I heard something on a radio talk show about 30 years ago that was a real life changer for me. The speaker made the statement that when we fall in love we fall in love with the way we feel about ourselves while in the presence of that other person. You can apply that to any and all kinds of relationships, professional, personal, social.
Oh look a Buddhist site. I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked.
I feel it’s worth noting that after reading all these sites you keep linking, I still have no clear idea what these people mean by the word “attachment”. (And when I tried drilling down through links to find a page, article, something that gave a clear answer, it suddenly stopped serving up pages and asked me for money.)
Regardless, they definitely don’t use the word like humans do and I consider it highly probable that neither you or I know what they mean by the term. So I would caution you from drawing inferences from anything they say that uses the term, until you can be confident you understand what they heck they mean by it. Because unless you do you are guaranteed to misunderstand them and start coming up with wild ideas.
I would also recommend that you not bother learning what they mean by the term, and go hang out with friends instead. I don’t expect you to listen to me though.
I try that but sometimes I wonder if Buddhism is right and it’s not the person I like but the time I have with that person, which makes me sound cold in some manner because I don’t love them but just the times I had with them.
Well, I already aired my opinions on that subject. I love the people themselves, not just the times we have. To the degree that Buddhism may or may not say that that’s impossible to do, my existence disproves it.
Well according this you don’t:
The principle is about the same.
Get professional help to break the cycle of your obsessions.
The problem is the arguments themselves, even the therapist said so.
No he didn’t. He might have acknowledged the fact that the arguments are bad just to get you to stop obsessing and wasting hours of therapy. But he almost certainly didn’t say your problem is the bad arguments. Because it’s not his job to fix bad arguments on the internet. It’s his job to help you manage your obsessive behavior.
Depends, does it have a castagnette?
No they told me it was the arguments. When I shared the above one with him he mentioned that it is true, in that we tend to love the ideas around people rather than the person. I was asking him if he had any counter points to that and he said he didn’t really know. I appreciate the honesty I guess.
But you guys keep calling it bad arguments but don’t really say why. The paragraph I linked seems like an exact explanation of the situation. That you think you love your mother but it’s really care that you like because if she mistreated you then you wouldn’t love her.
It’s similar to liking the time you spent with someone but not the person, or rather projecting one onto the other.
It was the same issue with everything else I posed to him, he mentioned to me the problem was the questions or the subject matter but that he couldn’t really answer them.
You admitted earlier that your fondness for your dog was for her, specifically.
I think the correct answer is “both”: you miss the person and you miss things you did with them.
I strongly recommend that you look at philosophies other then Buddhism. Its teachings seem to upset you and offer you, personally, no value.
I can only speculate, but my sense is that he didn’t want to waste the hour arguing with you about it.
It’s a trite,meaningless statement. Really fucked up relationships (and people) aside, name me a situation in which you would love someone for treating you very badly.
No it isn’t. You loved your dog because she gave you joy and loyalty. There were very specific character traits that you loved about her besides. You’d have loved a different dog just as much and that dog would have some different attributes which you would also love. You wouldn’t likely love a dog that wanted to tear your hand off every time you came near it. What you love is the target of your affection, the affection they show you, the characteristics they possesses/express and the way the entire relationship makes you feel. It’s non-transferable. It’s non-deconstructable. It’s all of it. It’s complicated. That is why the argument that you’re currently obsessing over is a bad argument. It’s simplistic. And that’s the appeal for you. You want a simple explanation, and there is not one.
It’s not a matter of being helpful but trying to have an accurate view of reality and living to what is true.
Except you’re wrong, it’s not a simple argument but one that points out something that I never considered before. Did I really miss my dog or just the times I had. Or if she wasn’t nice would I still like her?
It’s the same with people. DO I like them or just the actions at a certain time. You call an argument trite but don’t take it down, which isn’t a good look. You describe traits, but traits are just these ethereal and transitory concepts,which just proves the guy right in the paragraph. That I like those traits, but not the actual human or animal. Your long paragraph proves his point exactly.
In this sense I wonder if I just project feelings onto an animal that likely doesn’t feel the same. I mean she didn’t like me much but I was broken up by it, which is why her death was a puzzle to me.
Man, that’s really just sad.
No, I’m definitely right. It’s a trite and stupid argument that you’re obsessed with, as usual.
You really are a sad and broken toy. I don’t think engaging with you in these pointless discussions, attempting to make you see the light of day is of any value to you, or anyone who takes the time to do so. Keep going to therapy. Maybe it will help you some day. I’m out.
Our relationships with people are based on the “times” we had with them. If there are no “times” with people, there are no relationships. Your question implies that, somehow, our feeling for people and our experiences with those people are somehow separate things. They are not.