Love Horse/Car
#1
Men always complain about the bad things about women, and women say they use these things, to distract from the bad things men themselves do. But I'm a man, and before I ever did anything, women were doing these things. I don't doubt that men were already doing bad things, too. But, it seems, by the time I, not was born, but fell in love, everything was already bad, and not doing anything bad made no difference.
Reply
#2
(09-12-2017, 11:07 AM)rowens Wrote:  Men always complain about the bad things about women, and women say they use these things, to distract from the bad things men themselves do. But I'm a man, and before I ever did anything, women were doing these things. I don't doubt that men were already doing bad things, too. But, it seems, by the time I, not was born, but fell in love, everything was already bad, and not doing anything bad made no difference.

i always thought nobody could help doing bad things sometimes (whatever classifies as such). 
but then what would i know, i´m a woman.
...
Reply
#3
You don't have to do anything bad or annoying or painful, someone will do it. And, anyway, there's attraction in conflict and anger. A woman can reject a man or leave him or sleep around. Those things have their appeal too. You want to get your revenge by loving her even more, and better. Now, that's hate love stuff. But fights are good, and petty clinging to arguments. I don't want to be a woman, and I want to understand women solely in so far as it's a useless passion trying to understand someone. I don't expect a woman to understand me. I expect us to confuse each other passionately and be faithful. If you know something completely you don't have to have faith. I feel getting angry is a good thing. And really angry. People become afraid and their feelings get hurt. But why don't they just enjoy each other's anger like a good thunderstorm? A good thunderstorm with hail. A man's point of view and a woman's point of view are delightful in their differences. Who wants to live in a neutral society of neutral pe

ople doing neutral things?
Reply
#4
(09-13-2017, 10:19 PM)rowens Wrote:  You don't have to do anything bad or annoying or painful, someone will do it. And, anyway, there's attraction in conflict and anger. A woman can reject a man or leave him or sleep around. Those things have their appeal too. You want to get your revenge by loving her even more, and better. Now, that's hate love stuff. But fights are good, and petty clinging to arguments. I don't want to be a woman, and I want to understand women solely in so far as it's a useless passion trying to understand someone. I don't expect a woman to understand me. I expect us to confuse each other passionately and be faithful. If you know something completely you don't have to have faith. I feel getting angry is a good thing. And really angry. People become afraid and their feelings get hurt. But why don't they just enjoy each other's anger like a good thunderstorm? A good thunderstorm with hail. A man's point of view and a woman's point of view are delightful in their differences. Who wants to live in a neutral society of neutral pe

ople doing neutral things?

a man can reject a woman or leave her or sleep around too.
i believe it´s a good thing trying to understand someone. it´s hard to have faith without that.
i don´t know for sure what you mean by neutral but i think doing neutral things is close to doing nothing, so i sort of agree with you there (even though i think you meant something different).
...
Reply
#5
Rational people make fun of religion, but religion is powerful precisely because of those irrational leaps. They're not shortcuts or gaps in logic. Irrationally is the best way to love. Not nonsensically, but without a rational capacity. There are good reasons to love someone, but none of them are good enough. Loving someone for no reason is a higher love. And the more a person drives you crazy the better chances of reaching that higher love. It's not good to understand too much, too often.
Reply
#6
(09-14-2017, 05:45 AM)rowens Wrote:  Rational people make fun of religion, but religion is powerful precisely because of those irrational leaps. They're not shortcuts or gaps in logic. Irrationally is the best way to love. Not nonsensically, but without a rational capacity. There are good reasons to love someone, but none of them are good enough. Loving someone for no reason is a higher love. And the more a person drives you crazy the better chances of reaching that higher love. It's not good to understand too much, too often.


you´re right, it´s not always good trying to understand things. 
how do you love someone for no reason? jesus might have been able to do it.. 
but there´s always reasons i think.
...
Reply
#7
Jesus didn't love everybody, he tried to and he failed. Christian thinkers often think of the crucifixion as some sort of victory. But there was a real failure involved. Jesus wept when someone died. He spoke to God as though he himself had been forsaken. The idea comes through sometimes as: Death on the cross equals everybody wins. Then again, that's a rationalization. A Christian view sees a victory, a Jew sees an absurdity. But altogether these things shine on the crucifixion. And that Jesus was right in loving everyone. Successes and failures are irrelevant. But Jesus was struggling through the ways of God, not the ways of mortal women. So he may have had it easier.

