More on Want vs. Need

Jun 02, 2006 01:32

I've gone back and read to myself my own writings on the subject, initially, because I needed the reminder, and because I've learned more.

First of all, I regularly declare that I would rather be wanted than needed. I already explained that in the post I linked above.

To elaborate on the observation that "need is not personal", ( I have rambled on at length and still probably not explained what I really mean )

rants, love, creativity

Leave a comment

Comments 8

wolfs_daugher June 2 2006, 13:54:54 UTC
How does a person who combines their need for a resource with their attachment to a particular source learn to let go of the source without giving up on the resource?

But that is something everyone does. Including you. Including me. And sometimes the only acceptable source for the resource, is denied us. When that happens, it's either give up on the resource or make a fool out of oneself, hanging onto something that doesn't exist.

Starfire

Reply

emberleo June 2 2006, 19:19:52 UTC
I have had to give up on a particular resource when my favorite source became unavailable, yes. But I am not in the habit of telling myself that whatever I was getting from them is no longer available to me at all from anywhere else just because I don't have another supplier set up already ( ... )

Reply

wolfs_daugher June 3 2006, 08:21:30 UTC
Instead of telling yourself that another source may become available to you. Instead of looking for one.

An utterly scary thought. I cannot imagine going out into the world looking for someone to fall in love with. How could a person do that? That's just terrifying. It would be like looking for a new car on the freeway.

Starfire

Reply

emberleo June 3 2006, 19:04:33 UTC
*shakes head* Not in my world. I don't understand where the consequence you percieve is coming from. Embarassment is the worst consequence of not connecting that I can come up with, and embarassment is one of those internally-generated things. It's utterly surviveable, and with practice, can be avoided all together. Like falling down - if I trip and fall, unless I'm in physical pain, I usually bust up laughing. Back when I first cultivated that habit, I was both embarassed AND amused. These days I'm just amused.

Second of all, when it comes to specifically romantic love, I don't believe I need that. I want it tremendously, but love is love, and if I have enough platonic love and companionship in my life, I don't specifically NEED a romantic relationship with a man.

So falling in love is something I am willing to wait for. But I don't wait for delivery. I go out into the world to see what there is to see, just not for the specific purpose of Love-shopping. I pull my lovers from my pool of friends, and I am always shopping for friends ( ... )

Reply


On the Subject of Need... lmorningstar June 2 2006, 16:35:28 UTC
Ember,

Your comment about you rather being wanted than needed reminded me, forcibly, of a quote I love:

"If you can't live without me, die already."

I concur entirely. "Needing" someone (in the case of love) is folly, and I'd much rather be wanted and desired. Need creates too much...(well, fill in whatever word seems appropriate, as there are many choices).

Just thought I'd share. Hope you're doing well!!

~LM

Reply


deirdremoon June 2 2006, 17:37:31 UTC
This all makes sense. I think that one of the places that people get hung up is where needs intersect to create resource sets of one or zero ( ... )

Reply

emberleo June 2 2006, 19:22:41 UTC
*tries not to cry*

I think that's it exactly, and I have difficulty accepting it.

Partially because I've taught myself to invoke temporary apathy on emotional wounds until a solution becomes available. It doesn't always work - especially if new wounds are being inflicted in the same place. Papercuts damage my apathy, so to speak.

So... I get very confused by the kind of despair that implies that there's no difference between "now" and "forever".

--Ember--

Reply


grumqa June 3 2006, 00:43:55 UTC
There is much wisdom here. I wish I'd read it a long time ago.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up