Why it is awkward to say "I love you"

[Laird]

May I braid your hair?

Are you allergic to dandruff?

[Laird]

Laird asked: It is shallow to love a child?

Sue replied: Yes, it is shallow minded for a man, or a woman to love a child.

Sue, I think that what you describe in the rest of your post is the psychological games that people play with each other due to the position that they take in life. This occurs especially in families. I agree that these games can cause pain. There are ways of examining the games that a person is involved in and how to extricate that person from them by changing that person's life position and awareness. A tool that I have found extremely useful for this purpose is known as Transactional Analysis[1]. It is described in layman's terms in the book, "I'm OK, You're OK"[2]. And Dan, before you say "oh no, not more New Age gibberish": through this technique I have experienced profound understanding of the way that people relate to each other as well as practical feelings of empowerment (even though I am now poorly acquainted with the details, I still am affected by the principles). I even more highly recommend the book "Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy"[3] by the founder of the technique, Eric Berne, although it might be a bit hard going as an introduction. Eric also wrote the book "Games People Play"[4] which is insightful and intriguing.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_Analysis
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I'm_OK,_You're_OK;
http://www.amazon.com/Im-OK-Youre-OK-Th ... 038000772X;
[3] http://www.amazon.com/Transactional-Ana ... 0345338367;
[4] http://www.amazon.com/Games-People-Play ... 0345410033; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_People_Play_(book)

[Laird]

what does it mean to be the best? This is 100% meaning to be the best female puppet in most new age men's circles Laird, and they aren't even aware of it.

I'm not sure how to take your post, Faust13. You seem to be suggesting that I am a new age man and a female puppet. The way I intended "best" was: recognised as being the most accomplished in some way (or in many/all ways), whether that be as a social extrovert, a sportsman, an intellectual, a womaniser, or something else of value; dominant; skillful.

[Faust]

what does it mean to be the best? This is 100% meaning to be the best female puppet in most new age men's circles Laird, and they aren't even aware of it.

I'm not sure how to take your post, Faust13. You seem to be suggesting that I am a new age man and a female puppet. The way I intended "best" was: recognised as being the most accomplished in some way (or in many/all ways), whether that be as a social extrovert, a sportsman, an intellectual, a womaniser, or something else of value; dominant; skillful.

sports are childish and useless, and why would you want to be a womaniser? Only stupid women would allow themselves to be womanised by stupid men.

[Laird]

sports are childish and useless, and why would you want to be a womaniser?

So no sportsman or womaniser could be the best in your eyes. Then what would it take for you? The deepest philosopher? The most adventurous scientist? The most eloquent author?

Only stupid women would allow themselves to be womanised by stupid men.

Smart women and smart men go beyond use and into sharing.

[sue hindmarsh]

Laird asked me:

It is shallow to love a child?

I wrote:

Yes, it is shallow minded for a man, or a woman to love a child.

Loving a child as a parent does, or as paedophile does, or even just loving children in the same way as people ‘love’ animals - are all acts of violence done to children. These expressions of love, these “appreciations” as Shardrol would say (though not to describe the paedophile’s idea of love), are really just acts of plain old-fashioned selfishness. Not that many adults can see it as such as they have no understanding of their own minds, and therefore have no knowledge of why they do the things they do. For example, they don’t know that the main reason they are attracted to, and form attachments to children is because children are useful amusing distractions. They don’t recognize that kiddies are, at base, just another one of their big-people’s toys – used to try and plug the gapping emotional black-hole that constitutes much of their life.

Children have been successful gap-fillers for generation upon generation. These days, many adults consider bonding to children as pleasurable as snorting cocaine, watching TV, having a successful career, or traveling on overseas holidays; but for others, children will never surpass the pleasure of shopping, chatting on the mobile phone, playing computer games, decorating their home, or seeing their favourite sports team take home the winner’s trophy. Some adults, such as mothers and paedophiles, find children are their greatest source of pleasure and become completely obsessed by them. These lovers of loving children basically rip the living spirit out from their beloved little ones, and only leave go of them when their childhood is spent. (Well, paedophile's do; mothers will often keep on squeezing life from their children until death intervenes.)

