LastThursday

Back to my attachment/detachment theory. One thought that came to me, triggered by one of Leo's ego development videos. It is that when in a relationship, one partner will not be at a high enough state of personal development to even entertain embodying A/D. The chances are that there will be neediness, lack of confidence, lack of experience, and pressure of expectation: knight-in-shining-armour, princess-in-a-tower type of thinking (how medieval). I don't think all is lost though. If you are detached from expectation pressure yourself (i.e. you embody A/D), then that will still give the underdeveloped partner space to breathe. Of course there may initially be an inward expectation of pressure on their behalf. The needy partner will think they are expected to conform to stereotype in some way - they may even want it. But this should neither be discouraged nor encouraged, because in either case there would be pressure. A/D really is about being above such concerns. You are detached from pressuring your partner or yourself. But, neither does A/D say or feel superiority over an "underdeveloped" partner, there is no sense of pity or pulling the partner up to your level. Instead you just embody the principles of A/D yourself and be done with it. How then to deal with neediness or co-dependency from a partner? The neediness comes from several sources. The main one is a lack of self love or more accurately the inability to generate love for themselves. It's worth saying here that lack of experience isn't something to be punished. In A/D you simply give the partner what they want: love, unconditionally. You are detached from conditions being attached to anything you do in the relationship. Yes, there needs to be agreement and decision making in a relationship and adjusting to things as you go, but none of that needs to be conditional upon behaving or being forced to think in a certain way. A/D is not to be forced on anyone, it is just a philosophy you yourself embody. If the partner is interested, you teach them A/D; more than likely you lead by example and teach tacitly. Another source of neediness is lack of confidence. This mostly comes from a lack of experience or maybe trauma. Perhaps a partner doesn't know how to cook well, they've never been taught and never really tried. If you yourself are no good in the kitchen and this creates a problem, then A/D says you should go and improve yourself first. The needy partner should be included in this learning process, but only if they're interested. I will reiterate, in A/D you are detached from expectation. In all likelihood, there will be shared interests and unshared interests by both parties in a relationship. A/D says you are free in this respect. If you end up being good at cooking and the other partner not, then you don't complain about it, because you do it for love in all it's guises. After all, you're in a relationship because you love being in one, not to fulfill your needs and desires foremost. What about neediness that comes from expectation? A/D says are attached to the enjoyment of either being single or being in a relationship. You are free to choose whether to cater for a partner's neediness or not. You are also attached to loving your partner and providing for them, after all, being in a relationship is about his. If you start to feel an expectation or obligation to cater for a certain lack your in partner, then you are not doing A/D. If every day you cook a meal for partner out of obligation rather than love, then this needs to be addressed. The solution is not to project negativity onto the needy partner. If they are needy on Monday, they will probably be needy on Tuesday and every other day. Instead you need to step up and find that solution together. You ask the partner what their thoughts and ideas are first. If they have none, then you yourself find a loving solution. Perhaps you get a takeaway once in a while, maybe you jointly take up cooking classes, or whatever. Of course, if you love cooking, but the odd day here and there you just can't be bothered, then you just get a takeaway without complaint. So really A/D is about removing all blame and negative projection or parenting the other person. It's about being attached to love and the reward of relationship and being detached from blaming and expectation.

Keep pushing up. Through the dense nurturing soil. Keep pushing up. I can feel the sunlight. Keep pushing up. Unfurl myself. Keep pushing up. Expand myself. Keep pushing up. Breathing in and out. Keep pushing up. Feel the rain. Keep pushing up. Drink and rest. Keep pushing up. Sunlight, air. Keep pushing up. Soft breeze. Keep pushing up. Don't stop now. Keep pushing up.

Reasonable causation. Seems reasonable enough. Although I'm being unreasonable. If you can bear to work with correlation, then you could say that the ground of conscious experience is correlation itself. Everything is correlated with everything else and it all hangs together as such. What's orchestrating all this correlation is what @Leo Gura mentions about Sherlock Holmes, a thing completely outside of or orthogonal to reality. The materialist paradigm just sits inside of idealism, it is a subset of it. It is not inherently incompatible with it. If you look at the Yin Yang symbol the white is correlated to the black (inversely), because they are both part of a greater whole. But you wouldn't say that the black causes the white, you can see they're in a symbiotic relationship. It's that way with everything. Taking a drug is correlated to feeling high in a fairly particular way. But maybe it's complete coincidence and one day you'll feel high without having taken the drug. Taking the drug is in a symbiotic relationship with feeling high.

