On Love...
Joe: yeah you know, i have this girlfriend now and whats weird is that she "requires" (heavy emphasis on quotes) that we use this title
Joe: i feel weird calling someone my girlfriend or being called someones boyfriend
Joe: never really happened before, you know?
Joe: and on one hand, i enjoy it somehow
Joe: but on the other, i see its total ridiculousness
Joe: while i also see the ridiculousness in those people who are like "i dont want us to be labeled, i dont want to be defined" <--how creative and alternative you sound!!
Joe: my entire argument is outside of those two paradigms.
Sky: any insecurity or trust issues there?
Sky: usually demanding something like that is a sign of trust issues">
Sky: [But] why even worry about it, just have fun.
Joe: EXACTLY, thats what i was explaining to her.
Sky: but by explaing it to her, you'r putting yourself into the loop
Joe: germans dont have a word for "boyfriend" or "girlfriend"
Joe: unless you use the term "friend" its the same word to describe your drinking partner and the person you regularly have sex with.
Joe: this is because, in most european "cultures" (again, heavy emphasis on quotes), relationships cannot be strictly defined. people here, germans especially from what i see, believe that relationships IN GENERAL cannot be defined by a word
Joe: and that a relationship between 2 or more people is different everytime, sort of like a fingerprint somehow, and it's only up to those parties involved to "define" it or not define it, label it, describe it
Sky: you're thinking too much about this
Joe: no, really. it may look like i am, skylar, but try to live here, you know? live here and you'll totally start to see how different American sexual/courtship/dating norms/expectations are from european ones.
Joe: it's just interesting.
Sky: yeah, I can see that
Sky: but regardless of cultural norms, you need to look at you at your relationship with this one girl, and take it for what it is
Sky: which is fucking hard, and something I can't do either
Joe: yeah, i agree.
Sky: fuck european norms and american norms
Joe: you know, she and i should define it and describe how we want, not how we are expected to
Sky: exactly, and that's hard
Joe: and thats how i think the "german/euro" model is to some degree
Joe: and i think thats good, it's some weird side theory of anarcho-something. lol..
Joe: but in seriousness, in my opinion, she wants to use the label, not because she has trust issues..
Sky: ah
Joe: not because she needs to feel secure in her "role"
Sky: just becuase she wants to have something she can call you?
Joe: well, because she “gets off” by telling other people that she has this idea, this philosophical situation of having a "boyfriend" and they do not.
Joe: it feels like possession somehow.
Sky: oh, so it's something like that?
Joe: yeah, i think she wants to be the girl in her group of girlfriends who is "lucky to have a _______" and for her, the blank is a boy.
Joe: not totally like a trophy, but somehow…you know?
Sky: So do you think she actually feels something (assuming we do actually feel things) or is it just the issue of having a boyfriend?
Joe: that so hard to answer. but thanks for putting that stuff in the parenthesis. i think thats important to note: assuming we do feel things..
Joe: because, if what i think is true AND absolutist, then she would not be feeling anything, all her joy would be totally a product of her selfishness and ability to use some term she prefers, etc..
Sky: I'm reading Robert Greene's "The Art of Seduction" right now, so I wanted to add that in
Joe: but i dont know the answer.
Sky: sounds like you've got an adventure on your hands
Joe: in some respect, i'd like to say (and it's easy to say and believe - almost everyone does it) that love and the sharing joy with others is natural and always happens, inevitabley
Joe: and i dont know if thats necessarily true.
Joe: i mean, its easy to say "yeah, see my girlfriend? shes so wonderful and totally loves me/digs me/likes me, and we just connect and it's all so great"
Joe: and thats the extent of thought for a lot of people when describing their relationships with other people.
Sky: nobody really just connects though
Joe: right.
Joe: i mean, what the fuck does that mean? To connect?
Sky: it's coincidence combined with lust
Joe: you’ll never EVER hear me say that shit (or if so, really mean it), what does that mean?
Sky: it means you both happen to like the same TV show and both wanna fuck
Joe: i mean, think about it: oh we totally connect
Joe: we both like food and breathing oxygen
Sky: exactly
Joe: wow, food is so great!
Joe: YEAH! i was just thinking that, lets go have some..
