Unrequited Love?

[user43770]

I reckon the grass is always greener, but like I said, you don't find married guys with kids on sosuave. Too busy living their "passion!"

 

[Spaz]

I plan to start a family, but it becomes more difficult to find a sane woman, the older you get.

Evolution leaves the void in our being, good sir. It's natural to propagate yourself. I used to say it as a joke on this website, but now I feel like the joke was on me.

I should have forgone the pumping and dumping, and settled down with that sweet girl when I was 20. Or the sweet one when I was 22. I passed a lot of women over because I was too busy being a cad. They would have been good mothers in hindsight

Mid 30's or early 40's, after you're sowed ur wild oats in various places on planet earth.

And finally grown matured in 3 areas of ur life; mentally, physically and spiritually.

You're ready to be big daddy by then.

 

[Spaz]

Much conditions, rebut actual claim with evidence?

Lol

You never made a point that actually addressed a claim I made. You did however talk about everything else other than the claims made.

Now you request my time? Show me you are capable of the investment.

State the counter to my claim. Support with evidence. It’s easy.

Tch. Still using ur feminine wiles by circumventing the topic?

Common grow some balls and state for all what is Ego.

Then from there we can spar to ur hearts content on egoless.

I promise to be gentle.

 

[guru1000]

Tch. Still using ur feminine wiles by circumventing the topic?

Common grow some balls and state for all what is Ego.

Then from there we can spar to ur hearts content on egoless.

I promise to be gentle.

Lol

 

[guru1000]

True love is always blood. No woman will ever show you unconditional love, as they're not your blood.

And not many people even have family that they love. And there are plenty of fathers that have kids that don't love them!

As I've gotten older, despite all the wisdom, I feel like making a family is your best bet in finding "meaning."

Tytez you give the illusion of trolling, and trolling you do. But your motivation in this forum like Spaz’s is to learn. To evolve. And there’s no shame in that.

I look at men’s egos and chuckle. Really chuckle. I view them as lower life forms, not in a disparaging manner but rather as a spiritual child using a protective covering to armor themself from the world.

The ego knows no vulnerability. It’s only understands protection and defending itself from the less desirable “vices” of life (or perhaps the illusion of being less desirable). That motivation originates from a place of fear.

When you come forward with your ego to me, you are showing me your fear. Because if you were not fearful In your authentic and vulnerable self, then you would come at me in true form, would you not?

Ego is weakness, as its roots derive from fear of failure or rejection of being your Vulnerable true self.

You see these words. Truth. As Truth will always originate from authenticity and vulnerability (A & V). This A & V is a deadly combination, not only for spiritual transcendence but for your own personal and professional success.

Are you afraid to come at a girl as the real you because she might reject you?

Why are you using contrivance to create or maintain attraction?

Are you afraid to pursue your professional pursuits in your authentic state because people might reject you?

Really think about these questions and observe the sponsoring motivation behind your “armor.”

Fear of rejection is very powerful. So powerful that this site has over a million posts ultimately seeking ways to avoid rejection.

But there is no avoiding rejection nor do you want to. Any man or woman for any purpose who rejects you does so simply because you and he/she are at different wavelengths. Nothing more, nothing less.
Herein is the reason why you want to be authentic in your Intent and persona so you can actually attract people who share your character (vibrational state). Then it becomes a synergistic relation (1+1=3) of two authentic people.

If you put on a corporeal front aka ego, you are going to attract the wavelength of people who also put on corporeal fronts. And then you will find that all you are meeting are inauthentic people: liars, betrayers, manipulators.1Hence this same complaint voiced thousands of time in the forum.

Since I’ve changed my intent and come straightforward in authenticity without ego, without game, without contrivance, and 100% vulnerability, I’ve met incredible people. Not people like you or Spaz or whichever inauthentic poster dwells in the murky waters of the forum, but straight up, complete, expansive, evolved people.

Choose as you wish and read what you desire. But this post was written for you (and others) as I observed your call for help in Many of your posts and PMs to me.

Come to everybody as your authentic self and your life will change. And you will feel very fulfilled and not seek the external (whether that be relevance, money, wife, kids) to feel fulfilled.

 

[AttackFormation]

@TyTe`EyEz
Like guru mentioned, you are seeking a temporary high from an external. You want to fill a void in your life and you think a family is the answer.

But that void can only be filled by you. In fact the void only exists in your mind, and it can go away as easily as it came.

The idea that humans are not interdependent, or are better off without interdependence, is a fairy tale fad.

Humans are fundamentally (pro)social and healthy human life requires it, without that there is some sort of void no matter how much you try to deny your own nature according to the current fad. Even cluster Bs, a kind of antisocial intraspecies predator, need other people to live out their violations and narcissistic supply gathering. They are still social.

