On just what the thirteen-times married woman (or man) might be doing, ponder the following (I like biological explanations):
The spotted predatory katydid, Chlorobalius leucoviridis, a species of bush cricket common across the arid interior of Australia, has a unique talent. It snares male cicadas by imitating the female response to their songs, making it the first known example of acoustic aggressive mimicry. Most examples of mimicry are a form of defence. Innumerable insects camouflage themselves as leaves, flowers or twigs, or pose as unpalatable species to escape predators. Aggressive mimicry is more malevolent: this time it is the predator that fools its prey, luring victims with the false promise of food or sex. The most famous examples are bolas spiders, which produce fake female-moth pheromones, and predaceous female fireflies, which mimic flashing females of other species. Is this the time to invite all those out there to a night at Luigi's followed by a swooning lurve-song? All for the sake of scientific exploration of the emotions, of course! On 28 Sep, 17:15, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > The love of a thirteen times married woman? I sense an experiment > here - many whores (surely not the right word) in Africa have the > 'love' experience 7 times a night, thus providing a big statistically > representative sample of such a woman very quickly. One has to be > capable of loving each and every one of them and not in the sick joke > sense. Love has to be this deep or it is not love at all. Presumably > such love is not that of the dire exploitation and little, if at all, > related to the 'reasons' for marriage or prostitution or 'pleasures'. > Sartre had it that emotions existed without explanation. I feel this > is too strong, yet makes some point. Some work is now being done on > the role of emotions in our thinking - linking disgust to morality > being one area. No doubt my government will be professing to love me > as the election comes forth. > > The thirteen-times-failed woman might be a better bet for love than > the gawping, pouting 'virgin' of advertising pornography - at least > having found out 13 times what love ain't - though my general > experience suggests all that is learned is how to get into the same > mess again with the deceiving and self-deceiving tricks of the swoon. > Love can be so consuming that nothing else can be worthy of loving as > one is deceived into 'one-way narcissism' . Even those of us not > dismal enough to have sunk into this are still led to expect something > really special in relationships so ordinary most people manage to have > them. > > I'd guess that our reasoning is split into two pathways, rather like > the sympathetic and para-sympathetic nervous systems - one is quick > are largely not conscious to the inner individual, the other slower > and reflective-rationalising. There is some 'timestructuring' from > the toe-dipping to the deep end and intimacy (this has taken our new > cat about 6 months). Yet what is intimacy bought from a prostitute or > our marital versions of it - or bought by the privacy in which the > squalid world is shut out? What might emotions be in a world not as > squalid as this one or in the moment of hugging a tree as so much more > preferable than human contact? > > I would be vulnerable enough to love all - but could not resist > putting Slip on the high ground with the sniper rifle in case not > everyone shared my 'trusting nature'. > > On 28 Sep, 15:22, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I think that is Whitehead's point, the emotions are grounded in the > > body experience. In the case of the hungry infant, both are possible, > > in Whitehead's view. > > > On Sep 28, 10:15 am, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Well I know the feeling when he died ,, well good riddance to another > > > weirdo. He and his life has little bearing on mine, just a person of > > > little > > > interest and if that is indifference,, then lit it be.. > > > > imo the baby crying is a food mantra.. and boy does it work in the > > > greatest > > > majority of cases > > > Allan > > > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 3:38 PM, [email protected] < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > My wfie woke me up just to let me know that he had died, i muttered > > > > good and then rolled over and went back to sleep. > > > > > Is indifferance an emotion, I wonder, or is such indifferance caused > > > > by other emotions I wonder? > > > > > On 28 Sep, 14:30, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Not talking about lust or love but of emotional depletion. Again it's > > > > > subjective and I could not possibly comment on your personal emotional > > > > > levels nor that of any other so the generalization is apropos. Most > > > > > of what you've commented on so far has been from a personal > > > > > perspective. So what you are saying is that it is impossible that > > > > > someone could be void of a certain emotion, that emotions are to a > > > > > degree involuntary. When Jackson died did everyone on the planet > > > > > break down in tears or were there some who just shrugged the 'oh well' > > > > > expression? > > > > > > On Sep 28, 6:29 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Slip, to me, it appears that you are more talking about lust than > > > > > > love. And, even ‘romantic love’ is a confused term and a misnomer > > > > > > as I > > > > > > see it. So, I think we are not meeting on common ground. By the > > > > > > way, I > > > > > > am not saying that people are not knotted up and in a confused state > > > > > > with their feelings and appetites, thus feeling stuff like you > > > > > > imply. > > > > > > I just do not equate such quagmires with the term ‘love’. > > > > > > > Your hypothetical about my skepticism, while possible, more likely > > > > > > would not only not happen but from the start I would know ‘who I was > > > > > > with’ and there would be no confusion about a relationship and > > > > > > associated feelings. > > > > > > > When I contemplate the term ‘love’, I am considering seeing the > > > > > > ‘equal’…and, such a state can also exist in the heart omnipresently > > > > > > too. So, perhaps our current issue is a semantic misapprehension. > > > > > > > So, to me, IF what, for lack of a more accurate term, ‘real’ love is > > > > > > no longer felt, I do consider the person impaired, no matter their > > > > > > history. In fact, IF one had defended against it, based on > > > > > > historical > > > > > > experiences, this is exactly the malady. > > > > > > > On Sep 27, 10:31 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Before you decide to jump in? I thought you jumped in already :-) > > > > > > > > I said earlier that emotions are subjective. > > > > > > > > Yes, given enough people all of the above can be found, I think > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > would be understood. > > > > > > > > A person who does not allow? Never said that a person doesn't > > > > > > > allow > > > > > > > the emotion. I said that the person just doesn't feel it anymore. > > > > > > > Your crossing wires with someone who for whatever reason, possibly > > > > > > > hurt feelings, will shun love and someone who has had numerous > > > > > > > love > > > > > > > relationships that either failed, disintegrated or ended by some > > > > > > > tragedy. This does not render the person impaired because the > > > > > > > emotion just isn't there anymore. I'm sure that if you met a > > > > > > > woman > > > > > > > that was married 13 times, who claimed she was madly in love with > > > > you, > > > > > > > there would be some skepticism on your part as to whether she was > > > > > > > feeling the emotion. A person who does not allow certainly has > > > > > > > some > > > > > > > issues. > > > > > > > Love, aside from having many facets, is a very complex emotion. > > > > > > > We > > > > > > > really shouldn't confine it to romantic love for the sake of my > > > > > > > assertion. One could love a certain food for years but one day > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > doesn't have the taste for it anymore. I'm sure there are other > > > > > > > examples, be creative Orn. > > > > > > > > On Sep 27, 11:51 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > “… If you are implying that that experience renders a person > > > > unhealthy > > > > > > > > I would have to disagree.” – SD > > > > > > > > > Well, I wasn’t exactly implying stuff, just asking what your > > > > > > > > actual > > > > > > > > view is before I decide to jump in. Sadly, what you mean to say > > > > > > > > remains mostly opaque to me. So, as I put my toe in and make > > > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > statements and questions, let’s both realize that I’m not sure > > > > > > > > of > > > > what > > > > > > > > you are meaning to say. > > > > > > > > > IF your above ‘that experience’ equates to not feeling love, > > > > > > > > then > > > > yes, > > > > > > > > I would say such a state IS unhealthy. However, here the obvious > > > > issue > > > > > > > > is that precious few people hold the same ideas about what love > > > > means! > > > > > > > > So…we have at least a double whammy here Slip. > > > > > > > > > Some of the words that for me, when taken all together, produce > > > > muddy > > > > > > > > water in your last post include: “somewhat dormant”, “in essence > > > > > > > > nonexistent”, “void of certain emotions”, “rarely evident”, > > > > > > > > “tune > > > > it > > > > > > > > out”, “don’t feel it anymore”, “nonexistent”. Yes, I know, it > > > > > > > > IS a > > > > > > > > complex situation and few of the above listed notions convey the > > > > same > > > > > > > > meaning, at least not to me. Perhaps you are implying that given > > > > > > > > enough different people, all of the above can be found? > > > > > > > > > Anyway, assuming some level of understanding here, upon what > > > > > > > > basis > > > > do > > > > > > > > you continue to assert that a person who does not allow > > > > > > > > him/herself > > > > to > > > > > > > > feel love is in fact healthy rather than impaired? > > > > > > > > > On Sep 27, 6:50 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Your close but you added 'full' which changes the implication. > > > > I'm > > > > > > > > > suggesting that there are specific emotions that, when > > > > experienced > > > > > > > > > over a course of time, can become somewhat dormant and in > > > > > > > > > essence > > > > non > > > > > > > > > existent. I know that personally I may be void of certain > > > > emotions or > > > > > > > > > at least they are rarely evident. I think that after so many > > > > > > > > > experiences with a certain emotion people can simply tune in > > > > > > > > > out, > > > > > > > > > which is very common with love. After getting burned enough > > > > times, > > > > > > > > > people just don't feel it anymore. Many people just go > > > > > > > > > through > > > > the > > > > > > > > > motions for the obvious benefits but the emotion is non > > > > > > > > > existent. > > > > If > > > > > > > > > you are implying that that experience renders a person > > > > > > > > > unhealthy > > > > I > > > > > > > > > would have to disagree. > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 27, 8:26 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > "... We react differently to the same stimuli > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
