For Ryan/Animus. Detachment vs Non-attachment

[cousinbasil]

No, Kelly is right. If someone is being aggressive towards you, that's exactly what they are doing - even if it's a child throwing a tantrum. The best thing to do would be to leave them alone.

You seem to know as little about children as you do about women.

A tantrum-thrower isn't "telling you" anything. You yourself said it would be best not to assume the tantrum-thrower's mindset. It is up to the rational party to assess the situation and do the right thing, since only that person is capable of doing so. The last thing an adult would do in the situation of a tantrum-throwing child is to say, "he is probably telling me to leave him alone, so I will." What kind of rational person would try to discern intent from a tantrum? It would be irresponsible.

From what I gather Animus is saying, irresponsible is the last thing he intends to be - and I wouldn't suggest it to him. When I asked why does it have to be you, I meant why is it a good thing for you to let yourself be put into such confrontational situations? She is - albeit unintentionally - using him and his caring for her, and he doesn't want to bail on her. It may be foolhardy, but it is certainly admirable.

I think the detachment Animus spoke of is a really useful skill when things get heated. If he just left her alone, as Kelly suggested, he might see a lot of his shit go flying out the window.

I guess my message, since I have been through this more than once, is that while I understand the reasons why someone might put another's needs first, you cannot best accomplish what you are trying to do by putting your own last all the time.

[jupiviv]

A tantrum-thrower isn't "telling you" anything. You yourself said it would be best not to assume the tantrum-thrower's mindset. It is up to the rational party to assess the situation and do the right thing, since only that person is capable of doing so. The last thing an adult would do in the situation of a tantrum-throwing child is to say, "he is probably telling me to leave him alone, so I will." What kind of rational person would try to discern intent from a tantrum? It would be irresponsible.

Where did I say that a tantrum throwing child wants to tell you that you should leave him alone? That's simply the best course of action. Neither compliance nor denial of his demands would be rational. The only way he can understand that he is being irrational is by himself, i.e, if he himself becomes rational. You can't force people to be reasonable. At best you can tell them what the reasonable thing to do is, and then leave them to decide what to do.

I think the detachment Animus spoke of is a really useful skill when things get heated. If he just left her alone, as Kelly suggested, he might see a lot of his shit go flying out the window.

It's possible to prevent a person from doing something even if that person doesn't listen to reason. But the person claiming to be the more rational party should see whether he is being completely rational himself. Any person in a "relationship" with another person is irrational by default.

[Dennis Mahar]

It just looks like all the strategies are coming out as a list.
As a context:
'I have a piece of equipment (GF) in my life and it's in a breakdown'
The equipment is good for this and not so good for that.
I need this equipment to work.
My life doesn't work without equipment.
Is there an owner's manual for this thing?
The equipment was damaged by it's previous owner.
Can it be fixed?
What's my responsibility to this equipment?
What's my responsibility to me?
I'm torn.

[cousinbasil]

Dennis, don't be torn, we're just a bunch of guys shooting the shit. And women. I mean, women are shooting the shit, too, not that we are shooting women.

[Dennis Mahar]

Dennis, don't be torn, we're just a bunch of guys shooting the shit. And women. I mean, women are shooting the shit, too, not that we are shooting women.

OK, go for it.
I'm not torn tho'.

[cousinbasil]

Where did I say that a tantrum throwing child wants to tell you that you should leave him alone?

Well, I got it from this exchange a couple of posts back:

Kelly: If she's destroying your stuff, this is a pretty good indication that she is telling you to leave her alone.
Alex: Actually it is likely completely the opposite. I guess this is evidence you are making 'progress': you think like a man, not like a woman.
cousinbasil: I think Alex is right on the money here, Kelly.
jupiviv: No, Kelly is right. If someone is being aggressive towards you, that's exactly what they are doing - even if it's a child throwing a tantrum. The best thing to do would be to leave them alone.

[Robert]

Any person in a "relationship" with another person is irrational by default.

That's not entirely true, I'd say only the person who doesn't need a relationship is the one who can rationally enter into and maintain one. But it does take two to tango.

[Alex Jacob]

Diebert writes: "It's very easy to see with children indeed: it starts with wanting what you're having, so some form of negotiation of manipulation occurs. Then, when it's clear it can never be had, a destructive or violent tendency arises. The object that was first desired now has to be destroyed or at least minimised or ridiculed, put down."

It is not really, or often, that children want what you're having, it's that they get fixated on what they want. An adult will necessarily have the responsibility to thwart the child's will, and to carefully explain why he can't have his will. Since the child who is tantrum-oriented will have none of that, it turns into a power-struggle, and children can be masters at these games. The 'truth', at least for the child, is irrelevant: he wishes to indulge in his egoism at whatever cost, even if it harms himself. Adults in this situation with often 'tease' (put down) the child and ridicule his will---in a light, humorous way---and it is indeed a rare child that catches on and who joins in the laughter. If the child does so, it means he is growing up...

The first line of Hexagram 37 The Family reads:

• The family must form a well-defined unit within which each member knows his place. From the beginning each child must be accustomed to firmly established rules of order, before ever its will is directed to other things. If we begin too late to enforce order, when the will of the child has already been overindulged, the whims and passions, grown stronger with the years, offer resistance and give cause for remorse. If we insist on order from the outset, occasions for remorse may arise - in general social life these are unavoidable - but the remorse always disappears again, and everything rights itself. For there is nothing easily avoided and more difficult to carry through than "breaking a child's will."

[Dennis Mahar]

Basil,

dennis, don't be torn, we're just a bunch of guys shooting the shit.

I might just add Ryan has correctly declared the forum falls into a cacophinic quagmire for the most part.
The forum is challenged.
Ryan is intelligent.
Is torn in a situation.
Looks for leadership.

My post 'listened' to Ryan and put what Ryan said into context.

If that's a crime against 'just a bunch of guys shooting shit',
then,
'just a bunch of guys shooting shit' could ask itself:

Is 'just a bunch of guys shooting shit' listening to:
a) Ryan
b) Ryan's charge that the forum falls into a cacophinic quagmire.
c) that the forum is challenged

[jupiviv]

Any person in a "relationship" with another person is irrational by default.

That's not entirely true, I'd say only the person who doesn't need a relationship is the one who can rationally enter into and maintain one. But it does take two to tango.

It depends on what you mean by "relationship." Sure, it's rational if two people share a rational purpose and form a "relationship" to achieve their goals.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Dennis, don't be torn, we're just a bunch of guys shooting the shit. And women. I mean, women are shooting the shit, too, not that we are shooting women.

cousinbasil, it seems that you have Genius Forum confused with a normal message board.

Welcome to Genius Forum

Genius is a discussion forum that is passionately dedicated to the nature of Genius, Wisdom and Ultimate Reality and to the total annihilation of false values.

That's a fair shot from "shooting the shit."

and on a technical note, about that shooting of women...

It is by challenging and overturning our cosy assumptions, habitual thought-processes, psychological refuges and mental blocks that our minds can be opened up that little bit more to the wisdom of the Infinite.

which equates to shooting women here, by QRS definition of "woman"

Please, never confuse this place with a normal message board again. We have work to do.

[Kelly Jones]

It's often the case that a woman having an aggressive fit against her lover is trying to push them away, but is doing so ambivalently. Trying to hurt the person she pushes away is an attempt to see if the lover is still attached and can be manipulated. If the lover can be manipulated, such as to feel alarm or fear or worry about the woman, then she feels powerful. Why does she need to feel more powerful than her lover? Because she hates the lover's power over her. She really is trying to hurt them because she is scared to be alone, but at the same time wants to be independent.

Suicidalism that tries to hurt others is not a genuine plea for help, because of the destructiveness of the expression. If it were a genuine plea for help, the request would be respectful, and they would be ready for advice. Only when a person has gone through the mess of their own irrationality, and has really plumbed their depths and come up with empty hands, are they really ready for advice and help.


.

[cousinbasil]

Please, never confuse this place with a normal message board again. We have work to do.