Thinking that being asocial makes you strong and prosocial makes you weak is like the feminists who deny that femininity is ultimately biological and despise the traditional notions associated with it. It's both futile, harmful, and incomplete.

You are trying to delude yourself with hubris in the rhetoric I quoted. Accepting interdependence would mean accepting that your own reality is outside of your independent control, and with that comes the fears of change and lack which you must then also accept. But this acceptance is contrary to your aspiration of omnipotent social atomism, because you still feel that the former is weakness and the latter is strength, not seeing the ultimate strength that acceptance takes; so you still feel the need to protect yourself from and deny it.

 

[EyeOnThePrize]

The idea that humans are not interdependent, or are better off without interdependence, is a fairy tale fad.

Humans are fundamentally (pro)social and healthy human life requires it, without that there is some sort of void no matter how much you try to deny your own nature according to the current fad. Even cluster Bs, a kind of antisocial intraspecies predator, need other people to live out their violations and narcissistic supply gathering. They are still social.

Thinking that being asocial makes you strong and prosocial makes you weak is like the feminists who deny that femininity is ultimately biological and despise the traditional notions associated with it. It's both futile and harmful.

You are trying to delude yourself with hubris in the rhetoric I quoted. Accepting interdependence would mean accepting that reality is outside of your independent control, and with that comes the fear of change and lack which you must then also accept. So, you try to take a different path instead that won't expose you to those things.

you misunderstand.
there's a big difference between co-dependence and interdependence. one is rooted in fear/taking, the other in love/giving, like what guru is explaining. it's not the taking that is good for us, it's the giving. thinking that being more social will fill an internal void is needy. if the sensation was rooted in a desire to share and give, then the social dynamic to express that will occur naturally. @TyTe`EyEz is bitter and expresses resentment, that's clearly not a healthy attitude. he'll only bring other people just as needy into his life under the guise of self fulfillment. if instead he wanted to share himself and give he would have done it already and found his outlet in the form of other such people.

both interdependence and co-dependence can be functional relationships(the latter not fulfilling and actually a detriment imo), but only interdependence requires independence. i'm telling @TyTe`EyEz that he needs to break away from this mindset that what fulfills him is outside him(dependence). it's inside, it's independence. when he masters that and is bursting to give because he finds it a pleasure, THEN it's interdependence.

 

[AttackFormation]

you misunderstand.
there's a big difference between co-dependence and interdependence. one is rooted in fear/taking, the other in love/giving, like what guru is explaining. it's not the taking that is good for us, it's the giving. thinking that being more social will fill an internal void is needy. if the sensation was rooted in a desire to share and give, then the social dynamic to express that will occur naturally. @TyTe`EyEz is bitter and expresses resentment, that's clearly not a healthy attitude. he'll only bring other people just as needy into his life under the guise of self fulfillment. if instead he wanted to share himself and give he would have done it already and found his outlet in the form of other such people.

both interdependence and co-dependence can be functional relationships(the latter not fulfilling and actually a detriment imo), but only interdependence requires independence. i'm telling @TyTe`EyEz that he needs to break away from this mindset that what fulfills him is outside him(dependence). it's inside, it's independence. when he masters that and is bursting to give because he finds it a pleasure, THEN it's interdependence.

You still need other people so that you can give and share with them out of whatever motivation.

No amount of rhetoric to save your sense of social atomism will change the fundamental reality. You will have to reach acceptance in the end, which is really the ultimate strength and liberation. This is the state you are attempting to reach. But you want to have your cake and eat it too: you want to have the benefits of interdependence while still having the sense of omnipotence that social atomism grants you, but it's a sham. You will always essentially need other people.

There is no philosophy more powerful than the fundamental truth of acceptance, which shatters the alluring mirage of social atomism when the two concepts face each other... but we all reach it at our own pace.

 

[EyeOnThePrize]

You still need other people so that you can give and share with them out of whatever motivation.

No amount of rhetoric to save your sense of social atomism will change the fundamental reality. You will have to reach acceptance in the end, which is really the ultimate strength and liberation that you think you can reach through believing in social atomism. There is no way around or away from it, but we all do it at our own pace.

i can't tell if you still don't understand or you're clinging to one meaning for the sake of argument. to give you obviously need a recipient of the giving, this is very literal, and is what you're referring to, and i obviously agree, but you're missing the forest for the trees.

if i need something from someone else, then i will give to them with conditions/contractually. if i give unconditionally i am not looking to take. obviously much harder to do in our society but it's an ideal. both involve literal giving/receiving, that is not the point of what i'm saying. and i'm not advocating being asocial. but as so many others have said, how can you expect to love another if you do not love yourself?

i agree that we are social animals, but there is a healthy way to socialize where you provide value that will draw people to you, and there is an unhealthy way to socialize where you take value and push people away.

