|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted December 26, 2013 11:20 AM |
|
|
Mvass, it's called Love at first sight and not love upon hearing a name for a reason.
And I did answer the question. If you don't like the answer, that's not my problem. It's also not my problem that the question makes a wrong assumption: if it WAS what is called Love at first sight, a sudden loss IS a very sad thing; however, read my answer to the question again, it's a actually rather simple to grasp.
Now for the rest, "love" is a very abstract concept for a very important phenomenon that seems to be essential for the survival of the species. It wouldn't be strictly necessary of reproduction, but afterwards it somewhat is, since not only needs a pregnant female protection and care, the same is true for children, and while motherly love may be something special, the mother/child combination is better off with the support of the male, so something like "love" isn't a bad thing to steer that.
Now, the interesting thing is, if you view the phenomenon on a strictly biological level - that is, if you leave out all mystifications, romantics, idealization and glorification, "love at first sight" makes a lot of sense, considering the "history" of our species; there wasn't any time to waste, and there wasn't much to pick from, however, survival needed full commitment: you just had no time to fool around for a couple of years, before deciding that it would be worth it.
Now, before someone comes up with instincts and "love" being a different concept in earlier times - would that really be true? If CIVILIZATION would add something that wouldn't have been there earlier, wouldn't that be an EDUCATIONAL element?
I've always been sure, that REAL love was a "first sight" thing, because love isn't about YOU. Love isn't about YOU learning to know a person and because of how you like what you learn, interest or infatuation becomes love. It's mainly the other way round. Because you ARE hit by a freight train, you are WILLING to get that person to know WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Since everyone seems so fond about giving examples involving music: The fact that a person would more or less like the same music than you would be completely irrelevant; instead it wouldn't matter, because even if the person would listen to stuff you'd for some reason dislike, you'd simply be willing to delve into it and let you show why the person would listen to this, what it would mean to her, what her feelings would be with that music and so on.
There is also the phenomenon, that the "first-sighters" often have a deja-vu feeling of already knowing each other (and since they actually never met before, some of them suddenly take into consideration of knowing each other from an earlier life, silly as it may sound for some, because there simply is no good explanation for this kind of thing).
All this is basically not debatable, same thing as, say, people dreaming of dead relatives and having an impossible conversation with them or any other of those things that defy rational and empiric explanation, because there is simply no agreement possible between people who experience something and people who don't.
It also makes no sense to categorically exclude the possibility of things that can't be described or defined in any general, meaningful way.
What we had, was a middle-aged, that is, somewhat experienced guy telling us a story about how things between him and another person have been over the years; I interpret is that while it probably WAS love at first sight, he may not have been ready to fully commit himself to the possibility of it THEN, since he simply led a rather interesting life.
STILL, the two got a couple more chances - and he took the most recent one, the interesting thing seeming to be the availability of his now-girlfriend: obviously she hadn't met anyone in the time being that would capture her interest in quite that way.
It's a very nice story, and you shouldn't try to bend yourself in order to tell the guy, he's a silly romantic (or prone to self-delusion): he has THE FACTS going for him.
Mvass at least SHOULD know, that this is not the thread to tell people that what they feel is bollocks.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 26, 2013 01:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
All this is basically not debatable, same thing as, say, people dreaming of dead relatives and having an impossible conversation with them or any other of those things that defy rational and empiric explanation, because there is simply no agreement possible between people who experience something and people who don't.
But you are debating it! And if your next move is something like ghosts, ufos and other "unexplainable phenomenon" well... good luck with that. If somebody comes up with a ghost story, we don't believe him, we simply check his sanity and if that seems to exist, we start looking for other explanations that might possibly deceive him. Him being a true believer does not make US skeptics about ghosts, does it? For us to change our mind about ghosts, we need more than subjective experience, because memories are reconstructions of our experiences and they change as we change.
And nobody denies the attraction at first sight, which is the biologically consistent part that we already elaborated and left behind. You seem to be forgetting romantic love didn't exist since the beginning of mankind, some cultures totally ignore it, which wouldn't be the case if it had some biologically default setting in the background.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 26, 2013 02:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Now, the interesting thing is, if you view the phenomenon on a strictly biological level - that is, if you leave out all mystifications, romantics, idealization and glorification, "love at first sight" makes a lot of sense, considering the "history" of our species; there wasn't any time to waste, and there wasn't much to pick from, however, survival needed full commitment: you just had no time to fool around for a couple of years, before deciding that it would be worth it.
well, but it doesn't happen very often, and it has to be reciprocal. it is no help to fall in love at first sight with girls who don't like you. actually it seems to piss people off to be loved by someone in who they aren't interested.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 26, 2013 04:24 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Quote:
All this is basically not debatable, same thing as, say, people dreaming of dead relatives and having an impossible conversation with them or any other of those things that defy rational and empiric explanation, because there is simply no agreement possible between people who experience something and people who don't.
