On Material Relationships

General discussion about the Elder Race, Life, the Universe and Everything.
User avatar
Gopi
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:58 am
Location: Salt Lake City
Contact:

On Material Relationships

Post by Gopi » Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:19 am

This has been a topic of curiosity ever since I started watching English movies and got acquainted with other cultures, and the years have more or less showed the same thing.

Coming to the first thing, what exactly, IS a relationship? Or to put it in Reciprocal system terms... it can be viewed in two ways: what it is, and what it does. In general, I find that the vocabulary of relationships is totally focussed on what it does... it serves to satisfy complementary structures, it serves to do something else... etc. I'll use language to convey examples.

Look at the lingo surrounding it: "That relationship isn't working out well", "How is your relationship going?", "We gotta make this work" ... or "This isn't working". Even, sometimes, things like "Do not mix business with relationships" etc etc. Happens not just between spouses and the like, but between family, and friends, and just about everybody.

The quality which amazes me here is, how often relationships are viewed as THINGS, or machines that can "work". Is it the same old mechanistic world-view hanging in there, as compared to a Universe of Motion? How can a relationship be "made to work" or "break up" otherwise? Or if it is just one of the views, how would it look from the complementary view point?

In Indian culture, and from what I know, in certain African and Native American cultures, the view is different. Suggest to a young Indian a question like "How is your relationship with your parents working out?" (I may be a bit off here, but you get the idea) and after his eyebrows have descended from the hair in which they had got lost, he might ask you "Of course it is great, but why on earth would you ask something like that?" Referring to a relationship as "it" would itself be preposterous, a more accurate question would be "What do your parents think about this?" if there is a topic of argument. The relationship, per se, is not usually called into question, as a thing.

From what I understand, interactions of the body, mind and spirit at different levels give out a huge orchestra of music, which are the best analogy for relationships that I can think of -- in the wave form. And ... AH, even music is replete with those references: "You play this piece, I'll play that piece" :) The sounds are never lost... two notes may go together or not, it may be music or noise.

In addition to the idea of viewing a relationships as a working machine, it brings along with it that by doing something, one can "fix" it. Examples like attending important sport events, "having a talk", or gifts, come to mind. And if it cannot be fixed, it is voiced as being "beyond repair"!!! If a relationship is viewed as a verb, then it is not something you can modifiy by another verb, i.e. by doing this or that, coz verb to verb is not motion. But verb to noun IS motion, hence you can improve (note, I did not say mend) a relationship by being a different person.

Does this make sense to any of you?
It is time.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 4081
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: On Material Relationships

Post by LoneBear » Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:45 pm

Gopi wrote:The quality which amazes me here is, how often relationships are viewed as THINGS, or machines that can "work". Is it the same old mechanistic world-view hanging in there, as compared to a Universe of Motion? How can a relationship be "made to work" or "break up" otherwise? Or if it is just one of the views, how would it look from the complementary view point?
That's a very interesting observation--never even occurred to me that a function-object equivalence was being made in the realm of relationships. But you are exactly right.

I suspect that the "relationship as a thing" concept appears in industrialized societies, where people are literally treated as gears in a mechanism; employment in a corporation. Corporate relationships have to be forced into working together, regardless of the people involved. You do your job, regardless of the magnitude of idiot you have to do it for. And with the economic problems these days, where women are now required to work a full day to help maintain the family. They, too, have become nothing more than gears in the machine. I suspect in India that women are not entrenched in the "career" mindset, and still care for family as first priority? After all, it takes two "gears" to grind out a "relationship".

What you say seems to be a recent change in America. My grandparents never had to "work" at a relationship; their marriage was just like you describe in India. But go out dating these days and that's the first thing you hear... we have to try to make this relationship "work", as though it was never meant to be, and like the corporate interactions, must be force-fit.

Quite interesting.

User avatar
Paduwan Sagar
Indagator
Indagator
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 9:42 am
Location: India
Contact:

Re: On Material Relationships

Post by Paduwan Sagar » Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:52 pm

The closest analogy to relationships anybody would think of is bonding in Chemistry.
This has happened so many times, where science and life coincide, which shows how much they are inter-related. Like, repulsion of unlike poles, or friction between uneven surfaces ("They both can never get on well together!") or attraction ( "Oh, he is so magnetic!"). Just an intriguing fact, though not related to the subject.

Now, thinking in chemistry terms, relationships are very similar to covalent bonds, where they share each other's electrons ( feelings - disappointment, happiness, thoughts etc.,) just like two caring or made-for-each-other friends. Sometimes, co-ordinate bonds form, like a rich friend going and pacifying a poor child in the slum, and not expecting anything in return.

