Forums > Social Chat > Love of truth = death of love ?

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 123
coleman
coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Member Since: 29th Aug 2002
Total posts: 7330
Posted:short piece of prose by one richard geefe.
originally part of a larger piece that may or may not have been humourous umm

this extract by itself made me think though; is there any truth in it...?

"Maybe it has something to do with Vanessa. It was 16 years ago and in short it went she: me: love - yes - no. We shared a house. We spent every waking moment together, talking and laughing. One day out of the blue, she kissed me and told me she loved me. She wanted to be with me till she died. And I, because I truly loved her, told her the truth. I said: `You think you love me but you don't - and the reason you don't is because you don't want to wake up every day with someone who is being treated for depression.' It broke her heart. And of course it broke mine.

True love impels you to tell the truth. Yet with Vanessa, the truth made the love impossible. The only way to protect love is with lies and yet lies turn love into indifference. In my late adolescence, I turned this into an equation. Love of truth = death of love. If you divide both sides by love you end up with Truth = Death. I thought that was clever at the time, then for years I thought it was stupid, and last week I realised it was true. Maybe Vanessa knew it too. Death is the one place where there is no hypocrisy and Vanessa died eight years ago. So there is no going back - not without a spade anyway and I haven't considered that since I stopped the Halcyon. Ha, ha - but I'm crying.

So from now on it's the truth and only the truth because the death it brings is better than the living death of lies. Sod it if I lose my friends, if they can't take the truth they're not worth half an air kiss. And in case you're wondering, Vanessa was not her real name, I love(d) her too much to tell the truth about that."

wink

so most of it is hugely pessimistic and other bits are just the product of an overly active, twisted mind.

but it did produce the line: "So from now on it's the truth and only the truth because the death it brings is better than the living death of lies."
which i like quite a lot. ubblove


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete Topic

coleman
coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Member Since: 29th Aug 2002
Total posts: 7330
Posted:morcheeba then: "fear can stop you loving. love can stop your fear."



is a bit like saying "being high up can be scary because you might fall off but if you just bite the bullet and get up there, you can conquer that fear and enjoy the beautiful view."



there's still no denying the fact that if you hadn't gone up there in the first place (even though the view up there is *really* good), before there was just a fear of falling off *if* you went up whereas now you're actually in a position where there is a real chance of it happening.





to be fair though, "fear can stop you loving; love can stop your fear" is no more uselessly general than "love of truth = death of love" wink


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

DeepSoulSheep
DeepSoulSheep

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Berlin
Member Since: 25th Sep 2002
Total posts: 2617
Posted:Quote:
stupid perhaps, but i disagree selfish


Fair enough, I'm sure your not the only one.

I'll battle you for it weavesmiley wink

Quote:
off *if* you went up whereas now you're actually in a position where there is a real chance of it happening.




I know you kinda acknowledged it already and not trying to go round in circles but I think the view is kinda boring down there. I'd rather alternate pigeon and statue. wink



I live in a world of infinite possibilities.

Delete

Dom
Dom

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Bristol, UK
Member Since: 19th Dec 2001
Total posts: 3009
Posted:Cole, I'm sorry but your armed robber arguement is a bit too extreme.

I still agree with myself, but also with Cole. It's all relative and it's a case of judging potential reward and pain.

I was thinking more about this kinda situation:

Alex and Sue (not their real names) have been really good friends for a couple of years. There's always been some level of mutual attraction but it's never been acted on for various reasons. One day they have a drunken conversation where they reveal to each other their deep feelings for each other.

So the dilemma is either:
a) They just stay friends. It's a great friendship so why risk destroying it with relationship issues
b) Become a couple and potentially have an amazing life-long partnership with years of joy.

??? Obviously it'd depend upon the individuals and situation but I reckon it's a likely situation.

And then there's the what ifs. They may be about to meet new people would would be more perfect partners, and being together would mean they miss them. Or thier relationship could fail.
Or if could go great for 3 year, until Alex has a fling with Jill (her real name), the busty receptionist from work. The relationship fals apart and causes pain, but were those 3 good years worth the pain?

At the end of the day theoretical situations are all good and well, but the interesting thing about life is that you can never know how it'll turn out. You make your choices and see what happens.

The point of this long and rambling post is that if you make your choices based on fear then you're limiting your life more than if you choose a bit of potential insecurity and pain.

"May you live in interesting times."


Delete

simian
simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London
Member Since: 11th Oct 2002
Total posts: 3149
Posted:Quote:
The point of this long and rambling post is that if you make your choices based on fear then you're limiting your life more than if you choose a bit of potential insecurity and pain



my italics smile

yes, all of that seems right.

but you are strangely overemphasising the risk taking aspect, in comparison to caution. which is the opposite to the usual safety conscious advice on this board...

i guess love and burning paraffin really are two different things after all...


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

NYC
NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Member Since: 26th Aug 2001
Total posts: 9232
Posted:Quote:
Um... what? No, Dom and I both agree with the incredibly obvious point that it's preferable to defer pleasure now for greater pleasure later IF the increase in pleasure is large enough to warrent waiting. Duh. ubbloco



Cole, put down the crackpipe and keep reading my sentence past the word IF. I even put it in caps so you'd have a better chance of seeing it through the crack haze. kiss

My statement is:
"IF it warrents waiting, THAN it warrents waiting"

and you keep coming back with
"But if it doesn't, it doesn't."