But you are debating it! And if your next move is something like ghosts, ufos and other "unexplainable phenomenon" well... good luck with that. If somebody comes up with a ghost story, we don't believe him, we simply check his sanity and if that seems to exist, we start looking for other explanations that might possibly deceive him. Him being a true believer does not make US skeptics about ghosts, does it? For us to change our mind about ghosts, we need more than subjective experience, because memories are reconstructions of our experiences and they change as we change.
And nobody denies the attraction at first sight, which is the biologically consistent part that we already elaborated and left behind. You seem to be forgetting romantic love didn't exist since the beginning of mankind, some cultures totally ignore it, which wouldn't be the case if it had some biologically default setting in the background.
On the contrary. It's you and Mvass who try to tell Gootch that he is some sort of fool because he wastes time with irrational stuff that doesn't exist, glorifying something his mind makes up.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 26, 2013 05:00 PM |
|
|
|
Dont twist my stance please, I certainly havent called anybody a fool. My opinion is based on a certain way that people's memory work. If you become a painter you may then retrospectively remember your first painting experience in kindergarden as a special moment, like "I knew I was born to do this" however, if things turn out differently and you pick advertising, the very same memory may mean nothing to you, you may even completely forget it. This has nothing to do with being a fool, it's just one of those psychological tricks which seems fairly probable and for me, it sure beats the explanation of people falling in love with folk they dont know out of nothing (or bare physical attraction). That would have maybe made sense in earlier times when humanity and love was simpler and it was really mostly based on physical attraction (Just think of traditional folk tales of the countryside where love is mostly about her hair and eyes etc etc). In modern times however, our level of individualisation have grown, attraction, although still a big part of love, is no longer something people consider love by itself. You can say that what we expect from love evolved but we cant give up on the "instant" part because it sounds good and exciting, however our new expectations are not qualified to be grasped instantly. One of the reasons people divorce a lot nowadays. In the old times, it wasnt about a magical harmony or being soul mates or all that, the guy had to make ends meet and the woman had to be a proper housewife. That was enough for most people and having a beatiful face with a sexy body could make the difference between wild love and a proper match. Today, love is more about sharing yourself, your true self ever. Can you imagine a couple from the medieval ages, sitting by the fire side and talking about their feelings in a sophisticated way like modern couples do? When they do it in movies, we say it's anachronical. You should keep in mind that I dont deny that attraction at first sight can be very persuasive and strong. I just dont define it as true love, I'd rather call it a potential for love.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 26, 2013 09:15 PM |
|
|
artu said:
You should keep in mind that I dont deny that attraction at first sight can be very persuasive and strong. I just dont define it as true love, I'd rather call it a potential for love.
Yeah, that's your stance. But what do you base it upon? And why would you rate your stance more valid than or superior to others?
For me, for example, this "love grows" stuff makes no sense - I explained why in the last post.
I would also say that the difference between now and 100 or 200 years ago is, that now divorce is fine, then it was not. And that the reason why so many relationships fail is that they are NOT based on love (at first sight), but on LESS (not bad, habit, convenience).
Gootch made the point with love being "the other one the most important thing in your life" - and he's right, because THAT is what enables you to find solutions to problems, that is, real life trying to throw stones at you, which is what you need when you want a relationship to master those cliffs.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted December 26, 2013 09:58 PM |
|
|
I don't believe that love can either be created or extinguished, only manifested between two people who were in love before they've ever met, or even born, the term 'match made in heaven' comes to mind.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2013 01:20 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I've always been sure, that REAL love was a "first sight" thing, because love isn't about YOU. Love isn't about YOU learning to know a person and because of how you like what you learn, interest or infatuation becomes love. It's mainly the other way round. Because you ARE hit by a freight train, you are WILLING to get that person to know WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
More like, you're willing to overlook some flaws (or be fine with not sharing some commonalities) because there are other things that you like. For example, certain kinds of men are willing to overlook a lot of character flaws if a woman is physically attractive. But that's not love, because they're only attracted to looks, and not to the person as a whole. I'm fine with not sharing the possible commonality of playing HoMM with my girlfriend, because her other numerous positive features make that commonality unnecessary (not that it'd be a major commonality to begin with).