People make relationships, just like atoms make bonds, to make themselves stable. In doing so, they'll have someone to share their feelings with. And this depends on the electrons they need, or the electrons they have in excess, and they fit with others accordingly. Here, it is the level of thinking or maturity. "Such a talkative kid can never be friends with such a silent child as him."


Just having some fun. :)
Rediscovering Myself.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 4081
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: On Material Relationships

Post by LoneBear » Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:07 pm

Paduwan Sagar wrote:Like, repulsion of unlike poles, or friction between uneven surfaces ("They both can never get on well together!") or attraction ( "Oh, he is so magnetic!"). Just an intriguing fact, though not related to the subject.
Well, they say that sex is nothing more than "friction between friends"... :)
Paduwan Sagar wrote:People make relationships, just like atoms make bonds, to make themselves stable. In doing so, they'll have someone to share their feelings with. And this depends on the electrons they need, or the electrons they have in excess, and they fit with others accordingly. Here, it is the level of thinking or maturity. "Such a talkative kid can never be friends with such a silent child as him."
In the Reciprocal System, the atom has no chemically active electron clouds... it is all a matter of the rotational motions of the atom itself. Bonding is just a result of the canceling speeds, kind of like rolling a ball down an "up" escalator... if it rolls down at the same rate the stairs are lifting it up, it appears to be stationary to the outside view.

What Gopi's treatise brought out for me was to question if a "relationship" IS an objective thing that can have attributes, or is it like Larson's atom... in chemistry, the RS has magnetic and electric rotating systems that create a net motion of the atom. The bond is when the net motion between them is zero--they stop moving with respect to one another and "couple" into a molecule. In the psyche, the "rotating systems" are the neurotic structures--those pulls and pushes we have towards things. So if the relationship is like Larson's chemical system, then it is basically just complimentary neurotic structures balancing each other out--a property of each individual, not the "aggregate" (the couple).

I guess you should say, "a couple IN relationship", rather than "a couple IN A relationship".

It is not unprecedented; Larson discovered that "heat" was a property of the atom, not the aggregate, which as you pointed out is analogous--friction causes heat.

Fr. Tim (an early "Guru" of myself and Zenmaster) described the process as, "Relationships are created and maintained for the satisfaction of complimentary neurotic structures. When satisfaction is not forthcoming, the relationship is terminated."

The Greeks defined three forms of relationship:
  1. Eros: fast and fleeting sexual attraction, like electric charge.
  2. Logos: a mental attraction between long-time friends, like magnetism.
  3. Agap

User avatar
polonious21
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: On Material Relationships

Post by polonious21 » Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:41 pm

I don't think a relationship itself should be "worked on" at all. It is all the other things in life that could sabatoge your relationship that you have to avoid or confront. And of course they say that if you are doing something you love, it never feels like work ;). Or you could look at it from the position that there is not relationship entity. A relationship doesn't exist because it is a noun describing a serious of emotions and communication. how could you work or improve that? It's only an observation. Buying flowers, going to a movie, meeting her parents... all those aren't working on your relationship. Those things themselves could work to better or worsen your relationship.
The minute you think you need to work on your relationship is the minute you realize it has been over for a while already. A relationship between people is like a force of nature. It's construction mimics the natural construction of the universe. If you believe in a higher power its not completely in your control anyway. You can no more "work on" a relationship than you can work on the sun providing the earth light, or water quenching the thirst of the world. Consider this "The sun never says to the earth 'you owe me.' Look at a love like that, it lights up the sky."
To love is Divine

User avatar
Arcelius
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 534
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: On Material Relationships

Post by Arcelius » Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:26 pm

polonious21 wrote:The minute you think you need to work on your relationship is the minute you realize it has been over for a while already.
Very well said!
polonius wrote:A relationship between people is like a force of nature. It's construction mimics the natural construction of the universe.
Lonebear wrote:I guess you should say, "a couple IN relationship", rather than "a couple IN A relationship".
It is possible to create a "relationship" between 2 or more people that is independent of the people themselves. In quotes because most people do not have a relationship in this sense and I can't think of a better word. In this sense, a relationship has a life of its own sending/receiving from 2 or more entities. Such a relationship extends well beyond death. For example, you may (or may not) see this kind of relationship in certain magical groups (East and West) and in nature.

Alluvion
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 12:37 pm

Re: On Material Relationships

Post by Alluvion » Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:34 pm

A relationship between people is like a force of nature.
I think this is how it feels when the unconscious seizes seizes the personality in an effort to flush out neuroses from the personal unconscious via the catalysts of that potential relationship. IMO the most honorable 'work' of a romantic relationship (eros/yin unconscious state)is to be each who you are so to provide that catalyst for the potential for dissolving these illusions.