Joe: lol, i mean, thats why it's all a bit ridiculous somehow
Joe: but to have these opinions suggest that love is somehow incomplete. or maybe it's something we don't understand yet. or maybe it's something we have fathomed to bring us a hint of peace in such a chaotic world..
Joe: i mean, that’s usually branded a cold-hearted, stone hard opinion..
Joe: and its branded as such because it's interpreted from an already pre-concieved belief that love DOES exist no matter what.
Sky: it's cold hearted from a romantic standpoint.
Joe: i mean, this is one instance where i think romanticism and poetry really fucked the human race, we're so involved with this word "love" that we dont know any longer what it really is, how it can be defined, whats it actually is like when we experience it...
Joe: and we just assume love exists, like God, so many people just say "yeah, of course it exists, of COURSE! cmon, man, it EXISTS, trust me, i know"
Joe: and then you get the liberal spin-off groups that will take it a little further and say "well, it exists in different ways for different people, etc.."
Joe: but thats really it, you never get a good mainstream opinion today (on God and Love respectively) that claims "well, it just doesn't exist, and it's ridiculous and here’s why…"
Joe: i mean, i dont know if that camp of thought is right, but my point is: it's not even considered.
Sky: so how do you feel about it?
Joe: well i dont know. i think all theories are equally plausible.
Joe: but in this situation, i know that adrianna's use of the term "boyfriend" is not to make me happy or to feel secure or because she doesnt trust me..
Sky: right
Joe: it's a complex combination of a few facts, i think. 1)she has been normalized to american sexual/courtship/relationship culture.
Joe: 2)she wants to feel she has something "special" that she can talk about/share with her friends who are also girls (i.e. it gives her a sort of status or gives her something that while should be an intangible "good", she turns it into another material “good” of hers)
Sky: interesting thoughts, looks like you've given this a good bit of analysis
Joe: well i dunno, thats off the top of my head. i dont know if it really means anything.
Joe: in any sense, i do know this: once you become "taken" every other girl seems to want/like you.
Sky: so I've heard
Joe: or takes an interest in you that wasn't there when you were “on the market”
Sky: I'm not going to lie man, “Joe” and “Girlfriend” were rarely ever thought of in the same sentence
Joe: and maybe thats why i am lead to believe she wants to use that label for me, she wants other girls to be envious, somehow.
Sky: It's an interesting thought, and would seem pleasing. That makes her seem shallow as a person though.
Joe: or me, since i choose to allow it to happen
Sky: good point
Sky: a feeling of wanting is hard to overcome though
Joe: you know, i mean, i feel shallow because i just fuck and get into these seemingly pointless relationships that try to pump itself up in order to survive
Sky: Do you try to see more than there is?
Joe: when she says im amazing or she really likes me, i wonder if she really has thought about it and MEANS it, or is it just air to make the raft stay afloat.
Sky: or if it's just a hormone pushing a psychological front
Joe: yeah, it could be a number of things before it's ever raw honesty.
Sky: yeah, it could
Joe: and then that makes me ask "does honesty really exist, or is it just something we believe exists (which is why there’s a word for it) and the things we tell each other are just a subconcious method of trying to coerce or manipulate people in different ways (positive and negative).
Joe: do you know what i mean by that?
Sky: Do you mean that the truth is something that is conditional to your mood? And completely relative?
Joe: yeah, i think i might be saying that. im not sure. lol.
Sky: that's what it sounds like to me, that your saying humans are manipulative on an subconcious level
Joe: like, if i say "sky, ur a good friend" do you think i have thought about it and somehow just say it and MEAN it with all my "soul" or do you think i could somehow subconsiously be telling you that because i want you to FEEL that you are a "good friend". which would make you happy but more importantly appease my own consiousness because i was able to change your "feeling" (given that you believe me) and i paid you a compliment..
Sky: using a relative truth to push for their outcome. Full well knowing the consequences, yet often putting up the heir of "that's just how I feel"
Joe: so overall, the question would be "why do we give compliments?" and one could say "to appease our own guilt, to make our own selves happy. compliments have nothing at all to do with the person you are giving them to."
Sky: you could say that. I think it's also a sly way of telling someone how they make you feel.
Joe: so, charity and compliment-giving is really still selfishness, because they are done BECAUSE we already feel selfish and believe “selfishness” isn't a good thing to have.
Sky: very possible, or you could just really like my shoes that day
Joe: no, see, i dont think i could really like your shoes.
