One of the most annoying things..
 

about society and the way it shapes people, is the typical male/female relationship. It seriously causes so many problems.

Like, say you have a girlfriend. Then, whether you like it or not, you have to accept all of the extra bullshit that is attached to the "boyfriend/girlfriend" relationship. Obligations, caring about certain things, doing certain things... Don't you think it's so troublesome?

Personally, I don't want somebody to be intimate with, go out to dinner with, talk to on the phone about nothing, give flowers to or whatever else. I would rather a companion who I can relate to, that is a girl. It is as if the roles boyfriend and girlfriend, created by society, are opposed. You have to "make" it work and sort out all the problems that will inevitably arise and play the role that has already been laid out for you.. Anyway, that is my meaningless thought of the day.

If you actually care about someone a lot of the bullshit comes pretty naturally dude......

I dont think theres much involved in an adult relationship thats simply from predisposed perseptions of boyfriend/girlfriend roles between two people..

What happened that caused you to think of this post?

Also a lot of the stuff you talk about, happens because either party doesn't communicate what they expect from the other.

That's always a big deal. Understand what your "spouse" EXPECTS from you so that when they get mad, you see why.

you having trouble at home with wify???
make her a plate of dinner home cook style of her favorit food and message her feet...

the rest is preety self explanatory....

if you dont know what to do after then you def aint no lover boy.. lol..

Nos: As if it does... I am saying the reason it seems to come naturally is because of the ideas we have about the gf/bf relationship. I have infinite love for my gf, but I have never had the urge to buy her a gift, or do any of the other shit she seems to want to do all the time.

The thing that caused me to think of this post was something she said. I don't remember what we were fighting about, but she was like "It makes me feel like you don't care about me, you're not acting like my bf at all." I wasn't acting like her bf. Acting. To me, that's seems exactly right. Whenever I'm doing or saying the typical bf stuff, all I'm doing is acting, saying or doing whatever it seems is the ideal thing to say/do in that situation. Shit I've seen done in popular media always works best. If I get her flowers, take her out on a nice dinner, buy her jewelery, say something "sweet", or whatever, she always tells me that she knows I love her because of that. Which is bullshit, because to me those are empty gestures that don't mean a thing. And it happens the other way round, she does all the cliche gf stuff for me expecting it to convey her love, when all I see is shallow gestures that mean nothing.

Ransum: That is what I'm saying. What kind of fool feels better just because of dinner and a massage... Nothing has been resolved. All it does is bring to light the person in question's shortsightedness.

I'm telling you man. Expectations. Voice it. Communication. Yee!


Also there's this book that I've read that talks about the most effective ways that people feel loved. There was things such as:

1) Buying Gifts
2) Spending Time
3) Saying Nice Things


Little things like that. It's important to know which way is most effective to the other party. You want that person to feel special, don't you? Well then figure it out and do it.

That's the problem with labels...period


People behave in ways they THINK they're supposed to behave instead of what's instinctive.




1

Too right, Q..



That is my problem. wtf is all that shit? I could buy gifts for, spend time with and say nice things to somebody and make them feel loved, when really I have no feelings for them whatsoever. My gf constantly buys me gifts, says nice things to me and spends time with me, but I question whether she understands love, and whether what she sees as love is shallow or not.

The reason I posted that was because the other party in the relationship must understand which way is most effective to you. And it goes the other way.

The expectations always suck because it's rare that it is ever clear to the other person. Make it clear. Say what you expect from her and in return she'll say what she expects from you. If it conflicts then you move on from there.

Nah seriously.. giving gifts to someone you love to make them happy? getting a fucken awesome meal n spending time with her at a nice resteraunt? saying nice things to her to make her smile? so far youve only said one thing that I can agree on as being a cliche predisposed media fueled trend and thats buying her flowers..

Most of the shit your talking about is just things you do to show someone their important to you...

I mean cmon.. Think about it.. Whats something sarah would really enjoy having? Think about how happy it would make her and how special it would be to her if one day out of the blue you bought it and surprised her with it..

You dont do it superficially just cause your her boyfriend......you do it cause you want to make her happy..

Whats wrong about that?

I get the feeling your more concearned with the way your girlfriend views your relationship than relationships in general...