@Leo Gura I simply can't restrain myself sorry. What you say is elementary my dear Watson. I'll leave now.

My work is done. Ok I'll come out to play. Bear with me... It's the black box phenomenon isn't it? You have a black box that is attached to wires going in and wires going out. The materialist is convinced the black box does something important like generate consciousness, but would like to prove it. What the materialist wants is a theory of causation. That whatever the black box does to the input, causes the output. The input in this case is perhaps the outside world and its physics and the output is consciousness. How to go about it? The conventional way is to experiment by poking in different types of input and seeing what comes out. So, you stab a needle in the subject's hand and they shout an obscenity, input, output. And much like seismologist monitors tremors and their reverberations around the world, a model is built up of what's in the black box (or the centre of the earth say). The unconventional way is to go and shove a screwdriver into the black box and see what happens. Hmm. When you poke the screwdriver in this part, this happens and that part, that happens. Correlation. You poke the screwdriver in the same part a thousand times and get the same result. Causation. It's all a matter of degree. Ask the scientists at CERN about seven sigma confidence, even they don't believe in causation. https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/143497-cern-now-99-999999999-sure-it-has-found-the-higgs-boson Obviously, in every day speak causation is just a shorthand for I've seen this happen a thousand times before or I believe that that thing was the cause (and I don't really care too much if it was or not). Yes! You're getting closer. The only proper experiment is one that you carry out on yourself. Especially so with consciousness experiments. You simply cannot know if other people are conscious or not. The ground of all experience is your consciousness. You seem unsure when you say that "there obviously seems to be a predictable change". Is the change really predictable? Does taking a drug on Sunday have the same effect as taking the drug on Tuesday? How do you realiably compare the two experiences. You don't. That's a problem. Taking a drug in any case is just messing around with the inputs and seeing a highly correlated output (maybe 7 sigma!). It tells you very little if in fact the experience is mediated by the brain at all. Maybe it's the heart, or the blood or who knows what. Maybe it's just consciousness playing with itself. But perhaps like a seismologist you can try and infer what the black box in the middle is doing and work out if indeed it is the brain doing it.

I've woken up this morning with ideas whirlpooling around relationships. Nothing definite has congealed, but the base of my "new" theory is what I will call attachment/detachment. Ok, it's a working title. I've tried to push something like this idea in various different contexts over time, but I always get blank expressions or metaphorical tumbleweed. My most often used analogy is that of a dance. You know, like something out of the 50's perhaps. You turn up to a dance hall, the music plays and every once in a while the man goes up to the woman and asks her to dance. They dance for a while. The song ends and they cheerfully thank each other and the dance ends. A new song starts up and a you pick a new partner. The "attachment" part of the theory is the actual dancing itself. You hold each other and follow each other's steps, you're in synchrony with each other and the music. You both know what needs to be done and how to perform the dance steps. If one of you doesn't know the dance so well, the other steps up and guides. But there is also an in-the-moment quality to dancing, you adjust to each other and feel your way through the dance. The "detachment" part of the theory is what happens whilst you're waiting to be asked. You would like to be asked to dance, or to ask someone, but it's not the primary reason for being there. The reason for being in the dance hall is for fun and enjoyment. Maybe there are other things to do, such as catch up with friends, or just sit and enjoy the music or watch the other dancers. How does attachment/detachment (A/D) translate into relationships in general? The base of A/D is that whatever state you are currently experiencing you are familiar and comfortable with it. Obvserving relationships over time and having been in them, there are broadly two extremes in relationships. One is complete co-dependency whereby neither partner can function independently; each parter is totally reliant on the other to fill in for their personal inadequacies. If one partner in a co-dependent relationship were to go on holiday for exampe, the other would suffer and become unable to function. The other is complete separation. This is where a couple will perhaps live together in the same space, but lead completely independent lives; hardly functioning as a unit at all. There may even be a complete break down of communication or actual violence or threat between the couple. A/D is about how to lead a functional relationship. Co-dependency is centred around neediness, complete separation around rejection and disinterest. In either case there is dysfunctional behaviour. A/D is founded on a base of confidence and being in the moment. In order to be comfortable, say living by yourself, you need to be able to fulfill all the basic survival needs such as feeding yourself and being social. A single person doesn't reject ideas around being in a relationship, but neither does s/he feel as if they're missing out by not being in one - there isn't a pressure generated by expectation. Instead they are actively enjoying the single life and the freedom it gives. There is a confidence in their own abilities to provide for all the needs they have. Once a relationship starts up, again there is a confidence. There isn't an expectation that the relationship will last forever (just like a dance). There isn't an expectation that your new partner will fulfill all your needs - because you already have confidence in fulfilling your own needs. No. You are in the relationship simply for the fun and exhiliration of it. You know there is something deeply exciting about sharing your life with another person, and for as long as it lasts, you enjoy the experience. So the detachment part of A/D is also about experiencing singledom or coupledom without neediness or unreasonable expectation - both parties are detached from pressuring each other. The attachment part of A/D is about enjoying sharing an experience together in whatever form that comes. There is naturally a compromise and restriction of certain freedoms that comes from being in a relationship, but you are detached from cogitating about lack, instead you realise that being attached to a relationship is just a different mode of being. Each mode of being has its upsides and downsides and you're happy with those. Each partner is completely detached from projecting their needs and negativity on to the other person. Instead each partner is attached to taking complete responsibility for their shortcomings and actively takes action to improve those. Each person in a relationship is aware that the relationship will evolve over time. They know that initial romantic infatuation will peter out and are ready for it. They know that they will have to compromise and make difficult decisions and that they will on occasion disagree strongly. They know when the right moment is for detachment. There is an ebbing and flowing of being together and being apart. Each partner has their own friends and their own independent activities, their own growth trajectories. As stated, in A/D each person enjoys both the moments of closeness and intimacy and of doing their own thing, knowing that the relationship will hold together regardless. When the end of the relationship comes, it's recognised that there will be an asymmetry. One of the partners will feel that the end of dance has come, and the music has stopped. The other partner will recognise this and not badger them to stay together unnecessarily. Indeed there should still be a friendship and you may still help each other out during the transition to singledom - you are not ashamed about the breakup or unhealthily attached to the other person. You both acknowledge the grief of losing the relationship, but you let each other go gracefully and say "thank you for dancing with me".