Sky: really?
Joe: i mean, it's not intrinsic.
Sky: My shoes couldn't be aesthetically pleasing to you?
Joe: i mean, i could look at them and say "wow, i would buy those for myself." and leave it at that.
Sky: you could
Joe: but it's an even bigger step to TELL YOU i like them..
Joe: why would i have an interest in telling you that i would buy those shoes?
Joe: i dont know, this might all be horseshit.
Joe: fucking philosophy, gotta love it.
Sky: "I would buy those shoes” is not socially worded
Sky: and is completly different than " I like those shoes"
Sky: I can like your shoes without wanting or being willing to buy them
Joe: I don’t think that’s realy possible.
Joe: it's saying "i would make those same purchase and wear them in society because i ALSO believe i would look good to other people in that society"
Joe: but if im not willing to purchase them, then i dont like them.
Sky: but what if I do like them, and I'm unwilling to purchase them.
Joe: to that i would say the person is lying, they are giving a false, empty compliment.
Joe: i mean, maybe purchasing those shoes are lower on my totem pole of priorities, but given that we all had infinite dollars, if i wouldnt be willing to purchase the shoes, do i really like them?
Sky: but according to what you've said, all compliments are false and empty
Joe: well im saying im not sure if thats true, but okay, it's still a false compliment.
Sky: true
Joe: or it's just a way to make the other person feel some way we subconsiously want them to feel
Sky: I agree with that whole heartedly, and it works
Joe: and sometimes i guess its not subconcious
Joe: so do you believe that, then? that compliments are retarded and non-existant?
Sky: to some degree
Sky: I've only used them when they feel right
Joe: or a better question..
Joe: do you believe that anyone has ever meant with raw honesty what they have said to you?
Joe: i mean, take your parents..
Joe: they can tell you "i yell at you to stop smoking crack because i love you, i want you to succeed"
Joe: do they really mean it, or are they emulating parental roles according to the culture they are in (i.e. how they believe they should act as parents)
Sky: hmm
Sky: I think they feel it's what they should do, and I think they're also thinking of their "best interests" when they think of mine
Sky: they want me to succeed, so I can bail them out one day
Joe: right. thats another example: i rased you and im going to get old one day, you're gonna have to care for me.
Joe: i mean, if the parents just didnt care or try to make it look like they cared, then they would feel as if THEY didnt succeed, they are appeasing their urge to make themselves happy so they can one day say, out of selfishness, "i raised him well, i did a good job"
Sky: yeah
Sky: it's really what I think
Sky: I think it's more they also see other kids doing things, and I'm not really producing anything
Joe: i mean, so we can somehow conclude that love isnt really love, it's methodology and whatnot.
Joe: i mean, and when you think about it, that sounds SO COLD and DEPRESSING!!!!
Sky: fucking right
Joe: but, its only that cold and depressing if you analyze from the Love’s perspective, so to speak.
Joe: i mean, if you're able to look at it with as little infuence as possible, perhaps the only real "honesty" that exists is the denial of love. Or the denial of the idea of love
Joe: …the denial of the commonly held tenants of what is believed to be "love"
Sky: let's call it " romantic love"
Joe: but why? whats the difference between romantic love and just love?
Sky: perhaps
Sky: I think there is a definition by human and societal standards
Joe: i mean, are you separating them because you want to really believe that general love exists somehow?
Sky: no
Joe: fuck man, i dont know.
Sky: I'm separating them because society does, and treats them differently from each other Sky: "romantic love" is based upon submission
Sky: to unconciously submit to another
Sky: "love" is not based upon that same submission to another
Joe: what do you mean submission in romantic love?
Sky: the basic fact is that two people almost never equally fall into romantic love
Sky: I mean to unconciously push aside your person and submit to their experiences, life and desires
Joe: see, i would say its easier to equally fall into romantic love (the joy of going on a date, sex, kissing, etc) than what is supposed to be genuine love.
Sky: I would say the opposite
Joe: side note: could most people think that the joy of dating/sex/kissing is genuine love?
Joe: tell me how its the opposite for you.
Joe: because, i can see two people enjoying easier the going out together, the partying, the kissing. i can see two people enjoying that equally before i can see them equally sharing some deep, philosophical sense of GL.
