For Ryan/Animus. Detachment vs Non-attachment

[Kelly Jones]

I can feel my ego smashing its head off the walls of its prison, dieing for originality. But what am I to do? There is no vacation spot where people do things that have never been done before. So, things happen in my life and I just do whatever seems appropriate, I don't get hot and bothered by them, whether it is a girl or anything else. Even my girlfriend says I'm unempathic, fact it annoys me to be empathic, takes up too much time, its too slow or something. I frequently say I don't understand why people get so upset, afraid, worried or excited. Stuff like that only happens to me when I think of ideas, I get excited about ideas.

So, to come to terms with that, and realize that I'm not just not-attached, I'm detached is pretty big. For me its not a matter of seeking non-attachment from the point of being attached, but seeking it from the point of being detached. Except, I'm habitually detached from everything as a consequence of my past, childhood. As a matter of fact, I'm simply not aware of any such ability, any time I am empathic, its as if I was on drugs, abnormal.

The feeling of apathy, or emotional detachment from uninteresting things, isn't the same as non-attachment. What you describe is a high-achiever looking for intensity of experience, deep ideas, intellectual stimulation, and wisdom, but who finds almost everything he studies easy to understand and very mediocre. So he is uninterested. There is no emotional salience. So he finds his life rather humdrum and mechanical, like he's not switched on.

What you describe is similar to a rarer form of boredom. It's not non-attachment, but emotional detachment. Non-attachment doesn't seek anymore, not because it doesn't expect to find anything satisfying, and has a Nietzschean nausea; but because it realises there is nothing there to seek. It is free of the desire for things because it has the intellectual realisation of emptiness of inherent existence. But you are still seeking, in a subtle way.

Other indications of samsara are the presence of emotions, being with a girlfriend showing a need for company or other obvious satiation, and smoking. Why do you smoke, if I might ask?


.


.

[jupiviv]

I can feel my ego smashing its head off the walls of its prison, dieing for originality.

If you put a goldfish in a shot glass, it will grow restless after a while and probably try to jump out. Now throw it out into the ocean - it will die. This "prison" may be something that you've built yourself, because you'd rather smash your head against its walls rather than break out of it and face the tempest.

[Animus]

I know you think having emotions and especially a girlfriend, are not conducive to enlightenment and signs of the opposite. I don't completely agree with you, alternatively I can keep a safe distance, not get involved with anyone, and that would be detachment.

The other part of my post was me saying that I am detached, and not non-attached. I recognize this, but to that end I have to jump into the fire, I have to experience love and loss and allow myself to be immersed in the world from which I've become so detached.

Let me relate briefly to you, there has been a lot in my relationship that has been difficult, and many here would say that it is pointless, futile, I'm being hurt and I should abandon her. If it was all about me I would agree to that, but its really not about me.

My girlfriend and I have fought a number of times and many of my possessions have been destroyed, and my girlfriend injured from reacting violently and carelessly. She has injured herself, and planted the seeds in other minds that I have abused her. I told her that others would think I was abusing her even if she contested otherwise, and this became emminantly clear when my mother expressed to me her concerns. "You could go to jail" she warned.

I get it, I understand, but its not solely about me. At one time I thought leaving her was best for her, buts its really not, she's not capable of being alone at this time. So my love requires that I make these sacrifices, and since I am so detached, they aren't too big for me. She needs someone like that, who can take all the abuse and help open her eyes to herself.

I've also learned what setting one's ego aside really means. Its find to speak of it in theory, and/or to pretend to set aside one's feelings while in a relaxed, solitary state. But when it comes down to my opinion, my perspective, my honor or social image, versus my girlfriend killing herself, going on a rampage or generally losing her mind, its a lot harder to set everything aside and focus on bringing her back to reality. I can discuss with her later, and speak to her reason later, at those times however, I have to forget about what I know, or how hurt I am and just do the right thing.

You don't have that kind of insight sitting alone, completely detached from others, and pretending to be egoless. You don't know what you are until you are tested.