A human society is a realm, outside that realm you're in the badlands, in no man's land. And within human society there's a kind of broken symposium, where things are true and have merit as long as they're useful or understandable. I could make lots of people understand things that make no sense. And that has nothing to do with love. Love doesn't HAVE to do with anything. It doesn't have to do with anything, and in that way it's painful in a comforting way. And inside the realm of human society. So you also get to fight to sustain and protect it. Which is what people want. And what they need.
Reply
#8
(09-14-2017, 08:07 AM)rowens Wrote:  Jesus didn't love everybody, he tried to and he failed. Christian thinkers often think of the crucifixion as some sort of victory. But there was a real failure involved. Jesus wept when someone died. He spoke to God as though he himself had been forsaken. The idea comes through sometimes as: Death on the cross equals everybody wins. Then again, that's a rationalization. A Christian view sees a victory, a Jew sees an absurdity. But altogether these things shine on the crucifixion. And that Jesus was right in loving everyone. Successes and failures are irrelevant. But Jesus was struggling through the ways of God, not the ways of mortal women. So he may have had it easier.

A human society is a realm, outside that realm you're in the badlands, in no man's land. And within human society there's a kind of broken symposium, where things are true and have merit as long as they're useful or understandable. I could make lots of people understand things that make no sense. And that has nothing to do with love. Love doesn't HAVE to do with anything. It doesn't have to do with anything, and in that way it's painful in a comforting way. And inside the realm of human society. So you also get to fight to sustain and protect it. Which is what people want. And what they need.

death on the cross or in other words a sacrifice. that´s an good summary to say that some see it as victory, some as absurdity. 
yes it can be both to die for one´s convictions (and i know i filled that interpretation in, it may not be what you meant). 

not that you have to, but would you care to explain what the ways of mortal women are? (or did you just use that instead of "mortal men" which would be easier to be understood as including both genders?)
...
Reply
#9
I went on a date, and had a wet fart at the table, and my date got disgusted and went home with the waiter. And I somehow was able to make that seem like a victory for me, and I came out the hero of the story. That's how I practice Christianity. . . . You asking me to explain the ways of mortal women, is that part of the joke?

It's pointless to speak of the sexes in an equal way. For all I know what a woman feels for a man could be completely different than what a man feels for a woman. What I take to taste as cherry or strawberry might taste like something like meat loaf to a woman. The way a woman feels when she loves a man might be the way I feel when I see a bus speeding my way while I'm trying to cross a street in high heels.
Reply
#10
(09-14-2017, 11:26 AM)rowens Wrote:  I went on a date, and had a wet fart at the table, and my date got disgusted and went home with the waiter. And I somehow was able to make that seem like a victory for me, and I came out the hero of the story. That's how I practice Christianity. . . . You asking me to explain the ways of mortal women, is that part of the joke?


well you just made it part of your joke


It's pointless to speak of the sexes in an equal way. For all I know what a woman feels for a man could be completely different than what a man feels for a woman. What I take to taste as cherry or strawberry might taste like something like meat loaf to a woman. The way a woman feels when she loves a man might be the way I feel when I see a bus speeding my way while I'm trying to cross a street in high heels.

you pull these differences between genders, they fit much better for each and every individual
...
Reply
#11
The differences between individuals don't matter. They don't need to love each other. Or get along. Or be interested in each other.
Reply
#12
(09-14-2017, 11:03 PM)rowens Wrote:  The differences between individuals don't matter. They don't need to love each other. Or get along. Or be interested in each other.

huh? what about homosexual people? 
and what about the sort of love that has nothing to do with sexual needs and therefore nothing to do with gender? (though i guess the theory of the ways of mortal women is relating specifically to relationships)
...
Reply
#13
When two individuals are attracted to each other they form that masculine-feminine dynamo. Homosexuals have this too, if you need that simplification. The best way to come to appreciate things you've never been interested in is through affection for someone you have little to nothing in common with.

Everybody could just as well be attracted to anyone, despite gender, age or relation. You could move on to other species, and to cars and blankets and food and trees and anything else. But the human realm deals in a social dynamic. You can leave society and do what you want, until society hunts you down.