But even more horrifying is that the violence doesn’t end when the children are children no longer. No. The violence endures and emanates now out from those who were a short time ago the 'tortured ones'. They, having been dragged down into the emotional abyss by their loving adults, now emerge fully grown with gapping emotional black-holes of their own that need to be fed. And using the lessons well learnt from their parents and other ‘loving’ adults, they set about using the next generation of little ones in the same horrific manner that they’d been used.

Laird replied:

Sue, I think that what you describe in the rest of your post is the psychological games that people play with each other due to the position that they take in life. This occurs especially in families. I agree that these games can cause pain. There are ways of examining the games that a person is involved in and how to extricate that person from them by changing that person's life position and awareness. A tool that I have found extremely useful for this purpose is known as Transactional Analysis[1]. It is described in layman's terms in the book, "I'm OK, You're OK"[2]. And Dan, before you say "oh no, not more New Age gibberish": through this technique I have experienced profound understanding of the way that people relate to each other as well as practical feelings of empowerment (even though I am now poorly acquainted with the details, I still am affected by the principles). I even more highly recommend the book "Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy"[3] by the founder of the technique, Eric Berne, although it might be a bit hard going as an introduction. Eric also wrote the book "Games People Play"[4] which is insightful and intriguing.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_Analysis
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I'm_OK,_You're_OK;
http://www.amazon.com/Im-OK-Youre-OK-Th ... 038000772X;
[3] http://www.amazon.com/Transactional-Ana ... 0345338367;
[4] http://www.amazon.com/Games-People-Play ... 0345410033; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_People_Play_(book)

That list of yours reminds me of people who collect books and show them off on bookshelves. It is ‘intelligence’ by association. They’re just showing-off, and so are you.

--

The list also shows how much you value thinking.

Obviously - not a lot.

If you wanted to really understand what makes people tick you need never open a book, or even talk to another person. You could simply ask yourself the question of what you yourself really were. If you passionately wanted to know the answer, you’d figure it out quick-sticks.

--

But I don’t think you’re that interested in understanding anything. You replied to my post about people valuing the emotions over the sanctity of young life with glib phrases that might sound very clever to you (because they come from the works on your list), but to me they just exposed your inability to think for yourself on this issue. For example: I wrote of love as “violence”, and you carted out “Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy”. I spoke of adults cannibalizing children so that they can enjoy their lives, and you regurgitated, inspired by some book or another, “I agree that these games can cause pain”.

Because of your shallow mindedness, no amount of begging on your part could stop Dan, I, or anyone else on this forum who regard thinking as important from uttering the words you dread to hear, “Oh no, not more New Age gibberish”. Better to ask how we could not, when confront by such careless mumblings, as: “through this technique I have experienced profound understanding of the way that people relate to each other as well as practical feelings of empowerment…”

I think it is more the case that, through this technique of never thinking seriously about anything at all, you have experienced the joy of profound ignorance, and that feeling has obviously empowered you.

--

[Laird]

But I don’t think you’re that interested in understanding anything.

It is because I am interested in understanding that I open myself up to the words and opinions of others.

For example: I wrote of love as “violence”, and you carted out “Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy”. I spoke of adults cannibalizing children so that they can enjoy their lives, and you regurgitated, inspired by some book or another, “I agree that these games can cause pain”.

You perceive loving relationships as "violent", and those with a child as "cannibalising". Yet here you are, on a forum, relating to others. Are you a violent cannibal?

Because of your shallow mindedness, no amount of begging on your part could stop Dan, I, or anyone else on this forum who regard thinking as important from uttering the words you dread to hear, “Oh no, not more New Age gibberish”.

Sue, I provided these references because they have genuinely enriched my thinking. You are of course free to ignore them. I do not retract that I have found them to be extremely valuable and insightful.

--
The only thing that we should hate is fear. Fear is the opposite of love. It is the hold that evil has upon us. I fear no evil. Evil has no hold on me. I hate nothing.

