If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by Michael Bulatovich on February 14, 2008, 1:03 pm
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>>>>> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>>>>>>> There's a building that I'm in love with. It's not perfect, but it
>>>>>>> has character, and an uncommon beauty, whimsy and delight all its
>>>>>>> own, and I see much of my own character in it as well-- although
>>>>>>> I'm unsure if its architects would agree.
>>>>>> Picture? (Building, not you.)
>>>>> Ironically, the building is a metaphor for a woman.
>>>>
>>>> Picture?
>>>
>>> It might be nice, if only for historical reference.
>>>
>>> How do we choose that which we love, assuming we do?
>>
>> THat question probbly has as many answers as thre are people on the
>> planet; to answer it, you can't look at what others do, you have to look
>> deeply *and honestly* into yourself and explore your own motivations,
>> desires, responses, and so on.
>>
>>> And in that regard, can the heart do battle with the mind and
>>> vice-versa?
>>>
>>
>> Do they actually battle? Or it is just that the superego, that part of
>> us which is created by society, tells us to not be who we are and to not
>> want what we want, because we're "supposed" to be, and want, what we are
>> told to be and want? Society teaches us to present a persona, because ti
>> is our "duty", our "obligation" - we are supposed to do and be what
>> society tells us we "should" do and be - i.e. present a persona rather
>> than to honestly be a person.
>>
>> That screws up relationships, because the whole dating game, with its
>> little rituals, is designed to encourage the persona while relegating the
>> person to the distant background. Ritualized behaviors, such as a male
>> bird presentign a female with bits of nesting material and/or plump
>> insects, work for other animals, but with humans, it's eventually a
>> hindrance, because all too often, people marry the personas, and then
>> start having problems when it becomes inpossible to live a facade 24/7
>> and the real person comes out - then people wail, "You're just not the
>> same person I married!" Well, of course not, all of the rituals are
>> designed to set up baby-making couples, NOT form the basis of emotional
>> imtimacy.
>>
>> One of the offshoots of the dependence upon ritual is thae perennial, and
>> perennially stupid, question of "What do women/men really want?" Such a
>> wuestion assumes that ALL women and ALL men are simple, are
>> simplistically capable only of following instinctual patterns. THe fact
>> is that humans have *drives*, but not *instincts* - an instinct is a
>> specific bahavior that is inborn, i.e. carried out by compulsion AND
>> *exactly the same* in all members of a species - even if an animal is
>> raised in isolation, it will still attempt to carry out the stereotypical
>> behaviors; learning from other members refines behaviors but the
>> bahaviors are largely intact.
>>
>> Humans are not that simple. So it's not just a simplistic matter of
>> "give gift, get sex" for males and "give sex in return for child
>> support" for females. What a woman wants depends upon the individual
>> woman; what a man wants depends upon the individual man.
>>
>> Re: specific cases? I dunno, it depends upon the people involved. And I
>> don't have any intuitive understandiing of people, just facts and
>> theories.
>>
>>
>
> Met my wife in January '64 and we married in July of '64. Back then we
> were considered old at 28 and 27 years. Going on 44 years now. Invited our
> parents to our wedding the weekend before. Simple and economical. The
> wedding business made nothing from us.
> EDS
Same here...city hall. The old WASP JP mispronounced my name terribly, of
course, as a way of illustrating to my new wife what she was in for.
|
|
Posted by Kris Krieger on February 19, 2008, 3:58 pm
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Met my wife in January '64 and we married in July of '64. Back then
>>> we were considered old at 28 and 27 years. Going on 44 years now.
>>> Invited our parents to our wedding the weekend before. Simple and
>>> economical. The wedding business made nothing from us.
>>> EDS
>>
>> Same here...city hall. The old WASP JP mispronounced my name
>> terribly, of course, as a way of illustrating to my new wife what she
>> was in for.
