On being autistic, Roger Elliot, and romance.

Post Reply New Topic

Imo, we shouldn't be so quick to turn this guy into the "other", because all it does is blind us to the monster that potentially lurks in each and every one of us.

Think I'm being strange here? Feminists speak of the same thing, to stop trying to turn rapists into these alien "others", because it's our friends, our LITERAL brothers, our fathers, our sons...that are these rapists. They're not these recluses hiding away in caves that only come out to rape, they're among us every day...

it was because she found something better than power that she stayed with him. That's what kids teach to their parents, that love flourishes when it isn't coerced, the way she treated him during those times of weakness was learned from the children she had. Through them, she discovered something much better than power, which is what gave her the ability to tolerate his weakness -- it wasn't' strength that she loved after all.

That's the lesson that old age teaches, but not everyone learns it, and I don't need to learn it that way because I'm already aware of it.

And I'm not given up hope, since the reason why I don't better my situation is because I have hope of its existence, even if it doesn't come to me in this life, I still have the next one.

^ I would argue that she treated him that way during his moments of weakness because she knew he was worth it, but at the very least you've got a few decent ways of looking at it, so I'll leave it at that. Best of luck in romance, should that be what you're after!

The possibility of loves comes with my humanity not my ability, if you applied that to your children they're going to be in for a rude awakening when the're at those moments of failure, a parent doesn't stop loving their child on the child's failure. if your child wasn't confident, woud you stop loving them? You might push them to confidence, but that comes AFTER the love.

Passive Aggressive? If I had any hatred for anyone I wouldn't be giving these points, because I think and know for certain that it's EVERYONE thats going to end up right back at where I am before their lives are over, because where I am is questioning the purpose of existance, which is your existence, their existence. If I loved based upon power then the love goes away once the power is done. Younger people have physical and aesthetic power, older people have intellectual, and monetary power, but all of these will have to let all of that go because love can never be coerced. It can only come freely and without a bribe or blackmail. that's what using your confidence to woo another is. It doesn't matter how long it might take, your confidence will waver once your ability is done, and that day WILL come.

Does that mean that your significant other should stop loving you then? If it was rooted in the above illusion, then yes.

Historically love and marriage were often economic or in the case of the elite political arrangements, so even then, even when the couple stays together it's merely preserving the symbol of love, rather then the essence of it, this is why i find it hard to take in couples that have stayed together as concrete proof that love persevered, because the symbol of love isn't love itself. In order for love to be proven a person needs to have the liberty of getting away, if you locked somebody up in a dungeon and told them to love you, that's no more of what love is than rape.

And isn't that precisely what rape is? Using your superior strength to acquire love. It's kind of funny that you can sort of see all of humanities depravity and obsession with power in rape, as if there's a part of us that thinks power = love. When it's in fact, the completely opposite.

And nowadays the divorce rates have been higher than they'v ever been since the stigma behind divorce is all but gone (coercion). And even the ones that stay... how many of those have coercion involved? How many are there for economic reasons, how many remain for fear of reprisal? It's just a nasty, nasty statistic.

^ Most elders help their spouses when they become disabled/too-weak,old (more often old wives helping their old husbands because husbands are typically older) if it wasn't true love they wouldn't have stayed together that long to that point.

Look at the millionaires/models marriages or other cases where it's an obvious deal of money-beauty, their marriages rarely last too long.

Wtf?

If you really believe that rapists gets "love" from this doing then you seriously need mental help.

Most marriages don't survive by that point, in addition there is no liberty in the elderly because they don't have the liberty to do better, if there's no liberty then it's hard for me to see love, because real love can only come freely. Not to say that all of them are like that, but that it's not simple black and white even when the marriage persevered, it's much more complicated.


My comment about rape was illustrating that It's a symbol of man's depravity in using power to acquire love. Sex becomes the allegorical depiction of love, and a man's power over the woman illustrates his belief that his power will acquire her, but it doesn't really acquire her, it might have access to her flash and body, but it doesn't give him access to her soul. My point is using power to acquire love isn't love anymore than rape is.

No, rape is forcing unwanted sexual acts upon a person. There's a big big BIG difference between fostering desirable traits and hence attracting women, and forcing sexual acts upon someone.

C'mon now...

The desireable traits that you've listed all fall under "power" which is what the rapist uses to subdue a woman. Both a rapist and your average joe both acquires a woman through their own power, except that don't really acquire her because real love can never involve force, it isn't concious of what you can do and it's only through a lifetime of weakness, affliction, and then in children that we learn the right way to love.

Dude, anything that allows you to influence your environment can be called "power", you've reduced the term to such nebulousness that it's become completely useless. Also, you're forgetting all about that "consent" thing, however. Call desirable traits "power" all you want, it's the lack of consent that makes a rape (hence unwanted), not the usage of "power". For that matter, it's absolutely ridiculous to call using desirable traits to attract women "force". When I think of force, I think of holding a woman down against her will.

But it is unwanted, in that a love for power doesn't give the spirit what it really wants: unconditional love, those lessons are learnt when power is forcibly striped away from us through age and other afflictions, and it's then when people tend to devalue us because we're no longer 'worthy', because of our lack of power.

It is unwanted, but it's just not realized yet, at the end of every road, and at the end of all things all a person wants to be is loved, and it's in the end of all things that he's at his or her moment of utmost weakness and powerlessness. If humans can get to the realization that power isn't love, then society will b healthier for it.

...yea. I'm just gonna agree to disagree here. Good luck with...whatever it is you're up to. I get the feeling you're gonna need lots of it.

They already did. If you could get to the realisation that humans are human, and will love all they can within that constraint, often to profound length and effect, you might be healthier for it. You're like one of those sketches where a man bends down to pick up his hat from the ground, only to accidentally kick it away from himself every time. Only you're doing it on purpose, yet still cursing your bad luck. You're redefining and attributing all sorts of things so you can, for whatever reason is driving you, proclaim the love you want doesn't exist, and that you realise this somehow makes you a better person.

It seems to me, if the love you wanted did exist, you'd be loved. You are not loved - at any rate, you don't feel so - therefore the love you want doesn't exist. How fortuitous, then, that for you any love anyone else might feel, be it lover or beloved - is actually a lie, a fake, an illusion. And as always, the one who sees through the illusion at least has a sort of wisdom.

Or maybe you could become a monk or something. What denomination are you?

If that were true these forums would be much happier, because the aspie/auties with nothing to sel short of an obsession would have found SO's (or at least managed a few relationships here and there), but that's not the case and if my life is any indication of what they're going through, then it will most likely never be the case, at least not in this world short of some tremendous luck.

I do believe the love that I want exists but I also believe it conflicts with man's corrupt nature, in this world we're severed from the source of that kind of love (God) and only through faith can we reunite with it in the next life, though we can still taste some parts of it through others in this world, (and especially in children). The sort of affection I want is the best and most meaningful kind, the one that children are given from good faithful parents whom expect no reward from them.

It's not convenient of me to see that most relationships start off as flawed because I could sure as well acquire them if I wanted to. it's very easy for me to see my weaknesses and learn to eliminate it through careful planning each day, but it's also very easy for me to see that there is no connection between that and real love.

Ah... denominations just disagree on minor stuff, I'm just plain old Christian.

I'm not religious. Useful metaphor aside, I do not believe in a soul or spirit. So, I try to look at humans in as wide a way as I can, in all their wonder and all their horror. To take them on their own terms.

If the love you talk about existed - this kind of all-encompassing, ecstatic love - there would be no 'significant others'. Everyone would love everyone else the same. Someone who loves without reason has no ground on why to focus their love on one person instead of another. I mean, this is agape, basically, isn't it? Love as agape, and nothing else. No romance, no friendship, no filial affection. Because all these loves are necessarily exclusionary. I cannot be everyone's lover, or friend, or hold them in affection, not least because I cannot know everyone such that I can find in them that little catch of recognition that brings on these feelings. In my world, there is room for all these things, and much as I would like a culture that was more encouraging of, and not embarrased about, love, it certainly exists.

I simply disagree that love is confused for power in anything but a tiny minority - indeed, it takes a particular perversion of one's understanding of love to induce such - and that the love one person has for another is exhausted by the reasons they may give when asked, 'why do you love me?'.

You won't find a romantic relationship that is solely agape. No-one will. It is definitionally impossible, because agape is not eros. This is why I suggested becoming a monk, or something like that.

---


I come back to this every so often. Some interesting, helpful thinking, particularly pertinent here is about 7 minutes in, when he starts talking about Romanticism and wholeness/harmony, and disappointment and 'riding the dissonance'.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfD3X3f5C_w[/youtube]

I believe you've just described heaven in your description there, in heaven there will be no real need for SO's because there wont be a need to preserve and protect the family, since all of what heaven is, is God's family. There's actually a book in the bible that tends to hit on what I'm complaining about, which is Ecclesiastes, if you haven't read it already, it's a very short book in the bible (only like 12 pages or so) and it's where that well-known passage "a time for all things" originates from, but that book essentially brings the focus to God because much of what man does here on this earth is transitory, temporary, or vain. This is the reason why I can't see any value in my worth, because it means nothing in the end, and doesn't give me real unconditional love, it might give me something that feels good, something that might be 'like' the real thing, but its just not the actual thing itself.

You mention that the love would be the same and that is correct, because it IS the same sort of thing because it IS one big family, there wouldn't be a need to exclude others because there wouldn't be any evil. When we learn to see other people as our own children, then we can find enough grace to give them unconditional love, and its this sort of love that gives people the endurance to live life as it should be lived, your third child would be just as loved as the first if you were a good parent.

You'll find when you mentor younger people you unknowingly through no conscious decision of your own begin to project your own child out of them, you don't expect them to be strong, you're trying to make them strong because you care for them, teachers, guide, and wise people from all walks of life do this and they're not short of love because of it, and it's that sort of love that society should come to realize is the very best kind of thing -- one not dependent on power.

Watched the video and while I can see your point about riding the dissonance, but in the end it doesn't give you anything better than what I'm after. which is something the Ecclesiastes remarks on when it states that a fool is going to die just like a wise man will, a rich man dies just like a poor man will etc, it all goes away in the end. But unconditional love doesn't, which is why Ecclesiastes places the emphasis back on God.

But the ones that are closer to God -- closer to unconditional love end up having something much better and lasting than strength, wisdom, or knowledge.

In the end of that video, the speaker is essentially talking about the hedonic threadmill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill), when he says that you can't really acquire that 'wholeness' something that the Ecclesiastes is essentially saying when it proclaims much of man's efforts as a 'chasing after the wind', meaning that by pursing powerful things, you're not really going to acquire that which you really seek, being permanent content or happiness, because that can only be had in God -- his unconditional love (which is what shines through your lover if their love is true, and then trough your children. Because if there's one thing you can count on it's in man's power fading,thus you can't rely on it to give you real love, because real love lasts far past your weakness, and far past your death.

That's why if humans can love each other in weakness, they can taste some of it, or take on forms of the real thing. You can't rely on power to give you what you want, and in your life, if and when you have children, I think you're going to come back towards my line of thinking, because you're not going to love that child based upon his or her abilities.

thank you so much for that--a very wise man. to have a session with such people in a greek forum (marble benches, togas, and all) is a long-held intellectual fantasy of mine (just to sit back and tune in, like a fly on the wall, basking in ideas). i'm strange like that.

"i'm a blues-man in the life of the mind, i'm a jazz-man in the world of ideas...."

ambrosial.

cheers


edit* to add: off to watch the whole documentary now....