Is attachment weakness?

To love anything is to realize that it may be lost.

Is that weakness? No. It is having the strength to see something as it really is. It also depends on how "attached" you ARE, not so much on how you may think you are. Just like drugs. You try coke, your feelin' mighty fine. You do another line and this develops into a mindset of needing more to fulfill the happiness you are lacking, or just a mental fixation. You say to yourself one more then I'm done, but you don't realize the extremity of how much you REALLy are addicted.

Hopefully you follow me or at least get the point i was trying to convey- Which Is you may not realize the severity of your actions, through default or a lack of observation that is clouded by the current problem you are experiencing.

You as an individual bring many aspects to a relationship, as well as your partner, whether it be a friend or an exclusive companion. What I'm getting at is attachment isn't a weakness, It's more of a strength and/or growth that teaches you alot about yourself and other people, so long as the dependency doesn't exclude you or the other person from having your own independency.

It's all about balance. Finding the equilibrium is really the question you should be asking ....... or reassuring

"Keep your mind open so your thoughts are free to explore"
[  Edited by Lynnz at   ]

All humans have to deal with loss at sometime. I will talk about death because its a closed alley.

Heres the rub;

1. The extreme. Attitude; couldn;t give a s**t who dies i don't really love them. I'm selfish, ignorant and proud of it.

2. I've lost someone. I don't know how to cope. How could they do this to me? Why couldn't it be someone else. Selfish, but because they did have a form of bonding.

3. Guilt.2 subcategries:

a) For the deceased: I have to carry on what they left off but I can't. I so wish they hadn't gone-its a tragedy.

b) Guilt for those who those love ones have left hurting. e.g. I so wish that these things wouldn't hurt because of the wake of what has happened

4. Realisation that death is just part of nature and that you should remember these loved ones with fond memories so you can use their examples to move on. The problem is that all do not see this for various reasons 1-3 however glossed over. So, a person in this category is of high importance to help, and I mean really help, others. They may still, however, feel the pain more deeply just by being aware.

""No words""

ok...you explain a general idea of what people must be thinking when someone dies and dont relate it to how attatchment may or may not make you weak. or if you were getting to that in another post just thinking what to say then that's my bad. but i must admit i hate guessing games sometimes. ^_^;

"I'm a human being, God Dammit!! My life has value!!!"

We're all assuming that everyone attaches themselves to people for the same pious reasons... then we analyze whether or not the loss of such an attachment is bad or good.

I think we must first determine the nature of the attachment.

There is an integral difference between loving someone as an instinctual partner that will fulfill your needs in this life as a partner and needing someone because you require the concept of a partner to compensate for some form of insecurity or another.

I think we can all agree the latter reason is an incorrect reason, and we can also agree that a majority of the people out there who are in a relationship or marriage are with who they are with for these incorrect reasons.

Hence, the question should first be, how do you determine what the nature of the attachment is? How do you know whether it is because you are insecure or whether the person is a natural part of your life for good wholeseme reasons? Both situations spawn very similar feelings within an individual, and both situations spawn similar pain when the attachment is threatened.

Once we determine how to create a line between the two forms of attachment, then we can clearly state why either of them may or may not be good for an individual.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

It would be by becoming selfless so to act purely to spread happiness. This only comes through deeply understanding yourself. And to do this fully would be to transcend the meaning of being human.

""No words""

and whats the meaning of being human. sense you clearly understand what iit has taken 1000's of years for "humans" to figure out.

"Wht cry for those that often cry? Instead, help them smile, and smile for those that smile."

Pacification due to necessity is easily masked as selflessness, hence that is not a viable credential to determine whether or not someone is attached healthily to someone.

I'm sure many people perceive what they share withsomeone as love whereas it is just a fear of losing one another, and "care" for one another to prevent losing one another.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

Loss is just the thing we all have to deal with at some point in our lives. But the very problem is the word 'loss'. For we never lose; we only ever learn change. The very word loss is about living for the future, forgetting the present and living therefore neither.

ps : Are we humans being or human beings?

""No words""

suppose you yourself love another for the "right" reasons, but your partner does not, or vice versa. is this even possible? can true love occur only when both are on the right path?

"I am Akba-Atatdia"

Fucking wicked question Wyote.

And a resounding "yes"... when one partner loves the other for the "right" reasons, the other will most definitely reciprocate.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

This is just a question of scale. If you wanna procreate the 'right' reasons will always have a 'bad' side. Same problem in government. The supposed values of true America are freedom. To get there you have to rid somebody elses freedom and to stay there to some extent you have to trade off somebody elses freedom. Its the way of the world. The opposite of anything is indifference.

Then its a question of how much you trade off.

""No words""

heyjme: I don't know how that addresses Wyote's question...

The question is, once attached to someone, presumably for the right reasons, you will suffer great pain when that person perishes.

Therefore, should love always take into account the concept of death and/or losing the person or should it be in perspective in the sense that you love the person as deeply as you can as long as you can, and when and if you lose that person, you change yourself to cope with reality.

Sometimes this change is painful, but if considered constantly it might not actually be painful... but rahter just a new change to absorb.

But would keeping that change an open possibility limit the devotion you have to a person?

Is it possible to love someone completely, deeply, and then when they perish feel no pain at all?

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

quote:

---

The question is, once attached to someone, presumably for the right reasons, you will suffer great pain when that person perishes.

---

quote:

---

Therefore, should love always take into account the concept of death and/or losing the person or should it be in perspective in the sense that you love the person as deeply as you can as long as you can, and when and if you lose that person, you change yourself to cope with reality.

---

quote:

---

Sometimes this change is painful, but if considered constantly it might not actually be painful... but rahter just a new change to absorb.

---

quote:

---

But would keeping that change an open possibility limit the devotion you have to a person?

---

quote:

---

Is it possible to love someone completely, deeply, and then when they perish feel no pain at all?

---

""No words""

I don't agree.

There must be a method of loving someone deeply, with all your heart, selflessly, and understand that their passing is a change that is as integral a part of life as you loving them was.

...similar to God.

Distracting yourself with other activites or people is a hack. It doesn't provide an adequate solution to the problem, and most definitely, you will love the person less if you must distract yourself because by definition the reason you are doing that is to limit your necessity of them.

If there is no method of loving someone deeply whilst taking into account losing them, then loving is wrong. Because that means it is a form of behaviour that will innevitably be harmful for you.

Given that loving seems to be right, there must be a way of loving someone yet accepting that you will lose them. In fact, it is possible that if you keep this in mind, you will love them even more because you tend to not take their presence for granted.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

Attachment to noone is selfish. Attachment to one is strong. Attachment to everyone is strongest.

Loving someone else; note the someone else and not all others is by definition a form of human attachment to fufill the desires of mortal needs. As such, when you lose this someone, you will suffer. What you are aiming to do is to have silent noise when you have fully operational ears.

""No words""