[Kevin Solway]

I fear no evil. Evil has no hold on me. I hate nothing.

Laird, this sounds more like a hopeful prayer than anything resembling truth.

I hope you don't believe it to be true.

[Laird]

Laird: I fear no evil. Evil has no hold on me. I hate nothing.

Kevin: Laird, this sounds more like a hopeful prayer than anything resembling truth.

That's exactly what it is, except that I would have probably used the word "meditation" or "affirmation" rather than "prayer".

I hope you don't believe it to be true.

And I hope that it becomes true through my belief.

--
Pain is a tool of learning. Intransient pain is evil. Men die of evil. Life is everlasting. There is no evil. All pain is transient.

[Tomas]

May I braid your hair?

Are you allergic to dandruff?

May I check for head lice first?

By the way, the way you are holding your hand - indicates you may have a case of impetigo... more hots!

And, did a closeup of your watch... what time was it you first noticed your dandruff? - drink more reverse osmosis water...


Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971

.

[Laird]

By the way, the way you are holding your hand - indicates you may have a case of impetigo...

And the way that you are holding this conversation indicates that you may have a severe case of hard-man syndrome. I wouldn't think it's incurable - at least you have a sense of humour.

[sue hindmarsh]

Laird wrote:

Sue: But I don’t think you’re that interested in understanding anything.

It is because I am interested in understanding that I open myself up to the words and opinions of others.

But; if you haven’t the type of mind capable of focusing on an issue in order to get to its very heart, any “interest” you have can only be considered superficial, rendering your “opening up to others words and opinions” as just you enjoying a natter.

In contrast, my post about love and children went to the very heart of the matter and explored the consequences of people loving children.

You perceive loving relationships as "violent", and those with a child as "cannibalising". Yet here you are, on a forum, relating to others. Are you a violent cannibal?

It is true that other people’s ideas and views often provide the meat for further discussion here – but that’s clearly the very nature of a forum – and for it to be any other way, it would cease being a forum.

Sue: Because of your shallow mindedness, no amount of begging on your part could stop Dan, I, or anyone else on this forum who regard thinking as important from uttering the words you dread to hear, “Oh no, not more New Age gibberish”.

Sue, I provided these references because they have genuinely enriched my thinking. You are of course free to ignore them. I do not retract that I have found them to be extremely valuable and insightful.

You make so light of this issue, and yet we are talking about the very souls of innocent children. These young beings, which are totally at the mercy of adult behaviour - you would ignore, just so that you can enjoy the loving embrace of your “references”?

And this last bit of yours:

The only thing that we should hate is fear. Fear is the opposite of love. It is the hold that evil has upon us. I fear no evil. Evil has no hold on me. I hate nothing.

From this, I can understand why you find it so difficult to approach topics like the “love of children” one I raised, as topics such as it require a great deal of thought. You're a bit too busy at present pushing thought away to actually do any.

-

[DHodges]

Laird, this sounds more like a hopeful prayer than anything resembling truth.

I think Laird has made it clear that he values love more than he values truth.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Laird asked:

It is shallow to love a child?

Yes, it is shallow minded for a man, or a woman to love a child.

Loving a child as a parent does, or as paedophile does, or even just loving children in the same way as people ‘love’ animals - are all acts of violence done to children. These expressions of love, these “appreciations” as Shardrol would say (though not to describe the paedophile’s idea of love), are really just acts of plain old-fashioned selfishness. Not that many adults can see it as such as they have no understanding of their own minds, and therefore have no knowledge of why they do the things they do. For example, they don’t know that the main reason they are attracted to, and form attachments to children is because children are useful amusing distractions. They don’t recognize that kiddies are, at base, just another one of their big-people’s toys – used to try and plug the gapping emotional black-hole that constitutes much of their life.