Yeah, it would make her ecstatic if I bought her an awesome gift out of the blue. However, her happiness would be short-lived. All I want is for her to be happy, gifts and nice words can't do that.

The fact of the matter is, I could be happy without her but she thinks she needs me to be happy. Society taught her to love like that.

Bro humans have ups and downs... Innitial happyness'll be short lived, but the memory will last on..

Secondly, your talking about attachment.. Thats compleatly natural.. Even animals get attached to the company of other animals and lose happyness when their appart.. It happens with horses especially I've heard.. Obviously their not society driven feelings.. Your girlfriends just attached to you and you obviously have grown into this relationship with a different mindframe towards it.

I'll play around with attachments once I get the hang of non-attachment. For now, it bothers me.

Awww, so sweet, so romantic awwww He cares so much about his girlfriend that he wants her to be happy, not only regardless if its with him, but he prefers that it isnt, so she won't have only temporary happiness, AWWWWWWWW SO SWEEET AWWWW


OMB >>



:( sorry

If only she saw it that way lmao... I can see her reaction in my head:

".... You would be happy without me?!!?! FINE!"

This is an interesting discussion.

Omb i understand what you're saying....but i find it would be near impossible to change a whole lifes worth of conditioning for something so "profound".

Love is the biggest phenomenon in most peoples eyes. It is put on a giant fucking pedestal, when in reality. It is a naturally occuring thing that happens in life, just like taking a shit is.

You're vision of what a relationship should be is on point, however...not to doubt your ability on anything, but...i feel like you would be extremely lucky to make enough sense of your vision to her, in order for her to completely adopt it. You're talking about erasing years and years of un-questioned reality for her.


At the same time, i think nos is right. When you meet someone on a certain level that inspires you to love, and it is a mutual occurance....the depth of your actions towards her to make her temporarily happy are not relevant. What is relevant, is her being happy....that is your goal. And it makes you happy, even though success is only temporary. There is nothing you can possibly do to make her happy forever. Nobody can do that.

The reality of it is, she can only be happy for so long. Everyone can only be happy for so long. Because our time is limited. You can't measure success like that, because no matter what you do, death will turn your desire for infinite happiness into a task that you failed miserably at.


And getting back to what nos was saying...I think you just need to change your perspective on your actions with her. instead of looking at it like, you're doing something to make her happy. Look at it like, you're doing something to make the both of you happy. Because if this shallow ideal of relationships urks you so much to where you cannot give without resenting the ignorance that she is not at fault for, than you two probably need to have a serious heart-heart conversation....or you need to go your seperate ways....thats not healthy for anybody.


besides, i hate spending money. But my girl likes going to the movies. I don't hate taking her to the movies, because I like movies as much as she does. I just hate paying for it....But spending money is inevitable...so i might as well do it making us both happy, instead of refusing to cater to a false ideal of relationships just to spite it's permanent existence within the world.





Just an example.....hope i made some sense

werd, i would only want a girl for sex and to speak reason with, i dont wanna do the usual bf gf thing and people think i dont like my her becuase of it, which is gay. i think its because a lot of girls simply fall for that stuff and believe what people tell them, i dont know of many independent free speaking women, compared to men. expecially in school.

truer words have never been spoken. I think that is true for most of us, if not all of us.

It's like I was saying though. We cannot change the way others percieve things completely..we can only change our own perceptions.

And perception is the key.

It is very relevant, has no relevance at the same time.

Instead of trying to change to perspective of someone, so that they may conform to your own perspecitve.

Live within society and it's flawed habbits, and take part in them. Only, change YOUR perception of why you are doing them, to remove the flaw.

Don't view relationships and it's rules of survival as shallow.
That will only inhibit negative feeling.

View relationships and it's rules of survival as an opportunity to create a stronger bond with somebody.

I was talking to terumoto earlier on msn. And he mentioned that people who practice zen, do not preach to others. They live by their perspective, and it radiates off of them. I believe this to be true.

I cannot promise anything, but I would guess that more often than not. If you are able to remove the negative from something that can easily be percieved as positive, you will allow your significant other to do the same. Which inevitably, would completely remove everything that once appeared to be shallow for both persons.

And as far as the idea of men being more independat and free speaking.

