U
user43770
Guest
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!"
Mid 30's or early 40's, after you're sowed ur wild oats in various places on planet earth.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
Tch. Still using ur feminine wiles by circumventing the topic?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.
LolTch. 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.
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.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."
The idea that humans are not interdependent, or are better off without interdependence, is a fairy tale fad.@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.
you misunderstand.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 still need other people so that you can give and share with them out of whatever motivation.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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?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 am digging through the surface to get at what you are really implying, despite you not using those exact words.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?
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.... 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.
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?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.
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.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?
that seems too one dimensional. what about patience and understanding/mindfulness?Selfrespect is the difference between codependence and interdependence.
Needless words to me in this context. I like to keep things simple and concise, and already added thoughtfulness and wisdom after that citation.that seems too one dimensional. what about patience and understanding/mindfulness?
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.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.
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.Needless words to me in this context. I like to keep things simple and concise, and already added thoughtfulness and wisdom after that citation.
he can do whatever his heart desires.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.
I never said I missed the boat!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?
How could the abandonment of my personal freedom be seen as anything other than giving?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.