Children have been successful gap-fillers for generation upon generation. These days, many adults consider bonding to children as pleasurable as snorting cocaine, watching TV, having a successful career, or traveling on overseas holidays; but for others, children will never surpass the pleasure of shopping, chatting on the mobile phone, playing computer games, decorating their home, or seeing their favourite sports team take home the winner’s trophy. Some adults, such as mothers and paedophiles, find children are their greatest source of pleasure and become completely obsessed by them. These lovers of loving children basically rip the living spirit out from their beloved little ones, and only leave go of them when their childhood is spent. (Well, paedophile's do; mothers will often keep on squeezing life from their children until death intervenes.)

But even more horrifying is that the violence doesn’t end when the children are children no longer. No. The violence endures and emanates now out from those who were a short time ago the 'tortured ones'. They, having been dragged down into the emotional abyss by their loving adults, now emerge fully grown with gapping emotional black-holes of their own that need to be fed. And using the lessons well learnt from their parents and other ‘loving’ adults, they set about using the next generation of little ones in the same horrific manner that they’d been used.

This is really disturbing, especially knowing that you were responsible for two children during their critical development phase.

They, having been dragged down into the emotional abyss by their loving adults, now emerge fully grown with gapping emotional black-holes of their own that need to be fed.

Your theory is quite the opposite of what has been shown to be true. In this article, pay particular attention to the section marked What happens if this window of opportunity is missed? where it says:

The problems that result from this can range from mild interpersonal discomfort to profound social and emotional problems.

Although your method is likely to produce the goal you seek for your son, as according to this article:

Causes

The exact causes of schizoid personality disorder are unknown, although a combination of genetic and environmental factors — particularly in early childhood — are thought to contribute to development of all personality disorders.

A person with schizoid personality disorder may have had a parent who was cold or unresponsive to emotional needs, or might have grown up in a foster home where there was no love. Or, because people with schizoid personality disorder are often described as being hypersensitive or thin-skinned in early adolescence, a person with schizoid personality disorder may have had needs that others treated with exasperation or scorn.

A family history — such as having a parent who has any of the disorders on the schizophrenic spectrum — also increases the chances of developing the disorder.

Risk Factors

Personality development is affected by genetic tendencies as well as environmental factors, particularly during childhood. Factors that increase the risk of developing schizoid personality disorder include:

* Having a parent or other relative who has schizoid personality disorder
* Experiencing a childhood environment of neglect or scorn
* Suffering child abuse or mistreatment
* Having an emotionally detached parent

It would seem to me that having two emotionally detached parents would increase the liklihood even further.

But although schizoid personality disorder may have worked out well enough for his father, according to this article:

People with schizoid personality are at an increased risk of:

* Developing schizotypal personality disorder, schizophrenia or other delusional disorder
* Drug addiction, particularly to psychedelic drugs
* Alcohol addiction
* Major depression
* Anxiety disorder
* Panic disorder
* Social phobia
* Other personality disorders

Further, because people with schizoid personality disorder may have trouble interpreting and responding to social stimuli, they may have trouble warding off the predatory behavior of other people. As a result, they may be more prone to victimization than are most other people.

(both of the above seem to have gotten their information from Mayo Clinic)

Not providing love to a child, particularly during the first year of life, can cause precisely that which you accuse those of damaging children with love. Although you may never know it, as often schizoids become complacent about their condition (reference above articles and just about anything else you can click on about the condition).

Yes, you know how to provide the maximum possibility of engendering schizoid personality disorder, but you have not convinced me that it is wise to do that to a child. As it states in this article about orphanage children in China, emotional neglect during the first year is likely to cause a child to shut down his or her ability to give or receive love as part of a protective mechanism to avoid pain. There is a vast difference between being emotionally secure enough to not need emotional attachments as an adult, and emotionally starving a child into burying his emotional needs out of the belief that it is no use complaining as his needs will never be met anyway. Here's one reference, I'm sorry I could not find a better one online, stating that regarding physical pain:

because they were in an orphanage and were used to their needs not being met, this pain becomes the norm to them and they don't cry when they are in pain.

