Questions for Robert....

[Tony T]

Robert:

 

I have posed some questions for your kind consideration if you will please scroll down a bit.

 

Many Thanks!!!

 

Tony

[Robert]

Questions from Tony (from post below)

 

1. What causes a loving, caring person (or a cold-hearted person) to choose this mode selectively, that is, to be loving and caring towards one person and completely cold and distant towards another, without provocation or cause?

 

2. To what extent do you feel love has to do with the extent a person determines the beloved can be of value to him/her in their life, outside the emotional realm?

 

3. How can a "friend" appear to be caring and loving for a very long period of time and, when circumstances change in their life (such as falling in love, moving, getting a new job, etc.), this caring and loving sometimes very abruptly turns into dislike, indifference, or complete disinterest in the friendship? Was the friendship phony all along?

 

+++++

 

Reply

 

First a gerneric consideration that applies to the entire range of your questions and then specific replies to each question.

 

What we are as a person and how we understand ourselves is dependent on how we define what a person is. The ancients would say that we are composed of a body and soul. Modern psychology has it as body and mind. Catholics very specifically has a person as physical (body and mind) and spiritual (a soul that is a being [a particular type of soul]).

 

For the ancients the word soul was understood more akin to spiritual but its definition has changed five to seven times since then in Western literature.

 

Clearly, our common human experiences, such as love or fear, will be explained differently by each of the above variants. What does not vary over time are our fundamental desires as humans. The emotions and concerns which are expressd in ancient Chinese poetry, are precisely the same as a modern woman such as Ky_Girl. The same human experiences are expressed in Islamic literature and ancient Jewish literature (the Bible).

 

Throughout recorded history humans have a common experience. What we have in common does not change with circumstances or conditions. It is not culturally bounded. What is culturally defined about these basic human experiences is how they are expressed. How a Japanese person expresses their feelings are radically different then say a German.

 

So which view of human nature is correct? Are we body and mind, are we body and soul or are we physical and spiritual? The body and mind model is so very lacking in explaining our deepest human characteristics that it is readily suspect as fundamentally incorrect. Modern psychology can explain our physical side, our mind and how our body works in conjunction with the mind and our environment. The soul model seems to explain a lot more about us. The concept of a person as being physical and spiritual allows us to separate our issues into physical and spiritual domains. Properly separated, we can more clearly apply the right knowledge or learn from experience without much confusion along the way.

 

What is common to us all is that we have a soul and this soul does not evolve over time. Its characteristics are constant. Whereas physical characteristics do change. People in one country have eye shapes that are different than those of another region, as one example.

 

So, when discussing how people express their love, look to the field of psychology or sociology. When discussing happiness, joy of heart and love [those things that touch our innermost being] turn to the spiritual sciences. By spiritual is meant the traditional use of the word and not the more recent coloring given by psychology to mean "feelings".

 

With that preamble your questions can be separated into context and discussed without confusion.

 

1. What causes a loving, caring person (or a cold-hearted person) to choose this mode selectively, that is, to be loving and caring towards one person and completely cold and distant towards another, without provocation or cause?

 

Instantly one can see that there is in the question two distinct questions. One on the physical (psychological) order and the other spiritual. So lets reword the question into its components parts.

 

psychological:

 

Why does a person treat some people in a loving way and others in a cold way?

 

Psychologist have done a good job in exploring this subject. Much of how we express ourselves is learned behavior. From our environment we are taught/conditioned to respond to and show feelings in acceptable modes or least risk modes. I know men who feel an imperitive to be domineering to their spouse and gentle to other women, its what they were taught subliminally or otherwise. It is the model of a good husband that they carry in their heads.

 

Assuming no mental illness, such people usually respond well to counseling and sensitivity training. Caring friends can work wonders in helping these people show their love in a different context. After all, they learned the first context so they can, with some proportionate effort, learn another context.

 

spiritual:

 

Why do we love some people and feel no love for others?

 

Spiritual masters have taught we have only one heart, one soul. It has a cetain capacity to love, This capacity to love can be increased or decreased. It is not capable of loving and hating at the same time. To the extent that we can see the good in another, to that extent we can love them with whatever capacity to love that we have.

