It's easy to point out that we enjoy life only because it will someday end, but I think this might also be applied to other things. Looking back on what I consider to be the greatest friendship I ever had, I think I'm realizing that the reason it was so great was because it was always on the brink of failing. I appreciated every moment of conversation like it might be the last, and that really doesn't compare to the passing conversations I normally had with other friends. So, I guess I am questioning the value of stability. Can the Disney-esque "happily ever after" concept of love match something that feels like it is always about to slip through fingers?

Technically, the argument could be made that we can die at any moment, but despite that being true, we hardly feel that effect.

So, share your thoughts or experiences.

You think that a friendship with somebody you're not close to is better than one with somebody you are?

I don't know how to respond; it just seems ridiculous to me.

hmm, do you have to be forced into appreciating something? Maybe we're taught to take things for granted, but I still can tell somethings worth without the constant threat of it being taken away from me. Perhaps it is a state of mind that would be helpful to adopt though. I try to be careful and really milk the shit out of things already though. And I kind of think maybe it is more common to be attracted to stability? You see relationships where they fight alot and one person or maybe both are always threatening to leave and kind of realize that is all they have. They may not necessarily appreciate or liek the other person, they just hate to have their deeep rooted fear of losing someone or feeling abandoned re-lived. Which usually stems from one or both of their parents departure and absence in childhood. And also some attraction to lives extremes, never having stability in home life, you tend to be a restless adult seeking ways to feel more alive.

I think we should just get an idea about it, and embrace how short life is and kind of live our lives everyday accordingly. But thats just an ideal really. How many people actually adopt a worldview like that without being shocked into it by some tragic event... only to forget about it overtime and return to worrying about mundane things and taking the good stuff for granted.

i think this is the debate between the the "necessary duality" view of things [right:wrong as left:right, each defines the other...kinda like you have two mathematical equations plotted out on a cartesian plane and one is the inverse of the other] and the other view in which a duality is not necessary for existence [there is one equation plotted on the plane, and right and wrong are represented by different points along the curve]

i'm not sure which i believe in, or if i know the arguments correctly

this is nothing like that 'debate'

Anyway, I've had two girl friends whose relationships with me were always on the brink of failing because they liked me and I didn't them, and though I always made the argument that anything we would do together, say to each other would be somehow more important because of that, eventually I realized that it was actually just incredibly annoying because they would make everything so much bigger than it actually was, and I would always be drawn into their inflation.

I stopped talking to both of them. A relationship can only take so many pointless ups and downs and 'almost' destructions. They simply weren't healthy friends to have.

From a psychological standpoint, everything is "forced".

To better clarify for Bolt's case, I'm not talking fragility in the sense that you don't really like each other, or an overly dramatic sense. That's my fault, the words "brink of failing" were a bad choice in my initial post.

I guess, this is more comparable to the way people form the tightest bonds in wars. Or the way people seem to appreciate their parents the most when they're dieing.

The question I'm asking might be: Is it possible to actually care about someone if there was no threat of losing them? And to carry that forward, wouldn't then the most valuable relationships always be the ones at greatest risk?

On a different note, since Spencer brought up duality. I'll throw in another topic. Are love and hate opposing forces?

What risk was your greatest relationship in, exactly?

As far as your question, what sort of 'valuable' are you talking about? I would say the best relationships are forged through shared memories rather than an ever-present fear of dissolution, but I'm still not sure if we're talking about the same thing.

And no, love and hate are not opposing forces. They're both an abundance of emotion and care towards one person, with a very fine line between them. The cliche about indifference definitely applies here.

I say "no". Sure, it's nice to appreciate something, but no one like to feel like something they love can slip away at any moment. We're young here, all within 5 or 10 years of our primes, so it is easy to like it now. What about 40 years down the road? Won't we want some stability? Something we KNOW we can hold on to for life (and possibly thereafter, just to spite the atheists)?

I think my second post did a better job at summarizing the topic. The important question: "Is it possible to actually care about someone if there was no threat of losing them?"

I don't think so. And also, I already think every act is a selfish act, but when you talk about stability like that, it makes it even more abundant.

Yes. Perhaps the degree of caring is affected but it is not impossible.

What makes you think every act is a selfish one?

Thinking about this more, losing someone is always a threat. If you don't realize that and treat someone this way (and something must be said for their appreciation fo you as well) well, you lose.Lasting relationships are hard to come by, 99% of the time after like 6 months we give into romance ideals and get too comfortable and lose the driving force of attraction. This is why I alays try and stay just out of someones reach, or the passion depleats and im taken for granted. It doen't mean I try and start fights or break up wih someone and dramatize things. I just stay independent and demand a certain amount of respect. I also do stuff like switch up routine and cancel plans every so often. I don't want someone to think they have a hold on me. Even if I'm with someone, they should still feel like they have to earn my company, I still want to feel like the prize. And men like to feel rewarded in the same sense. You kind of have to stay on your toes. I have no idea about men though, you're just kind of prey in this game.

