Perhaps I don't understand what you're trying to say.
That, my good poster is indeed very likely.
<< I guess my problem is understanding how or why one would even consider those traits/aspect/characteristics when choosing a mate? >>
If you don't use physical prowess or appearance, and from your second post don't seem to use mental accuity in searching for a mate, what exactly is it that you look for? A pulse?
I don't "look" with my eyes. I look through the eyes of the heart. What does that mean? It's a complex phrase intertwining aspects of Muslim and Christian theology implying a state of being and experience where one sees with a pure eye a certain "isness". Yeah, try to unwrap that, heh.
<< Unless of course of was a egotist or something similar or only lived for pleasure... Because that may potentially restrict one's range of activites. >>
I guess I'm not quite sure what to make of this. Is searching for a person with a physical ability equal to one's own egotistical? Or does preferring that a potential mate be able to join you in your physical activities mean you only seek pleasure?
Not necessarily. Look at my sentence. If one was egotistical OR lived only for pleasure. Those terms imply absoluteness of motivation, I think. The problem is that different motivation often leads to identical end results. My emphasis was on the means since nobody can account for that but each and every individual. What we see in behavior and in the world is not necessarily the way things are. It certainly is sufficient...
<< I find it too meaningless to even bother with. >>
Selecting a mate or having preferences for what one wants in a mate?
Can be both or neither. Meaning implies attachment to me since it is evaluative. Attachment is necessary but only if it's to the right things and in the right mental state. Both of those actions and movements you mention are usually done the way everyone does them. They do it in only one of the two lives they lead. They do it systematically and based on developed criteria or they do it with a solid foundation and interaction between their two lives. More on this idea since I like the metaphor.
<< Every person is a treasure waiting to be discovered. >>
I agree for the most part.
And I agree with myself for the most part
<< Some things are much more important than all this stuff people think matters. >>
So this brings us back to my question, what does matter?
Does anything?
Ok, ok, enough babble. The way I see it, people live two lives. They live a sort of systemic life where they learn about the world around them and through trial and error develop coping skills and patterns of behavior and interaction. This is what the world sees and this is what they react to. At the same time, there is another life, the life inside of a person with all the associated dynamics. This is what really interests me since yes, I do think this has meaning, but that is my bias as a therapist. This is what becomes important and this is something I attach and commit myself to. This is possibly my evaluative criteria. It forms the basis for any decisions I make. Alot of this includes emotion or a following of the internal system of motivation that I think leads to healthy human behavior. And healthy behavior and states is what I'm interested in. Outward states are often deceiving. Outward appearances of internal states are also often deceiving but for most people this is all they have in areas of experience and interaction. It's a web. We send out our tentacles in one life and grasp on to other things based on their tentacles, sometimes forgetting in the process that there is much more than that, I think. It is that second life that forms solely my concern and has meaning. If it is missing or if it doesn't feel right to me, then I will not pursue a course of action. If there is nothing stopping, then I continue with a course of action. It's a very unorthodox decision making model, I concur, but it's how I do things.
I think the problem here, although it seems that that is likely erroneous, is that people try to classify. I do it, although I usually catch myself recalling that behaviors do not imply mental states. When others do it, their brain needs that to ease processing loads. When this occurs, and when someone like me comes along and says that category 1 is not what I said and category 2 is also not what I said, naturally you will have some problems understanding. Hopefully, this has helped.
Cheers !
That, my good poster is indeed very likely.
<< I guess my problem is understanding how or why one would even consider those traits/aspect/characteristics when choosing a mate? >>
If you don't use physical prowess or appearance, and from your second post don't seem to use mental accuity in searching for a mate, what exactly is it that you look for? A pulse?
I don't "look" with my eyes. I look through the eyes of the heart. What does that mean? It's a complex phrase intertwining aspects of Muslim and Christian theology implying a state of being and experience where one sees with a pure eye a certain "isness". Yeah, try to unwrap that, heh.
<< Unless of course of was a egotist or something similar or only lived for pleasure... Because that may potentially restrict one's range of activites. >>
I guess I'm not quite sure what to make of this. Is searching for a person with a physical ability equal to one's own egotistical? Or does preferring that a potential mate be able to join you in your physical activities mean you only seek pleasure?
Not necessarily. Look at my sentence. If one was egotistical OR lived only for pleasure. Those terms imply absoluteness of motivation, I think. The problem is that different motivation often leads to identical end results. My emphasis was on the means since nobody can account for that but each and every individual. What we see in behavior and in the world is not necessarily the way things are. It certainly is sufficient...
<< I find it too meaningless to even bother with. >>
Selecting a mate or having preferences for what one wants in a mate?
Can be both or neither. Meaning implies attachment to me since it is evaluative. Attachment is necessary but only if it's to the right things and in the right mental state. Both of those actions and movements you mention are usually done the way everyone does them. They do it in only one of the two lives they lead. They do it systematically and based on developed criteria or they do it with a solid foundation and interaction between their two lives. More on this idea since I like the metaphor.
<< Every person is a treasure waiting to be discovered. >>
I agree for the most part.
And I agree with myself for the most part
<< Some things are much more important than all this stuff people think matters. >>
So this brings us back to my question, what does matter?
Does anything?
Ok, ok, enough babble. The way I see it, people live two lives. They live a sort of systemic life where they learn about the world around them and through trial and error develop coping skills and patterns of behavior and interaction. This is what the world sees and this is what they react to. At the same time, there is another life, the life inside of a person with all the associated dynamics. This is what really interests me since yes, I do think this has meaning, but that is my bias as a therapist. This is what becomes important and this is something I attach and commit myself to. This is possibly my evaluative criteria. It forms the basis for any decisions I make. Alot of this includes emotion or a following of the internal system of motivation that I think leads to healthy human behavior. And healthy behavior and states is what I'm interested in. Outward states are often deceiving. Outward appearances of internal states are also often deceiving but for most people this is all they have in areas of experience and interaction. It's a web. We send out our tentacles in one life and grasp on to other things based on their tentacles, sometimes forgetting in the process that there is much more than that, I think. It is that second life that forms solely my concern and has meaning. If it is missing or if it doesn't feel right to me, then I will not pursue a course of action. If there is nothing stopping, then I continue with a course of action. It's a very unorthodox decision making model, I concur, but it's how I do things.
I think the problem here, although it seems that that is likely erroneous, is that people try to classify. I do it, although I usually catch myself recalling that behaviors do not imply mental states. When others do it, their brain needs that to ease processing loads. When this occurs, and when someone like me comes along and says that category 1 is not what I said and category 2 is also not what I said, naturally you will have some problems understanding. Hopefully, this has helped.
Cheers !
Facebook
Twitter