>>
>
> They've made even less from me. I don't really see a point to the
> whole marriage thing. I have more commitment buying a house with her
> than some people with their marriage "licenses".
>
THat's IMO part fo the whole insanity wiht it. In terms of the legalities,
marriage is a contract, pure an dsimple. As with any other conttract,
poeple can bend it or ignore it, and penalities exist for breaking it,
unless both parties agree to an amicable dissolution. Basically, IMO, it's
also a contract that exists mostly because so few peole are trustworthy
when it comes to sharing prpoerty - too many have the motto: "what's mine
is mine - and what's yours is mine, too". But there is never *any*
"guarantee" that either party (or both!) will adhere to the terms of the
contract.
As for moral and emotional concerns, tehy're added over and above the
contract, and do not require a contract to exist - two peole can be
completely committd to each other, and never have a contract; OTOH, two
people can have a contract, and no commitment whatsoever.
Deopel talk about th e"sanctity" of marriage. btu that is a religious terms
and has nothing to do with th elegal realities - whatever sanctity might
surround a relationship, it comes fromt eh people involved, not this ro
that "authority" or bureaucracy.
|
|
Posted by Kris Krieger on February 19, 2008, 6:52 pm
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Met my wife in January '64 and we married in July of '64. Back
>>>>> then we were considered old at 28 and 27 years. Going on 44 years
>>>>> now. Invited our parents to our wedding the weekend before. Simple
>>>>> and economical. The wedding business made nothing from us.
>>>>> EDS
>>>>
>>>> Same here...city hall. The old WASP JP mispronounced my name
>>>> terribly, of course, as a way of illustrating to my new wife what
>>>> she was in for.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They've made even less from me. I don't really see a point to the
>>> whole marriage thing. I have more commitment buying a house with
>>> her than some people with their marriage "licenses".
>>>
>>
>> THat's IMO part fo the whole insanity wiht it. In terms of the
>> legalities,
>> marriage is a contract, pure an dsimple. As with any other
>> conttract, poeple can bend it or ignore it, and penalities exist for
>> breaking it, unless both parties agree to an amicable dissolution.
>> Basically, IMO, it's
>> also a contract that exists mostly because so few peole are
>> trustworthy when it comes to sharing prpoerty - too many have the
>> motto: "what's mine is mine - and what's yours is mine, too". But
>> there is never *any* "guarantee" that either party (or both!) will
>> adhere to the terms of the contract.
>>
>> As for moral and emotional concerns, tehy're added over and above the
>> contract, and do not require a contract to exist - two peole can be
>> completely committd to each other, and never have a contract; OTOH,
>> two people can have a contract, and no commitment whatsoever.
>>
>> Deopel talk about th e"sanctity" of marriage. btu that is a religious
>> terms
>> and has nothing to do with th elegal realities - whatever sanctity
>> might surround a relationship, it comes fromt eh people involved, not
>> this ro that "authority" or bureaucracy.
>
> Not that long ago the union called marriage was a committment between
> 2 people that was based in things like honesty, truth and character.
Er, historically, as in, long-term history as opposed to part fo 19th,
and of 20th century history, marrige has been about property, and keeping
property with families, more than about personal relationships. Property
and propagation of the family line, with chastity being a female
"virtue" rather than a male one (since you always know who your motehr
is, but rigorous social controls are set up to supposedly "guarnatee" who
one's father is...).
> Those things have been kicked to the curb and have been replaced by
> partial laws.
Actually, social strictures have been, to some extent, preplaced by laws,
but all in all, it's *much* looser than it was even when we were kids.
> In effect, today, a marraige is a loosely bound contract where the
> details are drawn up after the fact.
No, sorry, that's inaccurate. THere are a bunch if implicit legal
restrictions and allowances, it's just that few people ever actually read
them. I'd have ot look it up myself, but there are implict, but very
real, legalities that are part and parcel of getting married.
> That last part is important.
