Spy your Love | Spiritual Love | VashikaranGuru | Real Love Stories | Love Relationship Advice |Get your ex back
What began as a contemplation on the shadow qualities of love ended up being an entire composition concerning the shadows of of human existence. So I return to love, though it is only the first in a series as I attempt to show how our emotional lives and the actions arising from them are not nearly as singular an experience as is often thought.
Love is not solely an emotional response, there are any number of behaviors and mental intentions involved that indicate a person is not simply infatuated or lustful but loving. What love grows out of though is a sea of emotional responses to innumerable experiences. Behaviors become more
possible as we, to a greater or lesser extent, attempt to live our principles, which themselves grew out of the familial/cultural/societal/relational dynamics of our entire lives. In all of those experiences and the connections being formed there is as much a potential for suffocation as there is for gentle holding, as much potential for obsession as there is for exuberant appreciation. This is because love is not a thing in itself, but a quality purely created out of a contextualized relational individual.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How well can one describe what Life is? Or should one ever try to explain what it is? Fate, destiny, master plan, choices, these things are intertwined with Life. Too many inspirational quotes and books were written trying to behoove us to accept the primordial thought that Life is pre-destined as it should be. But life is like a labyrinth. Too many twists and turns. A single decision on which way to go leads you to another maze. And the cycle starts again. And there are some who are too sanguine, sugar coating everything and passing off Life as a fairy tale.
Take a single moment of Silence and examine your Life. Go back to as far as you can and remember the highlights and sidelights
of every decision you have made and then ask yourself whether you have the kind of Life you wanted. Are you thankful for the life you have now or you wished to have a different one. Is there another person's life you wished you were living. Look yourself in the mirror and see if you like the reflection. Could it be that you, just like the millions of us in this planet, wished so fervently to have more than what you have; silently *despising* (for lack of a better word) the one we have. But just like anybody else, we are psychologically bound to accept it. There is resignation that everything is pre-planned; like some part of a cosmic event that regardless of what we want or do, life is gonna end up the way that it is. Does that sound a bit bitter?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My last entry, "The God That Is There and Nowhere," concerned the difficulty associated with defining god and how atheists in particular, though everyone else does as well, fall victim to accepting the assumption that god is or should be defined by fundamentalism and so-called traditional religions. I pointed out that “God” has no distinct reference point in itself, however much Platinga would have us believe otherwise (for a critique of his type of thinking, albeit completely irreverent, see here). In other words, while “God” has many and sundry potential definitions there is nothing to which it applies as distinctly itself, existing as it does as a mere self-referential data point connecting only to an individual’s cognitive state. This is much
like the case for love, existing as it does in many many forms for various people within a multitude of cultures, though happily and with some fascination we can isolate the neuro-chemicals associated with those associated mental states.
Given this state of affairs, there is simply no reason to placidly accept for yourself what another claims, instead offering to engage in a dialogue and parsing out for the purpose of creating your own meaning what such a powerfully emotive term will mean for you. Notice I didn’t say anything about truth here since as “God” has no reference we’re merely talking about meaning and meaning is almost completely context-bound. Once someone’s personal meaning is expressed as relating to various claims about experience (beyond the phenomenological) and the universe, then it becomes about truth and is therefore open to criticism. Here then is where a more thorough understanding of atheism comes into play.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why in an age of technological marvel does the so-called primitive notion of "God"still exist? There are many answers given for this and all are useful depending on the avenue of discovery being sought, but at core I think all comes down to the underlying relationship between humanity and existence, in which we are of and apart from. In relationship there is room for shared existence and acceptance rather than power and control.
Once questions begin they build on each other, providing a certain lift or push in the direction of discovery but no real map of where one is going. There can be a pondering of the future, but no directions laid out of easy left and right spring out of the void from which imagination pulls every
other thought. When the term “God” is once determined as having no inherent substance, no central form that is distinct from human thought and intent, the once easy directive within religious fundamentalism is replaced with wary curiosity. From whence does such a concept come and why does it persist? There are as many answers to this as perhaps there are definitions of “God.” I hardly seek to answer definitively and frankly I find the question not quite legitimate anyway.
I’ve written before in “Answers To A Question: Yes, No, Maybe” concerning how the meaning of “God” is so often assumed rather than questioned from a position of skepticism or agnosticism. We are trapped in the social homogenization of an idea, suffocating in our lack of inquiry and drowning in the shallowness of our imagination. Rather than beginning with this social simplicity it is far better to immediately question what one means when using the term, embarking perhaps on a journey of rebelliousness but ultimately one of greater concern.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the early age of my life I had found so many differences in me every single day. So many changes, so many thoughts. As a teenager that time was really confusing to find an answer, and even worse when I started to think about the world and nature and daily life.