I've seen in offline sources that the same is with emotional pain. There is a difference between suppressing emotional pain and not having emotional pain. Here is an interesting chapter on thought suppression, and you may be interested in page 383 regarding thought rebound. Although this ebook does indicate that thought suppression can work if there are no cues of the thought being suppressed, in the case of emotional security and relationships, it's pretty hard to not run into cues on a regular basis. Hitting these cues frequently, combined with the protective mechanism of not being able to give or receive love, they could, as this article suggests:

People with schizoid personality disorder may appear detached and aloof to outsiders, but some experts believe that they're actually quite sensitive and experience a deep longing for intimacy. However, people with schizoid personality disorder either are incapable of initiating and maintaining a personal relationship, or find themselves suffocated or anxious in the company of others.

This could result in a chronic emotional pain that would result in the complications listed above instead of general feelings of security that are peppered with occasional spikes of pain.

I am not convinced that either condition is better. I believe the best condition is to be able to remove the spikes of pain through having internal emotional security - which would have to be fed from outside sources from time to time but could last more like food in the stomach than an electrical feed to a lamp.
.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Elizabeth,

(...)
If you truly loved someone, the last thing you would say to them is that you loved them. You wouldn't be able to bring yourself to be so cruel to them.

Even better, you would go away and never see them again. That would be the most loving thing you could do for them.

-

David,

I have considered these words in depth. They even sound similar to what I wrote here

If knowing that a close contact with the other person would be either painful or harmful to the other person, the actual repulsion would be against causing pain to the one she loved. An expression of that repulsion to hurting a loved one would be distance. This is often regarded as the truest form of love – being “loving enough to let go” – as it is non-selfish love.

The words are similar, but the sentiment seems different. On one extreme, perhaps there are people who are so defective as that the most loving thing they could do is to not ever see anyone again, lesser would be people who need to remain distant from people who do not want them around, and who they have no business being around (and if such people do not leave after it is made perfectly clear to them that they should go away, such people would be stalkers), but as a general principle, being loving of others does not include the requirement of permanently going away. You mentioned true love, and the only true love is spiritual love. I personally believe that other kinds of love can be expressions of spiritual love if and in a manner that is appropriate for the recipient. I agree that expressions of other kinds of love can be selfish, and if they do not have the underpinnings of spiritual love, they are only selfish.

With the underpinnings of spiritual love, even if the giver receives benefit, it is not selfish so long as the receiver also receives benefit. This is a condition of something being mutually beneficial.

One thing exalted by the QRS philosophy is independence - which is a vast improvement over dependence - but it falls short of the ideal of interdependence. Far more greatness can be achieved through synergistic behavior than isolationism. Geeze, even you 3 work together to promote independence - sounds hypocritical to me.
.

[Laird]

In contrast, my post about love and children went to the very heart of the matter and explored the consequences of people loving children.

I found your post deeply and disturbingly pessimistic. I share your belief that sometimes life amongst others is painful and that it even seems that sometimes our very essence is being stripped from us. I attribute this to a mutual misunderstanding of a person's capabilities and independence, which when granted in its entirety leads to creativity, joy and mutual self-expression. The reason that I provided references is because they present reasons why life might be perceived as harsh and cannibalistic, yet do not dwell on those reasons and end up presenting an optimistic path out of that hell. In hindsight, it seems highly likely that you would have been more receptive had I provided an analysis in my own words rather than referring you to the words of others.

You make so light of this issue, and yet we are talking about the very souls of innocent children. These young beings, which are totally at the mercy of adult behaviour - you would ignore, just so that you can enjoy the loving embrace of your “references”?

I don't know how you understand me as making light of this issue. If the majority were to "lovingly embrace" and fully come to grips with the references that I provided, then there is every chance that the souls of innocent children would be in far less peril.

You're a bit too busy at present pushing thought away to actually do any.

Again, I'm at a loss to explain your conclusion. I've been thinking more in the past month than I have in years.

I think Laird has made it clear that he values love more than he values truth.

Without love we perish; we can at least survive without truth. Truth is elusive - that doesn't stop me hunting it.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

we can at least survive without truth.