It would seem that the unconscious 'male' romance would be automatically eros/yang, while the unconscious 'female' would be eros/yin - where the initial attraction shows up in a sexual way, where magnetism/chemistry/primal forces really stir the body to action, so to say (and the body is a repository of unconscious seeds fed by the water of emotions and the heat of being).

But in terms of 'things' or 'actions' one could consider their temporal/spatial proportions - things are spatially very strong, and they exist as objects in a shared world like the body. People who have world views with such gravity towards things would learn better if those things acted like the body, reflecting unconscious catalyst so that they can be dealt with. However, since inanimate things do not tend to reflect in such a way, it is easy to get lost in the many-ness of objects, especially their scale (america! we love big!) as reflecting eros/logos/agape (consider ye the cathedrals of the dark ages or the palantine hill in rome).

Its easier for me to extrapolate from the western 'thing' view where the relationship, though in tangible, is still a 'thing', and comes with lots of contracts, both expressed and unexpressed (unconscious) that resolve to make real this un-thing.

So much to think about, just kind of spewing forth here.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 4081
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: On Material Relationships

Post by LoneBear » Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:42 pm

So, if a "relationship" is a thing... can it be created, or must it be found?

User avatar
Gopi
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:58 am
Location: Salt Lake City
Contact:

Re: On Material Relationships

Post by Gopi » Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:09 am

Polonius wrote:I don't think a relationship itself should be "worked on" at all. It is all the other things in life that could sabatoge your relationship that you have to avoid or confront.
Sabotaging is the external act, again viewing the relationship like a machine that can be messed with. Maintenance, repair, or protecting it from someone who is running at it with a hammer... it all amounts to "work", in my opinion.
Polonius wrote:Buying flowers, going to a movie, meeting her parents... all those aren't working on your relationship. Those things themselves could work to better or worsen your relationship.
I agree... they are merely the opportunities, but not actions in themselves.
LoneBear wrote:The Greeks defined three forms of relationship:
1. Eros: fast and fleeting sexual attraction, like electric charge.
2. Logos: a mental attraction between long-time friends, like magnetism.
3. Agap
It is time.

User avatar
polonious21
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: On Material Relationships

Post by polonious21 » Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:37 am

Hmm, my little voice says "too much thinking, not enough feeling"
To love is Divine

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 4081
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: On Material Relationships

Post by LoneBear » Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:52 pm

Gopi wrote:Sabotaging is the external act, again viewing the relationship like a machine that can be messed with. Maintenance, repair, or protecting it from someone who is running at it with a hammer... it all amounts to "work", in my opinion.
If Oxygen had consciousness, it could sabotage it's electric rotation by slowing it and disguising itself as Nitrogen... hence pushing away any bonded element attached to that rotation because it would now have a valence of -3 instead of -2.

When a person grows and learns, they change their "valence" and the bonds they form--if not growing as fast or in the same direction--will force them to move apart, and the relationship is terminated.

Chemical addiction can also do this, with conjugate effect--dumbing down!

We see both internal and external sabotage... married guy wants hot babe and changes behavior, which now doesn't match wife as well, so the relationship starts to break down and a new one forms. No different then regular chemistry!
Gopi wrote:
Polonius wrote:Buying flowers, going to a movie, meeting her parents... all those aren't working on your relationship. Those things themselves could work to better or worsen your relationship.
I agree... they are merely the opportunities, but not actions in themselves.
Isn't that just consciously adjusting your "valence" to create a more permanent bond?
Gopi wrote:
LoneBear wrote:The Greeks defined three forms of relationship:
1. Eros: fast and fleeting sexual attraction, like electric charge.
2. Logos: a mental attraction between long-time friends, like magnetism.
3. Agap

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 4081
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: On Material Relationships

Post by LoneBear » Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:08 pm

polonious21 wrote:Hmm, my little voice says "too much thinking, not enough feeling"
Feeling, and the emotional body, are 2nd density functions--that of the anima or soul. Thinking is an attribute of the 3rd density--that of the animus or spirit. 2nd density entities (plants and animals) all "feel" and have emotional bodies, yet they do not make much, if any, use of the intellect. That is what sets humans apart from animals--the ability to think and reason--our 3rd density "spirit" complex.

We've been experiencing "feeling" for uncountable incarnations across millennia of time, as lower life forms (including lower human forms). I prefer to move forward with the lessons of 3rd density to complete this course and continue my education. There is another feeling-based course next semester in 4th density, but since 3rd density is the prerequisite, I'll feel I must think to pass.