[Animus]

Like, I can sit here and say to myself; whenever anyone else gets upset, angry, frustrated, and so on, they are just being egotistical, they are inferior to my superior enlightened mind, and so avoid them, and so avoid everyone, and so be alone, and I can be okay with being alone. But this aloneness, has come about because I was reacting to others, because my ego couldn't stand it.

I don't need to distance myself from others, I just need to be able to care about them without allowing their flaws to affect me, people are flawed, the wise enlightened master still chops wood and carries water, and he still feels. It is too easy to conclude on being enlightened simply because I find everyone else unbearably annoying, but that's a fallacy.

[Beingof1]

Animus:

Like, I can sit here and say to myself; whenever anyone else gets upset, angry, frustrated, and so on, they are just being egotistical, they are inferior to my superior enlightened mind, and so avoid them, and so avoid everyone, and so be alone, and I can be okay with being alone. But this aloneness, has come about because I was reacting to others, because my ego couldn't stand it.

Not necessarily; no doubt there is a reaction to others. Alone is the state of the being that you are. It is inescapable. What can be done is to embrace your entire being in that it flows beyond the aloneness. Better said, being encompasses you to the point that the 'you' evaporates into the experience of all that is now and shall be.

This is accomplished by loving thy neighbor as thyself. This does not mean you allow a thief to hold onto your money, you just accept the fact that they will steal. One thing that cannot be taken away is that you can forgive any act that has been put at you and in so doing transcend all.

I don't need to distance myself from others, I just need to be able to care about them without allowing their flaws to affect me, people are flawed, the wise enlightened master still chops wood and carries water, and he still feels. It is too easy to conclude on being enlightened simply because I find everyone else unbearably annoying, but that's a fallacy.

Its a good idea that if you are sleepy - just go to sleep. If you feel like taking action - take action.
Do not make final decisions that are a rule that you create for yourself to live up to.

Here is a really good book for you Ryan:
http://tinyurl.com/3xtoxtq

[cousinbasil]

So my love requires that I make these sacrifices, and since I am so detached, they aren't too big for me. She needs someone like that, who can take all the abuse and help open her eyes to herself.

But why does it have to be you?

[Animus]

But why does it have to be you?

Cause and Effect

Herein lies the hypocrisy of this line of thought; I'm egoless, so I don't need anyone else, I'm quite comfortable being alone. But when the going gets tough, I ask myself "Why me?"

"Why me?"! Yes, exactly, why me, why do I worry about such things? If I were truly egoless, I would accept the cards life deals me, and play them as best I can, and not worry about why I got dealt these cards.

I have a choice when it comes to this woman; I can abandon her and save myself any torment that accompanies relationships and escpecially one with someone who is co-dependent. Or, I can set myself aside and do what I can to help her, just as I can set myself aside to help others. There is a utility in our relationship, it is not solely egotistical, but there are elements of it there. You know, I thought I was beyond jealousy until I started dating her, then I rediscovered my jealousy and got over it. It wasn't gone, just hidden in my solitude. So, why me? Because I need to grow. I can choose to grow with her, or I can choose to be alone, but by choosing to be alone I separate myself from the life that teaches and back to the life of the arm-chair philosoper who may know much in theory, but never opportunes to act.

[Dennis Mahar]

Once 'empty and meaningless' is realised.
You can go either of 2 ways.
nihilism..moribund depravity.
or
possibility.

We borrow from thinkers like Neitschke, Kierkergaard to escape nihilism.

We set up a noble cause as a context to Live into.
Creative philosophers.
For Neitschke ubermensch, for Kierkeergaard authenticity.

Bob Geldof understood possibility of existential existence.
Watching TV of 'starving ethiopians' he grabbed the context of feeding them.
With his clout as rock star he enrolled other rock stars in a concert to raise money for his project 'fix the starving ethiopians outrage'.
Geldof enrolled the World in his possibility.
Geldof taught Bono possibility for existential existence.
Bono set the noble cause 'forgive 3rd world debt'..
Nelson Mandela stood for 'black man is born free'.
despite imprisonment, bashings he never sqealed thus bringing exquisite authenticity to his noble cause and demonstrated 'black man is born free' by living it in himself authentically. His stand inspired and enrolled the World in him.

