Are you suggesting that I should be satisfied with mediocrity?

Does a man like you need to ego-boost of "superiority"? ;)

If you don't know, then I think it's important to note that us two are very probably the only two Christians here. So it's good to finally have another brother around

Now I have you, right where I want you! Meet me in the desert, would you? >:)

Anxiety is used precisely to denote that kind of fear which is simply paralyzing - totally not useful.

As I said before, many a time this anxiety comes and goes whether you like it or not. And how isn't it useful? If one is aware that they are anxious much of the time, and work hard against being so, how isn't that helpful?

I also suppose that we'd need to define anxiety more thoroughly. I'm not necessarily using anxiety solely in the medical sense (which wouldn't apply to the story I made up, for example) but an anxiety more akin to general angst. It's that pervasive feeling of uncertainty and worry that comes with some who have lived the worst sides of life. I also think that such an attitude, whether chosen or not, can be healthy if you use it to your advantage.

And self-deception - the deception that one is saved when one isn't

No one has knowledge of salvation to be a certainty. I'd argue that you are no more in salvation's back pocket than the faux Christian you mention before that. The difference between you both, however, comes as you argue from faith+works. But that doesn't ensure salvation. You can believe that it does, but you don't really know, 'tis why you must have faith!

So cheating on your wife, day after day, but begging for forgiveness, and then doing it again - then crying that your sinful nature doesn't let you do any better, then repeating the whole cycle over again - that isn't faith. Faith isn't a license to sin. You don't claim "I believe in Jesus Christ" so then you can go ahead and go to the harlots. Faith needs to be seen outwardly - its radiance must be perceptible, and it is so through works.

The important foundation here should be intent to do good. If one intends to be compassionate, and is able to be loving as a result, then great. But as respectable is the person who still intends to be compassionate but falls short. You can't always do the right thing, especially when the right thing isn't always as black and white clear, like your avatar is.

Life is a gift from God...

Love is the gift to the world, not life itself. Without love in life, I'd rather go back to being dead.

how joyous will God be when his creatures rejoice in his creation!

No concept of God deserves a bended knee for what mess the world is as a result of whatever you attribute to creating it.

No, I'm not speaking about superiority in relation to others, but about being the best you can be, and of not being satisfied with less.

Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest. Ecclesiastes 9:10

Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters.
Collossians 3:23

Now I have you, right where I want you! Meet me in the desert, would you? >:) — Heister Eggcart

Good - let's see what you can do ;)

As I said before, many a time this anxiety comes and goes whether you like it or not. And how isn't it useful? If one is aware that they are anxious much of the time, and work hard against being so, how isn't that helpful? — Heister Eggcart

Well being an anxious and paranoid bastard can certainly be helpful - certainly it has helped me in work related matters. But it needs to be controlled. Out of control anxiety - remaining stuck in anxiety - that is bad.

I also suppose that we'd need to define anxiety more thoroughly. I'm not necessarily using anxiety solely in the medical sense (which wouldn't apply to the story I made up, for example) but an anxiety more akin to general angst. It's that pervasive feeling of uncertainty and worry that comes with some who have lived the worst sides of life. I also think that such an attitude, whether chosen or not, can be healthy if you use it to your advantage. — Heister Eggcart

Well, this is anxiety in a medical sense. PTSD manifests through anxiety for example as one of the symptoms. This is very similar to the general angst you cite.

You can believe that it does, but you don't really know, 'tis why you must have faith! — Heister Eggcart

I know by faith - it's still knowledge, which does imply a degree of certainty. As St. Thomas Aquinas, or even closer to us - Pope John Paul II - have explained, faith and reason are both sources of knowledge.

The important foundation here should be intent to do good. If one intends to be compassionate, and is able to be loving as a result, then great. But as respectable is the person who still intends to be compassionate but falls short. You can't always do the right thing, especially when the right thing isn't always as black and white clear, like your avatar is. — Heister Eggcart

Ever heard that the road to hell is paved with good intentions? ;)

You can't always do the right thing, especially when the right thing isn't always as black and white clear, like your avatar is. — Heister Eggcart

See - I picked the right avatar, it conveys the correct message. Why don't you listen to it? :P

Love is the gift to the world, not life itself. Without love in life, I'd rather go back to being dead. — Heister Eggcart

Well certainly there is no love if there is no life, so the two of them are mutually necessary.