Consider this. As far back as we can look into history. The female has always instinctively been the one to nurture, and to care for their young with love and compassion.

Over time, through media, and greedy cats rubbing off onto an entire people, the true nature of love and compassion has been warped.

So, maybe it is possible that what we see as shallow, may be nothing but an instinct that has changed due to different changes in the over all values of society.

It's like, a woman is a giver. As far as love and compassion, and they cannot comprehend us men because we do not have the same instincts. So they Want us to be givers as well, it's just that, sadly...our values as a whole has changed.

It's like wanting, but not wanting anything specifically. So they adopt the values of their same kind. And i'm sure for a lot of women, those things arn't necessarily important. But it does make them happy, not because they are recieving, but because for us to give is an emblem of us, sharing their same values, which proves to them that we are just as capable of love and compassion as they are.


Obviously I am no expert on the workings of the female sub-concious. Nobody is.

But perhaps what i've said holds some truth, and maybe one of you can break it down into something of greater truth.

............................................?

Most people don't have any idea what it's like. It's as if we are all lost at sea, and I'm on a big, roomy, raft with GPS system on it and plenty of food and drinkable water. Originally, I was in the water too, but I managed to climb aboard this raft. So here I am, fine and dandy, warm and dry with everything I need. Some others have found other rafts and climbed onto them as well.

Around me is all these people, splashing around in the cold water, screaming for help, some aren't screaming and are just concentrating on keeping their heads above the water. They aren't moving, I don't know wtf they're doing. There's so many people in the water, my gf is one of them. Some dominant people yell and start gathering people and making people listen to them, they are saying that they know the way to land and that everybody should follow them. Some choose to follow, some have no choice, some don't know what else to do. While some of these people do know where land is, a lot of them have no clue what they're doing, and it's completely obvious they don't, I can see the land on the GPS system.

In the distance I see a man on a raft like mine telling people close to him to climb aboard. Some do, some are too distraught and don't know what's going on. He tells the people further away how to swim, what they should do to get closer to a raft and climb on, since there are so many around. Some people listen to him, some people ignore him, some people are distracted by the others who claim to be heading for land.

So I figure, hey, I'm alright, I might as well try and help people get onto a raft. I tell the close people to climb on, maybe pull them up a little if they are having trouble. I try to explain to people how to swim, but I'm not a great swimmer myself so I'm not the best at explaining it. Some get it and climb onto my raft or another raft, others don't understand my shitty explanations. I listen to what that man from before was telling people and tell them in his words, again, some people get it and some don't.

So wtf am I meant to do? I yell to my gf over and over, with my words, with better words, I move the raft closer, and still she is splashing around in the water struggling to keep her head up. I think what makes it hard for some people is that when you are under water, your hearing is impaired; you can't hear very well what's going on above the water. I can try to time what I'm saying with when their ears are above the water, but it's pretty hard.

That is what it feels like.

And about the she can only be so happy for so long... I know there is absolutely nothing I can possibly do to make her happy forever, only she can make herself happy forever. So what am I doing by giving her short, shallow happiness? I'm just keeping her further away from seeing long-lasting happiness. She concentrates on avoiding non-happiness and obtaining happiness like a drug addict avoids sobriety and seeks to obtain their next hit. It's unhealthy, I can see it's unhealthy. It's an unfortunate way to live. What I would like to happen is for her to want to find her own contentment.

It is completely possible to shatter a lifetimes worth of conditioning, I've seen it happen in numerous people.

That is what it feels like.

And about the she can only be so happy for so long... I know there is absolutely nothing I can possibly do to make her happy forever, only she can make herself happy forever. So what am I doing by giving her short, shallow happiness? I'm just keeping her further away from seeing long-lasting happiness. She concentrates on avoiding non-happiness and obtaining happiness like a drug addict avoids sobriety and seeks to obtain their next hit. It's unhealthy, I can see it's unhealthy. It's an unfortunate way to live. What I would like to happen is for her to want to find her own contentment.

It is completely possible to shatter a lifetimes worth of conditioning, I've seen it happen in numerous people.[/QUOTE]


She can't make herself happy forever though. Because she doesn't have forever. She has untill she dies. And by giving her short shallow happiness, you are doing nothing but encouraging shallow happiness. But what I was saying was, it might not be as shallow as it appears. In the grand scheme of things it is, but it's instinctive. It is a happiness that is symbolic of her true natural instincts...because society has successfuly changed the values of symbolism, time and time again.