You hit the nail on the head, but it slipped. In reality there's only ever correlation. Causation is just the extreme end of correlation. So the brain and its activity is correlated to consciousness (via asking questions to the experimental subject(!)) yes, but causation can never be proven in principle. You can never be 100% certain of anything. Importantly, correlation always works in both directions. Does brain activity produce consciousness, or does conscious phenomena produce brain activity? It's even worse however, because all that brain monitoring and stimulation is happening in the consciousness of the experimenter. And worse still, the experimenter and the experiment is happening in your consciousness, and you don't even know if the experimenter is conscious or not (you'd have to probe their brain first).

There's a computer language called Smalltalk. This post is not about that. This post is about small talk. What's the one definining feature of small talk? Why the "small" epithet? It's to do with seriousness and depth. Small talk is by definition lightheared and unwilling to plumb philosophical depths or to talk at length about any one subject. It normally contains a fair amount of humour to lighten it up. It's not silent. In other words there aren't great gaps of silence, the gaps are meant to be filled. It doesn't use long or expensive looking words, it lives down in the earth. The main meat of the small talk sandwich is anecdote and opinion; the tit-for-tat exchange of information in micro-story form. Human people being as they are, thrive on stories, there's a tiny orgasmic reward for every bit of world-building that happens in an exchange. And on it goes. The reciprocality of story telling in small talk, is small talk. Those that feel they can't do small talk are generally missing or unware of these components. Long silences, seriousness, inability to change subject, flowery or intellectual or overly sincere language - you may as well attend a seminar or funeral service for those. The two slices of bread in the small talk sandwich are spontaneity and quick wittedness. It really is like an improvisational jazz band doing their thing. One person pipes up on what she did yesterday whilst buying underwear, another plays harmony by adding that he hasn't bought underwear in years, another doesn't wear any, laughter ensures, next topic. There are those that are hopeless at this process, their brains are simply not wired for quick fire repartee. With small talk you can't afford to be left behind still thinking about that joke about underwear, when the conversation is now at the dire state of our hair styles. There's constant motion. Inevitably, one individual will dominate with their advanced small talk skills, others will sit in dumb silence and just laugh occasionally. Small talk is egalitarian and doesn't judge. Participate or just listen who cares?

You will want different things at different points in your life. Be true to yourself now. If having a relationship and children doesn't inspire you at the moment, then just let it go and do other things. Have a relationship when the moment is right, you'll just know it's right when it happens. If it doesn't happen then don't worry about it, don't force it, be free, live your life your way. Having a relationship requires lasting commitment and energy, and maybe you're not ready for it right now, so what? Having children is a permanent commitment and very rewarding, but also very hard work. It's very sensible for the sake of the child that you're in the right place mentally and financially to be able to commit, don't do it before then. Be easy on yourself.