Sexual needs, like any other need, are part of the reasons for love, and not of the highest love. There's not much difference between romantic, filial or familial and friendly relationships.
Reply
#14
(09-15-2017, 03:28 AM)rowens Wrote:  When two individuals are attracted to each other they form that masculine-feminine dynamo. Homosexuals have this too, if you need that simplification. The best way to come to appreciate things you've never been interested in is through affection for someone you have little to nothing in common with.

Everybody could just as well be attracted to anyone, despite gender, age or relation. You could move on to other species, and to cars and blankets and food and trees and anything else. But the human realm deals in a social dynamic. You can leave society and do what you want, until society hunts you down.

Sexual needs, like any other need, are part of the reasons for love, and not of the highest love. There's not much difference between romantic, filial or familial and friendly relationships.

aha. masculine-feminine dynamo. you know when you are generalizing that much you could leave gender out. there´s no need to attribute the sometimes inequal distribution of power in relationships to genders.
...
Reply
#15
You're the only one who said anything about power. Love has nothing to do with supremacy or superiority or might. It has nothing to do with politics, unless a politics of experience in mutual acceptance and battle. The battles, not between the sexes, but between the masculine and the feminine in each person and in each relationship between two people are the closest to the ideal spiritual battles that replace politics and war. They are higher than cultural wars, and national and religious wars aren't worth mentioning.
Reply
#16
(09-15-2017, 03:41 AM)rowens Wrote:  You're the only one who said anything about power. Love has nothing to do with supremacy or superiority or might. It has nothing to do with politics, unless a politics of experience in mutual acceptance and battle. The battles, not between the sexes, but between the masculine and the feminine in each person and in each relationship between two people are the closest to the ideal spiritual battles that replace politics and war. They are higher than cultural wars, and national and religious wars aren't worth mentioning.


read your own writing again. 

"
A woman can reject a man or leave him or sleep around. Those things have their appeal too. You want to get your revenge by loving her even more, and better. Now, that's hate love stuff. "
"

you want to tell me this has nothing to do with power? power is ability. the woman can do these things, you imply that the man cannot. that is a difference in power. 


"
I went on a date, and had a wet fart at the table, and my date got disgusted and went home with the waiter. And I somehow was able to make that seem like a victory for me, and I came out the hero of the story. That's how I practice Christianity. . . . You asking me to explain the ways of mortal women, is that part of the joke?
"

if that is christianity and victory, where´s the sacrifice and what kind of sacrifice is it?. you can be sacrificed like some animal in the old religions or you can choose to make a sacrifice. the former has no chance to feel like a victory to me. 

anyway i still don´t quite see you want to say with "the ways of women" (i leave out the distinction between mortal and immortal since i don´t know where gendered gods fit into this topic).

together with the thread´s title i come to believe that you want to say the masculine part of a relationship is the horse and the feminine part is the cart as in the man carries all the effort. or i could interpret it as the horse pulls the cart and the cart is fixed to the horse and can´t choose any other way.
yeah, i see that exists, but i don´t believe it´s the one and only way relationships can work out.
.
...
Reply
#17
I wrote about what women can do, they can reject you and sleep around, I don't have to worry about what men do. And the sacrifice in Christianity has no interest for me. The crucifixion seems irrelevant compared to what came before. It's pointless to rationalize about. And I never said anything about a cart.
Reply
#18
(09-15-2017, 08:50 AM)rowens Wrote:  I wrote about what women can do, they can reject you and sleep around, I don't have to worry about what men do.
yeah but some men do.
and it´s kind of trivial that people can reject and betray each other.


And the sacrifice in Christianity has no interest for me. The crucifixion seems irrelevant compared to what came before. It's pointless to rationalize about. And I never said anything about a cart.
the cart was just an attempt to understand your title. it ll stay the only attempt i think.
...
Reply
#19
The opening post doesn't argue in favor of either gender, it does though state that it's coming from a male point of view. A male who has come late in the game, the historical game, and no matter what either gender does, something is going to be construed as bad. The title doesn't say horse/cart, and it doesn't say male-female anything. It says love, horse/car. It could have said horse/bicycle, or horse/bicycle/car. Or Man and Woman horse/bicycle/car. Or Dog-Cat fourwheeler/petchow. Or any number of any things. But it says Horse/Car, so for better or worse there's an evolution, or a real dynamic involved. I won't say it's a good poem. It's not. It's some sentences. But it's a poem for all that, eventually.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!