Gandhi grabbed 'passive resistance' as a possibility for existential existence in a political context.

Waiting around for Jesus to show up and save you as a context for life is inauthentic existence because the responsibility is put elsewhere...religion is moribund depravity, enslavement and has no business in a conversation about true nature, it's worse than dead because it deadens.

Setting the noble cause engages the whole being in it's infinity, personhood, worldhood.
deferring to the current worldhood the responsibility of setting your context for living as get a job, pull a chick, get her pregnant blah, blah, blah...
Tell me, how gutsy is that!

QRS set the noble cause at the possibility of Genius as a possibility for existential existence and live it in the face of blatant disrespect from the seemingly always assembled array of 'egg throwers' that automatically assemble wherever there is the slightest hint of a noble cause ...

'Gotta kill a noble cause boys, it doesn't make us look good' as a possibility for existential existence is a favourite context.

[Alex Jacob]

Dennis writes: "Waiting around for Jesus to show up and save you as a context for life is inauthentic existence because the responsibility is put elsewhere...religion is moribund depravity, enslavement and has no business in a conversation about true nature, it's worse than dead because it deadens."

This is a completely shallow---if not outrightly dishonest---representation of the Christian religion: that is in terms of its higher aspects, its better 'embodyers'. It is a bit strange for me to defend it, or even to explain it, since I am not exactly one myself, but with this statement it is pretty clear you don't have much of an idea what you are talking about. This is unfortunate because the topic is quite interesting.

[Dennis Mahar]

What are you scared of Alex?

Every post you make has a 'where you're atness' of.. 'I'm scared something could be lost' and 'I'd better interject here to protect something'...

[cousinbasil]

I can choose to grow with her, or I can choose to be alone, but by choosing to be alone I separate myself from the life that teaches and back to the life of the arm-chair philosopher who may know much in theory, but never opportunes to act.

"Back to the life of the armchair philosopher?" Were you ever truly that? It doesn't sound like it. And it is really, really difficult to separate yourself from the life that teaches. Breaking up with a woman sure as hell won't do that, hey, breaking up is one of the lessons.

[Alex Jacob]

What are you scared of Alex?

Don't see it that way, Dennis. It makes you appear paranoid at best, unbalanced at worst. This is my orientation and you may take it for what it is worth: over the last 3 years or so I have made a concerted effort to read the Bible, and read people who wrote about the Bible. Also Christian ethics, the history of the Church, Christian theology which is quite fascinating.

The way that many average run-of-the-mill Christians practice their religion, and now I am speaking more on the standard 'evangelical' level, on a daily basis and in their families and communities, is beyond your ken. You seem not to have a grasp of it. It is not a fear-based reliigion as you assume. It is life-affirming and quite respectable. Also, it is getting more sophisticated (in the esense of being able to converse with 'the culture' and to defend its valuations).

You could do well to gain a little better understanding.

I am only trying to establish a more equitable playing field so to speak.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I'm egoless, so I don't need anyone else

I know that you know the difference between philosophical egoless and psychological egoless, but when one is with an abusive, manipulative partner, and your gf sounds like one of the worst:

many of my possessions have been destroyed, and my girlfriend injured from reacting violently and carelessly. She has injured herself, and planted the seeds in other minds that I have abused her

one can react by becoming psychologically dissassociated, which can easily be mistaken for philosophical egolessness by the person experiencing the state.

I'm egoless, so I don't need anyone else

If that is true, then you also don't need her:

Because I need to grow. I can choose to grow with her, or I can choose to be alone, but by choosing to be alone I separate myself from the life that teaches and back to the life of the arm-chair philosoper who may know much in theory, but never opportunes to act.