 

[AttackFormation]

i can't tell if you still don't understand or you're clinging to one meaning for the sake of argument. to give you obviously need a recipient of the giving, this is very literal, and is what you're referring to, and i obviously agree, but you're missing the forest for the trees.

if i need something from someone else, then i will give to them with conditions/contractually. if i give unconditionally i am not looking to take. obviously much harder to do in our society but it's an ideal. both involve literal giving/receiving, that is not the point of what i'm saying. and i'm not advocating being asocial. but as so many others have said, how can you expect to love another if you do not love yourself?

i agree that we are social animals, but there is a healthy way to socialize where you provide value that will draw people to you, and there is an unhealthy way to socialize where you take value and push people away.

You have once again constructed a false notion. What you say seems superficially plausible, and coddles the ego to believe as it affirms your own independence which is what you are really out after, but it still falls apart when you dig deeper.

The aim is not to merely take but to create. What you are creating is the experience of sharing, a positive-sum outcome. But sharing requires both giving and receiving to exist whether you give and receive the same or different things, and that's outside of your control as you would need to receive back. Your response to that will be to deny the significance of sharing, precisely because it is outside of your control which is what you are really trying to fight against, and I'm saying that's a futile struggle. Not every interaction you have needs to be of sharing, but you do desire it. You are interdependent.

Again, you will come to acceptance somehow and somewhen.

 

[EyeOnThePrize]

You have once again constructed a false notion. What you say seems superficially plausible, and coddles the ego to believe as it affirms your own independence which is what you are really out after, but it still falls apart when you dig deeper.

The aim is not to take but to create. What you are creating is the experience of sharing, a positive-sum outcome. But sharing requires both giving and receiving to exist whether you give and receive the same or different things, and that's outside of your control, leading back to acceptance. Your response to that will be to deny the significance of sharing, precisely because it is outside of your control which is what you are really trying to fight against, and I'm saying that's a futile struggle.

Again, you will come to acceptance somehow and somewhen.

I think you're very set on thinking that I'm advocating being asocial despite me telling you directly that that's not the case. I've also never said or alluded to having complete control of others or fought against acceptance. sharing and giving are synonymous between our posts. You seem to be ignoring my explanation of codependent vs interdependent and telling me how I will respond, effectively putting words in my mouth and building a straw man. So if we are to continue this discussion please explain what the difference is between unconditional giving and sharing in the context I described earlier. What have I said that makes you think I'm pushing an asocial lifestyle? Where have I said that i deny acceptance or devalue it? What would prove to you that this 'false notion' of practicing unconditional giving is practical, applicable, and a healthier way to live life?

 

[AttackFormation]

I think you're very set on thinking that I'm advocating being asocial despite me telling you directly that that's not the case. I've also never said or alluded to having complete control of others or fought against acceptance. sharing and giving are synonymous between our posts. You seem to be ignoring my explanation of codependent vs interdependent and telling me how I will respond, effectively putting words in my mouth and building a straw man. So if we are to continue this discussion please explain what the difference is between unconditional giving and sharing in the context I described earlier. What have I said that makes you think I'm pushing an asocial lifestyle? Where have I said that i deny acceptance or devalue it? What would prove to you that this 'false notion' of practicing unconditional giving is practical, applicable, and a healthier way to live life?

I am digging through the surface to get at what you are really implying, despite you not using those exact words.

Anyway, the context is that you were saying how Tyte's desire for a family is:

... a temporary high from an external. You want to fill a void in your life and you think a family is the answer.

But that void can only be filled by you. In fact the void only exists in your mind, and it can go away as easily as it came.

The bolded part is where you explicitly reject interdependence. Instead of accepting Tyte's (and by extension your own, and all of our) humanity, which is the reality, you try to maintain your ideal of omnipotent social atomism that there is something wrong with him for desiring the unique experience of sharing that cannot be reproduced by mere giving. Indeed you could say that sharing is a new form of giving, if you consider yourself as "giving" the experience of sharing.

Friendship is a kind of interdependence, just as a family is. Epicurius said of friendship that "of all the things which wisdom provides to make us entirely happy, much the greatest is the possession of friendship." Would you reply with basically the same quote to that as you did to Tyte? Obviously, that's a rhetorical question, only meant to reveal the hubris of social atomism. Even the act of talking with other people through this forum is an act of interdependence.

Your "unconditional giving" is not a way of life that can practically lead to fulfillment for humans as they are. It's an ideal employed to buy more time against acceptance and coddle your ego of being superhuman for longer, but even in smaller acts such as my example of posting on this forum I just mentioned, you can see that it's a mirage when it actually collides with reality. The real path is acceptance.