 

So, spiritual masters view life as a journey in which the way is marked by an increasing capacity to love. When I meet someone for whom I have no empathy, I know the defect is in my own capacity to love. One further develops a loving heart by growing in virtue, by pursuing goodness. The most destructive thing to developing a loving heart is to imitate love. Doing loving things in imitation of how genuinely loving people behave is absolutely destructive.

 

Rule number one for a healthy spirit is sincerity. What you feel on the inside must match what you show on the outside. For many of us it seems it is best to be otherwise, that our expressions and outward show is meant to hide how we actually feel.

 

2. To what extent do you feel love has to do with the extent a person determines the beloved can be of value to him/her in their life, outside the emotional realm?

 

Whenever a person calulates a gain, then whatever they want to call it, it should not be called love. Granted, on the physical level (including psychological) it feels good and is tempting to equate love with the pleasant benefit of the relationship.

 

It is endemic and a sure sign of a societal illness that we have functional friends. Such friendships are based on things we enjoy doing together. It is not based on the person but rather on the activity. So, we have bicycling friends, tennis friends, work friends and church friends. The motivation to maintain the friendship is based on the enjoyment we derive from having someone to pursue our prefered activities together.

 

Heartfelt friendships are spiritual (not physical, meaning psychological) and so these friends first enjoy each other's company and are not tooo particular as to what activities they pursue. The principal enjoyment is in being with the person.

 

3. How can a "friend" appear to be caring and loving for a very long period of time and, when circumstances change in their life (such as falling in love, moving, getting a new job, etc.), this caring and loving sometimes very abruptly turns into dislike, indifference, or complete disinterest in the friendship? Was the friendship phony all along?

 

It was certainly highly defective from a spiritual point of view. Healthy love relationships do not reject others. In fact, true love seeks to share the beloved with others that are held in esteem.

 

Obviously, intimacy excludes. However, if the desire for intimacy originates beneath the waist line then it is spiritually defective. If the desire for intimacy originates in the heart, then the intimacy becomes an expression of the love they have for one another. Otherwise, it is merely lust.

 

On the physical side there is also the dynamic of cultural conditioning. Women, in America, are especially raised to believe that they must focus exclusively on the man as though this focusing is a sign of their devotion and strength of love. Much later, as they gain wisdom, they tend to drop the role play and wish they had their former friends again. Often it takes a divorce to wake them up to the reality that they discarded their real friends.

 

Tony - it would be more convenient, for me, if questions of immense scope were asked individually.

 

My apologies for not giving your questions full considerations. I was merely trying to save time by abreviating the last two answers.

 

Robert

[Tony T]

Robert:

 

I am extremely grateful for your taking the time to address the questions I have asked. There is no way I could have ever wished more lucid or lengthy responses to each question, though I'm sorry if I seemed to overwhelm you for information all at one time.

 

Your perspectives on these questions that have puzzled me for a long time are very helpful and your generosity for taking the time is very much appreciated.

 

You are certainly well grounded in psychological, philosophical and spiritual teachings. Many people here at this forum ask about my background. While I don't want to be intrusive, I wonder if sometime you might suggest books or readings that may have helped you develop your wise perpectives on these varied questions posed here on the forum and elsewhere?

 

One thing that I have derived from your answers is that very important to the logevity and success of any relationship, whether it be friendship, dating or marriage, is a very strongly rooted spiritual connection made by the two people and their ability to grow and maintain themselves within the landscape of that connection. In America particularly, where superficialities often reign, making that spiritual connection can be difficult. Relationships are so often based on sex, social commonalities, how well someone dances, how lively the personality, popularity, etc., rather than the deeper connection you speak of.

 

The above hypothesis further causes me to speculate that since the a great many people connect at an age where they are not fully actualized spiritually or perhaps don't even have a concept of that depth of a union, most of those relationships are destined to failure unless both parties become more spiritually aware and form a greater bond with each other at some point during a traumatic period in the growth process together.

