shadowplay Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 Perhaps it's a definition issue but I don't consider spirituality a connection. That's within ourselves. I'm talking about all cylinders firing, from physical, to emotional, to intellectual, it's all connected. I think she may be using "spiritual" as a deep fusion of the emotional and intellectual. In other words, the feeling that you're "soulmates," to put it tritely.
Trialbyfire Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 I'm joking. I am very happy with my current GF. :bunny::bunny:I knew you were being facetious, as well as trying to defang me! I think she may be using "spiritual" as a deep fusion of the emotional and intellectual. In other words, the feeling that you're "soulmates," to put it tritely.Gah...more of those words I don't believe in!
shadowplay Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 I knew you were being facetious, as well as trying to defang me! Gah...more of those words I don't believe in! We're playing with semantics now. Whatever you want to call it, it all boils down to the same feeling. Just feels "right" on a deep level.
Trialbyfire Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 We're playing with semantics now. Whatever you want to call it, it all boils down to the same feeling. Just feels "right" on a deep level.Which is why my original post noted "perhaps a definition issue". And yes, we've come around full circle to it just "feeling right" and "just knowing". This should be a two-way street. If the connection is only from one side, it's pretend.
Untouchable_Fire Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 I knew you were being facetious, as well as trying to defang me! I'm glad you said fang! The lioness has some dangerous claws, but the fangs are what scare me. We're playing with semantics now. Whatever you want to call it, it all boils down to the same feeling. Just feels "right" on a deep level. It's not just splitting hairs. The words you use show from what direction you are approaching the concept. So... How can you tell "feels right" from "feels kinda right", from "feels mostly right"... ect?
shadowplay Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 Which is why my original post noted "perhaps a definition issue". And yes, we've come around full circle to it just "feeling right" and "just knowing". This should be a two-way street. If the connection is only from one side, it's pretend. To restate, I believe she was talking about a combination of the emotional and intellectual when she referred to a "spiritual connection." A shared way of seeing and experiencing the world, the feeling that you "get" and love things in each other that others might not understand.
Author tigressA Posted July 16, 2009 Author Posted July 16, 2009 Which is why my original post noted "perhaps a definition issue". And yes, we've come around full circle to it just "feeling right" and "just knowing". This should be a two-way street. If the connection is only from one side, it's pretend. It always comes back to that. What should it always come back to, do you think, for those people who don't aspire to have that "just knowing" feeling? Not that I don't aspire to it; I do. And when does that "just knowing" appear anyway? Can someone make it happen? Can it grow over time?
Untouchable_Fire Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 I know, it sounds strange. But there's just something there. We get along; we just "click". We've had our share of problems but we've been able to get through them. IMHO.... your not settling at this point.
Author tigressA Posted July 16, 2009 Author Posted July 16, 2009 IMHO.... your not settling at this point. "At this point"...so is there a point in my relationship at which I could be settling?
shadowplay Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 It always comes back to that. What should it always come back to, do you think, for those people who don't aspire to have that "just knowing" feeling? Not that I don't aspire to it; I do. And when does that "just knowing" appear anyway? Can someone make it happen? Can it grow over time? In my experience, it starts to happen not too long after getting to know somebody. You click, and over time that connection deepens (or doesn't). I don't think you can make it grow if it's not there from the early stages.
Trialbyfire Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 To restate, I believe she was talking about a combination of the emotional and intellectual when she referred to a "spiritual connection." A shared way of seeing and experiencing the world, the feeling that you "get" and love things in each other that others might not understand.Basically, if you refer to my post, that's what I said but refuse to use the terms "spiritual" or "soul mate". Both, at least in my view, have otherworldliness and destiny, put on your tin foil hat effect, about them.
Ariadne Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 To restate, I believe she was talking about a combination of the emotional and intellectual when she referred to a "spiritual connection." A shared way of seeing and experiencing the world, the feeling that you "get" and love things in each other that others might not understand. Yes. I believe that love has all to do with spirituality. It's above the physical, it's above the intellectual, it's something you can't describe in any of those terms.