To which I respond:
DUH! ubbloco


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

coleman
coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Member Since: 29th Aug 2002
Total posts: 7330
Posted:confused



Quote:
My statement is:

"IF it warrents waiting, THAN it warrents waiting"



and you keep coming back with

"But if it doesn't, it doesn't."





what does "if it doesn't, it doesn't" mean?!



if it means "if it doesn't warrant waiting, then it doesn't warrant waiting" it is not what i am saying.

that statement suggests that instead of waiting, you should go for it now:

"it's preferable to defer pleasure now for greater pleasure later IF the increase in pleasure is large enough to warrent waiting".



i say there are cases that do not even warrant going for it at all - not now nor later - and these do not necessarily mean that you are living an average life because you didn't gamble on the chance of increased happiness.



MY statement is:

"if the potential reward outweighs the potential loss then you should maybe go for it, if it doesn't, it is probably best to remain (and be happy with) what you already have."



its a huge difference i think - one says either go for it now or wait until later (if it is warranted), the other says sometimes the potential loss is enough to forego the chance of aven more happiness.



now gimme back my gottdamn pipe and rocks mad





[edit: dom said this: "Cole, I'm sorry but your armed robber arguement is a bit too extreme." which is very true. it is the same arguement but admittedly i used it out of context and applied it to all situations rather than the one that dom has clarified upon above. hug]


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

pounce
pounce

All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all a...
Member Since: 10th Jan 2003
Total posts: 9831
Posted:Quote:
The point of this long and rambling post is that if you make your choices based on fear then you're limiting your life more than if you choose a bit of potential insecurity and pain



well said. it's interesting how many people live their life attempting to avoid getting hurt. pain is inevitable. without it, we never would value happiness. cheesy? possibly. but true? absolutely. i see clients every day who try so desperately to avoid pain in their lives that they end up miserable and alone. and in the end they have such huge regret.

what drives me nuts is the argument that "i don't want to hurt you anymore so i'm going to leave you." it's a load of crap. it's great that people think of the other enough to have that notion, but they forget that the other person has free will, that person has a choice to be there and choose potential pain and/or potential happiness. taking away that choice is insulting and patronizing. if they have good enough reasons to walk away from the relationship, that's fine. but to put it into the notion that "i don't want to hurt you anymore" is ridiculous. if that's what they want, then they can alter their actions in some way to reduce that hurt. most of the time it's the walking away that causes more pain than staying in whatever capacity.


I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

**giggles**

Delete

simian
simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London
Member Since: 11th Oct 2002
Total posts: 3149
Posted:hmm strange uneasiness... oh i know why...

there's an implicit assumption in many of these arguments that happiness can only be achieved by 'filling your life' with more [stuff] or striving for further [things].

There seems a definite trend against contentment and toward a rather western capitalist view of success and happiness.

which includes such conventions as not really distinguishing between pleasure and happiness. And that a life must be lived through something or someone, not just lived.


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

pounce
pounce

All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all a...
Member Since: 10th Jan 2003
Total posts: 9831
Posted:oh i certainly don't think that a person needs to strive for more stuff, but i'm all about seeking connection. i personally think that's what is the common underlying theme for people....connection with others. and there's a difference between being content with what you have but still having goals, and making those goals run your life. i am happy with who i am at this present moment....it doesn't mean that i still don't strive to do more in my life. and that doesn't mean i won't be happy still with myself if i don't achieve those goals. contentment shouldn't equal stagnancy. there's a difference.

I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

**giggles**

Delete

coleman
coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Member Since: 29th Aug 2002
Total posts: 7330
Posted:i think simian's point was not that if you are content then you shouldn't work towards anything but more along the lines of 'personal enlightenment does not rely on connecting with others'.



the whole "don't pass up a chance at a relationship solely for fear of being hurt" is something i think we all pretty much agree on.



however, the argument that your life will be somehow less fulfilled (or 'more average' if you prefer) if you do not take these opprtunities for intimacy is a strange one i feel.


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

simian
simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London
Member Since: 11th Oct 2002
Total posts: 3149
Posted:Quote:
that doesn't mean i won't be happy still with myself if i don't achieve those goals



Yups



Pounce: Was referring to general mood of the whole thread, not to your post specifically. Just so you know... hug smile



edit - hug to cole for post supportage biggrin


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

NYC
NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Member Since: 26th Aug 2001
Total posts: 9232
Posted:Quote:
MY statement is:
"if the potential reward outweighs the potential loss then you should maybe go for it, if it doesn't, it is probably best to remain (and be happy with) what you already have."




OK... again. This is the most obvious point ever uttered. wink And with the word "maybe" and "probably" imbedded into it I can't possibly imagine anyone disagreeing with it. Plus you could always interpret "reward" and "loss" any way you wanted making it so utterly vague that it loses most meaning. Any disagreement with "Cole's Statement" would be only arguening with the vagueness of it and the interpretations of the words that make it up... as there is no substance within it to actually disagree.

I would argue that: Quote:
its a huge difference i think - one says either go for it now or wait until later (if it is warranted), the other says sometimes the potential loss is enough to forego the chance of aven more happiness.




Is really just two sides to the same point.

If something, in your judgement, is good enough to warrant accepting the time and effort in doing it, then you should do it. If it's not good enough to warrent the sacrifice of time and effort, then you shouldn't do it as the loss outweights the reward.

We can subtract by the 'loss' and state that if the situation's net gain is positve (taking in all factors, even the ones you want to leave out just to prove me wrong), it should be done.

Which then reduces to "If it's good, it's good"

Thank you Captain Obvious. biggrin


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

simian
simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London
Member Since: 11th Oct 2002
Total posts: 3149
Posted:obvious is better than wrong

tongue


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

Page: 123