Duly noted.

BTW - Do you think Einstein was a genius?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Do you think Einstein was a genius?

I will attempt to answer both of the questions that I suspect you asked here - the plainly typed one and the invisible one.

That depends on how one defines genius - and it is only on this board that I would give equal weight to the term genius meaning philosophical genius or mundane genius. Anywhere else I would expect a person to mean the mundane meaning of the word genius unless the context clearly indicated something different (this generally includes other philosophy boards, though there "genius" may merely mean a member of this board).

By QRS definitions, Einstein was not a genius. His elementary school teachers also saw no evidence of genius in Einstein. The world today commonly considers that Einstein was a genius. But none of these were your question - you asked if I think that Einstein was a genius. While I disagree with part of his theory on time, I will agree that he was a scientific genius. I don't know what his IQ actually was, so I don't know if he was a general genius, but by board standards, he was not a genius.

[jupiviv]

Einstein was a far greater genius than, say, Richard Feynman. I think some conscious thought did go into his work, as opposed to just his natural talent or intelligence. But he wasn't a genius compared to someone like Weininger or Kierkegaard.

[Animus]

So, two and a half years ago, she broke up with my brother, and contrary to conventional wisdom we started seeing each other a year and a half later, so we've been seeing each other for a year. Last week I told my brother the news and he was understandably hurt, he also expressed his disapproval on grounds that her and I are so unalike.

However, since the cats been let out of the bag, the girlfriend has been a lot easier-going. This last weekend was great, we didn't fight, but we went shopping together, did our chores, watched a few movies and made wild sex. We also talked a lot about where we are coming from and where we are going. The movies we watched all had surprising philosophical points; The Karate Kid, Leaves of Grass and Good.

One of the highlights; after telling my brother what was going on, she said to me "I'm surprised how much of an affect it had over me, just little things that bothered me, that I didn't think were related, don't bother me anymore."

We are supposed to do Christmas together at her place. Christmas? I don't celebrate rituals like that, I don't do the holiday thing. Not any more, I realized that the ideal state is a state of non-attachment, not detachment. I can celebrate Christmas. I don't need to go in debt over gifts, but I can share the time with her family and connect with them over a nice dinner.

[Animus]

You guys know the scene from Peaceful Warrior, where Socrates takes Dan to a bar, and he's puffing back a cigar and drinking a brewskie? Dan says to Socrates "I thought we didn't do this." and Socrates replies "Its the attachment"

Something to that effect anyway, good film, IMHO. Also some interesting books; The Way of the Peacful Warrior and No Ordinary Moments by Dan Millman.

btw, next scene Dan and Soc are walking out of the bar, down an alley in the back and they are mugged. Socrates offers up more than they are asking for and both Dan and Soc end up walking home in their tighty-whiteys. Dan insists Soc could have prevented it form happening, but Soc submits it was a learning experience and says "Those who are hardest to help, are usually those who need it the most."

[cousinbasil]

and made wild sex.

I knew it! You go for it my brother.

[Animus]

and made wild sex.

I knew it! You go for it my brother.

I figured that would get some attention.

Realize, that this isn't why I'm with her, fact is when we are fighting, I don't have sex with her. Instead, I sleep alone, in my own room, and she in hers.

It bothers her some that I can turn-off sexually. Her mother was staying with us for 7 days, and we were'nt have sex during that time, nor did I crave it. And at other times, when I am too immersed in books, I don't think of sex. For her it provides some kind of assurance.

[Bobo]

If someone is being aggressive towards you, that's exactly what they are doing - even if it's a child throwing a tantrum.

It's very easy to see with children indeed: it starts with wanting what you're having, so some form of negotiation of manipulation occurs. Then, when it's clear it can never be had, a destructive or violent tendency arises. The object that was first desired now has to be destroyed or at least minimised or ridiculed, put down.

Understand the above and you know all that there's to know about dysfunctional relationships as well as obsessive forum members.

All there's to know about dysfunctional relationships WITH children. And not all destruction is dysfunctional unless by definition.