 

The other thought I got out of your post, all of which I consider highly valid, is what happens when one person's feelings are rooted in their spiritual essence while the other person's is not? Biblically, you might say they are unequally yoked. I don't know if it is possible to even have a union of this sort, but I do believe I have experienced this...where I felt a spiritual bond with another person (and was not deceiving myself) while later it became obvious that their bond with me was from their perspective was far more surface and unsubstantial. Therein arises a great need for caution and analysis when deciding to move on in time with a relationship, particularly if one is headed towards something like marriage.

 

And then I go even further to ask myself that if people are not coming together in marriages by virtue of this necessary and deeper bonding which seems to be a requirement of longevity and even perhaps a benchmark of the validity of a deeper committment, are not the many of us just getting together for the sole mechanical purposes of continuing the species through biological reproduction and satisfying social, financial and biological mandates rather than satisfying a deeper thirst of finding that true soulmate who satisfies our deepest yearning for connection. Maybe it is better if people are unaware of this need because it is perhaps a lot more difficult to find. Perhaps ignorance may be bliss???

 

Sorry, these thoughts just popped into my mind as I was bidding you farewell. You need not comment unless you have the energy or if you think I am frightfully way off the mark. It is the sign of a great teacher when his student produces more questions than answers from his lecture.

 

Very best wishes to you for your weekend and many thanks, again for your generosity in taking the time to help!!!

 

Tony

[Paulie]

Holy Lord!!!

You guys got me thinking. I really am amazed by the level of intelectuality displayed here by you two.

 

One thing my therapist told me is that he feels true intimacy can more easily be acheived between two men, than between the two sexes (I'm not referring to homosexuality).

 

Some of the deepest, most satisfying sense of connectedness that I have experienced (and it's only because of my security in my own sexuality that I can say this with a straight face, and I hope people don't misunderstand me here) is with my best friend, whom I have known for 15 years.

 

I can only think of the many late night discussions that I had in college with guys on my dorm hall, that often went until the wee hrs. of the morning.

 

Man...I wish I had gotten in on this conversation before my weekend began!!

 

If anybody misunderstands my reference to male-male intimacy with homosexuality, please ask me to differentiate. I will gladly do so.

 

Later,

 

Paulie

[Robert]

Tony,

I wonder if sometime you might suggest books or readings

Lets first put studying in perspective. In matters of the heart, even a child can understand it. It is my experience that children understand love much more deeply than teenagers or typical adults. It seems that we inculterate our youth into adopting concepts that are absolutely self destructive to their being able to love. Psychologist, especially marriage conselors have got to learn the boundaries of their science. For instance, they can legitimately study how a person expresses the anger they feel. The cannot legitimately study the root of the anger, its in the heart not the mind. Matters of the heart are in the realm of spirituality.

 

So, if you are studying the subject, do so in the spirit of unlearning much of what has been driven into our heads.

 

Cistercian monks seem to have a particularly good understanding of love. I really like the 11th and 12th century writers.

 

Aquinas had a superb understanding of people and especially of the spiritual part of our life. For modern minds this is hard reading. His stuff is easily misunderstood by modern minds. This is also true of fables such as King Arthur and The Knights of the Round Table. Originally, a perfect exposition on chaste love, but, to the modern mind its all about lust!

 

St Theresa of Liesieux (sp? I'm lazy) died at age 22 yrs and had a superb understanding of love and how to develop it.

 

Mencius, a follower of Confucius (five hundred years later) made good observations.

 

Blaise Pascal and Thomas More also insightful.

 

I wish I could remember some Islamic stuff I read. I'll try to remember the next time I'm in the library. Their names are unpronouncable to me.

 

since a great many people connect at an age where they are not fully actualized spiritually ... most of those relationships are destined to failure

I'm more optimistic but that derives from my Catholic upbringing. So long as they are sincere with each other and pursue goodness as written in their hearts - their marriage will be solid. Rough roads ahead, but solid.

 

It would be better for people to not "fall in love" until they have first mastered a capacity to love. I do not mean learning to imitate loving behavior. First pursue goodness so that they then come to possess the capacity to love, then go share that love with someone.

 

Most relationships are doomed for other reasons than what you cited.

 

... what happens when one person's feelings are rooted in their spiritual essence while the other person's is not?

The deeper lover always suffers the most.