__________________________________

At one time I thought leaving her was best for her, buts its really not, she's not capable of being alone at this time.

You may be right, but if you are, what she needs is to be inpatient at a mental hospital, at least for a short time starting immediately as you break up with her. You probably do need professional help in order to make this break-up safe for both of you.

I get it, I understand, but its not solely about me. At one time I thought leaving her was best for her, buts its really not, she's not capable of being alone at this time. So my love requires that I make these sacrifices, and since I am so detached, they aren't too big for me. She needs someone like that, who can take all the abuse and help open her eyes to herself.

It is against professional ethics of mental health counselors to treat or attempt to treat people they know. I thought that was a bit extreme, but have seen that it is true that the relationship dynamic makes actual help from someone with a personal connection impossible. You can't help her. You can only teach her how to manipulate you better.

Also, by taking all that abuse you are letting her practice treating others like a doormat. Ultimately, that is not healthy for her. She needs to learn how to have a healthy relationship.

The only way to open someone's eyes to the fact that their behavior is not acceptable is to not accept it. Sometimes the only way to not accept the behavior is to also reject the person. Once her eyes are open she may be able to to improve herself, perhaps with professional help, and be able to have a happier and healthier relationship with the next guy.

[Dennis Mahar]

Don't see it that way, Dennis. It makes you appear paranoid at best, unbalanced at worst.

This persistent, degraded, verbal abuse you pull into your orbit to try and force humiliation on other beings in not only this forum but other forums...
What's it about?

mock, torment, scoff.

What's it about lad?

Is there another possibility for communication?

Verbal abuse directly points to 'scared personhood'.

[Animus]

Animus wrote:
I'm egoless, so I don't need anyone else


I know that you know the difference between philosophical egoless and psychological egoless, but when one is with an abusive, manipulative partner, and your gf sounds like one of the worst:


Animus wrote:
many of my possessions have been destroyed, and my girlfriend injured from reacting violently and carelessly. She has injured herself, and planted the seeds in other minds that I have abused her


one can react by becoming psychologically dissassociated, which can easily be mistaken for philosophical egolessness by the person experiencing the state.

She didn't intend to give anyone the impression that I was abusing her. We had good conversation about it beforehand, but I urged her to tell the truth and thought people would have their own thoughts anyway. My mother is not a very good listener, most people aren't, she only hears words that are salient to her and then makes up her own story. I have an explosively violent past, and my mother is well attuned to it, so concerns that I might be relapsing invade her thinking.

Yet, in like fashion I suspect everyone will make some such assumption. If I have to fight a social neurosis, so be it. I won't allow the threat of other people's thinking determine my actions. If I have injured her it has been from removing her from my person. She has done plenty more damage to herself. She is hesitatnt to injure me, but has tried to jossle me around a few times and remove me from the house.

It is all well and good to label her, or suppose she needs professional help, but you are really at a distance and I've never had much luck with professionals or abandonment. Perhaps what she needs is someone who really loves her, and I do, not in the flirty, schoolboy, ego-gratifying manner you might assume. I told her the other day, I love her in every way I've loved any other girl, she makes feel jealousy from time to time, but I also love her according to a much more profound paradigm. I love her, not what I get from her (although that is enjoyable too).

If that is true, then you also don't need her:


Animus wrote:
Because I need to grow. I can choose to grow with her, or I can choose to be alone, but by choosing to be alone I separate myself from the life that teaches and back to the life of the arm-chair philosoper who may know much in theory, but never opportunes to act.

__________________________________


Animus wrote:
At one time I thought leaving her was best for her, buts its really not, she's not capable of being alone at this time.


You may be right, but if you are, what she needs is to be inpatient at a mental hospital, at least for a short time starting immediately as you break up with her. You probably do need professional help in order to make this break-up safe for both of you.

So the "professional" can label her co-dependent and prescribe her selective seratonin reuptake inhibitors that control her moods? You know what will happen, don't you? She will habituate to the drugs, becoming dependent on them, and in their absence she will fall apart.

