Section III: Philosophy of love part I and II

AKA: SEX SEX SEX; The folly of pseudo-love and why through self deception; self un-fulfilment; infidelity and suicide (and/or) Homicide it WILL Ruin Your Life

The power of self honesty, it’s a choice.

Do you want to acknowledge, at least to yourself, that such dynamics are a pretend game nearly all of which will end and that you already believe this whole heartedly in your heart of hearts

OR

If you’d prefer to transmute that into self deception, poor mental/physical health and projected rage at the loss of any hope for real love while you run such a fraudulent system so completely blindly.

You can choose either.

It is up to you, of course. But the realities are as they are.

Infidelity rates. Divorce rates.

The fact that there simply has to be a long list of assumptions, favourable extrapolations and just down right false information that you have ineptly applied to this talking manikin.

Which is fine; just don’t then shed a tear when the bluff is called. Because only a fool could believe such a set up. Surely that is not unkind?

I don’t want to be accused of being heartless. Hell, I’m a hopeless romantic. I’d risk everything for love! But there is risk, and then there is stupid. What is romantic about being stupid? Drawing (favourable) conclusions not in evidence. Actually, where in life at all is this a good policy?

I mean, don’t get me wrong: I would do anything for love. But I won’t do that.

Moreover I couldn’t. My mind wouldn’t allow it. I wouldn’t believe it.

Am I the only one who thinks it would be far more romantic to call “love at first sight:

“Opportunity with lust inspired by a character who meets the criteria from past conditioning for me to rate their social status and appearance as adequate enough that I can fill in the blanks for all other criteria based on best case assumptions until further notice”?

Just me huh? Weird.

Yes, truth is rarely “romantic” per se because romance is a lie.

Romantic love is a term for dominance and control over one another (originally targeting women) with Church and Hallmarkian mandate.

This may be sound crazy, but if you are looking for companionship with another person worthy of the term romantic “love” then there is no “age”, there is no “status” and there is no lying to yourself (when you can catch it) and most of all: YOU MAY ACTUALLY HAVE TO FRIKING GET TO KNOW THEM.

And probably more than a spattering of months or an on off few years can tell you.

I warned you it may sound crazy.

Philosophy of Love Part II

Philosophers in love

And if you are serious in comparing notes while sharing in exploring life: there is no single classical “commitment” to a partner.

Rather, I would go as far as to say if you want love and to be loved: then there can not be these things.

Indeed, philosophers often tend to have massive age gaps (honestly too many to go into). Usually the partner the junior to the philosopher and up to 40 years difference is not uncommon.

Also open relationships with a ‘primary’ designation of love for their base companion.

This is why people get lied to regarding infidelity. When they pretend this isn’t our only life (or choose to forget it) and default to a template.

They leave a free agent no option but to not share with them honestly. Even should they wish to.

Rousseau said “Man is born free, yet everywhere he is in chains”.  He applied this to committed relationships adding on the falseness of what people call love: “if people saw what ‘was’ in what they claim to love rather then what they ‘want’ to see: there would be no more [claims of] “love” in the world.”

Bravo! Certainly what passes for love in the world would largely be extinct.

Rousseau also liked to be spanked, due to conditioning from his maid disciplining him when he was a child. Well…bravo again!

Rousseau also liked to hide in the odd dark ally and leap out at passersby’s with his ye olde wang out. Well, brav…hmmm.

Alright, this is where I leave him. But it’s where I’ll leave you too if you don’t start waking up to yourselves: in the same ally with Rousseau on flashing night.

J.J.Raphael (2012). Philosophy of Love Series. The Journey Chronicle in Letters and Science, First published Issue 8 (11). 4th Edition (Current Ed 9th).

About J.Chron.Ltt.&Sci. [JRR]

~CogSc (Humour); NeuroPsych; Philosophy (Death/Identity); Methods (Research); Intelligence/Investigation (Forensic); Medical Error~
This entry was posted in Chronicle Core and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Section III: Philosophy of love part I and II

  1. Pingback: Cancer Womans Relationship Needs Assessment On Attitudes Toward Love | Emotional Forgiveness

Become part of the journey. You will be welcomed by the others and your comments thoughtfully considered.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s