empyblessing

://www.iraresoul.com/sex_essays.html Being in Love is a Disturbed Ideal Although society and most people – and of course popular music – hold being “in love” as the ideal state of human existence, they are all deluding themselves, literally. Being in love is little more than the state of transferring onto some new person – your “love object” – all your repressed childhood hopes that your parents will finally come to rescue you. This hope, which is the root of all addictions, is so intense that if you actually believe that it can be fulfilled it sends you into the deepest emotional orbit, more intense even than heroin. No wonder most people desperately strive for it. You might ask, though, what about the eighty year old married couples who are still “in love” after fifty-five years of marriage? My reply: What about mild addicts – functional alcoholics, let’s say – who manage to stay pickled on their four daily martinis up through ninety years old – and even credit their booze with keeping them alive for so long? (And they’re probably right – the booze probably did prolong their “life,” if you could call that a life.) My second reply: Do those couples really love each other so much, or are they more just attracted to a fantasy of whom their partners are? From what I’ve observed, when you scratch below the surface of such couples you find that they really DON’T know each other that well, and are just interacting – and being “in love” – with a fraction of their personalities. And they want it that way! If they knew each other too well it would shatter their illusion. No surprise that as the increase in expectation of marriage partners being “best friends” – that is, more emotionally intimate – has gone hand-in-hand with the skyrocketing of the divorce rate. As I close, let me differentiate between being “in love” and actually loving someone. In many ways the two are polar opposites, even if sometimes people who are “in love” can behave lovingly toward one another. Allow me to make a list: 1) Being in love is projecting that someone will rescue you; loving someone is nurturing and caring for the best in them 2) Being in love comes from the false self, that still damaged side of us, and wants a false image of another to rescue us; loving someone comes from the true self, and nurtures the true self of another 3) Being in love is generally full of disrhttpespect, both of one’s own and another’s self. It doesn’t honor the true boundaries of another’s truth. The extreme of this happens when really troubled people fall in love with complete strangers and go so far as to believe these strangers have returned this “love.” Loving someone, on the other hand, is inherently respectful. It respects the boundaries of who they really are. 4) Really loving someone truly grows over time. Being in love gets weaker over time – and when it grows it tends to be a sign that the “in love” person has a penchant for more extreme forms of delusion. 5) Being in love brings only a limited sense of fulfillment, and often leaves people feeling crushed and rejected. Really loving someone brings deep fulfillment – to both involved. 6) Being in love gets all mixed up with romance (and often sex). Loving someone deflates romance – and opens the door to something so much more rewarding.

Robots will steal your job but that's OK. And menial labor is whatever you do for money. Work you do for the experience is exempt. Fox con to cut 1 million jobs? http://singularityhub.com/2012/11/12/1-million-robots-to-replace-1-million-human-jobs-at-foxconn-first-robots-have-arrived/

Ok, so how else will people support themselves financially?.. I'm entirely with the idea that human labour becomes less intensive, as automation and technology improves.. But I havent managed to leap to the 'seemingly' scifi idea that the creative classes will meet their zenith and all menial labour (whatever that is exactly) will disappear. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I'm not making the connections that I think you are.. You did infer that a loss of jobs would occur with new technology, suggesting this was a potential net negative.. Anyway, you'll have to explain those leaps to me, because it seemed (to me at least) that you missed out a chunk of important information. They won't support themselves financially. Why would they? If they want a job they can get it but work should in no way be connected to survival. This is the "scifi" thinking I mentioned previously.. You have made a huge leap here, with no explanation, only an assumption that I should know. Having said that, I have now read your signature introduction. Whilst it's unclear what 'basic human needs' even means and by who they are meant to get them from. I at least understand where your thinking is coming from. How is it unclear what basic humans needs is? You don't know what a human being needs to survive? If not than how do you live?

There have not been any convincing arguments against automation. Instead the same weak arguments about precedence that are used incesantly against anarchism and automation are used. 'It can't happen because it's never happened before' is a direct contradiction to everything that's ever been created. Put simply, if computers can be scientists, no job is safe. It's not a debate about whether technology causes unemployment, it's about how quickly it's happening. An advanced civilization does not keep slaves it builds them.

Common-law marriage legislation often prevents people from doing what they want without the Government intruding. Common-law marriages can be contracted in nine states (Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah) and the District of Columbia. New Hampshire recognizes common-law marriage for purposes of probate only....

But they'll kidnap you for smoking a joint. I HATE THE POLICE.

Leaving the government out of your life is always a good idea. Love doesn't need a contract.

"4) Meritocracy - is a hybrid of communism and capitalism: most people are paid roughly the same; the highest achievers get a healthy amount extra, but their earnings are capped to prevent them from becoming overly financially powerful and being able to use money as a weapon, and all of their money is returned to the Commonwealth at death. In a meritocracy, the Commonwealth replaces private wealth. All money in private hands is sooner or later returned to the Commonwealth to be reinvested in the people. Dynastic private wealth is eliminated. Greed is eliminated. Elite families that can use their power and wealth to influence world affairs are eliminated. They will simply no longer exist once inheritance taxed is raised to 100%." http://www.armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/ The idea of meritocracy is taken from the above site and it helps resolve a few key issues that I have with the free market. One is the problem of inherited wealth allowing the rich to secure their children's lineage ad infinitum. Two is the free markets race to the bottom. "Capitalism relentlessly targets the lowest common denominator. It's all about dumbing down and the race to the bottom. It targets primal drives and instant gratification. We need social capitalism that raises people up rather than casts them down. We need a "higher common factor" doctrine, one of quality rather than quantity." "The capitalist world is one of objects. People themselves are objectified. The acquisition of objects is the highest good in our society and your status is dependent on how highly others value the objects you own. This system is spiritually dead. It creates soulless zombies in shopping malls, aimlessly shuffling from one purchase to the next in a conveyer-belt process that never ends. You can never have enough objects. You will always need the latest upgrade, the latest fashion, the highest status objects - and these are permanently changing. There is no endpoint, but when your personal end comes (your death) all you have to show for it is a lot of junk that your relatives then consign to the garbage dump. And that metaphorically and even literally is what became of your life on earth - it joined the rest of the garbage. Is that how you want to live your life?" http://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/The-Last-Post(2535256).htm

What it doesn't mention is the rate of divorce and the effects it has no health and finance. Until the culture changes to equality for men than marriage cannot be advised. I wanted to add that after reading snarge22's comment that I feel as though he firmly destroys any ideas presented in that video.

http://www.aber.ac.uk/en/cs/research/cb/projects/robotscientist/ Robot scientists!

There's also the increase in productivity that will be generated by new technology as well. A new internet for example.

A woman who projects her own anxiety onto someone else via namecalling is not worth your time.

By your statement you're implying that children are protected under statehood. This needs to be made clear.

Can you elaborate on this please? I don't understand what the cluster personality is. Also, I don't understand how men are "holding all the cards." And yes, women are miserable now. In jobs they hate. In debt. Depressed. Seperated from their children. Lonely. Preyed upon by the vanity markets.

America raised an entire generation of female narcissists. A two minute conversation with a woman is enough to convince me that marriage is doomed. Edit: after reading that site I can't say I support it even if he has a good point. Way too much hate going on there.

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LelNYqVEOZQ]

I call it the culture vacuum which has increasingly gained speed as western socities - and religion in particular - have been destroyed and emasculated and were replaced with nothing. This vacuum leaves many young people feeling a sense of apathy and detachment and they seek out anything which can give them a sense of love and belonging that they so desperately want. This void was often filled by Christianity, family, nationalism, etc. but all of those institutions have waned and nothing stood in the wake. Unfortunately for Europe, this vacuum is being filled with Islam which offers many young people a sense of group identity.

"may fall prey to financial scams" says the thief.

http://robotswillstealyourjob.tumblr.com/post/41874750364/robot-economy-could-cause-up-to-75-percent-unemployment These workers aren't displaced. The amount of jobs created is not greater than the jobs lost. Employment cannot be considered compulsory for survival. Something has to be put in place to help them live. Letting all the homeless men suffer and die because they can't get jobs that don't exist is just as immoral as killing a child because "he can't work."

Ok, so how else will people support themselves financially?.. I'm entirely with the idea that human labour becomes less intensive, as automation and technology improves.. But I havent managed to leap to the 'seemingly' scifi idea that the creative classes will meet their zenith and all menial labour (whatever that is exactly) will disappear. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I'm not making the connections that I think you are.. You did infer that a loss of jobs would occur with new technology, suggesting this was a potential net negative.. Anyway, you'll have to explain those leaps to me, because it seemed (to me at least) that you missed out a chunk of important information. They won't support themselves financially. Why would they? If they want a job they can get it but work should in no way be connected to survival.

Good point Alan.. That's a reasoanble description of voluntary unemployment of course.. However, I don't think this was the assumption being made earlier, unless as I said, I missed something perhaps. Food and housing could be provided for everyone right now for life. Nearly of the menial jobs could be automated RIGHT NOW. The technology exists now. There's no "maybe in the future" talk about it.

BDSM and all other are variants of sexuality are as much an orientation as anything else. How could you accept that humans have an adaptable nature and not accept this into the realm of sex?

First, I don't support gay rights because it already won. It's on the TV. The social change has already hit critical mass and the moral language has been pointed away from homophobes. It's over. You won. If you want to try and iniate change that actually needs to happen then support men's rights or children's rights.

gay/straight is not the only orientation and i believer orientation to be defined by experience and not genetic. how else could you explain a shoe/foot fetish?