 

To penetrate someone else you must open your heart wide. By being so open to sharing your innermost self - you better know and love them. Meanwhile, they have kept their hearts closed and so they have not entered you at all or only in a small way.

 

The deeper lover is faced with alot of pain. In an argument, the one with the coldest heart always wins. They are willing to set terms that the deeper lover would never be so cruel as to propose. But the pain is rooted in the imbalance of the love. Rarely, almost never, is the love in balance except when both do not love at all.

 

... rather than satisfying a deeper thirst of finding that true soulmate who satisfies our deepest yearning for connection.

This is concept that I do not relate to. I was always taught that love satisfies our heart. I know many single people who have a very deep capacity to love and their hearts are satisfied. I'm guessing we thirst for love and nothing will satisfy us except love. (confused? then don't think of genuine love as wanting to possess the beloved and keep them for yourself.)

 

Another point. A true lover doesn't get married with the aim of acheiving some sort of bliss on earth. Rather, they marry to help the beloved carry the burdens of life, to bring joy into the beloved's life and to be caring to them. Life is full of pain and it especially nice to know that someone will be truely there for you unconditionally. True love holds no conditions.

 

One Cistercian Monk wrote

 

"True love is solid

 

it may be fretted by annoyance

 

but it simply cannot be worn away."

 

This intellectual stuff must be boring to most readers.

 

In case you care to write.

 

<e-mail address removed>

[Tony T]

Robert:

 

Again, I thank you for taking your time to respond. I am also grateful for your Email address and pray that it is not abused by all those who stand before it.

 

Tony

[Robert]

This excerp is from a book writen five hundred years ago by a Monk in what is now England.

 

http://www.ccel.org/index/author-T.html

 

Go to Thomas a Kempis

 

Do not be bothered by their way of praying and putting themselves down, it was a part of the way they were then. It was their way of showing respect and acknowledging reality.

 

The Fifth Chapter

 

THE WONDERFUL EFFECT OF DIVINE LOVE

 

THE DISCIPLE

 

Ah, Lord God, my holy Lover, when You come into my heart, all that is within me will rejoice. You are my glory and the exultation of my heart. You are my hope and refuge in the day of my tribulation. But because my love is as yet weak and my virtue imperfect, I must be strengthened and comforted by You. Visit me often, therefore, and teach me Your holy discipline. Free me from evil passions and cleanse my heart of all disorderly affection so that, healed and purified within, I may be fit to love, strong to suffer, and firm to persevere.

 

Love is an excellent thing, a very great blessing, indeed. It makes every difficulty easy, and bears all wrongs with equanimity. For it bears a burden without being weighted and renders sweet all that is bitter. .... Love tends upward; it will not be held down by anything low.

 

Nothing is sweeter than love, nothing stronger or higher or wider; nothing is more pleasant, nothing fuller, and nothing better in heaven or on earth, for love is born of God and cannot rest except in God, Who is above all created things.

 

One who is in love flies, runs, and rejoices; he is free, not bound. He gives all for all and possesses all in all, because he rests in the one sovereign Good, Who is above all things, and from Whom every good flows and proceeds.

 

Love often knows no limits but overflows all bounds. Love feels no burden, thinks nothing of troubles, attempts more than it is able, and does not plead impossibility, because it believes that it may and can do all things. For this reason, it is able to do all, performing and effecting much where he who does not love fails and falls.

 

... For this warm affection of soul is a loud voice crying in the ears of God, and it says: "My God, my love ... Give me an increase of love, that I may learn to taste with the inward lips of my heart how sweet it is to love, how sweet to be dissolved in love and bathe in it. Let me be rapt in love. Let me rise above self in great fervor and wonder. ...

 

Let me love You more than myself, and let me not love myself except for Your sake (Christ). In You let me love all those who truly love You, as the law of love, which shines forth from You, commands."

 

Love is swift, sincere, kind, pleasant, and delightful. Love is strong, patient and faithful, prudent, long-suffering, and manly. Love is never self-seeking, for in whatever a person seeks himself there he falls from love. Love is circumspect, humble, and upright. It is neither soft nor light, nor intent upon vain things. It is sober and chaste, firm and quiet, guarded in all the senses. ... for there is no living in love without sorrow.