Who is this God character I keep hearing about on this forum? What does s/he want? Who's s/he related to?

Every edifice needs foundations. How else does it stay upright? That is logical. But what keeps the ground in place? Turtles.

I've never really been that good at painting my nails. Ha! That got your attention. Have I really run out of spiritual topics to talk about? Don't know. I'm in an anecdotal phase of my journal. Storytelling is an important skill to have for small talk. More about small talk in the next episode. A number of years ago I took up the quaint British custom of Morris dancing. Even in the UK it is somewhat obscure and derided. The part most often derided is all that prancing around and handkerchief waving - technically Cotswold Morris dancing. As with anything there are different divisions and flavours in Morris dancing. I took up Morris dancing for the same reason I took up smoking, to get closer to and impress a member of the opposing sex. As it would turn out it got me nowhere (as with the smoking), but, nevertheless I had immense fun Morris dancing for a year. I used a sawn off pick axe handle instead of a handkerchief, much more manly. What I really loved about Morris dancing was not the actual dancing itself (it took me forever to master the steps), but all the beer drinking, dressing up, the theatricality of it, travelling to different venues, camping and being outdoors, music, communal atmosphere and crowds. So quite a lot of things. I was absolutely gutted when I had to give it up, things turned sour with the woman I was trying to be in love with. Oh well. Part of the attraction was dressing up. I've always enjoyed putting on a costume and being someone else for a while. Humans mostly being visual creatures they're greatly affected by uniforms, suits, costumes and hi-viz jackets. It's supremely ridiculous if you think about it. Why should you treat someone in a police uniform any different than someone in drag? Anyway, my Morris costume was all black: black boots, black jeans, black overcoat with reams of material attached in a kind of Christmas tree effect (you had to be there), black sunglasses, and perhaps most controversially blacked up face (not neck or hands). The blacked up face has nothing to do with racism and a lot to do with Welsh coal miners working down pits and having coal stained faces - historical reasons. And for the topic of this post, also painted black nails. That style of Morris dancing is called Border, i.e. Welsh border. Even in our men's side (troupe), there was contention on whether to paint our nails or not. For some it was off limits, I and a few others thought it was all part of the show. I was always terrible at painting my nails. But it was fine, the effect wasn't supposed to be perfect, but more of a look, it wasn't a fashion parade. That's not to say I hadn't had practice before. I have variously painted the nails of previous exes (females), because, I presume they also had trouble painting their nails. It's worse with mid-tone colours, as any streaks or blobs will show immediately and indelibly. Although two coats is de-rigeur for nails. I don't do French nails, go see a specialist! I do sometimes wish men could just paint their nails as part of an outfit, and not be ridiculed. Why not? I also grew up in the 80's and male eye liner was everywhere in pop. I also wish I could get away with eyeliner on occasion. Maybe there'll be a decade in future where all this is perfectly acceptable, but I'll be old and wrinkly by then and only the youngsters will be allowed to have the latest fashion. Sigh.

Sometimes life throws a monkey wrench in the works. You're happily tootling along and bam! Nothing is ever the same again. Other times you can see the wrecking ball hurtling towards you, but you refuse to budge out of your comfort zone, the fear is just too much. Yet again, the slime monster may creep ever so slowly, over months and years until it engulfs you and there's nothing for it, you just have to escape its deadly embrace at all costs. Change happens. Shit happens. In the end you learn nothing, because every type of change is different and unique. What you do is become philosophical about it. You weather the storm of change and then shrug your shoulders and get on with the new normal. You learn that resistance is futile and counterproductive. You learn that nothing really lasts forever. Your learn that being overly attached to anything is asking for trouble. Ok, you do learn something, I admit. But it's all very meta and vague. Try telling your teenaged daughter that they will eventually get over that holiday romance. Try telling yourself that you'll eventually come to terms with the loss of a parent. Try looking back at the train wreck of a relationship that you kept going out of a duty of who knows what. Try not being emotional in the moment of change or resentful about the past. Try undoing the feelings of being trapped in a job you don't care about. Try and keep on loving the very people who have unconsciously hurt you in the past. It takes a very stoic and detached and self-loving person to weather every type of change and to accept being changed by circumstances out of our control. It's nearly impossible, but it's a very human predicament. Be gentle on yourself, acknowledge your frailty, acknowledge you don't what you're doing, acknowledge that the pain will eventually go away - even that doesn't last forever.