The idea is to not work within the system because you have no other choice. The idea is to work within the system because you are the only person that can change what it represents to you. You have to be able to see these shallow acts of kindness, as an opportunity to express the depth of the action. And if you see it just a shallow act, than that's what It is. We are too advanced to not pick up on eachothers sub-concious. No we cannot read the sub-concious conciously, but the sub-concious of one, is capable of atleast collaberating with the sub-concious of another.
So if you can can change what was once a shallow act, into an act with a greater purpose than just making her temporarily happy, I wouldn't be suprised if became apparent to her, that your actions are realistically meaningless, and that in itself is an example of love. and it's possible that's all she wants to see.

I could be wrong as well, I'm just presenting ideas.

In the situation you explained, I think it is appropriate to say that those you are trying to help, you are not trying to help at your own expense. Instead of standing on your raft, telling them how to swim, or where to swim, or to grab onto the raft. It would probably be more effective to jump in the water yourself, to show them how to swim, where to swim, and how to grab onto the raft.

You want her to be completely content, but by wanting that, you are making yourself unhappy...so it's very possible she doesn't know how. And being as how you obviously cannot teach her to be completely content by speaking to her, you would probably be more successful to show her what it is to be content in the first place.


Oh, and i don't believe you've seen other people shatter the conditioning of others.

I don't feel that's possible. Breaking a life long conditioning HAS to come from within the individual. Because the whole conditioning is based off of conforming to others.

Thats what I was saying.

It's like the old ass saying everyones heard. You can guide a horse to water. But you can't make it drink.

You can educate her on the idea of different perspectives, but for he to truly adopt it. She is the only that can have part in that.

She's got forever, it's right there. I'm living eternally right now, you shouldn't be talking about death as if it's a barrier to infinity.

My deep actions are mistaken to be shallow, my shallow actions are mistaken to be deep. Nevertheless, the shallow actions remain shallow and the deep actions remain deep.

She doesn't know what she wants to see. How could she know? It's beyond the scope of her mind, she literally does not even know of it's existence. I would use heaven as an example, but the word has become too meaningless to convey my point. Let's say person A wants to see and experience heaven, it's the best thing he has ever heard of ever in his life. In fact, he is oblivious to his foolishness, for he doesn't know that it would be unimaginably better to go to heaven heaven; the place people in heaven go to after their lives on heaven end. Heaven heaven is to heaven what regular heaven is to earth. We look at heaven as the most amazing thing we have ever heard of, so good we can't even picture what it would be like to go there, we have no idea. Heaven heaven is so good that people in heaven dream of it and muse about how amazing and awesome heaven heaven would be compared to their mere suffering-free, eternal lives in regular heaven. I am in the same boat, I don't know what's out there, but I sure as fuck know that heaven is better than earth, so I'll chill here until whenever it is I move on.




You can't make someone swim. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink, remember?

And I choose to want her to be content. It's not like a burden of want, it's just a tool. It affects my feelings because I allow it to. It's not like I want to be rid of that particular want, there is no attachment to the want.

I meant I've seen other people shatter their own conditioning, not the conditioning of others.

Death isn't a barrier to infinity. You are living eternally right now, because a single moment cannot possibly be measured. Therefor it has no beginning nor end.

However, the action, or state i should say, of being completely content is useless beyond death. Because the idea of being content is, the idea of being. You cannot be, after death. because YOU only exist in a reality that is only possible in life.
You do not know what death brings. Nor do I. However I do know that the body dies, and decomposes. You should not assume that the mind and body are seperate.
content, is just a descriptive word that limits the actual nature of it. Just like death is just a descriptive word. You can't view it as something seperate, because that limits death, and disguises the reality of it. The problem is, the state of being content, is a state of mind. And to believe that death, an un-avoidable certainty, is limited to just the body, as if the mind and body were seperate, is to mistake deaths identity.
Contentment is only a state of being that is built within the mind, a mind that cannot exist without the body because the mind manifests the body. Death does not need contentment. Nor will death allow contentment, because it is a creation of the mind, it is not of nature. Where as death is.