> Edgar should hire an attorney to advise him of the way the laws will
> react if and when he and his significant other decide to go seperate
> ways because simply living together, in the eyes of the law, is not
> simple.
Thsi is true. If people don't marry, they really ought to go ahead and
meet with an attorney so as to have as much in writing as is possible.
There is no right to inheritance, for example, which, depending upon
one's situation, can be either good, or bad. If the people are odler,
and want to be sure that, should they die, their property/money will only
fo to their ownkids, then marriage is often not really a good choice. I
don;t remember the details but I remember reading and hearing about
various reasons for seniors to *not* get married.
But again, ti all has to do with the fact that thre are definite
legalities that come along with getting married.
> The religious aspect of a marriage holds little weight in a
> court of law
No, but it unfortunately does have increasing weight when it comes ti
*making* law - being more or less unfortunate depending upon ow closely
your own religion or spiritual beleifs coincide with those of the epople
influencing the creation and/or modification of laws...
> and there are none so vicious as marriage dissolution
> attorneys even if no marriage exists.
Sure, because of the money involved. Andteh desire for the parties to
wreak vengeance upon the one whom each perceives as being "to blame".
|
|
Posted by Kris Krieger on February 14, 2008, 3:40 pm
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>>>>> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>>>>>>> There's a building that I'm in love with. It's not perfect, but
>>>>>>> it has character, and an uncommon beauty, whimsy and delight all
>>>>>>> its own, and I see much of my own character in it as well--
>>>>>>> although I'm unsure if its architects would agree.
>>>>>> Picture? (Building, not you.)
>>>>> Ironically, the building is a metaphor for a woman.
>>>>
>>>> Picture?
>>>
>>> It might be nice, if only for historical reference.
>>>
>>> How do we choose that which we love, assuming we do?
>>
>> THat question probbly has as many answers as thre are people on the
>> planet; to answer it, you can't look at what others do, you have to
>> look deeply *and honestly* into yourself and explore your own
>> motivations, desires, responses, and so on.
>>
>>> And in that regard, can the heart do battle with the mind and
>>> vice-versa?
>>>
>>
>> Do they actually battle? Or it is just that the superego, that part
>> of us which is created by society, tells us to not be who we are and
>> to not want what we want, because we're "supposed" to be, and want,
>> what we are told to be and want? Society teaches us to present a
>> persona, because ti is our "duty", our "obligation" - we are supposed
>> to do and be what society tells us we "should" do and be - i.e.
>> present a persona rather than to honestly be a person.
>>
>> That screws up relationships, because the whole dating game, with its
>> little rituals, is designed to encourage the persona while relegating
>> the person to the distant background. Ritualized behaviors, such as
>> a male bird presentign a female with bits of nesting material and/or
>> plump insects, work for other animals, but with humans, it's
>> eventually a hindrance, because all too often, people marry the
>> personas, and then start having problems when it becomes inpossible
>> to live a facade 24/7 and the real person comes out - then people
>> wail, "You're just not the same person I married!" Well, of course
>> not, all of the rituals are designed to set up baby-making couples,
>> NOT form the basis of emotional imtimacy.
>>
>> One of the offshoots of the dependence upon ritual is thae perennial,
>> and perennially stupid, question of "What do women/men really want?"
>> Such a wuestion assumes that ALL women and ALL men are simple, are
>> simplistically capable only of following instinctual patterns. THe
>> fact is that humans have *drives*, but not *instincts* - an instinct
>> is a specific bahavior that is inborn, i.e. carried out by compulsion
>> AND *exactly the same* in all members of a species - even if an
>> animal is raised in isolation, it will still attempt to carry out the
>> stereotypical behaviors; learning from other members refines
>> behaviors but the bahaviors are largely intact.
>>
>> Humans are not that simple. So it's not just a simplistic matter of
>> "give gift, get sex" for males and "give sex in return for child
>> support" for females. What a woman wants depends upon the individual
>> woman; what a man wants depends upon the individual man.