No, I'm not sapeking about superioirty in realtion to others, but about being the best you can be, and of not being satisfied with less. — John

That's still a somewhat quaint desire for superiority isn't it? Only that now you're doing it in comparison to yourself. You haven't stopped comparing, you've upgraded. Now you don't commit adultery - you watch porn :P Is this Rudolf Steiner's "ethical individualism" - comparing yourself with... yourself? :-O

Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest. Ecclesiastes 9:10 — John

For a moment I thought you had quoted the little known but extremely precious book of Ecclesiasticus - which only appears in a few versions of the Bible, but describes virtue quite well, much like the better known Proverbs. I was about to congratulate you for having stumbled on it - today, however, it seems I haven't been granted that honour :P

Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters.
Collossians 3:23 — John

Sure I agree - put your whole heart into it - but don't compare yourself with yourself >:O

I know by faith - it's still knowledge, which does imply a degree of certainty. As St. Thomas Aquinas, or even closer to us - Pope John Paul II - have explained, faith and reason are both sources of knowledge.

Someone else could have as strong a faith as well, and cite that as being knowledge enough for being certain. Yet, here we are in a world which realizes that's a load of baloney. If all faith was certain, then you couldn't just be a Christian. I think one has faith precisely because they do not know, yet have the conviction to entertain being wrong. Some people don't find that prudent, however.

Ever heard that the road to hell is paved with good intentions?

Such a road is not what we oft travel by, as Robert Frost might suggest.

Well certainly there is no love if there is no life, so the two of them are mutually necessary.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Such a road is not what we oft travel by, as Robert Frost might suggest. — Heister Eggcart

Are you sure? Do not many criminals murder in order to gain the money they need to feed their child? Is this not a crime motivated by love, and thus having a good intention at its foundation? Would you say such is moral, and they should be forgiven by the victim and their family?

Yet, here we are in a world which realizes that's a load of baloney. — Heister Eggcart

I don't :-O Is this bad? I mean I have to ask, because there have been some unenlightened folk in this thread who have told me that my desire to get married is a selfish patriarchal desire to ensure that the children of my wife are my own, and that my wealth gets passed on to them - and I thought I just wanted to give all of my love to one woman - who could have thought that my introspective effort was so far off from the truth? :D

Are you sure? Do not many criminals murder in order to gain the money they need to feed their child? Is this not a crime motivated by love, and thus having a good intention at its foundation? Would you say such is moral, and they should be forgiven by the victim and their family?

Actions aren't always 100% moral or immoral. The father you mention did one thing right, but a lot else very, very wrong. He intended to do the right thing, by providing for his child, but he also intended to kill someone and steal their money. The state, for example, will look at the former as grounds for making his sentence, based on the latter, shorter. Why? Because he committed murder, and not manslaughter, but did so under the pretense that he had to do what he did and for good reason, which was as we both agree, not quite the case.

I don't :-O Is this bad?

Well, perhaps you should reevaluate your faith as being a little less spectacularly special and all commanding as you think it is?

That's still a somewhat quaint desire for superiority isn't it? Only that now you're doing it in comparison to yourself. You haven't stopped comparing, you've upgraded. Now you don't commit adultery - you watch porn :P Is this Rudolf Steiner's "ethical individualism" - comparing yourself with... yourself? :-O — Agustino

How else does anyone achieve excellence, whether in the arts or elsewhere other than by recognizing and correcting their weaknesses?

How do you presume to know that I watch porn? The impression I have of you, Agustino, Is of someone so over-eager to dispense their lightly-won, immature wisdom that your understanding trips over itself and stumbles just as it is about to enter the path. On account of this you willfully misunderstand what others say to you, you tendentiously interpret them,in order to get an opportunity to pontificate.

What do you know about Rudolf Steiner?

Sure I agree - put your whole heart into it - but don't compare yourself with yourself >:O — Agustino

For a moment I thought you had quoted the little known but extremely precious book of Ecclesiasticus - which only appears in a few versions of the Bible, but describes virtue quite well, much like the better known Proverbs. I was about to congratulate you for having stumbled on it - today, however, it seems I haven't been granted that honour :P — Agustino

Ah, right, so according to the half-baked sage and biblical scholar Ecclesiastes contains no wisdom?

Sure I agree - put your whole heart into it - but don't compare yourself with yourself >:O — Agustino

It's not about "comparing yourself with yourself", but comparing your past with your present performance, and seeing where you might have improved and where you might have slipped back.

It's interesting to note that conservatives want to tell us how the world should be; it should be just as it was in the past; the past should not merely be assimilated and benefited form; it should be conserved. Those who favour change do so on account of the fact that they recognize that change is desirable even necessary, and in any case, inevitable. It is always uncertain as to whether the change will be for the better or for the worse in the 'long run'; but there will be change; thus there is always risk, risk of failure, and conservatives just can't handle that. Thus we can see in play between conservatives and progressives the manifestations of the different psychological effects that both motivate and grow out of looking predominately to the future or looking predominately to the past, that is of looking to foster ever-new possibility, or looking to preserve fixed actuality. Of course there must always be some balance between the two, but the difference between conservative and progressive is a difference in emphasis, and degree of emphasis.

It seems to me when I look at conservatives and progressives and their different political aims and strategies, that it is predominately fear and insecurity that motivates the conservative soul; where it is predominately hope and acceptance of what will be that motivates the progressive soul.

How touchy you are John... :P I was only joking. Indeed, I can clearly see that you are not a politician ;) - but I certainly thought you had picked up some humor from Osho ;) what was he saying - the laughing Buddha! Don't be a light unto yourself! Be a joke unto yourself! There was a progressive I could actually respect! Behold, let's actually listen to him and remind ourselves again - I found the video of it:

How do you presume to know that I watch porn? — John

It's a metaphor, I didn't think you'd take it so literarily (not to mention so seriously!), otherwise I would quite possibly not have used it. When you compare yourself to another at least you acknowledge the other. When you commit adultery, you also at least acknowledge another. But when you compare yourself to yourself, you're only acknowledging yourself - just like when you watch porn.

Ah, right, so according to the half-baked sage and biblical scholar Ecclesiastes contains no wisdom? — John

Oh but why - Ecclesiastes is a wonderful book - in actual fact one of my favorites.

It's not about "comparing yourself with yourself", but comparing your past with your present performance, and seeing where you might have improved and where you might have slipped back. — John

And surely comparing your current self with your past self isn't comparing yourself with yourself, right? :P

t's interesting to note that conservatives want to tell us how the world should be — John

And some progressives, as evidenced by this thread, want to tell us that marriage should be banned - but of course, that's not a statement about how the world should be. Others want to tell us that people should have as much sex as possible until marriage - but that too isn't a statement about how the world should be. I understand.

it should be just as it was in the past; the past should not merely be assimilated and benefited form; it should be conserved — John

Well do you think what was good in the past should be thrown away then? Should we just take it and put it in the bin?

it should be just as it was in the past — John

A state without the means of some change, is without the means of its own conservation. — The Conservative Founder: Edmund Burke in Reflections on the Revolution in France

Need I say more? :D

Those who favour change do so on account of the fact that they recognize that change is desirable even necessary, and in any case, inevitable. It is always uncertain as to whether the change will be for the better or for the worse in the 'long run'; but there will be change; thus there is always risk, risk of failure, and conservatives just can't handle that. — John

And because it is always uncertain, we should just take a gamble on it, instead of calculate right? Just buy Apple stock, no need to worry about it, just take a gamble, change is inevitable anyway. Why bother making any rational decision based on calculations and past experience? No need! You just have to have faith! Hope and acceptance! They will do you good when you lose all your dough.

looking to foster ever-new possibility, or looking to preserve fixed actuality — John

Why would I foster new possibility if I don't have any reason to believe it will be good?

the difference between conservative and progressive is a difference in emphasis, and degree of emphasis. — John

Yes exactly, you are correct! :D

It seems to me when I look at conservatives and progressives and their different political aims and strategies, that it is predominately fear and insecurity that motivates the conservative soul; where it is predominately hope and acceptance of what will be that motivates the progressive soul. — John

When I look at them, I see one which is young and full of energy, but foolish - and another which is old, slower, but wise. I see one which understands the fragility of life, society and happiness - and I see another which is looking to gamble with life, thinking it is going to be safe - put it all on the line for peanuts. Hope and acceptance - the virtues of the foolish, who squander away their fortunes, and must somehow justify their loss as necessary for it to be bearable, no? For how else can loss be bearable, except if it was made in order to learn from it right? For loss to be without reason - how outrageous!

