|
Repertoire89
Cat



Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 21,773
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: secondorder]
#23702856 - 10/03/16 09:17 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
secondorder said:
Quote:
Absolute selflessness is a myth, the reality is compromise and generosity If selflessness were possible, it would be undesirable, a psychiatric disorder
I don't think I agree with this. Although it is rare, I do indeed think that it is possible to be selfless, and to place another's wellbeing over your own.
You're always getting something out of it psychologically, with children for example, your lineage and life itself are concerned, that's a lot of motivation for self-interest.
A self-less action would basically be to stop existing, everything you do gratifies either your mind or body in some way, it could simply be feeding your world view and image you have of yourself.
|
Chakra Shock
Waxing Prophetic


Registered: 02/22/13
Posts: 2,514
Loc: The Enterprise
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: Repertoire89]
#23703294 - 10/03/16 11:38 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
It's interesting that you phrase it in such a way, that selfless action means to 'stop existing'. Considering that what we're talking about is selflessness, then yes, it does tend to imply a degree of ceasing to exist, but what, exactly, is this self which ceases to exist? Perhaps it's not in any physical sense, but a state of mind which values our own lives more so than others: the place from which we are acting.
It seems like a fine balance, between caring for ourselves yet remaining aware of the equality of all living beings. Maybe 100% selfless action is impossible, but perhaps by taking care of ourselves we are also, in some way, preparing the way for others to do the same? Hmm...
|
Repertoire89
Cat



Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 21,773
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: Chakra Shock] 1
#23703370 - 10/03/16 11:58 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Well I subscribe to the idea of an interconnected meta-consciousness, as expressed in the idea of Brahma.
I think as long as one retains an individual perspective we're operating on "self" instincts, that instinct being the same force which manifests our individual existence in the first place.
From a non-spiritual, purely psychological perspective, I don't think much changes, our self-interest is tied into survival instincts.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: secondorder]
#23704209 - 10/03/16 04:25 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
As long as it isn't blind love you can love a friend too.
I've denied consciousness now? As far as I know consciousness is an external awareness that all organisms have while a conscience is what makes a human unique.
A commitment is necessary because otherwise an open relationship is in my view friends with benefits.
Fennario made an interesting point though, maybe the difference is the living conditions, friends with benefits wouldn't live together but people in an open relationship might.
A friendship is a kind of relationship too.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 7 days
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: sudly]
#23704504 - 10/03/16 05:57 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
You're always getting something out of it psychologically, with children for example, your lineage and life itself are concerned, that's a lot of motivation for self-interest.
A self-less action would basically be to stop existing, everything you do gratifies either your mind or body in some way, it could simply be feeding your world view and image you have of yourself.
Yes of course, I think I misunderstood you earlier. You basically mean that there is no such thing as true altruism because you can only ever do something to 'benefit' yourself in some deep way, even if it's by benefiting your perception of the world by helping others etc. I agree
Quote:
sudly said:
I've denied consciousness now? As far as I know consciousness is an external awareness that all organisms have while a conscience is what makes a human unique.
Yes, you have, just as you did on the thread I referenced earlier. You redefine consciousness to mean something that no serious scientist or philosopher agrees with.
Quote:
A commitment is necessary because otherwise an open relationship is in my view friends with benefits.
Appealing to arbitrariness. Again.
You're ridiculous man. You appeal to science and reason when other people don't provide it, yet when these things are demanded of you, your responses ignore them altogether. Why can't you simply try practicing in reason with people for once? Intellectual honesty, that's all I'm asking for.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: secondorder]
#23704535 - 10/03/16 06:07 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
secondorder said: Your denial of consciousness in the equation renders you blind yet again. Both 'physical stimulations' and 'mental feelings' arise as sensations in consciousness, to differentiate the two for the purpose of trivializing one and aggrandizing another is arbitrary and silly.
Physical stimulations arise as electrical impulses from nociceptors in our skin.
Mental feelings arise from chemical and electrical interactions within the Central Nervous System(Brain/Spine).
Physical stimulations and mental feelings don't originate from the same parts of the body, one comes from skin contact while the other comes from brain activity.
It's reasonable to say that an open relationship is like friends with benefits because they both lack a physical commitment.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Mojo
Stranger