You live eternally because time does not exist. There is no beginning or end to life, Because beginning and ends do not exist. Those are just words that are used to describe something because we do not yet comprehend that we are the universe.
The Universe does not know contentment, it has no need for it. The universe has no need for anything. Contentment needs nothing, accept for contentment itself. Without contentment, you want.


You're shallow actions are mistaken to be deep, because you mistook your deep actions to be shallow.

Untill you act without trying to define a measurement for something that cannot be measured. Your actions will never be sincere. It is only sincerity that will make every action, as profund as every thought.

And perhaps the reason why she does not know what she wants, is because she has not seen what she would inevitably want, had she known of it's existence.



and i didn't say make them swim. I said show them how, instead of trying to explain what you cannot.

And in no way is that absolute success, because in order to swim, they have to decide to swim. However, they will be less likely to swim, if they do not know of it's existence.

"However, the action, or state i should say, of being completely content is useless beyond death. Because the idea of being content is, the idea of being. You cannot be, after death. because YOU only exist in a reality that is only possible in life."


good shit.

"The universe has no need for anything."

This is not proven yet as we have not yet seen beyond the gaps of our universe.

We have not figured out all the clues yet to tell us exactly about the universe and most people are still even arguing about its shape. So.. whatever @ that.

By the way omb. Im sure you realize that nothing I say is of any value asside from inspiring you, myself, or others, to think not with more clarity, but to think contrary to what is already thought.


I know nothing, i am just trying to teach so that I may learn.

That's what I think is all's purpose for being in cerebral approach @_@

in a way, our minds are all connected because we understand each other to SOME point, but everything gets more different as you make the situation more complicated so of course we're going to run into huge disagreements here and there.

Still, I love you faggots. Great to argue with and talk to day and nights.

I hear a lot of wind blowing.

How can a dead man's contentedness be halted by death?

It is not our universe. I am not speaking in literal terms of spacial quantities.

I am only trying to convey that the universe IS.

That's all. The universe just is.

There isn't an explanation because it needs none. We as people need explantions Entities themselves, do not. Because an explanation, once again, is merely a creation of the mind that only exists within what already is.

Explanations imply that there is beginning and end. When really there isn't. Time itself is just an explanation we use to rationalize existence. When in reality, there is no explanation of time, it is infinite. no reasoning, it just is. You can break down time as much as you want, into the smallest possible measurment, and it is still impossible to see the beginning. Because you cannot see what isn't there. And to look for what you do not know, is stifling to your own being.

Explanations do not define anything, they are just a means of communication, to acknowledge their existence.

The universe is not ours but it is nobody elses and nobody else will have the desire to travel to other planets and populate, at least by our knowledge.. And considering there are over 17,500 near-by stars and planets that host life on it, I'd say this game-field has just one player and we should take advantage of even chancing human existence on other planets lol

Yeah, truth be told, today was never dull for me. Regardless of wrong or right...it was still intriguing.


I appreciate you catering to my temporary lack of health.

haha, well. That being true, consider this.

We are not one player, we are everything. Even though there is life eons and eons away, they are not everything we are.

Because without our existence, our perception of everything doesn't even exist. And it is our perception that matters, no one elses. Because it is our reality.

I am not speaking of the universe as a combination of stars and planets. Those are all tangibles that are products of the universe itself.

The universe is nature, that is why we cannot understand it.

We could not understand nature, unless we were nature. And if we were nature, we would need no understanding.

By nature, i dont mean trees and shit either. I mean pure nature. Pure existence. No time, no measure, no explanation, no limit, no beginning, no end.

That is why i was suggesting that death could be a fine example of pure nature. Because death itself does not begin, nore does it end. It just is. Death is not a sudden occurance. It is a word we use to explain what we feel suddenly occurs to us as products of nature.

Death has always been, it always will be.

Since time has no measurement, it is always occuring, yet never occuring at the same time.

No, from our knowledge everything has a beginning and end.

There is nothing except for the universe, (That which is much bigger than us and contains us, may have even been the creator of us) that we haven't seen have an end yet.

all the hypothesis's for the Universe are there simply to tell us IF there is an end, WHEN it's coming, WHAT we are, and HOW we should survive.