Sky: gen. love (GL for ease) is by my view, time based. It requires experience and time to mature
Sky: RL (Romantic Love) is spur of the moment, a passionate submission for a moment, where one is in control and the force
Joe: yeah, thats true.
Sky: the dominant force
Joe: well does RL always include this submission?
Sky: because it is never truly equal. By its nature, for RL to exist, one must give in to the other on some level. If one does not give in, then there is an equal understanding of the situation, and no true "passion"
Sky: said passion is the fury and loss of true "self" when one is deep into RL
Sky: In true RL, one partner always loses himself/herself
Sky: by my definition at least
Sky: or should I say my interpretation of what modern society defines as RL
Joe: yeah, that all interesting..
Joe: what sucks though is, if someone else were to read our conversation, they would be depressed and say we are being cold-hearted and whatnot..
Sky: we're not being coldhearted
Joe: and that's real evidence showing how much the IDEAL of love has such a grip on society.
Sky: we're just taking an honest look at something that has been a part of both our lives
Sky: even looking at what we've said
Sky: I still miss the feeling of being ' in love'
Joe: i think it would be interesting to study what "love" is to other cultures, even ones that have spun off and are no longer growing, the ones that will be extinct in a number of years
Joe: yeah, it's some social soma, this love thing.
Sky: To be honest, it's this same topic that has been pushing me into sociology over Poli SCi
Joe: or philosophy of some sort?
Sky: yeah
Joe: but yeah, i love the humanities. i will always take up for it over math and science.
Sky: the use of the abstract is a great thing
Joe: yeah.
Sky: abstract concepts make life far more interesting
Sky: anyway, I need to crash
Joe: i think we're done talking about love, we've discovered nothing, and no answers have come. that's true love, i guess.
Sky: got work in the mornin
Joe: okay man, take care. nice chat. im saving this.
Sky: perhaps, there's far more to discuss about "love"
Joe: we should put this on LJ and see what happens.
Joe: im sure there is.
Sky: we'll have to do it over a beer in Germany
Joe: ill edit it and put it in some sort of order and we can throw it up.
Sky: excellent
Joe: okay take care sky
Joe: seeya.
Joe: love you.
Sky: goodnight
Joe: ;-)
Sky: love you as well
Joe: peace,
Sky is away at 9:29:31 AM
Joe: i feel weird calling someone my girlfriend or being called someones boyfriend
Joe: never really happened before, you know?
Joe: and on one hand, i enjoy it somehow
Joe: but on the other, i see its total ridiculousness
Joe: while i also see the ridiculousness in those people who are like "i dont want us to be labeled, i dont want to be defined" <--how creative and alternative you sound!!
Joe: my entire argument is outside of those two paradigms.
Sky: any insecurity or trust issues there?
Sky: usually demanding something like that is a sign of trust issues">
Sky: [But] why even worry about it, just have fun.
Joe: EXACTLY, thats what i was explaining to her.
Sky: but by explaing it to her, you'r putting yourself into the loop
Joe: germans dont have a word for "boyfriend" or "girlfriend"
Joe: unless you use the term "friend" its the same word to describe your drinking partner and the person you regularly have sex with.
Joe: this is because, in most european "cultures" (again, heavy emphasis on quotes), relationships cannot be strictly defined. people here, germans especially from what i see, believe that relationships IN GENERAL cannot be defined by a word
Joe: and that a relationship between 2 or more people is different everytime, sort of like a fingerprint somehow, and it's only up to those parties involved to "define" it or not define it, label it, describe it
Sky: you're thinking too much about this
Joe: no, really. it may look like i am, skylar, but try to live here, you know? live here and you'll totally start to see how different American sexual/courtship/dating norms/expectations are from european ones.
Joe: it's just interesting.
Sky: yeah, I can see that
Sky: but regardless of cultural norms, you need to look at you at your relationship with this one girl, and take it for what it is
Sky: which is fucking hard, and something I can't do either
Joe: yeah, i agree.
Sky: fuck european norms and american norms
Joe: you know, she and i should define it and describe how we want, not how we are expected to
Sky: exactly, and that's hard
Joe: and thats how i think the "german/euro" model is to some degree
Joe: and i think thats good, it's some weird side theory of anarcho-something. lol..
Joe: but in seriousness, in my opinion, she wants to use the label, not because she has trust issues..