Note to self: this time I have something to say, hooray. I was chatting to my sister recently. We have reconnected recently and I'm grateful for it. She was recounting how she had difficulties in reading English when we moved back to England and how she felt stupid because of it. By my reckoning she was only four years old, sheesh, she didn't need to be so hard on herself. In turn, I recounted how I don't have any recollection at all of the process of learning English (I was six). By all accounts I picked up fluency fairly rapidly, and I could already read Spanish, so reading in English wasn't problematic. I do occasionally remember that a part of me is Spanish, both culturally and intrinsically. You didn't know that you could be a culture did you? For me, listening to Spanish feels normal, even if my comprehension has never been 100%. There is so much crossover in vocabulary with English and Spanish, that I would say my comprehension has increased as an adult by sheer learning of vocabulary in English. It's good to sometimes rehydrate a part of myself I neglect. I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that to be happy and fulfilled every part of you needs to be nurtured and fed. Even the bad parts have to be acknowledged and put into their correct perspective. To that end I indulge some Spanish on YouTube. The following two fulfill different needs: Just general grammar, explained slowly and clearly, and she has a typical mainland Spanish humour I vibe with: And for storytelling and for having feet in two cultures, which I grok. She also speaks rapidly and South American, so it's good practice for my ears. Here she recounts her struggles in learning Spanish, the opposite situation to mine:

@Emerald ??? @IAmReallyImportant there is a button. But that would be off topic.

Note to self. Don't write a post if there's nothing to say. At times I hit a nexus. My head is so full of stuff flitting in and out, that I never get bored. I could literally sit here with my favourite toy (yes yes my laptop, no it's not inflatable) and engage with my thoughts the whole day. In fact I do that on weekends more often that I would like to: pandemic be gone! The thing is, all that swirling about in my head gets tiring and my body insists on a break. So what happens? Nothing. I just sit there - so no physical change - but I also do nothing, the thoughts come and go and I just sit. I don't really like it. Actually, the thoughts don't really like it, I'm fine. I have actually mastered the art of not thinking at all, zero thoughts. It's a bit like being asleep awake. The most pleasant time to have no thoughts is on a walk, where I actually pay attention to my surroundings and re-engage with reality. It doesn't last though, thoughts are far more sexy than reality. That's why I go on this forum; to use the quaint phrase: mental masturbation. It's a shame there's no thoughtgasm at the end of it. Note to self. Why did I use the word nexus? Should have been hiatus. Nexus Hiatus, sounds like a Roman soldier or a disease.

@tatsumaru I strongly resonate with your struggle. It's a constant fight against my own tendencies to just want do what the hell I want without being restricted. Even typing now on this forum, I should be working, I have a pile of work. The only way I've found to live with it, is to surrender to my need for freedom regularly. So on occasion I say f**k it and go for a drive or have an afternoon nap or whatever I feel like doing in the moment. It's a kind of nervous energy I need to go with. Sometimes I suffer paralysis, where I want to go and be free, but I force myself to try and be disciplined - it's stressful and time wasting. When I need to be disciplined I do it in short spurts, or I try and install routine, especially around sleep/waking up and eating. My logical brain knows that if I want bigger freedoms, I need to give up the smaller freedoms - that gives me just about enough motivation to be an adult, feed myself, wash myself and successfully hold down a full time job. But sometimes the restriction is just too much and I'll simply give up all routine or discipline, knowing that it will pass. I can really understand how people with stronger mental health problems find it impossible to get any traction in their lives - to get stuff done. If I really examine it, the sense of restriction comes from three places: other people's expectations of me, the needs of survival and my own thoughts and emotions. It's actually possible to tell most people to politely f**k off and stop bothering me - but don't expect them to be friendly. Survival can be slimmed down to its bare essentials (aka minimalism). And to balance my thoughts I can set up helpful habits and routines. Back to work.

Infinity can be what it likes. If you have an infinite chequerboard, then it clearly repeats. If you start counting from 1, it clearly never repeats. Infinity doesn't have one definition other than it's ubounded in some way. If you're talking about the infinity of reality itself, then quite clearly it repeats. It just repeats in a chaotic way. Repetition is the basis of recognition. If infinity (reality) didn't repeat then you wouldn't recognise your own mother.