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2013 02:02 AM |
|
|
all these heated arguments about love...
looks like crimes of passion to me. 
lol, you sexy beasts. i wonder what you all would do in the same room with each other. just give in to your feelings for one another, and stop all this posturing already. 
oh yeah, love is real and stuff. although it is purely chemical in nature(scent, sight+reaction, taste, etc).
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 27, 2013 02:12 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah, that's your stance. But what do you base it upon? And why would you rate your stance more valid than or superior to others?
As I told you before, I base it on the FACT that nobody ever cares, I mean really CARES about a person they've just met. You can debate many things about love but one thing that can not be argued is that you always care for someone you love. Or if you wanna tell it in Gootch's way, if a relationship is cut off at first-sight phase, we never feel any true loss or emotional pain by the absence of that person and never actually say "you come first in my life" afterwards. That only happens after you share stuff. I also base it on the very simple notion that you can be completely mistaken and clueless about the person during that phase and you have to know the actual person to some extent to be able to talk about loving her if it's not just about physical attraction and these days almost everybody agrees it's about something more.
Quote:
I would also say that the difference between now and 100 or 200 years ago is, that now divorce is fine, then it was not. And that the reason why so many relationships fail is that they are NOT based on love (at first sight), but on LESS (not bad, habit, convenience).
That doesn't make any sense statistically. Most marriages that fail are rushed ones, people who give time to it (live together first etc etc) divorce much less than the other ones.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2013 02:27 AM |
|
|
artu said:
As I told you before, I base it on the FACT that nobody ever cares, I mean really CARES about a person they've just met. You can debate many things about love but one thing that can not be argued is that you always care for someone you love. Or if you wanna tell it in Gootch's way, if a relationship is cut off at first-sight phase, we never feel any true loss or emotional pain by the absence of that person and never actually say "you come first in my life" afterwards. That only happens after you share stuff. I also base it on the very simple notion that you can be completely mistaken and clueless about the person during that phase and you have to know the actual person to some extent to be able to talk about loving her if it's not just about physical attraction and these days almost everybody agrees it's about something more.
artu, have you never just seen a girl, a little longer than a glance, and wanted to know everything about her? and if you never talked to her, you would feel sorry that you missed your chance. and you would pine after that moment, that girl, and wonder in your daily life, what if? could she have been the one? you don't think that would torture some people, emotionally? you don't think someone could get emotionally invested in a girl at first sight? or how about touch? you never felt that electricity when touching somebody special, if even on the hand? that heat? that shock?
also, you can share everything in the world with someone, and then end up hating them, as well. just sayan.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 27, 2013 02:49 AM |
|
|
What you're talking about is more like a feeling of "sigh" and a curiousity of "what if" rather than real pain. Yes, of course that happens, especially a lot when you're younger but it is just a mosquito bite compared to the pain when real love goes wrong. Do you identify the girl that got on the bus before you as your true love in such situations? Who does?
And people ending up hating each other is irrelevant to my point, I don't claim you always grow to love more once you get to know a person. That would be absurd.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2013 03:10 AM |
|
|
artu said:
What you're talking about is more like a feeling of "sigh" and a curiousity of "what if" rather than real pain. Yes, of course that happens, especially a lot when you're younger but it is just a mosquito bite compared to the pain when real love goes wrong. Do you identify the girl that got on the bus before you as your true love in such situations? Who does?
And people ending up hating each other is irrelevant to my point, I don't claim you always grow to love more once you get to know a person. That would be absurd.
so you personally have felt both of these things? the "sigh" and the "real pain"?
because i don't think you have. i don't see how a mind like yours(according to your posts), can even begin to relate to what i'm talking about.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 27, 2013 03:18 AM |
|
|
|
Sure, I felt both of them in the past.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2013 03:22 AM |
|
|
artu said:
Sure, I felt both of them in the past.
oh, ok then. so, could you tell me about the worst two experiences you've ever had, in both scenario's? do you still think about either of them?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 27, 2013 03:29 AM |
|
|
|
I dont like talking about things that personal on the internet. Briefly, I can say the first type of thing is a thing you remember only if you look back at your life as if it was a slide show. And it would only be one of the thousands of slides, nothing very special. While on the other hand, the second type of thing actually changes you. Real love changes a person.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2013 03:47 AM |
|
|
ok, sure. now i can believe you.
even though you avoided the question entirely. i didn't ask for names, just what happened. just to prove that you weren't talking out of your ass. that's all. no biggie.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2013 10:28 AM |
|
|
artu said:
Quote:
Yeah, that's your stance. But what do you base it upon? And why would you rate your stance more valid than or superior to others?
