This love is about humanly love. This love is not sexual. This love is not what you can feel all the time. This is a higher love that over powers all love. This love is accomplished with freedom.
But, maybe you shouldn't be so hard on people who fall in love, because they are just trying to find a way to experience this love.
Reply
If I can love the world in such an impersonal, universal, but at the same
time, sincere way, then why devote a larger share of my love to a specific person? (excluding, of course, family, though I can debate that to some extent to) If one could reach this ideal state of loving all people, even the need for a few good friends goes away. As the saying goes, "no man is an island." It seems as if "falling in love" is a stepping stone toward this universal love. This is something I can accept to support my own views, since I don't find the need for the love involved in a romantic relationship.
However, humans have needs. Attention and sex are among them. Having promiscuous sex with various individuals makes the need for positive attention to be virtually unattainable, for lack of constancy. This is where a line can be drawn between men and women. Women, by their very nature, need constant attention for one direction because they rely on a mate in times of pregnancy. Of course, times are changing, and there are many single mothers out there. Men, following their instinctual nature, go out and spread their seed to various females, and generally have a much smaller need of such constant attention. Therefore, the leap into a relationship involves a little more than pure instinct. However, the fact that relationships are based on instincts in the first place, means that there is room for manipulation on one or both parties.
I could get into further specifics, but the bottom line is that they are something that we do when we are bored and when we need a game to play, while simultaneously exploring our emotional spectrum and fulfilling the needs of our bodies as dictated by our instinctual pleasure centers. All of these things contribute to our being human, but are not completely necessary for survival. These are just instincts we are born with, and our brain is preprogrammed with a bias toward reproduction and emotional activity. It is the part of our conscious that determines to what extent we let our heart rule our brain, so to speak, that determines to what extent we partake in these activities, or if we avoid them completely.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment