A 'believer's discourse'

It might be interesting. You pose a creative question. No likelihood that you would come up with "a load of quasi-philosophical dribble", although if you did it would fit in well here. We have been having a lot of that lately.

It might be interesting. You pose a creative question. No likelihood that you would come up with "a load of quasi-philosophical dribble", although if you did it would fit in well here. We have been having a lot of that lately.

Ha! I like it. Yeah maybe I should do a study on the thoughts of JGoldman10.

Would the 'Lovers discourse' go along the lines of 'you talk yourself in to being in love'?

Kind of, I think it's more to do with the narratives that occur in your head as the 'elaboration' of certain emotions you go through whilst in love.

I'm not sure how that would relate to religions then - the comparative for a religion wouldn't seem to work 'they have naratives that occur in their head as the 'elaboration' of certain emotions go through them whilst....?'

You will find, if you think about it, that much (not all) of falling in love occurs to people while they are away from the person they are newly falling in love with... while reliving (in the imaginations, over and over again) the feelings/emotions/conversations/touches experienced with the other person.

No, but religions are believed in by humans, and the above quote is a condition of being human. For a really simple example, someone who is depressed may gain a sense of comfort from a mental narrative that explains their problems or emotional state to Jesus and gains comfort.

Yes, you are right. Falling in love does occur like that, which is what the book is about.

I don't think that any of the many women I have "fallen in love with" were persons whom I really loved, except for the two wives I eventually grew to love. "Falling in love" is a phrase which indicates neediness; loving is a phrase that indicates appreciation. This reflects my limited but long experience.

In that case I can see the relationship to believing in a religion, or any other dearly held belief (most communal ones being patriotism / nationalism / racial superiority complex's / political persuasion etc)

JL, I always find that people define anything to do with the word 'love', in a wide variety of ways.

Yeah, maybe you could call them 'narratives of attachment'.

I don't think Barthes was talking about your deeper sense of love, JL, but the 'attached' lover.

No doubt. I guess my reference is to "narratives of commitment" which is in some respects, I guess, similar to but not exactly the same as "attachment."

In the same way you said that your career was your koan, does it make any sense to say that your loved one was your koan?

I'm not sure if I understand what you're thinking about, so maybe this doesn't fit.
There are some interpretations of The Song of Solomon that may be what you are after.

I don't seem to view attachments the same as other people on this forum.

I see attachments as a necessary part of life that makes life more efficient, so it is not the attachment I have an issue with - but rather with the belief that the attachment is reality. Once you realise attachments are just there to serve a purpose, but aren't reality...then attachments become useful, but not something worth having a conflict over.

Attachments can also be used to achieve a great deal of good. One example for me - I'm finding that the very way we speak has a particular pattern to it...so in revers I can execute this pattern and that pattern produces a particular quality of voice without actually feeling the 'feeling' that goes with the voice. I can now at will produce a 'warm' voice without actually feeling warmth, just by 'executing' this pattern. The same goes for a passionate voice, a dispassionate voice, a determined voice, a submissive voice or a commanding voice...I'm finding different patterns as I go. due to the nature of the patterns, the phrase 'a well rounded person' now has more meaning.

The point of this isn't to manipulate people without feeling whatever it is I am exhibiting...but rather to understand what I am doing and how...which allows me to train/ingrain the patterns (ie form attachments, as all patterns executed subconsciously are attachments) for more effective use when appropriate. This attachment also activates even if I consciously 'activate' the pattern, because the conscious part is activating it...if it's properly ingrained, then the 'how' is subconscious (like handwriting - what you write is conscious, while how you write is subconscious)

The way I see it - done right, attachments vastly improve our lives. The problem is most of us have let our attachments develop haphazardly, with no sense of purpose to them, and little sense of perspective to them.

...you are wrong, attachments are so real as gravity is...

...and faking an attachment can only go so far...

Fil, you are entitled to your opinion. And I'm sure you remember my previous posts about how neurons form literal attachments...so it should be obvious I'm using 'reality' in a different form than 'real' or 'actual attachments' (most people here use reality in a different form when referring to attachments.

Not sure where you got this thing of 'faking attachments' from. A misinterpretation of what I was saying perhaps?

Ultmately our life is our koan.

Ultmately our life is our koan.

...perhaps.