I disagree. As only one example, if a caregiver is not truthful to his/her infant about what is or is not safe to eat, that infant would die rather soon.
.

[Laird]

Laird: we can at least survive without truth.

Elizabeth: I disagree. As only one example, if a caregiver is not truthful to his/her infant about what is or is not safe to eat, that infant would die rather soon.

Touché. Love and truth are both important. I tend towards valuing love more than truth though (as forms of love I include food, water, air and shelter as well as human relationships).

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I would not call food a form of love, although it is possible to express love with the use of food. True love though would be loving the recipient in the way that is appropriate to love that specific recipient. If I gave a dog some dog food, that would be an expression of love, but if I gave you dog food, I'd half expect you to throw it at me. If I gave you chocolate instead, that could be an expression of love, but if I gave a dog chocolate, it would be poison to the dog - therefore not an expression of true love.


Forms of love include spiritual or universal love, romantic love, love of family and friends, love of music, love of food, fresh air, and other basic necessities, but food, water, and air are not forms of love unless one is to define God as love, and define all things as God.
.

[Dan Rowden]

One thing exalted by the QRS philosophy is independence - which is a vast improvement over dependence - but it falls short of the ideal of interdependence. Far more greatness can be achieved through synergistic behavior than isolationism. Geeze, even you 3 work together to promote independence - sounds hypocritical to me.

That's because you're mixing your ideas. Independence in the way we speak of it does not mean one can do everything for oneself. If you need your spleen removed I don't really suggest doing it solo. Cooperation for the sake of a commonly conceived goal or purpose has no bearing on either individuality or independence. Those are matters of character and spirit, not of practical needs where people require each other's skills.

[Laird]

... but food, water, and air are not forms of love unless one is to define God as love, and define all things as God.

Yes, that's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that everything that makes us feel good is a form of love. Food makes us feel good by staving off starvation, providing the sensation of taste and providing us with nutrition that helps us to continue the battle. Water makes us feel good by quenching our thirst and lubricating and purifying our bodies. Air makes us feel good because breathing it is the opposite of asphyxiation and because it brings oxygen to our bodies. Shelter makes us feel good because it provides us with comfort - shelter from the storm, a suitable temperature and privacy.

--
The only absolute truth is that to avoid declaring absolute truths is to avoid suffering. There are no absolute truths.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Dan,

Kevin doesn't really "need" either of you, per se - but the result is much better with all 3 of you working on it. In such matters as having a spleen removed, the patient becomes dependent on the doctor. Do you see the difference I am pointing at between the dependent/independent scenario and the concept of interdependence?
.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Another way of looking at it is that everything that makes us feel good is a form of love.

Although I've never tried it myself, I understand heroin makes the user feel good. To your mind, is heroin a form of love? Would then the treatment counselor be a form of hate?
.

[sschaula]

I can answer that, having just glanced in this topic. Heroin becomes addictive and eventually makes the person feel horrible...so it can't be said that heroin really makes people feel good.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I can answer that, having just glanced in this topic. Heroin becomes addictive and eventually makes the person feel horrible...so it can't be said that heroin really makes people feel good.

Ah, so let's say you find the perfect female - kind, an intelligent deep thinker, great in bed - whatever qualities you were looking for. You marry her, and if anything, she just seems to get better. You get addicted to good sex, good cooking, stimulating conversation, and comforting cheer when things get bad. But after a few years, you notice she uses the word "pity" at least once a day, and it really starts to get on your nerves. You begin to cringe every time anyone says the word "pity" - and how she gives an exasperated sigh whenever she is about to do the dishes starts driving you up the wall. She doesn't even realize she's sighing, it's just a habitual response she has to thinking about doing the dishes. These things didn't bother you at first and you find it irrational that they bother you now, but they do. You start to feel horrible, but whenever you leave for a tour of duty, you also feel horrible without her. So this - whatever it was - doesn't really make people feel good either.

So, are we seeing that love and feeling good don't always even correlate?
.