You are not signed in (Login or Join Free)   |   Help
Sploofus Trivia
Trivia GamesCommunityLeaderboardsTournaments
MySploofus
You are here:  Home  >>  Chat Forums  >>  Trivial Tangents  >>  View Chat Message

View Chat Message



Pages:  1    


smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Thu, 26th Nov '09 1:38 PM

LOVE

I heard love defined as expanding your ego boundaries to include another. (And yes, the author is arguing that this particular definition should supersede even the love is a feeling definition our culture sells us.) Ummm.....exactly how would somebody go about doing this? Is there anybody in the audience who knows enough about this topic (ego boundaries that is) that could explain to me how this would "work"? Thanks in advance.

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.4 - Posts: 1745)
Thu, 26th Nov '09 1:52 PM

I dig ya Jeremy but some of your philosophical rhetoric is lost on me. Let's see true love I believe is a suppresion of your ego. It is when you care more for another than for yourself. Including creature comforts such as food, warmth, shelter and enduring pain. I would give my heart, eternal soul, life and my entire essence for my loved ones. I would suffer, and would sustain punishment for them, total sacrifice is what I would give. I would lose my selfness for them, for that is the most I have to give.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Thu, 26th Nov '09 2:14 PM

That wasn't my philosophical rhetoric, just something I read somewhere on the internet. I was just wondering what the practical implications might be of that perspective. But ego boundaries are not my speciality. I'm not sure that this is the original author or where I read it, but here's a discussion of it I found on the internet after you posted if you are curious Stephanie.

http://www.recoveryempowerment.com/relationships

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.4 - Posts: 1745)
Thu, 26th Nov '09 2:35 PM

I scanned it and I can tell you from experience that building up of your partners ego, pays off in big time dividends. It pays off for the relationship and for your partner. I have been guilty of trying to change a partner by pointing out defects of their character as opposed to building them up and accepting their character defects.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Fri, 27th Nov '09 2:17 PM

Live and learn, but I hate learning the hard way!!! Sorry about some of your bad experiences in love Stephanie.

"I dig ya Jeremy but some of your philosophical rhetoric is lost on me."

I actually had this discussion before in the Philosophy group, but I'll give you an idea as to why I think this "philosophical rhetoric" is somewhat important. One of our cultural assumptions, which is quickly fading away, is that marriage SHOULD last a lifetime. If the word "love" is defined as a "feeling", and marriages should be based on "love", then when the feeling goes it's time to get a divorce, right? I've actually seen this happen before, and kids were involved. So questioning what love is, assuming that marriages should last, is really a re-thinking of the whole basis of marriage itself imo. Maybe those feelings are necessary to get a good relationship going, dunno, I can say I have them in my relationship now. But the question of what love is really refers to what events should supersede the commitment to one another, much like Jesus being asked about what "justifies" divorce....

However, the point of this particular post was to find out if anyone in the audience knew more than I did about ego boundaries, and especially on the issue of how they develop and how one would go about including another within them. Perhaps this would only be possible during peak experiences, I really don't know, as I said I don't understand this perspective too well.

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.4 - Posts: 1745)
Fri, 27th Nov '09 2:46 PM

My thoughts are more pragmatic, stay the course. I didn't and am sorry I didn't, what appears to be character faults can be over looked for the greater good of the marriage or relationship. Especially when children are involved whatever attracted two people to begin with can be built upon and it takes a suppression of ego to acknowledge your partner and their needs as well as yours. The nuclear family is a very important anthropological and socially important dynamic in our society, I would like to see it nurtured more and not cast aside. It is a building block of our society.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Fri, 27th Nov '09 3:57 PM

Out of curiosity, I'm not sure I get your drift when you say suppression of the ego. I know that there are different definitions of the word, so perhaps that is my fault. This is the sense in which (I think) the original author is using the word, and because I think that that is the way I would be using the word:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_(spirituality)

Could you clarify your use for me? I think I get your drift, and if so, that is a very feminine perspective on relationships me thinks.

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 118.4 - Posts: 1745)
Fri, 27th Nov '09 3:59 PM

In the context you searched on wikipedia they found no info, so not sure what you mean?

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Fri, 27th Nov '09 4:27 PM

Weird that that link didn't work......I copied and pasted directly when I was reading the page! Oh well, the first few lines of that article spelled it out, but heres an easy breezy definition: "the ā€œIā€ or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought." In this context anyways....that's how it was being used (at least by me). So my question was, how would you supress that? Or did you mean it in some other way?



Pages:  1    



Copyright © 2003-2016 Sploofus Holdings LLC.  All rights reserved.
Legal Notice & Privacy Statement  |  Link to Sploofus