User avatar
polonious21
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: On Material Relationships

Post by polonious21 » Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:46 pm

but isn't that most of what a (romantic) relationship is? feeling/emotion? Without feelings and emotions, what are relationships worth? So in the 3rd density, void of emotion and filled with thought, what would the need be for relationships other than to communicate thought?
To love is Divine

User avatar
Arcelius
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 534
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: On Material Relationships

Post by Arcelius » Mon Jul 14, 2008 5:32 pm

polonious21 wrote:but isn't that most of what a (romantic) relationship is? feeling/emotion? Without feelings and emotions, what are relationships worth? So in the 3rd density, void of emotion and filled with thought, what would the need be for relationships other than to communicate thought?
Another possibility is for a spiritual relationship. Feelings and emotions are usually transient unless reinforced by other connections. I have heard a number of relationship "gurus" talk and the key to most of what they say relates to communication. A spiritual connection would top it off. One builds upon the other. Something may start emotionally, grow into a sharing of thoughts, and blossom into spiritual connection.

2nd density = emotions/feeling
3rd density = thinking
4th density = spirituality

To more directly speak to your comment, thinking without any emotions/feeling is like trying to build without having a foundation. However, trying to think when feeling/emotions are running your life is like trying to learn calculus when you have difficulty with arithmetic.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 4081
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: On Material Relationships

Post by LoneBear » Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:52 pm

polonious21 wrote:but isn't that most of what a (romantic) relationship is? feeling/emotion?
Depends on which chakras are active in the relationship. Feelings/emotions in the context you are using them in do not need more than the lower triad. Feelings change with the ability to think, as higher chakras are activated in a relationship.
polonious21 wrote:Without feelings and emotions, what are relationships worth?
Well let me ask you... what was your education worth? That was a relationship between teacher and student, without feelings and emotions.
polonious21 wrote:So in the 3rd density, void of emotion and filled with thought, what would the need be for relationships other than to communicate thought?
Thinking and feeling are BOTH rational valuing systems; in the typical person, feeling is bloated and thinking is starved. The Density of Choice is designed to feed the thinking and get the feelings on a diet, so they can both become vital and healthy within the Individual.

All relationships exist as compliments seeking balance; from atomic valences to major societies. As long as an imbalance exists, a relationship is needed. Doesn't matter what density.

What would be the need for a romantic relationship other than to communicate genetic material to reproduce the species?

User avatar
BlueEagle
Centurio
Centurio
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 7:33 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: On Material Relationships

Post by BlueEagle » Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:06 pm

Polonious21 wrote:So in the 3rd density, void of emotion and filled with thought, what would the need be for relationships other than to communicate thought?
The 3rd density is be no means void of emotion, just it is not void of physical matter. They build on each other. Thinking is the way to understand feelings, but both are valid. However, using feelings alone is dangerous, because we often revert to fear.
LoneBear wrote:Relationships exist as compliments seeking balance; from atomic valences to major societies. As long as an imbalance exists, a relationship is needed. Doesn't matter what density.
As you said Gopi, relationship can neither be created nor destroyed. And I agree with that completely. If two people become divorced, that does not destroy relationship. I certainly think changes it to something else. I have relationship with the people who are walking by me right now. Through body language, psi contact, you name it. And that can be changed into something else.

I also agree with you LoneBear, that relationship exists as a balancing effect. The extent and "depth" of relationship is proportional to the balancing needed. But doesn't an unbalancing of the person reflect the opportunity to grow? Relationship between teacher and student reflects a desire to learn, but not necessarily a bad imbalance.

More poetically;

Our minds, bodies, and souls, are incomplete, there is more to learn. In order to teach us, the Universe uses those around us, to help and guide, or scare, or to hurt, but always to teach. Relationship pulls, just as the sun and moon.
aluxon wrote:2nd density = emotions/feeling
3rd density = thinking
4th density = spirituality
I agree with this. Most people think about things together. But spirituality is hardly part of it. But what does that look like in relationship, between friends, or those in love? I know people who go to church together, but that's not it. Nor does it seem to work.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 4081
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: On Material Relationships

Post by LoneBear » Thu Jul 17, 2008 5:56 pm

BlueEagle wrote:As you said Gopi, relationship can neither be created nor destroyed. And I agree with that completely. If two people become divorced, that does not destroy relationship. I certainly think changes it to something else. I have relationship with the people who are walking by me right now. Through body language, psi contact, you name it. And that can be changed into something else.
So perhaps Ra's "densities" are not the degree of complexity of the atoms, but the degree of complexity of the relationships between things? A higher density means a higher level of consciousness, which means more "links" available to use in adjusting relationships, with the top level being linked to everything... "all is One".
BlueEagle wrote:But doesn't an unbalancing of the person reflect the opportunity to grow? Relationship between teacher and student reflects a desire to learn, but not necessarily a bad imbalance.
I don't think a "relationship" can be quantified as good nor bad in a Natural system; it just "is". It is the subjective valuing system (vMemes) that add the adjective to it... if it wasn't for Mr. Hydrogen and Miss Oxygen getting in a relationship, we'd all die of thirst. We tend to qualify a relationship based on how well it satisfies our need for balance... perfect fit, great relationship. Only a few things balancing out... well, "mistress" time or other friends to juggle around to get that balance back. Then lo and behold, we go and grow some more, and throw the whole thing out of whack again.

