Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    re: .0 
    
         Interesting thoughts...
    
         The hierarchy is as follows:  obligations, needs and then 
    preferences.
    
         It would be desirable to make everything in life a preference.
    The realities we live in are seldom set up that way, however.
    It does not help to simply change one's vocabulary while the truth
    remains otherwise.  It is not a sign of weakness to admit to having
    obligations or needs.  What *is* a sign of a problem that would 
    behoove correction is if obligations or needs were the predominant
    motivations in life.  
         To bring this into your scenario, if someone is in a relationship
    because they are obligated to it, then I would characterize that as
    "sad."  If someone is in a relationship because they *need* the 
    relationship, then the dependency (and obviously co-dependency) within
    that relationship is bound to be restrictive, punitive and eventually
    hurtful (to both people.)  It is okay, however, to have needs, at 
    least once in a while, and to depend or rely on the other individual
    to help provide for assistance with those needs.  
         Ideally it would be nice to be completely independent, totally
    capable of happiness within oneself, totally self-loving, self-reliant,
    self-esteeming, self-respecting, completely valuing self, and THEN,
    simply out of desire, simply and completely out of PREFERENCE, having
    someone else in life to share in the giving and receiving.  This is
    a goal that I believe should be worked towards.  Unfortunately, what
    often happens to couples is that once they find themselves with each
    other, they allow the dependencies to control the relationship, and
    usually and mostly don't work towards the ideal of independence and
    preference.
        It is useful to admit when the needs are present, helpful to
    work towards eliminating the need, but acceptable to ask for help
    to get there.  In that regard, a partner can be of very valuable
    assistance.  One of the best aspects of a true union between two
    individuals is the intimacy therein.  Making oneself so vulnerable
    that they can admit their weaknesses to the other is a high order
    of intimacy...but this same vulnerability allows for a greater depth
    of love.  But a crutch is a crutch, not a limb.  There must be 
    movement towards throwing the crutch away...and not exploiting it
    and relying on it with a false sense of arrogance.  
         Unselfish lover?  If this is like unconditional lover, then 
    it's not likely to happen.  Whether we admit it or not, we all
    have conditions, unfortunately.  More realistic, to me, would be
    in admiting that I have some needs, selfish?...well, they're mine
    so I guess selfish applies, though somewhat stronger than I would
    like to say...and that I am being true to myself (being REAL--which
    means honoring one's emotions) by asking or even demanding to satisfy
    those needs.  Upgrading those needs, however, is also a positive 
    response in an adult.
    
    Frederick
    

.0>  That got me to thinking ... is it possible for someone in such a
.0>  relationship to be an "unselfish lover"?  Don't lovers *always* have
.0>  needs which must be fulfilled by the other partner?
 
    No.   Yes.

.1>       Ideally it would be nice to be completely independent, totally
.1>  capable of happiness within oneself, totally self-loving, self-reliant,
.1>  self-esteeming, self-respecting, completely valuing self, and THEN,
.1>  simply out of desire, simply and completely out of PREFERENCE, having
.1>  someone else in life to share in the giving and receiving.  

If a person were *that* happy with (him/her)self, then it would almost seem
that the person wouldn't *need* anyone else (perhaps that's the whole point -
that relationships shouldn't be entered into from need).  In fact, if the 
person were that happy and independent, it almost seems likely that another 
person - because of natural differences between them - would introduce a 
degree of conflict and chaos.

Perhaps conflict and chaos aren't de facto bad?

Paul

    re: .3 (Paul)
    
         Exactly!
    
         The "preference" then becomes one of finding other ways of
    loving, of discovering other points of view, of sharing in intimacy
    and personal growth, and on and on...not needs such as "I can't live
    without you" or "I'd be all alone and I'll be lonely" or "but who
    will I have to control if not you?" etc., etc.
         Yes, "fighting" can be a healthy thing in a relationship...and
    if it doesn't exist at all, is probably a sign of an unhealthy 
    or incomplete relationship (shallow, etc.)  Anytime individuals allow
    the depth of their emotions, whenever people are being real (honestly
    expressing emotions) then there is likely to be conflict with someone
    else somewhere.  *HOW* these emotions are handled, *how* the 
    "fighting" takes place is the difference between maintaining the 
    relationship or losing it.
    
    Frederick
    

	Fantastic replies, Paul and Frederick.  Thank yous

	Hi Mike, welcome back.. cute P_N..;')

	mikki

    

    Hi Mikki, long time no see.

    Good to see your name again... hang loose!

    
>    If one participant is facing a personal obstacle (not related to the
>    partner) and needs more of the "friend" part of the relationship for a
>    time, is it too much to ask to ask that "selfish lover" be sublimated
>    to "unselfish lover" for a period of time?

