How many people do you literally love? - Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Home | Community | Message Board

You are not signed in.
New Account

Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop:

Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post

Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 [ show all ]

mr freedom
enthusiast

Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 232
Last seen: 19 years, 5 months

Re: How many people do you literally love?

[Re: chodamunky]
#790991 - 08/01/02 02:56 PM (22 years, 2 months ago)

My example was supposed to be extreme. Extreme, to the point one would understand the impossibility of loving one person MORE than another, even in consideration of the difference of said love.

Is that better?

Oh, and that is a quote from me, not Enter.

Extras:

Top

chodamunky
Cheers!

Registered: 02/28/02
Posts: 2,030
Loc: sailing the seas of chees...

Re: How many people do you literally love?

[Re: mr freedom]
#791020 - 08/01/02 03:10 PM (22 years, 2 months ago)

I was gonna reply to something enter wrote but then I remember your quote and I didn't feel like clicking back

I understand that is an extreme example to prove your point but it looked so juicy I just couldn't let it go

Extras:

Top

MarkostheGnostic
Elder

Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months

Re: How many people do you literally love?

[Re: mr freedom]
#791185 - 08/01/02 04:49 PM (22 years, 2 months ago)

My 20 years of experience as a psychotherapist tells me that you are quite wrong about the 'order of operations.' Just as in a mathematical equation, there is a correct way and an incorrect way to proceed. To begin a relationship at the instinctual level, i.e., sex, is to commence on a clearly impersonal level of interaction. One does not 'add on' to the instinctual to develop a deep, long-lasting, personal and transpersonal bond. The instinctual, lower chakra domains of personality can become vehicles for the expression of love, but love has to come first, and it has to be a love that is not yet colored by sexual eros. A huge number of divorces occur because people make this very mistake. When the heights of passion subside, many people don't realize that they're 'coming down' from 'winged eros,' and believe they have fallen out of love. They never get that the solid plateau of agape and philias constitutes a love that outlasts, and therefore surpasses the erotic dimension. It is a love of the Middle Way, and a spiritual form that draws more on transpersonal higher chakra dimensions, than on lower chakra instinctual dimensions. Leading a relationship with the sexual component means ultimate doom for the relationship. Don't want to believe it? Why not, because you wish in your fantasies that it was otherwise? Time for a reality check.

I have had girlfriends, and they have become lovers, but they were girl-FRIENDS first. This is perhaps the intrinsic failure of gay relationships in which partners identify themselves AS lovers. It is an essentially sexual and instinctual involvement that becomes painted with floridly romantic overtones in many cases. Just histrionics. Those gay couples I have known who have relationships that endure for many years do not identify themselves as lovers, neither are they promiscuous, let alone pathologically promiscuous. I am not interested in the economy of labor in a relationship - you miss the point.

Higher states of love have priority in lasting relationships. They ennoble human domains that otherwise can remain merely instinctual and animal. Lots of people do not wish for this ennobling or exalting of instictual, impersonal domains to take place. I know womanizing straights, and leather-bar-back-room gays who prefer to live in the impersonal, instinctual and pre-personal realms.

Since this is a spirituality forum, I will end by saying that spiritual union - spiritual marriage - the tantra of the West - cannot develop from the pre-personal, but only from the personal on the way to the transpersonal. In practice, this amounts to a 'nuclear fusion' of hearts BEFORE a mere 'electron bonding' at the sexual periphery of our being. Sex may open one's Heart, but unless the Compassionate Love at that Center takes ontological priority, that is, is recognized by both parties as being the Ultimate Truth, the relationship will remain shallow and peripheral to any deep kind of union. Without union, it will be ultimately unfullfilling, and doomed to end. Not a judgement, but a recurrent observation.

--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself

Extras:

Top

Jump to top

Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 [ show all ]

Shop:

Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Similar Threads	Poster	Views	Replies	Last post
Soulmates & Love...	nubious	664	1	05/03/04 01:02 AM by ParabolaChair
Do you still Love ( 1 2 all )	EvilGir	2,507	22	01/09/04 01:03 PM by Frog
Why do you believe in "true love" ? ( 1 2 3 all )	DoctorJ	5,239	40	07/29/16 08:43 AM by Into The Woods
Love ( 1 2 all )	Anonymous	4,114	36	10/30/02 04:01 PM by Anonymous
Love creates, hate destroys.	Anonymous	1,701	13	12/20/02 10:54 AM by lx993
Love, a universal force. ( 1 2 all )	LOBO	3,976	29	12/10/01 07:26 AM by LOBO
the decision, friendship or love?	MANNALORD	1,053	10	04/22/03 03:39 PM by SWAY
That powerful word: LOVE	CuckoosNest	1,164	12	02/15/02 04:06 AM by CuckoosNest

Extra information

You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
5,131 topic views. 0 members, 2 guests and 13 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]