That's one of my problems with society--government has taken to being the "balancing agent", and has so many connections to balance, they cannot afford to allow anyone to grow and upset that balance, because they will never recover from it. The basis of most revolutions comes from a government's loss of the ability to balance the needs of society in a timely manner.

A good community will keep it simple, and allow for the fact that people and things grow, in mind, body and spirit, and will have a very basic mechanism to keep an approximate balance--but not a permanent one!

Alluvion
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 12:37 pm

Re: On Material Relationships

Post by Alluvion » Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:56 pm

BlueEagle wrote:
The 3rd density is be no means void of emotion, just it is not void of physical matter. They build on each other. Thinking is the way to understand feelings, but both are valid. However, using feelings alone is dangerous, because we often revert to fear.
but feelings and emotions are not the same thing. I've done lots of seeking on this because there has always been a part of me thats felt the triad of mind/body/spirit was somehow incomplete, and perhaps its just all the Jung i've eaten over the years but there really does seem to be a need for quaternity rather than simply 3 - though perhaps because of 3rd density, one is far more implicit than the other 3.

Feelings/thoughts are rational and consciously applied - they assess meaning and value, and as such are part of how one actively, consciously engages the will.

Emotions are more involuntary, irrational - I think they are related to unconscious contents that become activated by catalyst/archetype/habit and their rise to the surface, when unconscious of them, is much different than when conscious of the way this affection 'floods' over your waking personality. I think, ultimately, that emotions must be interupted by the conscious mind, by the ego, and evaluated in terms of feelings/thoughts - to let them flow unabridged (as I have my whole life until the last year, and as most incarnates never stop doing) is to abstain from the resolution of personal karma, familiar karma, etc etc. If you imagine your self as kind of like a balloon, then karma are like rubber bands around that balloon. Now early in life and lacking self-awareness and so lacking access to your willpower, its like a limp balloon who feels no effects and is not aware of the presence of the rubber bands. But as you engage in living and catalyst brings you to choice after choice, you begin to see yourself in a fuller way - and the balloon fills with awareness/libido/freedom/polarity etc - to continue on this track is to come up against those rubber bands. Emotions are kind of like the spots of tension and the sound s of friction from balloon against rubber band (which of course can pop the balloon).

I'd say letting emotions, which I am defining by nature are magnified from and by and unconscious source, often leads back to 'fear' because our physiological 'baseline' is the will to survive, and fear keeps us on alert for survival.

And I too agree with Gopi - relationships are in 1 of two major categories - conscious or unconscious. The unconscious accounts for your simultaneous relationships with everyone you do not know or are aware of (in time or space) - ie, everything. The conscious part, and it would seem the incredibly smaller portion, are conscious relationships you encounter through being and doing in the world. Some socio-urban studies reveal that most people spend a great deal of their lives within 20 miles of home, usually never leaving or returning often.

But I might disagree that seeing our bodies/mind/spirit's as incomplete is a 'correct' way to view the situation - but thats my framework and mine alone.
I agree with this. Most people think about things together. But spirituality is hardly part of it. But what does that look like in relationship, between friends, or those in love? I know people who go to church together, but that's not it. Nor does it seem to work.
More often people think about things in juxtaposition. Parallel but independent. I volunteer that I've been graced with a very few precious and spiritual relationships in my life. The experience is one of absolute joy in the presence of the other. We can be and feel we should be totally honest. We are not afraid of each other and work to maintain that and honor it. There are some irrational and inexplicable components to this, there are some (irrational) emotions but it doesn't stop there because we provide and maintain a 'fuller' connection with eachother over time. I'd say the spiritual relationship is one where the great fullness of each person is very very present - each individual has emotions and reactions which accompany this that are unique to that individual. In my case the emotions are extremely ecstatic but also sublime - its like being amped but at the same time very clear. Granted, its not always like this as we each have our own karmas and life issues to deal with. But we do a little work on ourselves for that relationship. Between us there is a sense of eternity that is far more tangible than in the 'usual' world relationships, and the infinite becomes a bit more substantial because of it.
That's one of my problems with society--government has taken to being the "balancing agent", and has so many connections to balance, they cannot afford to allow anyone to grow and upset that balance, because they will never recover from it. The basis of most revolutions comes from a government's loss of the ability to balance the needs of society in a timely manner.