[Tony T]

Thank you for this except from the text and I will go to the website for more.

 

I think this chapter touches on all forms of love, especially agape, the love of man for God. And I do suppose our love for God may be the purest. He can wipe out entire cities with hurricanes, we call acts of God, and we worship and praise him for that. He can create children with all forms of retardation and maladies and the parents go to church and worship and praise God for this. Again, no more pure form of love.

 

I do not think this purest form of love is either indicated or appropriate for romantic sitations, at least not in this century. Some people can be selfish, deceitful, unfaithful, vicious, criminal, etc. While we are called to show certain forms of love for all people, even those who show these negative traits, I don't think healthy romantic love would find these traits compatible with its purpose.

 

While pure, unconditional love would call upon us to love a mass murderer or even a person who killed a member of our family and to forgive these acts, romantic love does not have these mandates. Self love must come before romantic love. If one does not love oneself sufficiently not to allow acts incompatible with his morals, principles and ethics to take place in his life, then whatever love may come his way will be insufficent to create self love.

 

One must love himself sufficiently first before romantic love can take place. The very nature of this self love requires that all actions toward the beloved self must be considered worthy and proper to be received. Mistreatment of any kind, disrespect, lack of consideration, etc. must be rejected. While the person who renders these negative acts can still be loved, the acts must be rejected and the person cannot be allowed to remain in one's proximity lest that behavior continue.

 

I suppose then, God is loved though his behavior in wiping out entire cities with storms or fire and causing hundreds to be killed or displaced is proper and fitting. While God produces food, the sun, all the ingredients for the maintenance of life on Earth, he has the ability to quickly take it away for whatever purpose.

 

It is not the nature of man to take the same kind of treatment from other men, even though we are said to be made in the image of God. Perhaps we hold mortal man up to higher standards than we hold God to. Not meaning this to be a religious discourse, I will stop here and continue this thought to you in Email.

 

I can only say that perhaps our meaning or purpose in being on the planet is to get as close as we can to an understanding of the nature of love, it's paradoxes, consistencies and inconsistencies.

 

And in everything great is held its opposite. In love there is the seed for hate and pain. To have peace there is war, to feel hot there must be cold. Light has need of darkness, otherwise how could it be seen as light.

 

Divine love seems appropriate to me as set forth in the text within your post, for no other reason than to show appreciation for this life. And I guess once we understand that if there was no pain, love would be pretty meaningless...and if there was no hunger, food would not be necessary...I guess the world is put together as well as it can be.

 

But people will still suffer the pains of love no less, and these words written here will be of no comfort. Only the few who acquire the perfect understanding of love will be able to endure all of its aspects and all of its consquences without judgement or reaction.

 

Novelist Henry Miller wrote in "Tropic of Capricorn":

 

"Nothing would be altered, I was convinced, except by a change of heart but who could change the hearts of men."

 

He also wrote:

 

"The more we reach out towards the world, the more the world retreats. Nobody wants real love, real hatred. Nobody wants you to put your hands in his sacred entrails. That's only for the priest in the hour of sacrifice. While we are here, while our blood is still warm, we are to pretend there is no such thing as blood and no such thing as flesh beneath the covering of skin.

 

Keep off the grass...that's the motto by which people live."

 

Robert, thank you again!!!

[Paulie]

Tony, By all means, PLEASE don't make this a thing that is just between the two of you in e-mail!!!

I am really enjoying this dialogue, and really hope you keep posting here. I think that this whole religious aspect is TOTALLY appropriate here. It's your and Robert's opinions, and I think most people, to varying extents, have their own idea of religion, and how it comes into play in love.

 

Please don't restrict these posts to e-mail between you and Robert, but if you must, please kindly forward them onto me, if you would, as I am really involved in them, even though I haven't contributed to this discussion as of yet.

 

And Robert, my man...keep posting here...ALOT!!!

 

Thanks Gentlemen!!

 

Paulie

[Robert]

I need to think a good bit about what Tony last said. His concept of God and how love relates, or doesn't, to romantic love is so different from my image. His concept of God is way different!