That's the understatement of the century. Before 2000 accessibility was in the dark ages, no scrub that, stone age. Nostalgia is very selective however. So many times, especially with music, I'll stumble across a song I've forgotten completely. And then I'm nostalgic about it! Ridiculous. To be honest, you'd expect greater nostalgia in us old(er) folk, just by sheer quantity of stuff to be nostalgic about. I must admit I find your OP about being nostalgic in your early twenties surprising - surely this must be the effect of technology?

How is that different form a conventional relationship with a human?

@Someone here cool, but is nihilism really about individualism? I'm not so sure, I sense a bias here. Nihilism just understands that there is nothing objective about anything at all; if objective is a synonym for truth. After all truth means something. In the end everything is just collapsed into zero. Because, for example, if morality is meaningless then what else is meaningless? And on it goes, it gnaws away at everything, including itself. If a person or a group decide to create meaning, then what is the source of that meaning? How does meaning bootstrap itself from meaninglessness? Nihilism fails to account for this.

Nihilists and comedians are quite similar. They both poke fun at meaning. Comedians do it to subvert, nihilists do it to transcend. But does nihilism itself mean anything? Surely meaning exists right, even if meaning is always invented?

Resonance This is vaguely reminiscent of one of the chapters in Lyall Watson's book Supernature. I can't remember what sort of proto-New Age stuff he actually talked about, but regardless I loved that book. So I'm styling myself after him. My given name has always been a source of awkwardness for me. It's Spanish and relatively rare in Spain at any rate. Of course the English (yes me included) being who they are tend to mangle any name that doesn't fit their phonology or spelling rules. Mine is exceptional. If you like detective work, then search my journal and enjoy! Early on my English grandfather nicknamed me Gil (hard G). It's understandable to a degree, it fits the English convention and it's short and snappy. My Mum always hated the nickname, but even she contracted my name, and even now I sign off emails using the contracted version. The contraction is not official Spanish however. My Dad had completely different ideas calling me various nicknames related to William (the Anglo version of my name). Wink, and Winkle being the two most common and very British humour. Of course my sister was Twink or Twinkle to match. I think his word play has passed down to his son, although my humour is more highbrow (sorry Dad, lol). Of course historically William and Willhelm are Germanic names, the Spanish version I have comes from this source and is actually mangled by Spaniards to fit their phonology. Specifically the W glide doesn't exist in Spanish. Irony. Of course there have been a huge number of bastardised spoken variations that I got called throughout time. Phonetically (hard G): Gilier, Gills, Guilbert, Gideon, Giyen, Gilly (reminds me of G.O.T.) and so on nearly ad-infinitum. Because of this I can tell from which period of my life someone has known me. Naturally, there are a few clued up individuals who realised that I might actually enjoy being called by my actual name, and I applaud them for getting close, but they are very few. What finally happened is that I gave up and started introducing myself as Gil. Despite, like my Mum, not really liking it that much. But like a trained dog I answer to that name now. Woof. Sadly, even my own father calls me that now, despite being able to actually speak Spanish and say my given name quite adequately. Why is it the English are so awkward with names? I'm named after my English grandfather. Oddly, my dad has his dad's name also. Go figure. All this says that because of a lack of resonance, my given name has never stuck. I sort of like the variety. Resonance II Who do you notice? Pre pandemic when I use to stroll into work each morning, I would notice the same people. Familiar strangers. I'm sure there were a bunch of people that I didn't notice but were regulars also. And that's the point, there is something about certain people that somehow resonate with your attention. A different view is that of impedance matching which comes from audio technology. When you plug two things together you need their impedances (a kind of A.C. resistance) to match. Otherwise, you don't get good sound, the electrical energy isn't transferred as well as it could be. This is the same with people. You will impedance match them on different aspects and levels. Maybe it's appearance, or shared history, similar outlooks, senses of humour, or even familial connections: they even could be your sister. Maybe they hit your attention bone in other ways, for whatever myriad and probably unconscious reasons. I certainly resonate with a number of regulars on this forum. I won't name and shame them for fear of inflating or deflating their egos. But I will say I greatly appreciate everything they put out there. There's a great amount of vulnerability and intelligence being expressed: two things I resonate well with. And I'm constantly surprised by you. Who doesn't like surprise?

@intotheblack have a read of Machines Like Me (Ian McEwan). It's a about a couple and an affair with an android.

Good contemplations. I wouldn't say misunderstanding, just perspective. Love isn't given, it is love within yourself that is triggered or reflected by others. But that doesn't make it any less or fake. What more beatiful thing is there than to set off love inside another person?