A good community will keep it simple, and allow for the fact that people and things grow, in mind, body and spirit, and will have a very basic mechanism to keep an approximate balance--but not a permanent one!
Ever read Huxley's 'A Brave New World' ? The problem is the unconscious nature of it all. Were it a conscious psycho-social construct then polarity would be gained far easier and with less strife because those of us seeking other would be on our own as we desire and those who consciously want the system to work as would willingly apply their own will to the cogs of that operation. Granted this is a very sts vs sto picture but the catalyst of choice would be FAR richer than it seems to be today, if only because of the unconscious nature of the worlds population.

User avatar
BlueEagle
Centurio
Centurio
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 7:33 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: On Material Relationships

Post by BlueEagle » Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:52 pm

Alluvion wrote:Feelings/thoughts are rational and consciously applied - they assess meaning and value, and as such are part of how one actively, consciously engages the will.

Emotions are more involuntary, irrational...
I don't know that feelings are rationally applied. I will say that there is a reason for them, but that reason isn't a conscious action. What are you saying is a "feeling" and what are you saying is an "emotion." In my view, they are the same, but I want to figure out if we are talking about the same thing.

From what I am getting from you, this is maybe what you would say

emotion: fight or flight
feelings: greed, love (talking about this on another thread), hate, gratitude, etc.

I think that these feelings are not always rational. I think that things like hate and greed are based on fear, and that things like gratitude and love are based on survival. However, I am not trying to cheapen the value and impact of feelings. It is upper 2nd density and basic 3rd density stuff. Then we build on it through 3rd density, and by using rationality and thinking, we being to justify, control, and use our feelings instead of just noticing them.
LoneBear wrote:So perhaps Ra's "densities" are not the degree of complexity of the atoms, but the degree of complexity of the relationships between things? A higher density means a higher level of consciousness, which means more "links" available to use in adjusting relationships, with the top level being linked to everything... "all is One".
I always thought that that was the case. The atoms in my body vary in complexity, perhaps because of the complexity of the relationship between the atom and time. Anyway, yes, in a grand thought with out much detail, our relationship with the universe through time becomes more and more linked, till...we are part of the ocean.
LoneBear wrote: A good community will keep it simple, and allow for the fact that people and things grow, in mind, body and spirit, and will have a very basic mechanism to keep an approximate balance--but not a permanent one!
Trying to keep things in balance, is like trying to stop evolution, it is bad for everyone.

User avatar
Gopi
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:58 am
Location: Salt Lake City
Contact:

Re: On Material Relationships

Post by Gopi » Fri Jul 18, 2008 4:33 am

Aluxon wrote:To more directly speak to your comment, thinking without any emotions/feeling is like trying to build without having a foundation. However, trying to think when feeling/emotions are running your life is like trying to learn calculus when you have difficulty with arithmetic.
I find this very appropriate. What I think (and feel!) is that emotions and feelings morph into something very different when you utilize thinking along with it -- they change their state from solid to liquid state, say. The characteristic motion (e.g. H2O) is the same, but the relationship between them is different.
LoneBear wrote:Well let me ask you... what was your education worth? That was a relationship between teacher and student, without feelings and emotions.
Hell, I spent the last semester with Snape at my back!! I wouldn't call the experience devoid of emotions, but just that the focus is not on the relationship, but on learning. After all, Dumbledore didn't fire Snape, nor Hagrid. It appears that relationships form a means to a different end, one which originates in sector three. If we list all the loose "ends":

Material: To exist. Hence it is a form of spatial aggregation: relationships are just chemistry.
Biological: To survive. This is the Yin aspect, where the aggregation is in time, forming the psyche and group mind, necessary for survival. Relationships are family and friends.
Spiritual: To choose. Again the Yang aspect, and now the relationships are aimed at finding out the different aspects of one's own personality (individuation) in order to choose.

And I like Ken Wilber's way of putting it, like holons... the higher function disappears when the lower function is removed, but NOT vice versa. Destroy matter and antimatter, and survival goes out the window, as does spiritual evolution. But if you kill an animal that doesn't mean the matter ceases to exist... it still does.