Sky: ah
Joe: not because she needs to feel secure in her "role"
Sky: just becuase she wants to have something she can call you?
Joe: well, because she “gets off” by telling other people that she has this idea, this philosophical situation of having a "boyfriend" and they do not.
Joe: it feels like possession somehow.
Sky: oh, so it's something like that?
Joe: yeah, i think she wants to be the girl in her group of girlfriends who is "lucky to have a _______" and for her, the blank is a boy.
Joe: not totally like a trophy, but somehow…you know?
Sky: So do you think she actually feels something (assuming we do actually feel things) or is it just the issue of having a boyfriend?
Joe: that so hard to answer. but thanks for putting that stuff in the parenthesis. i think thats important to note: assuming we do feel things..
Joe: because, if what i think is true AND absolutist, then she would not be feeling anything, all her joy would be totally a product of her selfishness and ability to use some term she prefers, etc..
Sky: I'm reading Robert Greene's "The Art of Seduction" right now, so I wanted to add that in
Joe: but i dont know the answer.
Sky: sounds like you've got an adventure on your hands
Joe: in some respect, i'd like to say (and it's easy to say and believe - almost everyone does it) that love and the sharing joy with others is natural and always happens, inevitabley
Joe: and i dont know if thats necessarily true.
Joe: i mean, its easy to say "yeah, see my girlfriend? shes so wonderful and totally loves me/digs me/likes me, and we just connect and it's all so great"
Joe: and thats the extent of thought for a lot of people when describing their relationships with other people.
Sky: nobody really just connects though
Joe: right.
Joe: i mean, what the fuck does that mean? To connect?
Sky: it's coincidence combined with lust
Joe: you’ll never EVER hear me say that shit (or if so, really mean it), what does that mean?
Sky: it means you both happen to like the same TV show and both wanna fuck
Joe: i mean, think about it: oh we totally connect
Joe: we both like food and breathing oxygen
Sky: exactly
Joe: wow, food is so great!
Joe: YEAH! i was just thinking that, lets go have some..
Joe: lol, i mean, thats why it's all a bit ridiculous somehow
Joe: but to have these opinions suggest that love is somehow incomplete. or maybe it's something we don't understand yet. or maybe it's something we have fathomed to bring us a hint of peace in such a chaotic world..
Joe: i mean, that’s usually branded a cold-hearted, stone hard opinion..
Joe: and its branded as such because it's interpreted from an already pre-concieved belief that love DOES exist no matter what.
Sky: it's cold hearted from a romantic standpoint.
Joe: i mean, this is one instance where i think romanticism and poetry really fucked the human race, we're so involved with this word "love" that we dont know any longer what it really is, how it can be defined, whats it actually is like when we experience it...
Joe: and we just assume love exists, like God, so many people just say "yeah, of course it exists, of COURSE! cmon, man, it EXISTS, trust me, i know"
Joe: and then you get the liberal spin-off groups that will take it a little further and say "well, it exists in different ways for different people, etc.."
Joe: but thats really it, you never get a good mainstream opinion today (on God and Love respectively) that claims "well, it just doesn't exist, and it's ridiculous and here’s why…"
Joe: i mean, i dont know if that camp of thought is right, but my point is: it's not even considered.
Sky: so how do you feel about it?
Joe: well i dont know. i think all theories are equally plausible.
Joe: but in this situation, i know that adrianna's use of the term "boyfriend" is not to make me happy or to feel secure or because she doesnt trust me..
Sky: right
Joe: it's a complex combination of a few facts, i think. 1)she has been normalized to american sexual/courtship/relationship culture.
Joe: 2)she wants to feel she has something "special" that she can talk about/share with her friends who are also girls (i.e. it gives her a sort of status or gives her something that while should be an intangible "good", she turns it into another material “good” of hers)
Sky: interesting thoughts, looks like you've given this a good bit of analysis
Joe: well i dunno, thats off the top of my head. i dont know if it really means anything.
Joe: in any sense, i do know this: once you become "taken" every other girl seems to want/like you.
Sky: so I've heard
Joe: or takes an interest in you that wasn't there when you were “on the market”
Sky: I'm not going to lie man, “Joe” and “Girlfriend” were rarely ever thought of in the same sentence
Joe: and maybe thats why i am lead to believe she wants to use that label for me, she wants other girls to be envious, somehow.