Author tigressA Posted July 16, 2009 Author Posted July 16, 2009 So... How can you tell "feels right" from "feels kinda right", from "feels mostly right"... ect? THAT totally sums up what I also would like to know.
Trialbyfire Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 It always comes back to that.It cracks me up too! What should it always come back to, do you think, for those people who don't aspire to have that "just knowing" feeling?An inability to open wide to emotional experience due to fear of hurt or an inability to feel deeply. Not everyone can feel deeply. Not that I don't aspire to it; I do. And when does that "just knowing" appear anyway?With my fiance, emotionally, it came pretty early, although I don't think there's a definitive clock to it. Can someone make it happen?I honestly don't believe you can make it happen but you allow it or prevent it from happening. Can it grow over time?Only if all the elements are there in the first place and both parties allow it to happen.
shadowplay Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 Basically, if you refer to my post, that's what I said but refuse to use the terms "spiritual" or "soul mate". Both, at least in my view, have otherworldliness and destiny, put on your tin foil hat effect, about them. I was simply pointing out that somebody could use "spiritual" to mean the same thing that you were talking without the added fairy dust.
Trialbyfire Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 I was simply pointing out that somebody could use "spiritual" to mean the same thing that you were talking without the added fairy dust.It's denigrating the term "spiritual", IMO. Spirituality is being connected to something bigger, much bigger than the pettiness of humanity. Sit in peace and appreciation in a special spot in nature one day, where you're surrounded by mountains, rivers and wildlife. Talk about using an elephant gun term (spiritual) to kill a mouse (human love and connection).
shadowplay Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 It's denigrating the term "spiritual", IMO. Spirituality is being connected to something bigger, much bigger than the pettiness of humanity. Sit in peace and appreciation in a special spot in nature one day, where you're surrounded by mountains, rivers and wildlife. Talk about using an elephant gun term (spiritual) to kill a mouse (human love and connection). As I see it, a word as vague as spiritual can change its meaning according to its context. While the meaning you reference may be more common, in association with love the word often refers to a "petty" connection between souls. The dictionary def of spiritual includes a number of different meanings, including the two above. I don't believe it denigrates the word's usual meaning, if it is clear that the meaning changes with context. Problem is there is no word in our language that perfectly describes what we're getting at.
Untouchable_Fire Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 THAT totally sums up what I also would like to know. There is no answer to that. What most people do is just rack up enough experience in relationships that they have a mental gauge. So they are all just driving down the freeway of love without a speedometer.... trying to tell you that they... "just know" that they are going the speed limit. I've been through this enough times that I know what I don't know. What I do is figure out who she is at the core, and knowing myself see if that matches. I also and this is super important... I quantify and qualify our chemistry. "At this point"...so is there a point in my relationship at which I could be settling? Relationships change over time, as do the people in them. So, yes you could be perfect for each other right now... but that may change in time if you don't actively choose to grow in the same direction.
Author tigressA Posted July 16, 2009 Author Posted July 16, 2009 What I do is figure out who she is at the core, and knowing myself see if that matches. How would you define matching? Can you give me an example of this?
Isolde Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 It's denigrating the term "spiritual", IMO. Spirituality is being connected to something bigger, much bigger than the pettiness of humanity. Sit in peace and appreciation in a special spot in nature one day, where you're surrounded by mountains, rivers and wildlife. Talk about using an elephant gun term (spiritual) to kill a mouse (human love and connection). While it's true that humans are relatively small in comparison to the universe, I believe spirituality is a part-in-whole thing, where a small or relatively insignificant thing can still carry spiritual weight as part of the whole. Human love and human achievement may be small and even rather temporary, but that doesn't mean they don't carry aspects of the spiritual realm, because we COME FROM the spiritual realm. At least, that's what I think. I agree the term soulmate is pretty much rubbish, for reasons that are too many and too complicated to get into here.