She doesn't need anyone else, she is fine fixing herself. You just need to realize what has happened to her, and see that her worldview has been destabilized. She was born to a fundamentalist family and recently denounced her fairy-God for a more enlightened view. She's struggling with her personal identity. I'm supportive, but ultimately, she knows, she is on her own. Though we might be side-by-side the remainder of our lives, she can't rely on me always, I could go insane, my brain could deteriorate, suffer injury. Nothing is certain, she knows, she is just having trouble getting comfortable with all of this.

It is against professional ethics of mental health counselors to treat or attempt to treat people they know. I thought that was a bit extreme, but have seen that it is true that the relationship dynamic makes actual help from someone with a personal connection impossible. You can't help her. You can only teach her how to manipulate you better.

Also, by taking all that abuse you are letting her practice treating others like a doormat. Ultimately, that is not healthy for her. She needs to learn how to have a healthy relationship.

The only way to open someone's eyes to the fact that their behavior is not acceptable is to not accept it. Sometimes the only way to not accept the behavior is to also reject the person. Once her eyes are open she may be able to to improve herself, perhaps with professional help, and be able to have a happier and healthier relationship with the next guy.

She has been treated like a doormat, and gets treated like a doormat by virtually everyone including myself. I abuse her for her generosity as does everyone else. I take from her and show little gratitude. And I'm the least in that regard, her employer overexherts her and her friends consume her. She is learning to set up boundaries with them or let them go.

In my time I've seen a multitude of "professionals" and every last one of them was no good to me, sent me further into depression and resentment for life. Of all the so-called "professionals" only one man did anything positive for me, and he was more like a friend, someone I developed a close personal relationship with. Others are too distant, too much in the books, they don't take the time to know you inside and out. "Professionals" are still heavily influenced by behaviorist thinking with a few pages from neuroscience. Your thoughts and feelings are secondary to your brain dynamics. This is no way to help someone, I know because I've needed help and it wasn't there.

[cousinbasil]

This is no way to help someone, I know because I've needed help and it wasn't there.

That's another one of life's lessons.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

She didn't intend to give anyone the impression that I was abusing her.

Thank you for clarifying that point. Much of my previous comments as directly relating to your gf can be disregarded as they were based on the misunderstanding that

She has injured herself, and planted the seeds in other minds that I have abused her.

meant that she had intentionally planted the above mentioned seeds, and possibly also injured herself intentionally for the purpose of planting such seeds.

I agree that most mental health professionals are anywhere from worthless to harmful, but had she been the sort to intentionally injure herself and make people think you did it, you would need help and as you said

you are really at a distance

and at least professionals are more local to you than I am, can take a full hour of interactive questioning that can more accurately reveal the picture of what is going on than a few posts to a message board, and would have a facility to house her that I would not. I'm glad that she is not as bad as she sounded to me when I read your earlier description.

She is hesitatnt to injure me, but has tried to jossle me around a few times and remove me from the house.

This still tells me that there is something unhealthy going on. Indeed, that's your business - but you did post it on a public message board, so I hope you are not surprised by people responding.

someone who really loves her, and I do, not in the flirty, schoolboy, ego-gratifying manner you might assume.

No, that was not my assumption. I told you directly that my concern was that you were being her doormat. It can be easy to tell yourself that putting up with abuse is evidence of a more mature kind of love. It isn't. Mutually being each others' doormat isn't a good sign either. Nevertheless a committed romantic relationship can be a vehicle by which two people can grow, and your attachment to her through love would not be broken by breaking up with her for philosophy's sake (actually the attachment might increase), so you may be where you need to be for now. Not that you needed my blessing.

I don't seriously expect you to break up with your gf just because some people on a message board suggested that anyway. I do expect you to take home some food for thought - there's no other good reason for being here.