I mean I have to ask, because there have been some unenlightened folk in this thread who have told me that my desire to get married is a selfish patriarchal desire to ensure that the children of my wife are my own, and that my wealth gets passed on to them - and I thought I just wanted to give all of my love to one woman - who could have thought that my introspective effort was so far off from the truth? :D

I don't know if it's patriarchal, but if your priority is to have children, then you would indeed be selfish and "in it" for something you may not even realize.

@Terrapin Station bruv, I think @John, just like @Sapientia, may be an Aspie. Who would have thought we have two of them! Seeing that you so expertly diagnosed Sapientia, I will request your help to confirm John's diagnostic - his present symptoms are that he doesn't seem to understand my jokes and metaphors, nor the intended meaning of my words! And plus he displays the same symptoms with others - like here - . I surely hope it's something that passes!

Perhaps you should stop speaking in riddles so people understand more clearly what you say? :o

Yes indeed, I actually quite thought that it is my fault, and just as usual I would be the only one to blame. But then I saw that the same thing happened in the interaction between John and Barry Etheridge in the other thread I linked to in my previous post... Now I'm not quite so sure anymore...

Don't ever be veiled in your words, and it should never be your fault for being misunderstood then :)

Well there is something I can do - turn him in to the police. But what would motivate me doing something about it? Jealousy. So clearly "not being able to control the situation" isn't a part of jealousy. It may very well be that the jealous person has ample ways to control the situation. But he would still feel jealous. In fact, even if I was a king or emperor, and John did that, I would still feel jealous. But I probably would be able to control the situation very well - send the police to get him, throw him in jail, and get back what was mine. — Agustino

That’s doesn’t resolve anything. Turning John into the police and getting your money back doesn’t take away his betrayal or your inability to control his action, so that the world turns out the way you consider yourself entitled to.

Jealous people often have ways to enact power in a situation; they can report, kill, jail, etc.,etc. They relish doing so. What could be better than killing an adulterous wife? Or locking up that thieving John and throwing away the key? The world will make sense again once “payment” is made. Death and Hell: the twin illusion of sin resolved.

But it doesn’t work. No matter how much Death and Hell are brought to bear, it doesn’t bring back the world which is lost. Sin remains eternal. Nothing done to John can fix the world. It’s lost. You cannot have the world you want. Nothing will take away the wrong John has enacted. Your jealousy is a motivation of fantasy which does not take sin seriously. Not justified anger, concerned with identifying immorality and punishing it, but a desperation to remove the sin because you cannot stand a world which is less than perfect.

Maybe I would say that if I knew there was no chance to get it back. I would initially feel jealous in that case, but I would soon understand that there's nothing I can do about it, and the feeling would wane. — "Agustino

I mention it for an important reason. Since sin is eternal, we cannot do anything about it. The situation you describe here applies to every instance of sin, regardless of what response is justified for the protection of the community or to improve the lives of victims.

In jealousy our motivation and expectation is askew. We mistakenly believe it’s about justice when it’s really the fantasy of a world where we didn’t lose.

Here you are wrong. It's a loss in one's capacity for intimacy (not complete loss, I didn't say that) but rather a decrease in it. It's like losing some functionality in your leg. You've lost it. If now you want to use that specific functionality to the same degree, you can't. — Agustino

This is what I mean about blaming her. So caught-up on the lost functionality of the past (past relationships), you insist it means new functionality (present relationship) is also lost. You are literally saying that because you don’t have a past relationship that you want (lost function), you cannot function in the present relationship.