 

Its like the old elephant and two blind men analogy. The one man has ahold of the elephants tail and the other the trunk and in decribing to each other their experiences, they can't imagine that the two parts are connected to the same animal. Of course the point of the analogy isn't that both experiences are different yet connected. Rather, both men will extrapolate to a whole image of the elephant based on their limited experiences with an appendage. Neither, by holding a tail or trunk, can begin to imagine the immensity of the subject, God.

 

For years I taught Roman Catholic religion classes to people of various faiths. In their various faiths they were experiencing the Divine. Their experiences were genuine. Usually, the challenge was to figure out which beliefs were based on experiences and which were cultural extrapolations.

 

About twenty or thirty years ago monks from many different religions around the world met in Assisi, Italy. Their goal was to share their experiences of the Divine. It was fascinating to read about another person's spiritual experience in terms so foreign to our own Western way of expressing ourselves. The monks were really surprised to discover how much they had in common. I recently read that some continue to meet, on a annual basis, to share/explore their brotherhood.

 

In my case I need to integrate Tony's into mine and then try to form an opinion. Patience please, this is radical.

[Deejette]

I think so much of what we call romanatic love is two needy neurotics joined at the hip, looking to fill the lonely void within with the emotional charge of sexuality and the security of ownership.

 

As we can see from some of the postings, people do all kinds of horrible things to each other in the name of love. It has nothing to do with the divine unselfishness that is extoled by the religions of the world.

I need to think a good bit about what Tony last said. His concept of God and how love relates, or doesn't, to romantic love is so different from my image. His concept of God is way different!

 

Its like the old elephant and two blind men analogy. The one man has ahold of the elephants tail and the other the trunk and in decribing to each other their experiences, they can't imagine that the two parts are connected to the same animal. Of course the point of the analogy isn't that both experiences are different yet connected. Rather, both men will extrapolate to a whole image of the elephant based on their limited experiences with an appendage. Neither, by holding a tail or trunk, can begin to imagine the immensity of the subject, God. For years I taught Roman Catholic religion classes to people of various faiths. In their various faiths they were experiencing the Divine. Their experiences were genuine. Usually, the challenge was to figure out which beliefs were based on experiences and which were cultural extrapolations.

 

About twenty or thirty years ago monks from many different religions around the world met in Assisi, Italy. Their goal was to share their experiences of the Divine. It was fascinating to read about another person's spiritual experience in terms so foreign to our own Western way of expressing ourselves. The monks were really surprised to discover how much they had in common. I recently read that some continue to meet, on a annual basis, to share/explore their brotherhood. In my case I need to integrate Tony's into mine and then try to form an opinion. Patience please, this is radical.

[Robert]

I think so much of what we call romanatic love is two needy neurotics joined at the hip, looking to fill the lonely void within with the emotional charge of sexuality and the security of ownership. As we can see from some of the postings, people do all kinds of horrible things to each other in the name of love. It has nothing to do with the divine unselfishness that is extoled by the religions of the world.

Deejette

 

I agree that much of what is called love has nothing to do with the "divine unselfishness".

 

The point purpose in teaching about a deeper kind o flove is to help these people realize that there is something infinitely more satisfying than lust or jealousy etc.

 

"Intimacy of the heart is far deeper than physical intimacy."

 

Robert

[Deejette]

Yes. Intimacy of the heart is far rarer too than physical intimacy, which is even a commodity on the marketplace. Intimacy of the heart is based on giving rather than "what's in it for me." Rather than binding the beloved in emotional shackles, it is liberating. It comes from a trust in the order of the universe itself and in the belief that we all rest in the heart of God and are thus never alone.

 

Coming from love and not seeking to find it from outside oneself, is the key. People restlessly seek completeness in another person, who is just as weak and fallible as they are. Then disappointment sets in when the illusion dies. Love turns to hate and bitterness because it is based on a false foundation.

Deejette I agree that much of what is called love has nothing to do with the "divine unselfishness".

 

The point purpose in teaching about a deeper kind o flove is to help these people realize that there is something infinitely more satisfying than lust or jealousy etc. "Intimacy of the heart is far deeper than physical intimacy." Robert

[Taressa]

Tony, Robert,

 

Dearest gentlemen, I drink you in.

 

Thank you for letting me share your lovely discussion.

 

Taressa