It's hard to form a full argument for this, but I don't see how a constant can have a value. Hey, I can add that to my list of reasons to not be religious, a god, as a constant being, can never be given value.

Furthermore, selfish acts?

Biology. The misconception of society is that selfishness is viewed as a purely negative concept. Selfishness is what makes society work.

Alright, this is pretty good stuff. I think you're somewhat demonstrating that a fight for stability is a fight against passion. I would say this does a good job explaining what this topic is about (well, it's really about 10 different things). Although, I don't see how you end with "men are the prey". Men have an urge to possess and dominate, your role is that of the prize. The trick is in continually being viewed as the prize, despite already being won. Maybe this goes both ways?

Doesn't this go against the idealistic concept of what love is? Being there for each other through thick and thin?

Is there a balance that isn't some form of bullshit? I don't see it. Does marriage require a detachment from passion?

There hasn't been a single thing done by man that wasn't selfish.

Largely because it is an emotion. Constant emotion fluctuates enough I can't see why it wouldn't have a value. Everyone is striving for a high tide with it.

The general stance is god is beyond human comprehension therefore you are actually trying to place a value on the windows to each particular holy. Of course you can consider them valueless but why would you decide what humans create to understand their world as valueless?

I seem to remember an argument about this in a seminar once leading the agreement of replacing the word selfish with another less button pushing one.

I don't think it goes against the concept. I think we've just got to let go of all this disney romance crap. It is still definately about being there for eachother but part of that is working to keep things interesting, balanced, etc. It is a hell of a lot easier just to ease in to routine and try to fit that person into the role of saviour and hold them responsible for undoing all the bad that your parents or ex lovers have done to you. Of course they can only fail at that miserably and shouldn't be responsible anyway.I think it takes a lot of dedication and effort( which shows how much you care for the person and want to continue what you've got going on) to really keep your relationship going and grow with eachother and kep your own personal life going on so that you have your own world to bring to the table. The whole game of it can be enjoyed as well, it keeps things interesting and you're doing it because you care about that person and it keeps the passion alive. You're right about the prey thing though, it goes both ways definately. That whole power struggle doesn't have to be cynically viewed as bullshit though, its possible that there is genuine affection, trust and companionship beaneath it... theres just still surface work to keep it exciting and quench our more primal urges as well.

Man before the neurological structure of 'ego' would beg to differ, so bring your shitty aphorisms to another thread.

As for this relationship thing, my view is that boredom will be the end of most relationships. In that way, your view that 'true' relationships can only exist with the ever-present threat of dissolution is slightly off, as the ever-present threat of dissolution is a way to combat boredom and stagnancy within a relationship, but certainly not the only way. The best relationships (and marriages, since you brought it up) never allow the passion to disappear. They shuffle through love, hate, fear, confusion, and bliss, but never through indifference.

A. I'm guessing you define selfishness in some way that means more than simply "self-serving", otherwise, I fail to see how ego is relevant. I guess it is strange to apply a concept of "selfishness" to chemical reactions. Whatever.

B. What do you mean by "before the neurological structure of ego"? Is there such a thing? It's psychological, not neurological. Isn't the main difference in our brain versus simpler animals in the level of retention?

a.
No, I define selfishness as 'for the self.' The ego is the self, and that's how that's relevant.
b. Read The Origin of Consciousness of the Bicameral Mind. The common consenus is that up until two or three thousand years ago, people did not have egos/selves, instead listening to almost schizophrenic messages from 'God,' as animals, and that the freudian, buddhist, whatever version of the self as we know it is a fairly new development in human evolutionary history, evolved as another way of protecting the species. All species attempt to live to procreate through self-preservation, but we're the only ones to actually have a neurological 'self' to preserve. Yay humans!

Do you have anything to say about the part of my post which was actually relevant to the purposes of this thread? I think you're partly right, but not really seeing the alternatives to a threat-of-dissolution as relationship strengthener.

yes it's possible to place a value on something you will never lose. It's an ever-increasing value. As such, it's also possible to live a "happily ever after" life, and I know people that do.

If you aren't aware of "the self" you're even less aware of "other's selves" so your actions couldn't possibly be altruistic. They remain egocentric, but on an unconscious level. I don't think it IS relevant.