   "...is it too much to ask..."  can only be answered by testing.
   
   It _is_ too much to ask that the "friend/lover" guess your needs.  You
   have to ask explicitly and see what happens.  Don't sit there waiting for
   someone to "sense your needs" by some mystical process.  If "its too much
   to ask" you will hear the answer "no".
   
fwiw,

Dick
   

>    That got me to thinking ... is it possible for someone in such a
>    relationship to be an "unselfish lover"?  Don't lovers *always* have
>    needs which must be fulfilled by the other partner?
    
    Yes.  Yes.
    
    Symbiosis is the secret word for the day.  The whole point of a truly
    whoop-whoop-whoop relationship is that one's own needs naturally
    include the exquisite pleasure of satisfying the other's, and
    vice-versa, until everything is a veritable angel hair pasta primavera
    of satisfied needs and you can't even remember which was whose first.
    
    Not to sound mushy or anything,
    Ray

    I love .8
    
    That's what I thought Love meant.  But sometimes, it seems love only
    lasts until what you ask for can't be fullfilled by your partner. 
    That's when "hate" seems to set in for both.

    re.8
    
    not necessarily. I myself beleive in soemthing different: if your
    feeling of love for the partner ends, BECAUSE he can't fulfill your
    needs anymore, you maybe never loved him for beeing himself, but just
    for selfish reasons. Love can't be taking - it must be giving. 
    
    It looks like many poeple don't see the difference between taking and
    giving. If you start to hate your partner for not fulfilling your needs
    - then you're probably on the wrong side. You love someone for beeing
    himself and not because he/she's the one who will fulfill your wishes.
    
    There's a good saying by a german philosoph:
    
    "You are truly loved where you can be weak without provocing your
    partners strength".
    
    Probably this is a lousy translation from German, I hope you understand
    what he meant though!
    
    sascha

    what I forgot to mention in my previous reply:
    
    the giving in a relationship can't end, jsut because the other partner
    can't give you anymore. That would mean your love is totally depended.
    Love is an undependend feeling and doesn't necessarily mean that you
    will get something back.
    
    Very idealistic, and very hard to live up to, but probably true.
    
    
    sascha

    re: .10 (Sasch)
    
         Well, I can agree to a point...love is not about giving or
    taking...it is about giving AND *receiving.*  And what is 
    necessary?  Giving 100% is what is necessary.  For unless each
    partner is giving 100%, the relationship is automatically doomed
    to fail (it may fail for other reasons, as well.)  In a relationship,
    there will be a "mirror" effect.  If the partner is only *given*
    80%, then the mirror will reflect 80%.  That 80% then gets pushed
    back out again but comes back as 80% of 80% (or 64% of the original.)
    On onward on downward...which escalates in the case where neither
    partner is willing to give 100%.
         Similarly, if not allowing the receiving, then the energy can
    never get reflected back.  This is how to AVOID synergizing.  
    Synergy can only happen when each partner gives 100% and is willing
    to receive 100%.
         As for receiving "something back," it will happen if one is open
    to receiving.  This does not mean one has to look for it, nor take it,
    nor demand it from the other...but simply that it be there.  
    Yes, unconditional love is where the love goes out because of desire...
    not because there are "conditions" on the love "I'll only give you
    this if you promise to be devoted to me, or unless you give me money,
    or unless you give me sex, or unless you aren't foolish, or unless..."
    Very few, if any, human beings love unconditionally.  It would be
    smarter to recognize that we are limited in our capacities, that we
    *do* love conditionally, but that unconditional love *does exist*
    and that as an ideal it is what we should strive for.
    
    Frederick
    

    A number of the replies have been like 
    
    	if XXX then maybe it wasn't "love"
    
    
    The word "love" is so thoroughly abused by so many people for so many
    good and bad reasons that it doesn't communicate anything to anyone
    anymore.  Everyone has his or her own definition which he or she
    assumes is meant by the other person until something brings them up
    short against reality.
    
    Wake up!  When people start talking about "love", listen real hard. 
    Are they really trying to communicate or are they just trying to sell
    you something (possibly themselves?).  Just when we are talking about
    "feelings" is when we must be our most analytic and suspicious.  It's
    sad, but true that there are more people out there trying to exploit
    you than there are trying to help you.  Take care of yourself!
    
    fwiw,
    
    Dick

	re.-2

    Frederick, some wonderful words from our spiritual guide (Lazaris).

	thank you, and also this surely fits if you are loving yourself
   as well.
    
	Have a nice weekend,

	Mikki

    re: .14 (Mikki)
    
        Yeah, the words are great...if one parrots them long enough,
    eventually they seep in, even through a tough, hard crust like mine!
    
    ;-)
    Frederick