Registered: 07/12/07
Posts: 1,676
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: sudly]
#23704584 - 10/03/16 06:24 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said:
Quote:
secondorder said: Your denial of consciousness in the equation renders you blind yet again. Both 'physical stimulations' and 'mental feelings' arise as sensations in consciousness, to differentiate the two for the purpose of trivializing one and aggrandizing another is arbitrary and silly.
Physical stimulations arise as electrical impulses from nociceptors in our skin.
Mental feelings arise from chemical and electrical interactions within the Central Nervous System(Brain/Spine).
Physical stimulations and mental feelings don't originate from the same parts of the body, one comes from skin contact while the other comes from brain activity.
It's reasonable to say that an open relationship is like friends with benefits because they both lack a physical commitment.
Will you PLEASE look up the term relationship in the dictionary? A physical commitment has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of "relationship", no matter how many times you say it does.
End of story.
You feeling the way you do is perfectly fine, but trying to turn this into an argument of the logical association these terms have in language is ridiculous. Your wrong, plain and simple. Stating the way you "feel" about what a term "should" mean, or means to you in your heart of hearts is totally understandable, but that's not semantics, and the language is not up for debate.
Edited by Mojo (10/03/16 07:25 PM)
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: Mojo]
#23705076 - 10/03/16 09:22 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
A physical commitment has to do with defining types of relationships. With relationships being the way in which two or more people connect there are more than one ways to define them.
The way I define relationships is as a friendship(no commitment), a monogamous relationship(physical and emotional commitment) and an open relationship(emotional commitment).
These are pretty standard definitions for the types of relationships there are but you're free to disagree.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
Edited by sudly (10/03/16 09:30 PM)
|
Mojo
Stranger

Registered: 07/12/07
Posts: 1,676
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: sudly]
#23705243 - 10/03/16 10:16 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
You keep flip-flopping between emotional commitment and physical commitment. The latter is the one I disagree with but I'm going to drop it since your view seems to change for every post you make. I'm obviously not getting anywhere.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: Mojo]
#23705610 - 10/04/16 01:16 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I don't know why you'd think my views have changed.
These definitions come from my experience and in my experience open relationships are supposed to be an emotional commitment to one another (Aka. to love one another) without a physical commitment(1 sexual partner).
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Repertoire89
Cat



Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 21,773
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: secondorder]
#23705846 - 10/04/16 06:45 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
secondorder said:
Quote:
You're always getting something out of it psychologically, with children for example, your lineage and life itself are concerned, that's a lot of motivation for self-interest.
A self-less action would basically be to stop existing, everything you do gratifies either your mind or body in some way, it could simply be feeding your world view and image you have of yourself.
Yes of course, I think I misunderstood you earlier. You basically mean that there is no such thing as true altruism because you can only ever do something to 'benefit' yourself in some deep way, even if it's by benefiting your perception of the world by helping others etc. I agree
Yeah, the position wasn't easy to clarify.
Its worth mentioning that I view co-operation as being of paramount importance, there's a balance between our selfish motives and how we work with others. Being generous to others pays dividends to the individual's psyche at the very least, even when we don't gain materially.
So practically speaking, I'm not promoting selfishness or greed.
But philosophically I think we're very much selfish, and that even love or affection can be selfish, though it breeds co-operation (which is desirable).
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 7 days
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: sudly]
#23705856 - 10/04/16 06:53 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
in my experience open relationships are supposed to be an emotional commitment to one another (Aka. to love one another) without a physical commitment(1 sexual partner).
By that line of reasoning, wouldn't I be in an open relationship with everyone I love but don't have a physical commitment with? I love my mum and dad, but don't have a physical commitment with them. So according to sudly I'm in an open relationship with them. Yeah that definition totally works...
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 7 days
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: Repertoire89]
#23705857 - 10/04/16 06:54 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah, the position wasn't easy to clarify.
Its worth mentioning that I view co-operation as being of paramount importance, there's a balance between our selfish motives and how we work with others. Being generous to others pays dividends to the individual's psyche at the very least, even when we don't gain materially.
So practically speaking, I'm not promoting selfishness or greed.
But philosophically I think we're very much selfish, and that even love or affection can be selfish, though it breeds co-operation (which is desirable).
Totally. Well said!
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: secondorder]
#23706016 - 10/04/16 08:44 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
According to Sudly you have a friendly relationship with your family and an open relationship with your partner.
I love my family unconditionally but I still have a friendly relationships with them.
I don't get your reasoning.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Chakra Shock
Waxing Prophetic


Registered: 02/22/13
Posts: 2,514
Loc: The Enterprise
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: sudly] 1
#23706245 - 10/04/16 09:59 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I thought open relationships were the same thing as binary relationships, it's just that there's the possibility of having more than two people involved, either each individual finding others to be with simultaneously or a collective relationship.
It's all the same, just more of it. That's my only reason for not wanting to be a part of something like that: too much effort and energy required.
|
Repertoire89
Cat



Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 21,773
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: Chakra Shock]
#23706260 - 10/04/16 10:04 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
It might not require that much time / effort, some people only see their SO every few days. A few of my exes were like that
|
Jokeshopbeard
Humble Student

Registered: 11/30/11
Posts: 26,088
Loc: Deep in the system
|
Re: Thoughts on Open Relationships [Re: Chakra Shock]
#23707598 - 10/04/16 05:40 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Chakra Shock said: It's all the same, just more of it. That's my only reason for not wanting to be a part of something like that: too much effort and energy required.
Take it from a man that's been there, this is definitely the case.
-------------------- Let it be seen that you are nothing. And in knowing that you are nothing... there is nothing to lose, there is nothing to gain. What can happen to you? Something can happen to the body, but it will either heal or it won't. What's the big deal? Let life knock you to bits. Let life take you apart. Let life destroy you. It will only destroy what you are not. --Jac O'keeffe
|
|