After passing my teenage, now I know some from my experience. And I like to share with this that every teenager can learn something and use it in their relationship.
Dating as a teen can certainly be complicated. Whether you're looking for guidance with a problem that you experiencing now, or if you're just
wondering what may be in store for you in the future, take some time and try to learn about the common problems teens face while dating, and get insight in how to solve them.
It's pretty common to fall for someone and it can certainly be painful if the same person does not return your feelings. Keep in mind that just because one particular person does not share your interest, that does not mean that there is something wrong with you. That particular match just isn't right - possibly because of timing or fundamental differences that aren't apparent to you at this stage. Remember "when one door closes, another door opens."
In the same respect, if you are a teen who has never been kissed or in a relationship, you would be surprised at how many other teens or people in their 20s or even 30s are in the same boat in which you are in. Don't worry thinking a lack of experience; living your life and just being happy are the some of the best ways to attract someone. The right match will like you just the way you are.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I contemplate upon integrity I am reminded immediately of the first agreement noted by Don Miguel Ruiz in his book The Four Agreements, “be impeccable with your word.” As anybody will attest to, who have spent any more than a fleeting moment with me in conversation or debate, I am often parsing phrases and words out to determine as concretely as possible what is meant by a person’s speech. This is done not only as a personal projection of my own principled agreement with word usage but also based on a recognition that how we describe or create the narratives of our lives provides the structure upon which and through which we choose our behavior. This is true from the broad stories we tell of our families
and social connections to the smallest of phrases in the slightest of interactions with others.
While our words do not encapsulate the entirety of our lives they are the means by which we socially organize our experiences, have the unconscious become conscious and form the dialogue that is back of every relationship we create, from the random platonic to the long-term romantic. The stories we tell then, based as they are in the bio-physiological reality of our physical union with the universe, will determine the shape of our connections and whether they will serve the purpose of growth in ever-increasing awareness or keep us asleep to the inherent potential for greatness that lies within each of us.
This is the ground upon which our integrity rests, the conscious acknowledgement of our interconnected and reciprocal relationship with all things/people and the belief that as we endeavor to awaken to a greater appreciation for existence so will we do so, thought breeding action and returning upon itself in a reciprocity of union. This is the principled means of defining a healthy confidence, Stephen Batchelor noting that, “Self-confidence is not a form of arrogance. It is trust in our capacity to awaken. It is both the courage to face whatever life throws at us without losing equanimity, and the humility to treat every situation we encounter as one from which we can learn.” (Buddhism Without Beliefs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better Relationships, With very less real interaction in the bedroom and with rising interaction in boardrooms, a marriage becomes a bond of convenience.
Every marriage experiences ennui once in a while. The foundation of every relationship, especially marriage is friendship. And the foundation of every friendship is accepted. When we're in the company of friends, we tend to throw up our feet and let our hair down. While most couples take the liberty of becoming complacent, we must also remember to create an atmosphere where our partners also have the liberty to be on their own.
Listening to the spouse's woes can certainly create a strong bond. Even if a spouse is lamenting over one's own parent's behavior, listening and understanding can cement the bond. Being indebted to one's parents doesn't mean we refuse to see them in the light our partners perceive them. Our parents have walked a great length along with us and the rest of the journey has to be completed with our partner.
Pitching in daily affairs like caring for toddlers, like taking turns in changing nappies, looking after schoolwork of growing children, attending to convalescing in-laws, joking with a spouse's sibling or friends are things that can forge a stronger bond.
Joining in dinnertime conversations, discussing office politics, world affairs etc can also create a friendship. After all listening and conversation are the foundations of any good friendship. Here, non-judgmental listening is what is needed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When it comes to matters of the heart, men aren't the easiest to understand. As women, we want and crave to know when the man we are with has fallen for us. Unfortunately, not all men are that clear or vocal about what they are feeling. There are some signs of a man falling in love that can help a woman gain some insight into what her guy is feeling.
One of the subtle signs of a man falling in love is his need for connection. When a man's feelings shift from like to love he craves more time with the woman he's with. If you notice that the man in your life can't seem to get enough of you and would do just about anything to have even a few minutes of your uninterrupted time, he's hooked. On the other hand, if the man you are with makes constant excuses for why you two can't see one another, he's just not that emotionally invested in the relationship.