But getting back to the more philosophical implications of your posts, I stand by my previous point that I know that you know the difference between philosophical egoless and psychological egoless, but one can become psychologically disassociated, which can easily be mistaken for philosophical egolessness by the person experiencing the state. I'm not saying that's what you have done; I'm saying it's worth asking yourself (repeatedly through time) if you are experiencing true philosophical egolessness or dissociation. A first step in answering that would be to differentiate the two states.

she makes feel jealousy from time to time

You have to know that could not come from an egoless state. I have no doubt that you are working toward an egoless state and have probably made some progress, but I'll bluntly tell you that you are not egoless, as you claimed. I hope that my pointing out the similarities between dissociation and egolessness, you might be less likely to spend time going down a blind ally that you might mistake for the path.

[Kelly Jones]

At one time I thought leaving her was best for her, buts its really not, she's not capable of being alone at this time.

If she's destroying your stuff, this is a pretty good indication that she is telling you to leave her alone.

It takes time, but a self-destructive person needs a lot of time alone to sort out whether they want to live or die. They have to learn their own skills, their own way of dealing with things. It can give them a lot of confidence to navigate their psychology. I really think it's essential for unstable people to have that ordeal of private struggle, in order to grow strong on their own terms. Let them be alone.

If you feel compelled to hang around, perhaps it's because you don't like being alone with yourself.


.

[Alex Jacob]

Kelly wrote: 'If she's destroying your stuff, this is a pretty good indication that she is telling you to leave her alone.'

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.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It sounds like a description of someone with a severe lack of individuation, sometimes described as 'borderline'. In that sense her wish is to get a (stronger) self, but her fear is the same, to enter aloneness where such self might grow. The conflict is best described as the interplay between this fear and desire. And as such Alex and Kelly make both valid points.

Animus is supplying her a second-hand self but abandonment will not always improve the situation. For Animus it might of course but a sense of loyalty and responsibility might be part of his particular conscience.

[cousinbasil]

Kelly wrote: 'If she's destroying your stuff, this is a pretty good indication that she is telling you to leave her alone.'

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.

I think Alex is right on the money here, Kelly. Animus' GF isn't telling him anything, she is throwing a tantrum, like a child. Children throw tantrums because things aren't going their way, often not getting enough attention or not getting the type they need at the moment. It is needy, out of control behavior.

There is a relatively new psychobabble term making the rounds: passive/aggressive. Ryan/Animus, if you were on Dr. Phil, this is what the big fat phony would say you are being. You are disengaging or detaching when she emotionally needs you. You are thus attacking her (aggressive) by refusing to engage (passive), which makes the situation worse. That is clearly bull shit, as if you didn't already know that. What you are doing is being a grownup when she refuses to be. It would hardly be the correct thing for an adult to engage at a child's level when the child acts out. When a juvenile pitches a fit it is a normal part of growing up and can turn out to be a learning experience if handled properly and consistently, but your situation is unfortunately not like that.

There is no telling if your efforts at helping her are working, but they surely cannot be damaging her further. Self control is something better mastered when one is young - this was probably not something your GF was taught sufficiently at the best age (meaning way before now). Females sometimes get more of a pass on this part of normal upbringing. The reasons are complex, perhaps a male parent is more reluctant to swat his little girl's heinie than his little boy's. Or maybe daughters learn more quickly to be sneaky and show a goody-goody facade to parents all too ready to believe in it and not probe too deeply into her actions at a formative stage.

Either way, it then falls to a future boyfriend to take the brunt of the consequences. The media is full of these ersatz experts who would exhort a young woman to get a restraining order if her boyfriend were "destroying her property." And maybe they are right. This is why I asked why does it have to be you. It sounds as if your love for her is making you act in a responsible manner, which actually demands you remain detached, at least from her destructive side. This very thing has happened to me. When the girl started to go ballistic, I would react from a disengaged place. So I think I know how you feel. In my case, the relationship lasted three years, and I was seldom happy in it. She ended up moving to take employment in another city, and though I had an opportunity for work in the same place, I declined so we could go our separate ways. It was one of the hardest things I have had to do, because there was no one there telling me what was the right thing to do. If her job hadn't moved her, I do not know what would have happened. But I could easily envision things never changing, which was me taking verbal and at times physical abuse simply because I was there. She even told me that her nickname in college was "Psychotic Bitch from Hell" (and this came from a former boyfriend.)