Where is not of the importance until we reach the ends of the Universe.

But it is true we do not know how we began, or when it was officially on a Universal (Not earthly) time scale, and that's of course just because we do not have my idea of a universal time scale, yet.

It's something I made up when After the Universe is explored. And After we know when we first came into existence. The time we use when we find out and we know that Jesus may just be another man and either that, or an Alien.

the Heavens have to be somewhere... in the heavens. Lmao.

No dude, beginning and end is a description used to describe a constant flow. a flow that does not end, or does not start. You need to stop looking at this through small particles my friend.

A cycle is constant, death, birth, are nothing but part of one constant cycle that does not end.

You are till viewing the universe as an object.

That is not what I mean. The universe, in the sense I am talking about Has no end. Not because we havn't seen it. But because there is no end to see.

Literally speaking, you would be correct.

But when i say universe, I mean that which is universal. We live in a physical universe. But in reality, That universe is still part of another universe. A universe that doesn't know time. and doesn't beginning or end because it has none.

Shall what you call, our universe, ever end. It will not change The universe I am speaking of, the only thing that will change, at all, is there won't be anyone to define what cannot be defined. After us, there will be no beginning or end period. Because beginning and end is a concept we created to explain natural, constant cycles, cycles that do not end, but cycles that we claim ends, or begins, because we know nothing else other than the start of what we call life, and the end of it.

There could be no life in the universe period. It would still be the same.

Like i said, this isn't a literal description of a physical universe. The physical universe lives within the universe i am speaking of.

"A cycle is constant, death, birth, are nothing but part of one constant cycle that does not end."

I believe this belief may be brought on with your also belief that nothing doesn't exist and that's why everything that exists keeps existing forever. It actually makes more sense to me now about how you think.

Still, what you speak of is true only because things do have a beginning and end.

(I will go on about the cycle and flow of things shortly but let's break it down to beginning's, and end's.)

A beginning - A start of something
An end - A. An end of something. B. An end of something cannot be completed without a start of something.

My conclusion is that if ends exist, beginnings must exist.

The end of a pencil has a butt, the eraser. The edge is the beginning of the writing and the eraser is, let's say, Death.

The end of a cliff has an edge. But what makes it a cliff is the giant walk up it.

The end of a sky does not exist because the world is round. (Here we go on the cycle part..)

A human that is born Comes into life because of his mother and feeds off the life around it to grow old and die. Of course, his efforts are not labeled for him they are labeled for the Human race, the one that will still exist after him.

However, isn't it common belief that the Human Race itself.. Will have an end?

When did we start? Who knows? But we know we started SOMEHOW.. and that's why we have Religions, to define what became of us.

"Shall what you call, our universe, ever end. It will not change The universe I am speaking of, the only thing that will change, at all, is there won't be anyone to define what cannot be defined. After us, there will be no beginning or end period. Because beginning and end is a concept we created to explain natural, constant cycles, cycles that do not end, but cycles that we claim ends, or begins, because we know nothing else other than the start of what we call life, and the end of it."

This however is right. And that is why I said in another thread that for anything to be real it must not be real, because only we know it, and if we were to ever end, so would all remembrance and knowledge of reality.

Good round!

we both understand.

Make more subjects @_@

This is my point though, we are not nature. Because nature needs no definition. Yet we could not fully understand nature, unless we were it. You are still speaking of tangible things.

What has no beginning or end. Is nature. Death is apart of nature, if all human race is to die, death will still exist, because death was not created with us, nor created by us.

It is completely constant.

You can say that certain things have beginning and end that are physical, however. That really doesn't mean anything. Because what makes an end, an end? nothing, other than what we have made a definition for.

And that is bedies the reality, the nature has no measurments. When i say there is no beginning or end in the universe, I mean the universe itself, not everything it contains.

How can the universe contain something? An apple doesn't contain an apple, it is an apple.

Like i explained. The universe i'm speaking of, is not a physical universe. It is everything that is universal.

Everything that is universal, contains a universe.


The same word, with two different meanings being used.

An apple could easily contain an apple, if we had scene it as appropriate to name the core, apple as well.

that whole post went together to explain itself, it's not my fault you only read as much as you quoted and responded to it.

<.<