And looking at the Pyramid of Evolution ideas... it so happens that the greater the complexity, the lesser the number. We have billions and billions of bacteria, for each single human being. That would follow through in case of relationships as well. The number of people utilizing relationships as a way of learning third density lessons would be far lesser than those utilizing them to build families, or social networks, etc. To each his/her own.
LoneBear wrote:What would be the need for a romantic relationship other than to communicate genetic material to reproduce the species?
How about the need for fun? :D This is hilarious, I wonder what a girl would say if I flipped this sentence on a first meeting...
BlueEagle wrote:But doesn't an unbalancing of the person reflect the opportunity to grow?
Indeed... if I could say one thing from my experience, it would be that it is a kind of crash course. You can learn a lot, provided you don't crash! :)
LoneBear wrote:A higher density means a higher level of consciousness, which means more "links" available to use in adjusting relationships, with the top level being linked to everything... "all is One".
Fantastic explanation!!
Alluvion wrote:But I might disagree that seeing our bodies/mind/spirit's as incomplete is a 'correct' way to view the situation - but thats my framework and mine alone.
I wonder... is "completeness" real? Isn't it just a concept paralleling the zero point, or infinity -- just a direction and a perspective?
BlueEagle wrote:emotion: fight or flight
feelings: greed, love (talking about this on another thread), hate, gratitude, etc.
Emotions are second density, feelings are third. I do not know about greed, but the other feelings that you have mentioned seem to be present in plants as well... a guy called Jagdish Chandra Bose has done a ton of research on that.
BlueEagle wrote:Trying to keep things in balance, is like trying to stop evolution, it is bad for everyone.
Unless, I suppose, you are riding a bicycle and using your imbalances to keep you in balance! :)
It is time.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 4081
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: On Material Relationships

Post by LoneBear » Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:18 pm

Gopi wrote:Hell, I spent the last semester with Snape at my back!! I wouldn't call the experience devoid of emotions, but just that the focus is not on the relationship, but on learning. After all, Dumbledore didn't fire Snape, nor Hagrid. It appears that relationships form a means to a different end, one which originates in sector three. If we list all the loose "ends":
Yes, but Snape was teaching you how to mix potions, not how to love your fellow man... in 27 different ways! Your valuing system created emotional context to add to an intellectual program... consider why...
Gopi wrote:Material: To exist. Hence it is a form of spatial aggregation: relationships are just chemistry.
Biological: To survive. This is the Yin aspect, where the aggregation is in time, forming the psyche and group mind, necessary for survival. Relationships are family and friends.
Spiritual: To choose. Again the Yang aspect, and now the relationships are aimed at finding out the different aspects of one's own personality (individuation) in order to choose.
And stage 4, for those who have chosen?
Gopi wrote:
LoneBear wrote:What would be the need for a romantic relationship other than to communicate genetic material to reproduce the species?
How about the need for fun? :D This is hilarious, I wonder what a girl would say if I flipped this sentence on a first meeting...
Here in America it would work as a pickup line... along with those monthly child support checks for the next 18 years!

The "fun" question is interesting... to me, the intellect IS "fun". When Blue, Cointreau and myself were having dinner, we were 99% thinking and having a great time. There may be several forms of "fun"; for me it is fun when everything starts "clicking" and working together; body, mind and spirit.
Gopi wrote:
BlueEagle wrote:Trying to keep things in balance, is like trying to stop evolution, it is bad for everyone.
Unless, I suppose, you are riding a bicycle and using your imbalances to keep you in balance! :)
There needs to be a "balancing function" so you don't get overloaded on one side, tip over, crash, and shut everything off. Just that the balancing function needs a degree of freedom to it; not a rigid line.

Alluvion
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 12:37 pm

Re: On Material Relationships

Post by Alluvion » Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:49 pm

BlueEagle wrote:
Alluvion wrote:Feelings/thoughts are rational and consciously applied - they assess meaning and value, and as such are part of how one actively, consciously engages the will.

Emotions are more involuntary, irrational...
I don't know that feelings are rationally applied. I will say that there is a reason for them, but that reason isn't a conscious action. What are you saying is a "feeling" and what are you saying is an "emotion." In my view, they are the same, but I want to figure out if we are talking about the same thing.

From what I am getting from you, this is maybe what you would say

emotion: fight or flight
feelings: greed, love (talking about this on another thread), hate, gratitude, etc.

I think that these feelings are not always rational. I think that things like hate and greed are based on fear, and that things like gratitude and love are based on survival. However, I am not trying to cheapen the value and impact of feelings. It is upper 2nd density and basic 3rd density stuff. Then we build on it through 3rd density, and by using rationality and thinking, we being to justify, control, and use our feelings instead of just noticing them.
LoneBear wrote:So perhaps Ra's "densities" are not the degree of complexity of the atoms, but the degree of complexity of the relationships between things? A higher density means a higher level of consciousness, which means more "links" available to use in adjusting relationships, with the top level being linked to everything... "all is One".
I always thought that that was the case. The atoms in my body vary in complexity, perhaps because of the complexity of the relationship between the atom and time. Anyway, yes, in a grand thought with out much detail, our relationship with the universe through time becomes more and more linked, till...we are part of the ocean.
LoneBear wrote: A good community will keep it simple, and allow for the fact that people and things grow, in mind, body and spirit, and will have a very basic mechanism to keep an approximate balance--but not a permanent one!
Trying to keep things in balance, is like trying to stop evolution, it is bad for everyone.