As I told you before, I base it on the FACT that nobody ever cares, I mean really CARES about a person they've just met. You can debate many things about love but one thing that can not be argued is that you always care for someone you love. Or if you wanna tell it in Gootch's way, if a relationship is cut off at first-sight phase, we never feel any true loss or emotional pain by the absence of that person and never actually say "you come first in my life" afterwards.
That's just not true. It is not a FACT. It has nothing to do with the actual problem. LOSS is something you can feel only over what you HAVE (or OWN). If, for any reason a relationship doesn't start, because it's cut off in the first-sight phase, you CANNOT feel loss, because you HAD nothing. I don't think this won't happen very often, but a lot of those people will be sad about the fact - and sad about it maybe a lifelong.
I will give you an example to point to the difference.
Imagine, you play the lottery. The numbers are read, and to your absolute amazement, the numbers are yours. Jackpot: 20 Million bucks, all yours, never worry again about money, material bliss; then you hear: "correction, the numbers are ...", and you are again where you started: with nothing. What will you feel? LOSS? For a moment you THOUGHT you had something, but it was just a cruel error.
Now imagine, you've led a good life with your own small business - not really rich, but materially well, say 100.000 yearly income - and then something goes wrong, and you end up completely broke, no business anymore and unemployed.
I hope you see the difference.
Also, I don't think that "marriages are divorced primarily because people marry too early". That's a gross simplification of what actually happens. It has nothing or not much to do with the fact that they do not have what could be described as a long enough "betrothal time", that is, time in which to check whether they really ARE compatible, but more with the fact that the circumstances of life are changing a lot and drastically for young people, and there IS a difference in relationship with or without children. (Children are a big change as well.)
A lot of marriages are divorced, because the lifes of the married have been drifting too far apart over the years from the point on when they first met.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2013 10:39 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
Quote:
I've always been sure, that REAL love was a "first sight" thing, because love isn't about YOU. Love isn't about YOU learning to know a person and because of how you like what you learn, interest or infatuation becomes love. It's mainly the other way round. Because you ARE hit by a freight train, you are WILLING to get that person to know WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
More like, you're willing to overlook some flaws...
You don't seem to understand what I wrote. The concept of a "flaw" is already based on prejudice. Obviously, if you're hit by a freight train, meeting a person for the first time, there CANNOT be any flaw (perceived at that point), otherwise, you wouldn't have been hit so hard. If that's mutual (which it must be; in my opinion, if the feeling is one-sided it can't be real - call it Joker's first law of how to discern whether it's just a sudden crush or love at first sight), it may end with both adjusting/expanding their points of view. It's not about finding your exact copy or "your ideal" because that's a dead end anyway - no real personal development possible.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 27, 2013 02:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Also, I don't think that "marriages are divorced primarily because people marry too early". That's a gross simplification of what actually happens.
That's not what I exactly said, I said our expectations got more sophisticated compared to medieval times and pointed it out as ONE OF THE reasons.
Quote:
Imagine, you play the lottery. The numbers are read, and to your absolute amazement, the numbers are yours. Jackpot: 20 Million bucks, all yours, never worry again about money, material bliss; then you hear: "correction, the numbers are ...", and you are again where you started: with nothing. What will you feel? LOSS? For a moment you THOUGHT you had something, but it was just a cruel error.
Now imagine, you've led a good life with your own small business - not really rich, but materially well, say 100.000 yearly income - and then something goes wrong, and you end up completely broke, no business anymore and unemployed.
I hope you see the difference.
Exactly and it is similar to what I've been telling you all along. You feel nothing when you ain't got nothing to lose. Similarly, you don't feel anything when losing a person at first-sight phase because you haven't been through any love that you can lose. Being drawn to a person immediately isn't love yet, it can all go away with a snap (imagine she turns out to be a racist for example) and bam, the numbers turn out to be wrong. Also, I think you totally underestimate (or ignore) the effort and sharing aspects of love. Love grows on as you keep putting yourself into the relationship, you sacrifice things to make the other person happy (which eventually makes you happy) and things gradually progress. The speed of that process may change from person to person or relationship to relationship but there is always a progress.
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