Trialbyfire Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 As I see it, a word as vague as spiritual can change its meaning according to its context. While the meaning you reference may be more common, in association with love the word often refers to a "petty" connection between souls. The dictionary def of spiritual includes a number of different meanings, including the two above. I don't believe it denigrates the word's usual meaning, if it is clear that the meaning changes with context. Problem is there is no word in our language that perfectly describes what we're getting at.Perhaps it's because I don't subscribe to any concepts of spirit or soul, having anything to do with something as earthy as love, that fires on all cylinders. There's no need to create a word, for every concept. Multiple words work, just as well. While it's true that humans are relatively small in comparison to the universe, I believe spirituality is a part-in-whole thing, where a small or relatively insignificant thing can still carry spiritual weight as part of the whole. Human love and human achievement may be small and even rather temporary, but that doesn't mean they don't carry aspects of the spiritual realm, because we COME FROM the spiritual realm. At least, that's what I think.You should start a thread on this. I'm somewhat torn on this issue but will say that the petty things we focus on, including love as we see it, would be moot. Perhaps it's because I see spirituality as plugging into nature v. acknowledging that human lives mean diddly-do, on the scale of things.
Untouchable_Fire Posted July 17, 2009 Posted July 17, 2009 How would you define matching? Can you give me an example of this? In my life the best example is that I am highly motivated by fun. That means I tend to be enthusiastic, optimistic, charismatic, live in the moment, but also disorganized and forgetful. I need someone who fits well with those traits. Does that make sense?
Isolde Posted July 17, 2009 Posted July 17, 2009 Perhaps it's because I don't subscribe to any concepts of spirit or soul, having anything to do with something as earthy as love, that fires on all cylinders. There's no need to create a word, for every concept. Multiple words work, just as well. Perhaps it's because I see spirituality as plugging into nature v. acknowledging that human lives mean diddly-do, on the scale of things. I think this is something that's clearly reliant, to an extent, (did I say reliant? now I sound like you...) on religious beliefs. Though my beliefs are somewhat murky, they do have something to do with the above thoughts that I wrote. Since it's so personal, I think I'd prefer not to start a thread that could end up being divisive (unfortunately there's no way to ensure that only civil people would join into the conversation!)
Sam Spade Posted July 17, 2009 Posted July 17, 2009 While it's true that humans are relatively small in comparison to the universe, I believe spirituality is a part-in-whole thing, where a small or relatively insignificant thing can still carry spiritual weight as part of the whole. Human love and human achievement may be small and even rather temporary, but that doesn't mean they don't carry aspects of the spiritual realm, because we COME FROM the spiritual realm. At least, that's what I think. I agree the term soulmate is pretty much rubbish, for reasons that are too many and too complicated to get into here. The relevance of this point to "settling" () is as follows: 1) the fundamental human dilemma is what to do with all the time we have on earth? (the answers historically range between religious fundamentalism and mindless self-indulgence, Dorian Gray style; even the budhists are kinda self-congratulary). Anyway, the point is that the answer to this dilemma *never* 'descends' upon people, the beliefs of some right wing wackos notwithstanding, (like 'true love' supposedly does, you see where I'm going with this). Instead, every generation comes up with different ways to address it, there's search involved, and regardless of the answer, there is usually a leap of faith involved (even if you choose science as your thing..). 2) So, why on earth how do we choose to behave in relationships would be any different than the way we address all other existential concerns? Chances are, relationships, much like anything else related to how time on earth is spent, involve conscious *choice*, and so prophesing that "it just happens" (to the few chosen ones, I presume ), is just silly, and mor importantly - illogical . Sure you get spiritual high from love, but you can also get it from heroin too. So hate to break it to you, but brains are involved . I am highly annoyed (and offended) by the insinuation that if you have to think about and evaluate your relationship, then it's not the "real deal"
Trialbyfire Posted July 17, 2009 Posted July 17, 2009 I am highly annoyed (and offended) by the insinuation that if you have to think about and evaluate your relationship, then it's not the "real deal" You're missing the point entirely. No one has stated that you don't have to use your brain. "It just happens" has everything to do with subconscious evaluation and conscious decision to allow it to happen, by both parties. The only random part of it, is that it's usually an accident with the physical meeting part, of someone who's that compatible and both people who are in the same emotional and intellectual headspace, so they're receptive. For certain, you can't force it to happen, since you can't create someone or imbue someone with the properties necessary for "it" to happen.
Recommended Posts