I think that thoughts and feelings ARE different - and my current frame of references links emotions back to instincts, the body and basic animal survival programming, however, being that we are are more than JUST animals, the emotions have a greater range and richness. 'Emotional' greed is different than 'feeling' greed because, as I understand it, the first originates in the unconscious and its direct links with the body and is numinous. The second is applied and requires intelligent consideration - in american culture words like 'feeling' and 'love' are used in such odd ways. They are so ubiquitious, unconscious AND ambiguous. If you 'find' yourself 'feeling' a certain way, it is more likely and emotion than a feeling. If you 'choose' to feel a certain way than it is more likely a feeling.

But it seems that the magnitude of the feelings, as with thoughts I am discovering, are linked to the harmonious condition of the psyche. When you are possessed by unconscious contents they have used their links to the body and your ignorance of your own neuroses/complexes/archetypes/etc to engage in system-override, thus bring you to confront catalyst in the outside world where there are consequences to bear on the body, personality and ego.

User avatar
polonious21
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: On Material Relationships

Post by polonious21 » Sun Jul 20, 2008 7:52 am

Gopi wrote:From what I understand, interactions of the body, mind and spirit at different levels give out a huge orchestra of music, which are the best analogy for relationships that I can think of -- in the wave form. And ... AH, even music is replete with those references: "You play this piece, I'll play that piece" The sounds are never lost... two notes may go together or not, it may be music or noise.
I agree. Beautifully put. However I see and feel other people emotions as waves, but the relationships themselves would be the harmonies and dischords throughout the music. Some instruments don't sound right together, one may be brassy and the other very rich. But everyone isn't playing the same piece either :D . It's hard for some people to sit alone on a park bench or in a crowded train station and listen to the music. Sometimes it's deaffening. Now the question is ... who is the conductor, the composer?

I went to two weddings this last friday and saturday. I sat with the brides and grooms before the ceremonies (they were weddings of my father and a close friend). I could feel them radiating emotion; fear, love, stress, excitement, agitation. But when they stood at the front of everyone who loves them, and when the grooms first saw their brides all in white, They were still, content, happy, loving. They beamed. It is always amazing to feel that from a person. It's like a single note being played by two instruments in unison that completely soars above the others. Everything else fades away. Overwhelming. Wow :D
To love is Divine

Alluvion
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 12:37 pm

Re: On Material Relationships

Post by Alluvion » Sun Jul 20, 2008 8:09 am

polonious21 wrote:
Gopi wrote:From what I understand, interactions of the body, mind and spirit at different levels give out a huge orchestra of music, which are the best analogy for relationships that I can think of -- in the wave form. And ... AH, even music is replete with those references: "You play this piece, I'll play that piece" The sounds are never lost... two notes may go together or not, it may be music or noise.
I agree. Beautifully put. However I see and feel other people emotions as waves, but the relationships themselves would be the harmonies and dischords throughout the music. Some instruments don't sound right together, one may be brassy and the other very rich. But everyone isn't playing the same piece either :D . It's hard for some people to sit alone on a park bench or in a crowded train station and listen to the music. Sometimes it's deaffening. Now the question is ... who is the conductor, the composer?

I went to two weddings this last friday and saturday. I sat with the brides and grooms before the ceremonies (they were weddings of my father and a close friend). I could feel them radiating emotion; fear, love, stress, excitement, agitation. But when they stood at the front of everyone who loves them, and when the grooms first saw their brides all in white, They were still, content, happy, loving. They beamed. It is always amazing to feel that from a person. It's like a single note being played by two instruments in unison that completely soars above the others. Everything else fades away. Overwhelming. Wow :D

How do you know that these 'waves' were not your own projections, coloring your perceptions of the waking world as you see fit (consciously and unconsciously) ?

User avatar
polonious21
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: On Material Relationships

Post by polonious21 » Sun Jul 20, 2008 8:29 am

Alluvion wrote:How do you know that these 'waves' were not your own projections, coloring your perceptions of the waking world as you see fit (consciously and unconsciously) ?
I have had a lot of experience with others' emotions. I'm aware of my own feelings as well as the seperate feelings of other people. I know that marriages are never perfect and that that moment of pure love is fleeting. It is in fact a moment, a spark. But for that moment it is true for them.
To love is Divine

Post Reply