Another of the signs of a man falling in love is that he wants you to experience new things. Most of us have dated a guy who was content just staying at home and sharing intimate time together. Although this is flattering, it doesn't build a foundation for a loving relationship. When a man is in love he wants the best for the woman he's with. He wants to experience all kinds of things with her, not just intimacy. If your boyfriend rarely suggests you two go out and you never take a vacation together, that's not a good sign.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Popular sayings and cliches abound, songs are written as odes to and diatribes against, lives are made and destroyed in its embrace and the forms it takes are at the center of a great deal of social debate and religious theological musings. The nature of love and its practice guides, shapes, cajoles and inspires a host of behavior and yet none of it brings us any closer to an understanding of just what it is. Like referring to sleep as that thing we do when we’re not awake, noting the behavior inspired by
identification with love certainly gives us much to discuss concerning that behavior but isolating the commonality is a bit more difficult. I’ve often over the years, usually from the ideologically conservative corner, heard that love is a term over-used and marketed to the point of absurdity. There may indeed be some truth to this, a word can come to include so many disparate things that it in fact becomes meaningless except as a pointer or directional word, always guiding away from it and never towards and as such we rarely stop to question just what it is we’re talking about when we breath out the term.
What makes the situation even more compellingly frustrating is that there exists no commonly understood definition of emotion either and while certainly love may not be consonant fully as an emotion, it definitely is bound within it to some degree and yet this provides little in the way of helpful direction. With this in mind I came across a discussion of emotion by Daniel Siegel as it relates to attachment in his book The Pocket Guide to Interpersonal Neurobiology. When considered from an elevated perspective, there is a point of consilience amongst the various descriptive uses to which emotion is put, that being linkage of differentiated parts. Whether it be the linking of child to caregiver in psychology or person to tribe in sociology or neural engram to engram in neurophysiology, emotion is the process of linking these disparate and differentiated aspects of systems into a coherent whole. How this then is applied to love as a particular instantiation of emotional energy is where I want to draw focus to
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is it to be attached? At what point can a person look upon their lives and query as to their connection with things and/or people? Does attachment signify any and all relationships, including to objects, or is it better understood as only pertaining to people? Is attachment good or bad, life-giving or not? These and many other questions have been asked of me since starting writing, indeed many are questions I’ve asked of myself through the years of study, and as I’m sure attachment and how it relates to human relationships and society in general will continue to populate my writing, I decided to finally articulate just what is being meant in my continued usage of the term.
The notion of attachment has in psychology and philosophy various definitions and usages, though notably the idea is part of “attachment theory” connected with Bowlby and Siegel and previously as it is used in various forms of Buddhism. Focus will be spent on delineating these two definitions and I believe it will be found that the two are connected and mutually helpful. I want to refrain from getting too academic here but some is inevitable and I encourage any and all interested to delve into the literature available and by all means contact me with any future questions so I can address them to the best of my ability.
Attachment is, at core, concerned with the mental relation between the so-called “I” and other objects, be they people or things.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are social standards that exist below usual awareness, automatic responses to statements that we declare with a flippancy that is consonant with the inquiry. We greet each other with "how are you?" but get surprised when the other person actually answers with anything more complicated than "good," and often even that simple answer we rarely wait around to hear. This is not a condemnation of social etiquette or a lament at the communication standards of social relationships. There are a great many variables involved in relational short-cuts as we steadily evolve in a world of left-clicking to bring up more information quickly. Rather, the issue is more a concern with those standards
that affect us at a level deeper than mere social surfaces; where the "how are you?" question seen often as a standard greeting is rather felt to be a genuine question. The result is an emotional distance from any real inquiry and a placid acceptance of the status-quo. This is what I reference as soft tyranny, where to buck the system and declare such questions as disingenuous labels you a trouble-maker or at best gets you a look of consternation as of parental rebuke.
Declaring "I'm sorry" is of a similar type, where the social pressure is incumbent upon the recipient to placidly accept, disregarding any and all context. I'm reminded of children who are told by their parents to say "I'm sorry" and the child in a fit of insolent insincerity mumbles a barely coherent apology. The words have taken on a power beyond context, the result being if someone noted the clear insincerity of the child then such someone would find themselves the object of rebuke rather than it being acknowledged the words are meaningless. This act of magical thinking and subsequent social obfuscation leaves the person declaring "I'm sorry" in a realm outside of real consequence and need for change. There can be some understanding here that in children it may be difficult, depending on the age, for them to be capable of empathically understanding the other person sufficiently enough to warrant an introspection leading to a genuine declaration of apology. That this practice continues into adulthood, however, indicates a greater problem.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.jpg)
