GENIUS FORUMS

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I know what my desire is, Diebert. I think my philosophy has become too dangerous for me not to have it held in check by someone else. Having to accomodate another person -- especially one who may never understand me -- is giving the world a knife to hold to my throat.

It's perhaps better to say that you might have become too dangerously, to yourself, others, or your philosophy or your own existence. Who knows, your approach might even work.

She is wholly a product of my imagination. Whatever is behind the appearance is a lot less dangerous than the appearance itself, but I feel that appearance is necessary. One lie to keep me from giving the world the truth: one lie to kill my Buddha-nature.

That seems to be indeed the situation, always.

'I think my philosophy has become too dangerous for me not to have it held in check by someone else.'
___________________

Unpopular thoughts, I guess, but I think they are worth considering: What you are calling 'philosophy' is most likely ('could be') just a twisted bunch of impressions or tendencies that express more than anything a sort of neurosis: neurosis defined as two or more currents (thought--feeling---image---idea) that exist in the same place but fight against each other, cancel each other out. What a horribly uncomfortable state for the living entity!

Women, as I have come to understand them, always 'become pregnant' by the man they are with, but that could also be a man's ideas, or something set in motion by the 'masculine'. If a woman is impregnated by a neurotic man, her off-spring will be neurotic.

"One lie to keep me from giving the world the truth: one lie to kill my Buddha-nature.
I know what my desire is, Diebert. I think my philosophy has become too dangerous for me not to have it held in check by someone else. Having to accomodate another person -- especially one who may never understand me -- is giving the world a knife to hold to my throat.

"She is wholly a product of my imagination. Whatever is behind the appearance is a lot less dangerous than the appearance itself, but I feel that appearance is necessary. One lie to keep me from giving the world the truth: one lie to kill my Buddha-nature."

Oh Jaysus!

The way I read this is: I really, really want to have a flesh and blood love relationship (for once) and this whole part of myself, as yet unexplored and unknown, wants to come into existence, wants Life, wants to come to life. But this fucking Imp (I call it 'philosophy') sits upon my life force, and won't allow me the basic, pure, unquestioned satisfaction of loving a woman. And the Imp makes me neurotic, clouds and pollutes the most simple thing: making love to a woman.

Fuck the Buddha-nature. Kill the little beast.

Alex, I know what my situation is. Your reinterpretation, as imaginative as it is, has no relevance to my case.

Fair enough. When I wrote it and sent it, I though, yeah, it's probably ridiculous...

;-)

AJ: Sometimes sex is the biggest motivation for a relationship. It wasn't a terrible guess. The problem is, I'm a very strategic thinker. If I can't justify something in abstract, I won't do it.

For instance, the fact that she is a business major -- and I'm terrible with money -- played a larger role in my selection than her appearance. Hell, the fact that she plans to move from the city played a larger role in me choosing her than the prospect of sex. Although sex would be a bonus, I'm more attached to her friendship than to her sex. I have a mild suspicion that she voiced her desire to move from the city simply to get me to make a move, since without the thought of her disappearance, I would have never considered forming a deeper attachment to her.

A marriage of convenience. Nothing wrong with that. Time tested arrangement and one that has the potential for longevity as long as its limitations are accepted, absence of passion for one.

"A marriage of convenience. Nothing wrong with that." Carl

Perhaps not, provided neither of the betrothed has any misunderstanding.

But Trevor previous posted:

"I have a mild suspicion that she voiced her desire to move from the city simply to get me to make a move, since without the thought of her disappearance, I would have never considered forming a deeper attachment to her." Trevor

For her to test the waters like that does not seem to me to be an act whose primary motivation was convenience.

"Subtlety is an oversold virtue." Psychologist Joy Browne

Do as you think wisest Trevor. But it's bad Karma to harm others for self benefit.
At least have the decency to insure she knows that it is convenience, and not love that you seek.

I claim no supernatural powers here Trevor. But I sense such a marriage would be a mistake.

"A marriage is no amusement but a solemn act, and generally a sad one." Victoria (1819-1901)

"Honor means sacrificing yourself for the benefit of others. Dishonor means sacrificing others for the benefit of yourself." Lanny Davis, Special Counsel to President Clinton

Perhaps Andrew Carnegie phrased it even more plainly.

"All honors wounds are self-inflicted." Andrew Carnegie

Whatever you do Trevor, please be sure what you do is both ethical, and compassionate.

Yeah, Trevor, don't do anything the Buddha wouldn't do.

Buddha? You mean the douche that hated human life so much that he spent his days mooching off of people and sitting around a garden?

I would not consider a relationship with a girl who I didn't think could take care of herself, despite my best efforts to corrupt her.

Carl G wrote:A marriage of convenience. Nothing wrong with that.

Isn't that the general idea for a marriage anyway? Whatever the convenience may be, from a readily available safe sex partner, to partner in raising children, to someone to take care of the house and daily needs to focus on work (which can be great if a person likes their job and does not like to mop floors) or someone to earn money so you can take care of the home (if you like mopping, gardening, dusting, cooking...) or to at least split the bills and chores so neither has to bear the onus of everything.

Marriage should be a mutual convenience. As soon as it becomes inconvenient for either person, the marriage is going bad.

Of course all marriage is ultimately of convenience, but I was using the term in the generally accepted definition, which would be opposed to, say, a marriage of love, again in the generally accepted sense, which is founded on passion, or an arranged marriage founded on bloodline.

Carl G wrote:Time tested arrangement and one that has the potential for longevity as long as its limitations are accepted, absence of passion for one.

Yes make sure you show no passion, that would make the local church congregation cringe.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I would not consider a relationship with a girl who I didn't think could take care of herself, despite my best efforts to corrupt her.

You are a very moral person, the local church congregation would be proud.



Ultimate reality, however, will not care one way or the other if you show passions or use and dump the girl.

Yet you should never show passions because great happiness is accompanied by great suffering -- who would risk that? And you should always be moral so that nobody, at least in the extreme majority of humans, would have a bone of contention with you.

This is the way of the wise. :) And above all, play it safe!

WhorlyWhelk: I have no idea what you are saying. It's too abstract: maybe an example or a definition would help. For instance, could you please define the word "morality"? You seem to be using it in a very particular sense -- perhaps to continue trading insults in another thread and on another forum. Be advised that I will not carry a grudge from there to here, especially since in this case a rash decision on my part (out of say, frustration toward you) may cause me to harm this girl.

When I use the word "morality", it simply means "practical reason" (ie. how one applies one's reasoning in all practical scenarios). You seem to be using it in some average Christian sense, but I simply do not consider self-entitled religious people to be good judges of morality -- primarily because they don't know what morality is.