Sky: It's an interesting thought, and would seem pleasing. That makes her seem shallow as a person though.
Joe: or me, since i choose to allow it to happen
Sky: good point
Sky: a feeling of wanting is hard to overcome though
Joe: you know, i mean, i feel shallow because i just fuck and get into these seemingly pointless relationships that try to pump itself up in order to survive
Sky: Do you try to see more than there is?
Joe: when she says im amazing or she really likes me, i wonder if she really has thought about it and MEANS it, or is it just air to make the raft stay afloat.
Sky: or if it's just a hormone pushing a psychological front
Joe: yeah, it could be a number of things before it's ever raw honesty.
Sky: yeah, it could
Joe: and then that makes me ask "does honesty really exist, or is it just something we believe exists (which is why there’s a word for it) and the things we tell each other are just a subconcious method of trying to coerce or manipulate people in different ways (positive and negative).
Joe: do you know what i mean by that?
Sky: Do you mean that the truth is something that is conditional to your mood? And completely relative?
Joe: yeah, i think i might be saying that. im not sure. lol.
Sky: that's what it sounds like to me, that your saying humans are manipulative on an subconcious level
Joe: like, if i say "sky, ur a good friend" do you think i have thought about it and somehow just say it and MEAN it with all my "soul" or do you think i could somehow subconsiously be telling you that because i want you to FEEL that you are a "good friend". which would make you happy but more importantly appease my own consiousness because i was able to change your "feeling" (given that you believe me) and i paid you a compliment..
Sky: using a relative truth to push for their outcome. Full well knowing the consequences, yet often putting up the heir of "that's just how I feel"
Joe: so overall, the question would be "why do we give compliments?" and one could say "to appease our own guilt, to make our own selves happy. compliments have nothing at all to do with the person you are giving them to."
Sky: you could say that. I think it's also a sly way of telling someone how they make you feel.
Joe: so, charity and compliment-giving is really still selfishness, because they are done BECAUSE we already feel selfish and believe “selfishness” isn't a good thing to have.
Sky: very possible, or you could just really like my shoes that day
Joe: no, see, i dont think i could really like your shoes.
Sky: really?
Joe: i mean, it's not intrinsic.
Sky: My shoes couldn't be aesthetically pleasing to you?
Joe: i mean, i could look at them and say "wow, i would buy those for myself." and leave it at that.
Sky: you could
Joe: but it's an even bigger step to TELL YOU i like them..
Joe: why would i have an interest in telling you that i would buy those shoes?
Joe: i dont know, this might all be horseshit.
Joe: fucking philosophy, gotta love it.
Sky: "I would buy those shoes” is not socially worded
Sky: and is completly different than " I like those shoes"
Sky: I can like your shoes without wanting or being willing to buy them
Joe: I don’t think that’s realy possible.
Joe: it's saying "i would make those same purchase and wear them in society because i ALSO believe i would look good to other people in that society"
Joe: but if im not willing to purchase them, then i dont like them.
Sky: but what if I do like them, and I'm unwilling to purchase them.
Joe: to that i would say the person is lying, they are giving a false, empty compliment.
Joe: i mean, maybe purchasing those shoes are lower on my totem pole of priorities, but given that we all had infinite dollars, if i wouldnt be willing to purchase the shoes, do i really like them?
Sky: but according to what you've said, all compliments are false and empty
Joe: well im saying im not sure if thats true, but okay, it's still a false compliment.
Sky: true
Joe: or it's just a way to make the other person feel some way we subconsiously want them to feel
Sky: I agree with that whole heartedly, and it works
Joe: and sometimes i guess its not subconcious
Joe: so do you believe that, then? that compliments are retarded and non-existant?
Sky: to some degree
Sky: I've only used them when they feel right
Joe: or a better question..
Joe: do you believe that anyone has ever meant with raw honesty what they have said to you?
Joe: i mean, take your parents..
Joe: they can tell you "i yell at you to stop smoking crack because i love you, i want you to succeed"
Joe: do they really mean it, or are they emulating parental roles according to the culture they are in (i.e. how they believe they should act as parents)
Sky: hmm
Sky: I think they feel it's what they should do, and I think they're also thinking of their "best interests" when they think of mine
Sky: they want me to succeed, so I can bail them out one day
Joe: right. thats another example: i rased you and im going to get old one day, you're gonna have to care for me.