Rather than concentrating on the function you do have (the new relationship) and it’s intimacy, your desire is still for the person of a past relationship. You really want your old function (past partner) because the new function (present partner) simply isn’t up to scratch.

No doubt this would harm intimacy, but that’s all on you. You are the one who wants your past girlfriend. The intimacy of your relationship is not harmed because you’ve had past partners. It’s harmed because what you really desire is your former girlfriend. You are not fully open to being intimate with the new person. You love your past girlfriend or the image of a relationship with her more than the woman in front of you.

You are only thinking of your desire for an exclusive relationship. This relationship is a two-way street. What you say about it's value reflects on her. She's not an island cut off from you have how significant you are to the relationship. What you think about the relationship, how much you value it and her, matters. At the moment you are saying she is nothing but an inferior second choice.

Did I say not to be content with our present inferiority? — Agustino

Worse. You enact it and insist upon it, while leaving it unstated. Sure, you say we must be content with inferiority, but you don't live that way. It's nothing but an image to you.

When it actually gets down to it, you cannot be content with loss. You constantly put out fantasies which are supposed to resolve it-- God, afterlives, jealousy driven acts of power, etc.,etc. In the face of a loss function (past relationship), you continue to hold a torch for it, unable to accept it and fully move on to a new function (a new relationship). At every turn you are trying to reject inferiority.

How touchy you are John... :P I was only joking. Indeed, I can clearly see that you are not a politician ;) - but I certainly thought you had picked up some humor from Osho — Agustino

It's funny how much you like to flatter yourself, in fact I didn't feel touchy at all; but I guess it's just another one of your sad attempts to portray others in a light that you hope will make them look worse, which you apparently think will make you look better. :-} I have known many people like you, most of them politicians; and I don't associate with them

To be quite honest I'm really not interested in this any of kind of shit, Agustino. If it was really fun, well then yeah, but I'm not interested in your pathetic attempts at humour, if that is indeed all that is going on with you; which I doubt extremely. Really, I just come here to discuss philosophy; and it seems obvious to me that you are not the least interested in that. :-d

When I want a good laugh I'll watch a good comedy. When you think you're ready to practice some sustained analysis and critique; which might make for some actually interesting discussion, let me know, and I'll think about participating.

Until then...

(N)

It's funny how much you like to flatter yourself, in fact I didn't feel touchy at all — John

To be quite honest I'm really not interested in this any of kind of shit, Agustino — John

Are you the guy who generally shouts and yells "I'm not angry at all!!!"? :-*

To be quite honest I'm really not interested in this any of kind of shit, Agustino. If it was really fun, well then yeah, but I'm not interested in your pathetic attempts at humour, if that is indeed all that is going on with you; which I doubt extremely — John

Good, then I'm waiting for your better attempts, so that I can laugh properly too - it's not good when you always laugh at your own jokes, you know. Definitely not a good sign :P

. Really, I just come here to discuss philosophy; and it seems obvious to me that you are not the least interested in that. :-d — John

Oh but I was certainly in the business of discussing philosophy. For example, you said conservatism wants things to be like the past - it wants to conserve, and thus avoids change. So I merely pointed out that the Founder of conservatism stated that change is a means of conservation. So maybe if you really wanted to discuss philosophy, and not strawmans, and personal prejudices, we could actually have a meaningful (and pleasant) conversation :)

When you think you're ready to practice some sustained analysis and critique; which might make for some actually interesting discussion, let me know, and I'll think about participating. — John

Well yes, but you see, I tried, but there's not much discussion that can be had regarding strawmans is there? Just saying you know.

Funny how some folk cut the branch on which they sit, and dig their own graves even deeper. In politics one learns quite fast that when someone mocks you, you should take it with a laugh - afterall, behind the scenes we all shake our hands and are friends no? :-O Or was I supposed not to openly quote from the Politician Code of Honour to the world? >:O

The real thing is John - that I am agreeing with a lot of what you're saying, but you can't see it because you frame everything in such a conflictual manner... If you were more open-minded you could see it I'm sure. To speak in Hegelian terms which you understand I'd venture to guess that the world initially was under a blind obedience to social morality. Then we've shifted into our current stage - of social disobedience - we break the morals, we commit adultery, we have sex with hundreds of partners, we want to dissolve marriage, etc. This stage is worse than the first, it is its antithesis, and it is the equivalent of man becoming lower, not higher. This too shall finish, and we will return once again to the initial state, only that we will return conscious of what we have lost - it will no longer be blind obedience, but rather self-aware obedience. So I am in full confidence that social conservatism will return.

Having tackled this, I should also add that spiritual freedom has nothing to do with social freedom (and by here I am referring just to social morality). You may not be socially free - and you're never going to be - this wouldn't even be good for human beings - but you will be spiritually free. It is only the mediocre which understand Steiner's third stage (beyond impulse and ethical morality) as license and possibility for sin. Much like Kierkegaard illustrated through the same scheme which Steiner later uses - that of an aesthetic stage, followed by an ethical stage, followed by a religious stage - it is a progression. The aesthetic stage, in its lower form, is the life of beasts. In its higher form, its the life of artists. The ethical stage in its lower form is the life of legalists. The ethical stage in its higher form is the life of men of principles.

The religious stage is not a negation of the higher ethical stage - it is the acceptance of the ethical as absolutely final and absolute for the social world - but it adds the dimension of the highest freedom - and that is spiritual freedom. This is not social freedom from the bonds of family, from your commitments to your wife and children, and so forth. Only the caricatures, the jokes as Osho said, the unenlightened see it that way. Rather this is a new realm of being, which has nothing to do with society. Sexual liberation and the like are irrelevant - they are in fact harmful to the social realm, and totally unhelpful in the spiritual. That's why all these modern movements have lost the grounding of man in the divine, as Voegelin put it. We are now grounding man in man. Man has lost the ordering of the higher. And Rudolf Steiner shared this same idea - unless you realise something higher than yourself you cannot develop into something higher. He didn't see Voegelin's point - that even more, unless you realise something higher, you WILL fall into something lower. What has happened with the modern Western world is precisely that we have fallen into something lower - hence why all the slavery to money, all the greed, all the sexual promiscuity, all the cold indifference to others, all the dissolution of family and social bonds, all the disrespect of morality, law and order.

The common folk have taken the ideas of spiritual freedom espoused by thinkers like Steiner and Voegelin and made a mockery in their name, with their brutish understanding. They have used them as justification for the highest atrocities - having hundreds of sexual partners, being lost in drugs, ignoring the pain and suffering of others, engaging in debauchery, and so forth. Atrocities that are both cruel and humorous in their stupidity. This is not much different than the mockery of God that the Church engaged in with the Inquisition. The sexual revolution is in fact, in structure, the same as the Inquisition. Except that now people are no longer estranged for not believing in Church dogma, they are estranged for not being promiscuous, for upholding moral and social values, etc. It's the same thing - the very same oppression, under a new form.

But in development, stages cannot be skipped. The world has never reached the higher ethical stage. At its best, the world reached legalism. Very few were the thinkers who peered long into the future to see anything different. Plato was one of them - but the spiritual truths that he has seen are something that the mass of mankind will in all probability never know - that's how far it is. So certainly if you want to speak for the masses of men, and not for an exceedingly small elite (an elite much smaller than those who show interest in the spiritual, since most of those themselves misunderstand it), then the most one can hope for is the ethical stage. That's why I never discuss, nor am concerned with the spiritual - nobody will understand. I can give inklings of it - as I have by saying that no sexual act is without a spiritual component - but these inklings as proved by this thread are largely ignored, passed over, misunderstood, or found to be laughable. You tell the construction worker next door that he has a spiritual relationship with his wife - he'll spit in your face. You tell the modern liberal-progressive philosopher that having sex has a profound impact on one's soul - it ties them spiritually with someone else - a connection that isn't broken without spiritual damage - they'll shrug their shoulders, and move on - they won't even know what to say.

And these my friend are the truths of the world. The world isn't ready - and it is foolish to construct that which it's not ready for. Much better to help construct what it is ready for - the ethical - sufficient to stop at Aristotle - as Plato is too much.