I guess what I am trying to share here is fairly simple, and obviously could have absolutely no similarities to or bearing upon your situation. And that is, I went through all that shit, and for what? A host of bad memories and no one to share them with anyway? Like your GF, mine had people walking all over her (she was a doormat) and she had never learned to navigate such situations. Then, when it was just us, I had to take the force of what she felt was the disrespect heaped upon her. Wait a minute - the logic here is that because I am the one who does not treat you like crap, you have to treat me like crap?

Does that sound right? I don't think so. After she had been gone a few months, my viewpoint changed. The world is too big, and life is too short. There are plenty of other mistakes to make without having to keep making the same one over and over.

[Alex Jacob]

Just a couple of notes: It is interesting that we are 'witnessing' and 'observing' two people who have no apparently clear way to 'define relatedness'. They seem to be examples of 'fractured selves' who, though struggling with themselves and each other for relatedness, for connection, act as their own worst enemies. What is lacking? Two 'wholesome selves', two integrated persons, brought up by other wholesome persons, who 'define relatedness' and have to tools and means to carry it out.

In my way of seeing, which of course is my own interpretive lens, this is par for the course here at GF. Meaning, 'you' can define all this abstract gobbledeegook and go spinning of on unreal tangents into spectacular philosophies, but 'you' cannot define yourself simply in relation to another human being! There is no place here for such relatedness and it is considered a pathology! This is why I use the term 'atomization of the individual' and (on another forum) 'shearing off'.

Now examine the following: What Kelly proposes is to have no relatedness. This desire for relatedness is an 'illusion', is 'samsara'. So, for her, the obvious choice (the choice she lives in her body) is not to have relatedness. It is not even a definable term!

Now, you might think: This is the logical extension of some sort of 'Buddhism' that is preached here. It is absolutely not! This so-called 'Buddhism' is a desperate measure, of a desperate individual, to have a foil to protect the intimate 'reasonings' that have led him to this extreme atomization. He was 'caused' to become atomized and cannot, it seems, find a cause back to wholesome relatedness. What is there at the fringes of this atomization is madness and malaise and not 'enlightenment'.

These are inevitable consequences of trends of atomization of individuals in an advanced modernity that verges into a 'machine reality' or a reality peopled by automatons.

Our spirituality and our philosophy and our economics and our ethics and our morality---everything!---has to function as a whole unit.

To achieve this, to live in it as a whole person is, according to my view, 'religion'.

[jupiviv]

If she's destroying your stuff, this is a pretty good indication that she is telling you to leave her alone.

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.

I think Alex is right on the money here, Kelly.

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. Actually, that would also be the best thing to do in the opposite situation, i.e, when they want to bond with you. The reason why Ryan can't leave her alone when she is being aggressive is that he doesn't want to leave her alone when she shows affection towards him.

"Trying to think like a woman" is a mistake that most men commit, which is why most of them complain about not understanding them. It's essentially like trying to think like a child. You can't think like someone who doesn't think.

[Alex Jacob]

Your viewpoint, Jupi, is one 'contructed' from an outside position. When people---men and women as in this case---find themselves in situations like this, where everything about them, their past, their strengths and failures, the whole circumstance and the knot of 'who they are' at a given moment, propels them toward one another and these bizarre configurations of circumstances arise, the thing to do is to 'go through with it'. Like in 'the only way out is through'. It is maybe hard to read accurately from a distance---poor Animus---but when two people get locked together in such a configuration, they are each doing things to 'get closer' even while they do things to 'come apart'. Sometimes, leaving someone alone is the absolutely worst thing one can do. It is cowardice and even irresponsibility. Unfortunately, in struggles for relatedness, things can get a little difficult. There is an old Jewish expression: 'To help a friend out of a hole you will have to get a little dirty'.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

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.