Joe: i mean, if the parents just didnt care or try to make it look like they cared, then they would feel as if THEY didnt succeed, they are appeasing their urge to make themselves happy so they can one day say, out of selfishness, "i raised him well, i did a good job"
Sky: yeah
Sky: it's really what I think
Sky: I think it's more they also see other kids doing things, and I'm not really producing anything
Joe: i mean, so we can somehow conclude that love isnt really love, it's methodology and whatnot.
Joe: i mean, and when you think about it, that sounds SO COLD and DEPRESSING!!!!
Sky: fucking right
Joe: but, its only that cold and depressing if you analyze from the Love’s perspective, so to speak.
Joe: i mean, if you're able to look at it with as little infuence as possible, perhaps the only real "honesty" that exists is the denial of love. Or the denial of the idea of love
Joe: …the denial of the commonly held tenants of what is believed to be "love"
Sky: let's call it " romantic love"
Joe: but why? whats the difference between romantic love and just love?
Sky: perhaps
Sky: I think there is a definition by human and societal standards
Joe: i mean, are you separating them because you want to really believe that general love exists somehow?
Sky: no
Joe: fuck man, i dont know.
Sky: I'm separating them because society does, and treats them differently from each other Sky: "romantic love" is based upon submission
Sky: to unconciously submit to another
Sky: "love" is not based upon that same submission to another
Joe: what do you mean submission in romantic love?
Sky: the basic fact is that two people almost never equally fall into romantic love
Sky: I mean to unconciously push aside your person and submit to their experiences, life and desires
Joe: see, i would say its easier to equally fall into romantic love (the joy of going on a date, sex, kissing, etc) than what is supposed to be genuine love.
Sky: I would say the opposite
Joe: side note: could most people think that the joy of dating/sex/kissing is genuine love?
Joe: tell me how its the opposite for you.
Joe: because, i can see two people enjoying easier the going out together, the partying, the kissing. i can see two people enjoying that equally before i can see them equally sharing some deep, philosophical sense of GL.
Sky: gen. love (GL for ease) is by my view, time based. It requires experience and time to mature
Sky: RL (Romantic Love) is spur of the moment, a passionate submission for a moment, where one is in control and the force
Joe: yeah, thats true.
Sky: the dominant force
Joe: well does RL always include this submission?
Sky: because it is never truly equal. By its nature, for RL to exist, one must give in to the other on some level. If one does not give in, then there is an equal understanding of the situation, and no true "passion"
Sky: said passion is the fury and loss of true "self" when one is deep into RL
Sky: In true RL, one partner always loses himself/herself
Sky: by my definition at least
Sky: or should I say my interpretation of what modern society defines as RL
Joe: yeah, that all interesting..
Joe: what sucks though is, if someone else were to read our conversation, they would be depressed and say we are being cold-hearted and whatnot..
Sky: we're not being coldhearted
Joe: and that's real evidence showing how much the IDEAL of love has such a grip on society.
Sky: we're just taking an honest look at something that has been a part of both our lives
Sky: even looking at what we've said
Sky: I still miss the feeling of being ' in love'
Joe: i think it would be interesting to study what "love" is to other cultures, even ones that have spun off and are no longer growing, the ones that will be extinct in a number of years
Joe: yeah, it's some social soma, this love thing.
Sky: To be honest, it's this same topic that has been pushing me into sociology over Poli SCi
Joe: or philosophy of some sort?
Sky: yeah
Joe: but yeah, i love the humanities. i will always take up for it over math and science.
Sky: the use of the abstract is a great thing
Joe: yeah.
Sky: abstract concepts make life far more interesting
Sky: anyway, I need to crash
Joe: i think we're done talking about love, we've discovered nothing, and no answers have come. that's true love, i guess.
Sky: got work in the mornin
Joe: okay man, take care. nice chat. im saving this.
Sky: perhaps, there's far more to discuss about "love"
Joe: we should put this on LJ and see what happens.
Joe: im sure there is.
Sky: we'll have to do it over a beer in Germany
Joe: ill edit it and put it in some sort of order and we can throw it up.
Sky: excellent
Joe: okay take care sky
Joe: seeya.
Joe: love you.
Sky: goodnight
Joe: ;-)
Sky: love you as well
Joe: peace,
Sky is away at 9:29:31 AM