That’s doesn’t resolve anything. Turning John into the police and getting your money back doesn’t take away his betrayal or your inability to control his action, so that the world turns out the way you consider yourself entitled to. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But it's not his betrayal that upsets me - it's that an injustice has been done. The injustice demands justice - punishment. I'm not upset that I can't control his actions - I don't even want to do that. I just want justice to be done when he acts in manners which cause harm to those around.

What could be better than killing an adulterous wife? — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yeah sure, what could be better than having to suffer the guilt and pangs of conscience of taking another's life, not to mention the pains and humiliation of dropping the soap in the bathroom, just because the person in question did something to spite you, right? I mean yeah certainly you lost your relationship you know, so why not take revenge on the world and pour poison down your soul, maybe that will bring your relationship back... *facepalm* - such thinking is utter nonsense

Or locking up that thieving John and throwing away the key? — TheWillowOfDarkness

Why do you want to lock him for eternity now? Punishments have to be fair you know. You don't put a child in life-time jail because he stole a candy from a supermarket. Neither do you kill people because they have betrayed you.

The world will make sense again once “payment” is made. Death and Hell: the twin illusion of sin resolved. — TheWillowOfDarkness

The sin is never resolved, but it needs to be paid for.

No matter how much Death and Hell are brought to bear, it doesn’t bring back the world which is lost. — TheWillowOfDarkness

It doesn't have to, that's not its purpose.

Not justified anger, concerned with identifying immorality and punishing it, but a desperation to remove the sin because you cannot stand a world which is less than perfect. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Not at all Willow - the world is less than perfect even if John is punished or he isn't punished. I freely agree to that. But one is a more just world, while the other is an unjust world. I want to live in a just world, where people who significantly harm others (adultery, theft, murder - such actions) are punished for it - a world where even I would be punished if I committed adultery for example. In fact, if that was the case, I would wish the punishment on myself, because I would deserve it. I don't claim to want to live in a world in which people simply don't harm each other - because I know well enough that such a world would be impossible here on Earth. Not gonna happen. I simply want to live in a just world.

In jealousy our motivation and expectation is askew. We mistakenly believe it’s about justice when it’s really the fantasy of a world where we didn’t lose. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Not at all - again I am not concerned to live in a world where loss is impossible. I am simply concerned to live in a world where justice exists - where if something is taken unlawfully from you, then there is punishment for those who have taken it.

This is what I mean about blaming her. So caught-up on the lost functionality of the past (past relationships), you insist it means new functionality (present relationship) is also lost. You are literally saying that because you don’t have a past relationship that you want (lost function), you cannot function in the present relationship. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Ummm no, I actually am not saying that. The lost functionality isn't a relationship. It's a capacity for intimacy. Maybe you have forgotten, but I have said that the sexual act itself always has a spiritual component. Due to the nature of intimacy, the sexual act with different partners reduces your capacity for intimacy. Now that is what I've said. This has nothing to do with desiring past relationships - I actually don't desire that.

Rather than concentrating on the function you do have (the new relationship) and it’s intimacy, your desire is still for the person of a past relationship. You really want your old function (past partner) because the new function (present partner) simply isn’t up to scratch. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Nope - see what I have stated above. It's not about past partner, or current partner. It's about the nature of intimacy.

This relationship is a two-way street. What you say about it's value reflects on her. She's not an island cut off from you have how significant you are to the relationship. What you think about the relationship, how much you value it and her, matters. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes of course. I agree with you. But it's value doesn't only have to do with my capacity for intimacy or hers for that matter. Those are only some of the many factors that come at play.

When it actually gets down to it, you cannot be content with loss. You constantly put out fantasies which are supposed to resolve it-- God, afterlives, jealousy driven acts of power, etc.,etc. In the face of a loss function (past relationship), you continue to hold a torch for it, unable to accept it and fully move on to a new function (a new relationship). At every turn you are trying to reject inferiority. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No - not at all. I am totally content with the loss of past relationships if that's what you're referring to. If I could live again, I would probably wait for the woman I was certain to marry, and wouldn't be involved in other relationships. People make mistakes - I too made mistakes. I should never have been involved in those relationships to begin with. It would have been better if I saved my capacity for intimacy for my wife. That's all.

@John My previous post was updated since you last read it.