 

[EyeOnThePrize]

The bolded part is where you explicitly reject interdependence. Instead of accepting Tyte's (and by extension your own, and all of our) humanity, which is the reality, you try to maintain your ideal of omnipotent social atomism that there is something wrong with him for desiring the unique experience of sharing that cannot be reproduced by mere giving. Indeed you could say that sharing is a new form of giving, since you are also giving the experience of sharing.

ah i see. from my assessment Tyte is seeking co-dependence, not interdependence. he acts as though a family is his only salvation, the only cure to his void, and that he's missed the boat. a feeling of a void is a bad reason to start a family imo. i think it's what breeds a dysfunctional family and poor decisions out of desperation. do you honestly believe the void Tyte talks about is something that will be filled with the challenges of a family?

 

[AttackFormation]

ah i see. from my assessment Tyte is seeking co-dependence, not interdependence. he acts as though a family is his only salvation, the only cure to his void, and that he's missed the boat. a feeling of a void is a bad reason to start a family imo. i think it's what breeds a dysfunctional family and poor decisions out of desperation. do you honestly believe the void Tyte talks about is something that will be filled with the challenges of a family?

Selfrespect is the difference between codependence and interdependence. As long as he has that coupled with his thoughtfulness, his choices will be as wise as they may plausibly be.

One may then say that having a family is a big risk, as it could become or turn out to be broken for whatever reason. But that leads us back to acceptance, specifically of (uncontrollable) change and (calculated) risk.

 

[EyeOnThePrize]

Selfrespect is the difference between codependence and interdependence.

that seems too one dimensional. what about patience and understanding/mindfulness?

unconditional giving is all about acceptance, so we're in agreement there. you're right, a family can become dysfunctional for any reason, but i'm sure we can both agree that the chances of that happening are much lower if Tyte can keep a level head and comes from a positive and abundant state of mind, looking to give/share rather than take in an attempt to pacify melancholy or existential dread.

 

[AttackFormation]

that seems too one dimensional. what about patience and understanding/mindfulness?

Needless words to me in this context. I like to keep things simple and concise, and already added thoughtfulness and wisdom after that citation.

unconditional giving is all about acceptance, so we're in agreement there. you're right, a family can become dysfunctional for any reason, but i'm sure we can both agree that the chances of that happening are much lower if Tyte can keep a level head and comes from a positive and abundant state of mind, looking to give/share rather than take in an attempt to pacify melancholy or existential dread.

He can come from both states of mind and accept that rather than just either one, it's fine. Existential anxiety is part of what philosophy has always treated, it's part of what it is to be human.

 

[EyeOnThePrize]

Needless words to me in this context. I like to keep things simple and concise, and already added thoughtfulness and wisdom after that citation.

you are afraid to admit any supplement to your point. you seem to despise common ground and ask no questions or requests for clarification. this feels more like a lecture than a discussion.

He can come from both states of mind and accept that rather than just either one, it's fine. Existential anxiety is part of what philosophy has always treated, it's part of what it is to be human.

he can do whatever his heart desires.

 

[user43770]

ah i see. from my assessment Tyte is seeking co-dependence, not interdependence. he acts as though a family is his only salvation, the only cure to his void, and that he's missed the boat. a feeling of a void is a bad reason to start a family imo. i think it's what breeds a dysfunctional family and poor decisions out of desperation. do you honestly believe the void Tyte talks about is something that will be filled with the challenges of a family?

I never said I missed the boat!

What breeds a dysfunctional family are situations like yours, trying to get back with a toxic ex-gf.

I'm not going to knock-up just anybody. I have standards, lil buddy.

I honestly do believe the void will be filled by having a family. I've watched it change a lot of people over the years. They lose their ego when they have children....

 

[user43770]

if Tyte can keep a level head and comes from a positive and abundant state of mind, looking to give/share rather than take in an attempt to pacify melancholy or existential dread.

How could the abandonment of my personal freedom be seen as anything other than giving?

 

[Killakittie]

I didn't read this entire thread as I'm on mobile just the first post so here's my quick thoughts.

Felt drawn to her before then felt negative afterwards correct?

Your body is trying to tell you something isn't ok. Listen. Focus on the negative emotion you experienced a short time after she left, there's a force behind that emotion that's pushing it into your consciousness. The root of that force is your problem.
Our body's, brain's, minds whatever.. Are always doing welfare checks on our current health and condition, both physical, mental as well as emotional. Looking at or finding the root of the force behind these negative emotions always identifes one or multiple unresolved problems.

Focus on the negative emotion you experienced after she left and ask yourself "why do I feel this way?" "what is causing this?" And then give yourself time to sort it out. Rarely will it come out right away.