>>
>> Re: specific cases? I dunno, it depends upon the people involved.
>> And I don't have any intuitive understandiing of people, just facts
>> and theories.
>>
>>
>
> Met my wife in January '64 and we married in July of '64. Back then we
> were considered old at 28 and 27 years. Going on 44 years now. Invited
> our parents to our wedding the weekend before. Simple and economical.
> The wedding business made nothing from us.
> EDS
It seems to me that the simple weddings I've known of have also been the
most personal. IMO, an insistance upon an orgy of spending that ends up
putting people into debt literally for decades, does not bode well for a
happy union - IMO, it indicates that priorities are askew.
|
|
Posted by Kris Krieger on February 15, 2008, 2:12 am
> "Kris Krieger"> wrote
>> It seems to me that the simple weddings I've known of have also been
>> the most personal. IMO, an insistance upon an orgy of spending that
>> ends up putting people into debt literally for decades, does not bode
>> well for a happy union - IMO, it indicates that priorities are askew.
>
> I've been a best man at 5 weddings and it seems like the bigger the
> ceremony the smaller the marriage duration.
>
Of course - two reasons, in my own personal and prob rather jaded ideas
base dupon what I've personally seen: (1) the emphasis on all the
materialistic "queen for a day" stuff shows where the bride's true
priorities lie, which is, fantasy and illlusions of grandeur, and (2) the
guy has missed the first major opportunity to have a say in things, IOW,
has wimped out right from the start.
Actually, there is a third reason, related to what I said about
most/common dating rituals being about presenting a persona rather than
being a person - this rushing headlong into the whole insanity of
spending thousands upon thousands of dollars to create this elaborate
fantasy of a royal fete IMO is erally setting people up for a hug let-
down, because the fantasy quickly fades, and the couple is left with the
reality of the daily grind: morning breath, dirty laundry, hair in the
bathtub, gas, and all of the other plain everyday things that nobody ever
mentions, never mind admits to, during the whole fantasy phase.
ANd fourth: money. It's extremely rare for peole to have frank, honest,
and practical discussions about finances before marriage. And money is,
IIRC, the number one reason people give for divorce. OF course,
bickering over money is usually a symptom of a deeper realization by the
two people that they had no idea who they were actually marrying...
That's why I don't hold traditional/"conservative" notions of marriage in
high regard - it's all very plan-oriented, and the "important" thing is
to mary young and have kids ASAP and then justtolerate the other person
"for the sake fo the kids" (who in turn grow up and just do the same
thing) and, once the kids leave home, just slog it out in misery for the
next 50 years.
There is so much emphasis upon "finding that one person who will make you
happy", and so much time and energy spent upon running down potential
spouses, that few people ever have the chance to learn that (1) nobody
else can *make* you happy, it has to start from within; and (2) a person
who has never spent time developing his/her Self isn't going to have much
to bring to a relationship - it's like trying to get a harvest of wheat
from land that has been let go to dust.
|
Page 4 of 6 < 1 2 3 > last >>
| Similar Threads | Posted | | I'd love to get a fly through of this.... | June 13, 2007, 4:13 pm |
| neighbourly love vented | April 13, 2007, 10:13 pm |
| Buildings I had to love when I was in school, and why. | April 15, 2007, 1:32 pm |
| Buildings I had to love when I was in school, and why... | April 15, 2007, 1:35 pm |
| Building Construction - Issue Of Building Permits (Victoria) | June 17, 2007, 5:27 am |
| Looking for pictures of the Seagram Building / Bilder vom Seagram Building gesucht | April 6, 2007, 12:33 pm |
| I'm looking for a building | January 12, 2008, 6:32 am |
| I'm looking for a building | January 12, 2008, 6:33 am |
| Please help - where is this building? | November 25, 2008, 11:21 am |
| Exterior building | February 9, 2007, 7:33 am |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap