Lonely Loneliness

This Side of Good-Bye (Just Venting)

Question:

"Michaela" <michaelashouse> wrote in message <news:416311cf.0@news1.mweb.co.za>… > Yes. I don’t see myself as Buddha despite me > believing it is the way to go. Having said that, this > weekend for some reason I suddenly remembered > my last relationship. > (You might want to skip the next paragraphs, > it’s just something I want to talk about.)

Oh, goody!  Implicit in all one’s pronouncements are one’s own experiences, and it’s nice to have them out in the open for further investigation. > My bf had gone to the army (we had conscription > in those days). He spent around three months away > from me initially for basic training. I went to visit > him and on my return I was mammothly despondent. > I happened to be on the same plane as someone I knew > who had also been visiting her bf. I told her how > depressed I was. She seemed quite cheerful. I asked her > how come she wasn’t all upset like I was. She told me > she wasn’t all that dependent on her bf.

Yes, but it could also have been the case that she didn’t "care" all that much, either.  As a matter of fact, there’s a funny "reverse psychology mode" many people go into where they profess and act the opposite of what they really are or do or feel or believe. Of course, for the sake of argument, we’ll take her word at face-value — but it’s always helpful to keep in mind that people certainly have their motivations for the stances or attitudes they adopt. > At that time what she said meant nothing to me. Today > I feel silly when I think of how I was behaving. Even > though I am somewhat dependent on Mike, I think that > I may have grown a little bit.

Yes, I too have become less codependent myself through the years. It’s a natural enough part of aging.  A big part has to do with hormonal levels — much as they still rage, I am at least able to get a better handle on them, and I don’t attribute that solely to any psychological maturity on my part, but also to almost-certain stabilizing hormonal levels. Indeed, childhood insecurity also fuels the phenomenon. But I do often wonder whether that "codependency hand" or "card" isn’t rather overplayed. I’m just really into Claudia, and always will be.  I’ve done all the second-guessing I can (and I’m one who can actually play a decent game of chess against himself every now and then, when I concentrate), and the one thing I am sure of is that I enjoy her sense of humor, which seems unique to me, and which seems an extension of her "soul"…so, for all my hurt and anguish (and anger), I know that I’d take her back — for many reasons, but, again, the main one being simply that she’s her! > See. Mike and I have been together for around twelve > years or more. For around three years, up until about > three or four years ago, he spent seven months and more > of the year working from his office in Mauritius. I was > happy as anything whether he was here or there.

Yeah, that’s a long time all right. > The difference between the relationship with my previous > bf and Mike? LOL. I dunno. Maybe I’ve "grown up"? > Or maybe it was because I’d got myself some hobbies > and kept myself busy and wasn’t as dependent on him > as I was on previous bf.

But I’ve got lots of hobbies and interests.  Probably a function of my age ("function" in the mathematical sense of "relationship"), but I need more than hobbies now, I need more than simply being "busy."  I still am into my hobbies — moreover, picking up old ones as well — but I do need that special someone in my life.  But I honestly don’t think that need has made me codependent on Claudia. It’s difficult relating these things to others.  If you aren’t crying blood, they think it must not have been that bad.  If you do, then they think you’re codependent and need to, like, get a life. > Also, I’m pretty secure in my > rship with Mike. I pretty much know he’s not going > anywhere. I never truly knew where I stood with previous > bf.

Well, this is the thing.  I thought I knew "where I stood" with Claudia!  I mean, after four years, I figured that we were set for the long haul.  She’s told me so many times how lucky she feels to have me, to be with me, that I keep taking her back (’cause she’s walked out several times before), that I take such good care of her, etc., as detailed elsewhere. Part of the problem is that I take words too seriously.  And since she wasn’t one of many words, I guess I really valued the few she did use.  Like someone else had said: women think men can change, and men think women don’t.  One of Claudia’s final complaints to me was "I realize you’re never going to change"…which caught me by surprise, since I just didn’t think that she ever expected me to…and I, for my part, did figure that she wouldn’t ever change (I know that we all change, all life is change, etc. — I don’t mean that stuff here), that for a woman to say "I love you" is a real sign of something important — I mean, it’s not like she was just trying to get into my pants, right (and she’s always had my wallet) — that for a girl to propose marriage herself means something, something which had a lot to do with *me*…. So I had been pretty sure, too.  But I am glad that you feel secure with your current situation.  Inspiring.  =) > Or maybe it’s this simple: I don’t have Mike on as much > of a pedestal as I did previous bf?

Depends by what you mean by "on a pedestal." I say all those "lovey-dovey" things about Claudia, but at the same time I do also believe that she isn’t the sharpest pencil in the box, as I’d said elsewhere.  She’s also fat, just plain fat.  But somehow all that doesn’t matter. Another problem with trying to communicate with a lot of folks: they assume that if I can say such things about her I must not "love" her very much and hence cannot possibly be putting her on some pedestal, whatever the wisdom of the act. And all I can say is that I don’t think I put her on a pedestal in the sense you mean.  I’m fully cognizant of her shortcomings — same as I am of mine.  But I can also fully enjoy the many good things about who she is.  I guess it’s similar to singing life’s praises while also nodding that life is hard and unfair and usually tragic. > This much I *do* know: previous bf couldn’t handle my > excessive dependence on him and he felt smothered and > pressurised – because I didn’t seem to want to function > without him.

This is the funny thing.  Claudia wanted me to be with her 24/7.  I obliged, despite feeling a bit smothered at times, too (so I hardly went cycling, stopped working out completely, etc.).  But I was happy, too, because I was there for her.  We had fun together, etc.  I could never understand — and still don’t, really — how a fella can complain of needing to "hang out with the guys" when he’s got a wife or wife-like-g/f.  To me, that’s…family.  That’s oneself, one’s proverbial "better half." At this point, I’m just feeling like, bleh.  Damned if I do, damned if I don’t.  Bleh. > I believe that a little bit of dependence is fine to keep a > rship going (but not in our growth in spiritual awareness).

It’s funny…the same New Age folk who will say that dependency is bad will also acknowledge that no one is an island.  We’ll all be attached in some way. And you acknowledge that.  And I’m glad we share at least a common point of departure for purposes of discussion. > Especially if it is mutual dependence. But as soon as one > person becomes too dependent on the other, the less > dependent one may start to crave space and will do anything > it takes to be shot of the other – or at least just to gain their > comfort space back. > Ok. The end and all that.

Not the case with me and Claudia, if that’s a logical implication of your remarks (whatever your conscious intent) — unless she actually did feel that way contrary to what she "should" have felt…for it may well be, oddly and amusingly enough, that in wanting to be with me, and yet not being able to on account of her son ("being with me" entailing living together with her son and thereby having him in the picture constantly), she wound up feeling "pressured" somehow…that she wanted to be with me, and yet couldn’t in the ideal way she’d like, and she transferred the pressure she was, in effect, putting on herself to me, that I was the one pressuring her…? But I definitely am not the one who "crowded" her.  As a matter of fact, I only believe that one can feel "crowded" due to an inverse relationship with one’s level of "amorous interest"…if I love this person and am interested in her well-being, then even if it is only a childish insecurity on her part I will try to meet her needs for me to "be there" without complaint. But, as I say, I don’t know where I went wrong.  Many theories, but in a sense no real idea.  Now when I just kinda sit quietly, or like when waking up in the middle of the night and then just laying on the bed, I do get an almost indescribable sense of what happened…but what I mean by not knowing is that I don’t see why she should have quit me all the same, and like this.  I mean, maybe she just did a coin toss?? > See. To me we are spiritual beings having a human experience, > not the other way ’round.

Ah, well, that’s a familiar perspective, cozy and heartening. > I don’t see it as "pop psychology" at all. I came to > my sub-conclusions (sorry about that word) when > I started to realise that people could only handle > having people as close to them as they were comfortable > with having them. As soon as anyone gets "too close > for comfort" most people devise all manner of ways > to push the other person away. Unfortunately, that > usually only results in the pushed person needing > approval more than before. Repeat cycle until needy > person is finally dumped.

What you describe does happen, but that’s not to say that things need to turn out that way, given the set-up you describe. There’s "normative" and there’s … read more »

Response:

Left Hand of Empire wrote: > "Michaela" wrote >> Not sure if I’m taking this all the right way, but here’s >> my two cents. >> I stand by my thoughts on idolatrous love. BUT that’s not >> to say I am above having them. Against my own advice >> out here, I seem to depend on Mike. I don’t think that being >> dependent on him is a bad thing as such, but I do believe >> that my belief that happiness can come from another is >> faulty. > In what sense is it "faulty"??

We obviously derive joy from others; > we’re social creatures, after all. > I actually agree with you about idolatrous love in general — > codependency — but I also maintain that there’s almost always going > to be a good dose of that involved,

Yes. I don’t see myself as Buddha despite me believing it is the way to go. Having said that, this weekend for some reason I suddenly remembered my last relationship. (You might want to skip the next paragraphs, it’s just something I want to talk about.) My bf had gone to the army (we had conscription in those days). He spent around three months away from me initially for basic training. I went to visit him and on my return I was mammothly despondent. I happened to be on the same plane as someone I knew who had also been visiting her bf. I told her how depressed I was. She seemed quite cheerful. I asked her how come she wasn’t all upset like I was. She told me she wasn’t all that dependent on her bf. At that time what she said meant nothing to me. Today I feel silly when I think of how I was behaving. Even though I am somewhat dependent on Mike, I think that I may have grown a little bit. See. Mike and I have been together for around twelve years or more. For around three years, up until about three or four years ago, he spent seven months and more of the year working from his office in Mauritius. I was happy as anything whether he was here or there. The difference between the relationship with my previous bf and Mike? LOL. I dunno. Maybe I’ve "grown up"? Or maybe it was because I’d got myself some hobbies and kept myself busy and wasn’t as dependent on him as I was on previous bf. Also, I’m pretty secure in my rship with Mike. I pretty much know he’s not going anywhere. I never truly knew where I stood with previous bf. Or maybe it’s this simple: I don’t have Mike on as much of a pedestal as I did previous bf? This much I *do* know: previous bf couldn’t handle my excessive dependence on him and he felt smothered and pressurised – because I didn’t seem to want to function without him. I believe that a little bit of dependence is fine to keep a rship going (but not in our growth in spiritual awareness). Especially if it is mutual dependence. But as soon as one person becomes too dependent on the other, the less dependent one may start to crave space and will do anything it takes to be shot of the other – or at least just to gain their comfort space back. Ok. The end and all that.  simply given our nature as human > beings (not to mention individual dispositions — say, melancholic > folk). >> I have all that I need within me, but as long as I am >> on this earth I might believe I need it from outside of me >> (it occurs to me that many of us believe that god is "out >> there" I’m not even sure there is a god. But whatever it is >> we are pointing at isn’t "out there". It’s within us. And that’s >> where our thinking is wrong in the first place. Just thinking >> aloud.) > I myself wonder whether all that "pop psychology" actually applies in > real life…

See. To me we are spiritual beings having a human experience, not the other way ’round. I don’t see it as "pop psychology" at all. I came to my sub-conclusions (sorry about that word) when I started to realise that people could only handle having people as close to them as they were comfortable with having them. As soon as anyone gets "too close for comfort" most people devise all manner of ways to push the other person away. Unfortunately, that usually only results in the pushed person needing approval more than before. Repeat cycle until needy person is finally dumped. I mean, we’re just social animals, so there’s no helping > developing some kind of emotional attachment.  In terms of degrees, I > do believe one can modulate that…but I can’t imagine how one might > truly "go solo" without feeling lonely — or getting a little crazy!

That’s what meditation is for methinks: stopping all that crazy negative self-talk.    *** I think we’re all pretty screwed (read: insane) already. We seem to think we can become happy when we find someone to love. I have someone to love and I am not "classically" lonely, I have a wonderful support structure. I get on marvellously with my in-laws, I have crazy-beautiful friends, I have a daughter who is the centre of my whatever etc.), but still I feel that dull ache of loneliness; like I’m away from home or something. I often disguise this feeling with a cigarette/alcohol/ a good book or a walk in the mountains. But as soon as I have a few moments to think, it comes rushing back: emptiness. Osho and others have said that they are all for people having riches and loved ones around them. Because only when one has what one thinks one wants does one begin to realise that the answer isn’t in someone else or something we think we want – because that feeling of incompleteness doesn’t go away, even with someone to love around them all the time. Even with all the rich girl’s toys, that ache doesn’t seem to go. It’s only with those riches that one can see the contrast. I dunno. I seem to have lost the gist of what I am trying to say. >> I hope my message is in there somewhere. >> I hope you know I never intended to hurt you. >> – Michaela > Yes, I understood you, and no, I don’t imagine that you meant to hurt > me or anyone — I don’t think most people really mean to hurt anyone, > for that matter.  They may not care whether they do, but most people > don’t seem to try to hurt anyone else who isn’t an enemy. > My only gripe there was that I felt implicated by your remarks — but > that’s not an indictment of your intentions at all. > And to you too I extend an apology for having reacted the way I did.

I never took offense in the first place, but thanks for the apology. It was only when I realised you may have been offended that I decided to respond as another helpless human being to another – I didn’t want to give the impression that I thought I was better than you: I generally try not to gripe about my life, because that goes against everything I believe in: that my thoughts create my reality. The more negative crap I pile into my head, the more I end up telling my subconscious I want more negative crap in my life. Go well, Mr Empire. And I hope you find that which you believe you want too. – Michaela

Response:

"Michaela" <michaelashouse> wrote in message <news:4161cd5b.0@news1.mweb.co.za>… > Not sure if I’m taking this all the right way, but here’s > my two cents. > I stand by my thoughts on idolatrous love. BUT that’s not > to say I am above having them. Against my own advice > out here, I seem to depend on Mike. I don’t think that being > dependent on him is a bad thing as such, but I do believe > that my belief that happiness can come from another is > faulty.

In what sense is it "faulty"??  We obviously derive joy from others; we’re social creatures, after all. I actually agree with you about idolatrous love in general — codependency — but I also maintain that there’s almost always going to be a good dose of that involved, simply given our nature as human beings (not to mention individual dispositions — say, melancholic folk). > I have all that I need within me, but as long as I am > on this earth I might believe I need it from outside of me > (it occurs to me that many of us believe that god is "out > there" I’m not even sure there is a god. But whatever it is > we are pointing at isn’t "out there". It’s within us. And that’s > where our thinking is wrong in the first place. Just thinking > aloud.)

I myself wonder whether all that "pop psychology" actually applies in real life…I mean, we’re just social animals, so there’s no helping developing some kind of emotional attachment.  In terms of degrees, I do believe one can modulate that…but I can’t imagine how one might truly "go solo" without feeling lonely — or getting a little crazy! > I hope my message is in there somewhere. > I hope you know I never intended to hurt you. > – Michaela

Yes, I understood you, and no, I don’t imagine that you meant to hurt me or anyone — I don’t think most people really mean to hurt anyone, for that matter.  They may not care whether they do, but most people don’t seem to try to hurt anyone else who isn’t an enemy. My only gripe there was that I felt implicated by your remarks — but that’s not an indictment of your intentions at all. And to you too I extend an apology for having reacted the way I did.

Response:

bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Eleonore Beaudoin) wrote in message <news:cjpa9m$h1a$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>… > Sorry, but you were rude, and agressive and still are. > Not ideas are: you are.

I am sorry you believe that. > So your pretending otherwise above just does not hit me as meant nor > honest. Abnd dishonesty you can shove immediately where Claudia waited > four years to get you to shove. If thewre still is room. If not, put it in > storage.

I don’t think I was ever this rude to you at all, but I will let the public record stand — or fall — on its own. > Obviously not anymore, Belly Button:):).Were you under the illusion of the > thread being your exclusive control and property, narcisse?

You are obviously taking things personally.  When I say that the thread is "about me and Claudia," I am referring to the subject, the topic.  In no way does that imply that I believe I have some kind of control over it. > Welcome to ngs, dear.

Indeed, you sound like such a grognard, I marvel at your thin skin — even for a Francophone! > Live and learn. Many threads around are about things quite other in > contents than what their original title said. I think for instance of "a > little bird told me" that never had a thing to do with birds, and that > originally was about telling others I was sick and to send comforting words. > It now became soemthing else entirely, which is quite fine and good and > normal and gra=eat and all that. > Tons of threads turn out this way.

That’s not the point.  I’ve already addressed why not.  If you disagree, that’s another issue.  But here you’re just repeating yourself as if I haven’t already explained myself.  We can then go on to disagree about my explanation, my rationale, but at least we’d be having one conversation — not two separate ones, talking past each other. > If you want exclusive attention, go see a psy and pay 137 dollars please.

Who’s talking "exclusive attention"??  My two replies were actually very tame compared to this really ridiculous one of yours. > Or EMAIL SKLENGE.

And why don’t you just go start alt.rambling.Eleonore.Beaudoin? > You show being a rude man unless someone is at your service, buddy.

Really?  Come on, quote me and show us all where I was "rude." > And you seem quite preoccupied wiht your grand self and never bother with > anyone else than those kising your narcisstic ass.

Wow, it’s amazing you don’t go play the stock market. > And you fell on the wrong gal to try that on. My sleeves are rolled. Coem > on, give it your best shot, asshole.

The thing with fighting women and children is that a man can never win. LOL > Yep. Rude and stupid at it.

Obviously you’re the one being rude.  Are you just the Net alias of George W. Bush? > Hopefully he undesrtands what rudeness feels > like by now, if he is not too stupid for that.

LOL — one can also never win a fight against a pig: everyone gets dirty, but the pig enjoys it! > Listen, I am sorry that to you this Claudia bobo is delicate stuff and that it > felt to > your precious centre of the universe as if everyone that woudl exchange > ideas would have to talk you and Claudia,and that I butt in indelicately > with my big shoes.

You mustn’t say things you don’t mean. > But in no way does that justify your being such an assho9le that you can > not pass for this kind man ditched by a woman in my eyes.

I’d like to know exactly what I’ve said that’s supposed to be so "rude" and make me "such an asshole"…come on, you obviously have as much time as I do, and since your "sleeves are rolled up" let’s see you do something more than tickle. > YOU, sir, demand of others that they be delivccate > when you show absolutely gratuitously rude to me for the nth time, when I > did nothign to you sdave not kiss your butt excalty in the crack as you so > wanted.

Right.  Let the record show exactly who’s being "rude." > So tell you what, belly button. > The name ain’t Claudia, and I won’t stretch it four years.

Gosh, you have such insight, you should start your own advice column in your local daily. > YOU are NOT the centre of the universe. > Start liking it, as they say.

I’d also like an example of my narcissism.  Obviously one of us is crazy. > You really like to look for problems don’t you?

You really like creating them, obviously. > I am sure then you will find plenty everywhere. Namely with anything that > ainlt you you you and you, narcissist of my smurf.

You keep talking about narcissism.  How do you know you’re not just projecting? > Scuse me, but I find you more than inappropriately acting.

Translation, please? > Therefore > you do not serve well as a reference to what si appropriate or not. > Yet…. >  Heard me bug you with it before?

What the hell are you talking about now???? > Then why don’t you respect others as they do you?

And how have I disrespected anyone, hmmm?? > Are you too important to be intruded in your exclusive thread?

It’s funny you think that that’s what I think, when I’ve very clearly explained myself on that point. > Is this a designer’s thread or soemthing?

Are you finished yet? > Gee willikers…. > TOUCH GROUND. But better take a ladder to get off them high horses!

At least I land on my feet.  You should at least try using a helmet next time. > It was tangential in your twisting it arounc a la egoventred way, bringign > everythign back to you even hen you are told for the nth time that it was not.

The Nth time?  You are much too melodramatic — even for the French! Do you need to be told "for the Nth time" that this isn’t personal and it’s the idea I’m reacting to?  How could it be personal, if you think about it: I don’t even know you! > I know you’ probably like to go on acting like it was, the world has no > rigth to revolve without you beign its centre, and must be impossibel for > you to imagine that more than Claudia donlt give a shit about the centre > of the universe it it is you. But nah ner.

You keep bringing up Claudia…but you know something?  One can just as easily laugh at you — what are you doing on ASL?  Why are you so lonely?  What’s the matter, no one recognizes that you’re the center of the universe?? > Again, you ain’t mine. So deal with it.

Wow, what an attitude problem you have — even for a woman! LOL > You were rude and agressive gartuitopusly towards meand are still so.

You have to give examples.  Otherwise it’s just your biochemical imbalance again. > So come again, buster. > Ain’t no such thing as a delicate asshole, so cut the frills off.

You are one dumb woodchuck! > For f.. sake….

You still here?!?! > Lil arrows pointign at you, is that all people are to your belly gutton > majesty?

Do you still beat your wife? > I can not say for Micahela in her place, But again, deaf head, my words > had nothign to do at all with you and Claudia.

Dunderhead, you need to learn to read what’s in front of your eyes instead of what’s in that echo chamber you call your head. > Spotted you as an asshiole from your second post, and did not care to > write about you and Claudia. Got that?

Ah, I’m glad you admit your prejudice now.  So you had it in for me all along, eh! Well, how did you "spot me for an asshole" from my second post?  I’m really curious.  I know it takes one to know one but you must give, I always say, examples, proofs. > Try and sharpen this:)

You’re dull, and God meant for you to be that way. > ….pfft….

Close your legs. > He is just being apersonally agressive, and only systematically with me. > yes dear?

"Only with you"?? How narcissistic of you! > I say no dear, Bugger off.

Um, I thought you knew this was usenet. > Or get ready to face the same shit you serve women.

Good!  I’m glad it’s all finally coming out…you’ve got your crap-for-brains feminazi agenda!  The more women get hysterical like you (and look up the etymology of that word, "hysterical," if you’d like to raise your blood pressure even more — I chose it on purpose!), the more you’re just confirming all the old sexist notions against which you rant and rave. Wow…never thought I’d find myself talking to God on ASL!  And to think that He’s a woman!  And French!  Is that why my prayers went unanswered??? > Trust me, people her never saw me give anyone what they did not deserve > and I am sure about my move this time too.

Then again, maybe I just didn’t understand what the hell you were trying to say to me, oh Lord…. > Blah blah blah, agressive, not personal, don’t mean too, though > agressive, blah blah blah. A man of hsi convictions, riiight. >  Right.

You’re in love with the sound of your own voice.  That’s called narcissism. > Anythign that does not pat your little bobo and kiss your little bleeding > heart you attack.

"Anything"?  Let’s see the evidence. > Course, narcisse.

Get a psychology textbook, any one will do.  Go to the glossary and look up "projection." > And I dared talk without talking about YOU, oh my gawd!!! > Kiss *MY* ass!:)

Get your head out first. > You don’t suffer for having lost Claudia.

LOL — you give new meaning to the phrase "I know how you feel." > You suffer cause you don’t have someoen to play "you are my king, oh king, > for the king, a la king…!" like a doggam latin declinaison!

I’m not your daddy.  Wake up little girl, wake up. > When she was there, you din care. Now that she’s gone, you use her to > catch the next. I know your type by heart, sadly.

My type? What’s sad is that you take yourself so seriously. > So rememebr to try and dial a different number and get off ""my"" thread! > LOL:)

You are quite right about that — this is a thread for venting, after all, and you obviously have much to get off your chest! LOL > Again, a narcissist tryign to shine while popuring ridicule on two posters > that wrere not rude to him, that were suppotive and kind, is being a > total asshole. > You dented the mirror hon. Awwww….

You’re the one making … read more »

Response:

> If you want exclusive attention, go see a psy and pay 137 dollars please. > Or EMAIL SKLENGE.

I’d rather you didn’t drag me into your rant, Chloe. Thanks. Wassup chloe?

Response:

> Left Hand of Empire wrote: >> Sorry if my post came across as a personal attack, but I really was >> reacting to the ideas, >> express, suggesting, if not logically implying, "idolatrous love" on >> my part, etc. — again, whatever your intentions, that is > the effect).

Not sure if I’m taking this all the right way, but here’s my two cents. I stand by my thoughts on idolatrous love. BUT that’s not to say I am above having them. Against my own advice out here, I seem to depend on Mike. I don’t think that being dependent on him is a bad thing as such, but I do believe that my belief that happiness can come from another is faulty. I have all that I need within me, but as long as I am on this earth I might believe I need it from outside of me (it occurs to me that many of us believe that god is "out there" I’m not even sure there is a god. But whatever it is we are pointing at isn’t "out there". It’s within us. And that’s where our thinking is wrong in the first place. Just thinking aloud.) I hope my message is in there somewhere. I hope you know I never intended to hurt you. – Michaela

Response:

I await always your return, the return of spring, the sunshine of your smile with its Claudia Colors of the heart on my heart. You are the strength of my arms, the flush on my cheeks, the timbre of my voice, the words of my soul’s now-sad song. You are my love, my hope, my life and my bride, and though the miles interrupt us, or the years confuse us, or that pride and fatigue should capture us, you remain as you were always for me, a beautiful baby, a lovely girl, a good woman, a young mother, an eternal bride, a simple wife. Though you do not care, I care, and in my care our care lives, the care we once had, the devotion we once pledged, the challenges we once faced happily together. At summer’s end comes the contemplation of fall, at love’s end comes the wisdom for next year’s flowers and Claudia Colors. Baby of Life, Girl of Innocence, Woman of Darkness, Mother of Love, sweet dear Wife of the World, I do not want life without you, but I will live life for hope of being with you again one happy day, just as we had loved and laughed once upon a dream. Your hands were made for mine, my heart has grown for yours. Where the sky meets the earth there is rain, the tears of four years’ memories and a lifetime of hopes to wash your sleep-roasted cheeks, your baby-round shoulders, your brown belly, the bite-sized toes, your breasts’ rise and heave, the arch of your hips, the shock of whiteness on your thighs, all covered like desires under a cloth of kindness by your special style of dress, that unique thing about you which attracts babies, grandmothers, and puppies and bees. You left me for a house, for a car, for an arrangement, a piece of paper notarized, a ceremony in church photographed. Come one day, when you see past those ever-changing leaves to my broken heart, back to our pools of shimmering blue, our purple mountains and its caves of echoes. I am buried there in faith, asleep while you refuse my name, numb until you spin my hopes. All the love you’ve ever loved anyone with I love you with, plus my own, too. All the tears you’ve ever shed for anyone I shed, too, mixed with my own. I always want you. You no longer want me. Somewhere between heaven and earth the sky will fall and cause the earth’s flowery arms to rush up and meet it.

Response:

i_need_clau…@yahoo.com (Yet Another Broken Heart) wrote in message <news:79fe81ff.0408292013.2ae3f8d4@posting.google.com>… > I await always your return.. > Though you do not care,I care… > I do not want life without you, but I will live life for hope of being with you again one happy day, just as we had loved and laughed once upon a dream. >I always want you. You no longer want me.

I am so sorry for your pain. Though I cannot claim to have loved as deeply as you, I have known what it’s like to be with someone you think is the person you will spend the rest of your life with. I loved a guy who I would imagine holding our child. Hell, I even loved watching him drive. But it is a cold heartless fact that we can never make those we love love us back. How cruel, that we can cherish someone, cherish the minutia of their being, and they can only think of leaving us. There really are no reassurances I can give, except that you are not alone in your heartache. I would also say, and please do not think me insensitive for this, live with hope but don’t shut yourself off to the possibility of another love. Don’t shut yourself off from the world, don’t put up walls. Keep going.

Response:

kirpepe…@netscape.net (Melancholybaby) wrote in news:aff7c216.0409291847.2b07a8a0@posting.google.com: > How cruel, that we can cherish > someone, cherish the minutia of their being, and they can only think > of leaving us.

All part of the Good Lord’s sick, twisted design.  Go figure. — "It’s not a toy, it’s a real oven that bakes muffins, and it’s powered by Love." –Sea Lab 2021.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -kirpepe…@netscape.net (Melancholybaby) wrote in message <news:aff7c216.0409291847.2b07a8a0@posting.google.com>… > i_need_clau…@yahoo.com (Yet Another Broken Heart) wrote in message <news:79fe81ff.0408292013.2ae3f8d4@posting.google.com>… > > I await always your return.. > > Though you do not care,I care… > > I do not want life without you, but I will live life for hope of being with you again one happy day, just as we had loved and laughed once upon a dream. > >I always want you. You no longer want me. > I am so sorry for your pain. > Though I cannot claim to have loved as deeply as you, I have known > what it’s like to be with someone you think is the person you will > spend the rest of your life with. > I loved a guy who I would imagine holding our child. Hell, I even > loved watching him drive. But it is a cold heartless fact that we can > never make those we love love us back. How cruel, that we can cherish > someone, cherish the minutia of their being, and they can only think > of leaving us. > There really are no reassurances I can give, except that you are not > alone in your heartache. > I would also say, and please do not think me insensitive for this, > live with hope but don’t shut yourself off to the possibility of > another love. Don’t shut yourself off from the world, don’t put up > walls. Keep going.

A thoughtful, sympathetic reply to a beautifully written post. Not much to add. "Live with hope" but not too much of that sort of hope. People generally, statistically, do not change their minds and go back to someone they’ve decided to leave. At least, I’ve not heard of, much less lived, a single case where that has happened. There are all sorts of reasons for this. None of them require you to assume that she has blotted out her mind all the things you shared together and the things she loved about you. Probably, she hasn’t. But that isn’t the point. Life goes on. There are always some lessons to be learned. I have been dumped by women for a hundred reasons, some of which contained a clear lesson for the future. "Start working out in a gym". "Try to be less boring". "Be more assertive". "New shoes". "Try to earn more money". In my case, especially the last. There is always that motivation: while knowing she will never come back to you, at least have the retrospective triumph of having successfully become someone she never would have left, and might secretly wish she had stayed with. Oh, and welcome to loneliness.

Response:

"Eerie Cabinets of Dr. Rodent" wrote > (Melancholybaby) wrote > > How cruel, that we can cherish > > someone, cherish the minutia of their being, and they can only think > > of leaving us. > All part of the Good Lord’s sick, twisted design.  Go figure.

There’s a difference between idolising (I seem to remember a commandment that went something like that) and cherishing someone. Soon as one person puts another on a pedestal one runs the risk of their expectations not being met and being very disappointed when they realise that that other person is but human. AFAICT if one just cherishes another for who they are, they’ll never be let down. – Michaela

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -michaelamackenzie05072…@yahoo.com (Michaela) wrote in message <news:3271bf15.0409300548.558c513e@posting.google.com>… > There’s a difference between idolising (I seem to remember > a commandment that went something like that) and cherishing > someone. > Soon as one person puts another on a pedestal one runs the > risk of their expectations not being met and being very > disappointed when they realise that that other person is > but human. > AFAICT if one just cherishes another for who they are, > they’ll never be let down. > – Michaela

Very true.  Indeed, the "problem" of love is not the problem of finding the right object so much as it is the difficulty of practicing lovingkindness. Me, being human, can only cherish her for at her best.  Her, being human, has faults which I can only at best accept.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Michaela (michaelamackenzie05072…@yahoo.com) writes: > "Eerie Cabinets of Dr. Rodent" wrote >> (Melancholybaby) wrote >> > How cruel, that we can cherish >> > someone, cherish the minutia of their being, and they can only think >> > of leaving us. >> All part of the Good Lord’s sick, twisted design.  Go figure. > There’s a difference between idolising (I seem to remember > a commandment that went something like that) and cherishing > someone. > Soon as one person puts another on a pedestal one runs the > risk of their expectations not being met and being very > disappointed when they realise that that other person is > but human.

Instead of seing the dispointment side (only), I look at it from the perspective of what it does to another to put expectations on them. Abd/or what it does to me when one expects me to this and that… When we do, it means the other has some implicit condition to fulfil, and that becomes a burden, because it is not appreciated so much as "expected". It becomes no less than a debt to pay and is acted upon as such both by the one fulfilling the expecation and the one seing their expectations met, in no time. Expectations lead to taking for granted. Of course, there is expectatiosn and expectations. If one says "I expected X to walk in at 4, cause every day for the ast 20 years X walked in exactly at four"….It mifght be said in the context of "how dare you not walk in at four??", where the other times are not appreciated as much as that oen reproached and underlien for nt meeting an implicit demand and condition. But if said to cops for instance, in the context of a missing person, the ""expectation"" might end up saving a life, for the one used to the habits of the missing one fast seing something might  be wrong… The difference then is the ATTITUDE. If it is done to measure how lovED we are rather than done out of loving, it can only lead to the dismantlement of the relationship. The one that acts to be loved, that does things to be lovED, not out of loving, not bringing their share of love in the exchange, simply making it unbalanced and disfunctionally dependant.  > > AFAICT if one just cherishes another for who they are, > they’ll never be let down. > – Michaela

–

Response:

The problem with crying over a broken heart is that people think they’ve been there, too, and know how to get over it. And it’s true, of course…there isn’t anything in life that we cannot, really, bear. But it’s like someone cracking jokes at a funeral…no matter how funny they are, they are besides the point of a funeral. Hell, for that matter, even eulogies talking about Heaven and such nonsense are really out of place.  As Specialist Pat Tillman’s brother, also a U.S. Army Ranger, had said at his brother’s funeral, in response to well-wishers who spoke of Heaven and how Pat’s with the Lord and other such homelies: "Pat’s dead.  Pat’s fucking dead." My relationship with Claudia is dead.  It’s fucking dead. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Eleonore Beaudoin) wrote in message <news:cji40c$nvv$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>… > Instead of seing the dispointment side (only), I look at it from the > perspective of what it does to another to put expectations on them. Abd/or > what it does to me when one expects me to this and that… > When we do, it means the other has some implicit condition to fulfil, and > that becomes a burden, because it is not appreciated so much as "expected". > It becomes no less than a debt to pay and is acted upon as such both by > the one fulfilling the expecation and the one seing their expectations > met, in no time. Expectations lead to taking for granted. > Of course, there is expectatiosn and expectations. If one says "I expected > X to walk in at 4, cause every day for the ast 20 years X walked in > exactly at four"….It mifght be said in the context of "how dare you not > walk in at four??", where the other times are not appreciated as much as > that oen reproached and underlien for nt meeting an implicit demand and > condition. But if said to cops for instance, in the context of a missing > person, the ""expectation"" might end up saving a life, for the one used > to the habits of the missing one fast seing something might  be wrong… > The difference then is the ATTITUDE. > If it is done to measure how lovED we are rather than done out of loving, > it can only lead to the dismantlement of the relationship. > The one that acts to be loved, that does things to be lovED, not out of > loving, not bringing their share of love in the exchange, simply making it > unbalanced and disfunctionally dependant. > > AFAICT if one just cherishes another for who they are, > > they’ll never be let down. > > – Michaela > —

Response:

Scuse moi, I was sayign this in reply to Michaela’s words, and not sayign this in any link at all to Claudia. In fact I did not even notice the thread title nor thought fo you and Claudia then when I replied to Michaela’s words. That’s the thign with ngs. Threads belong to no one, and take many varied directions. That was just one of them. As for you and Claudia, I have nothign to say, no eulogy no nothing. What coudl oen say….? As you say yourself…. It is fucking *********dead********!!!!!!! C  Left Hand of Empire (jack_foreig…@yahoo.com) writes: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The problem with crying over a broken heart is that people think > they’ve been there, too, and know how to get over it. > And it’s true, of course…there isn’t anything in life that we > cannot, really, bear. > But it’s like someone cracking jokes at a funeral…no matter how > funny they are, they are besides the point of a funeral. > Hell, for that matter, even eulogies talking about Heaven and such > nonsense are really out of place.  As Specialist Pat Tillman’s > brother, also a U.S. Army Ranger, had said at his brother’s funeral, > in response to well-wishers who spoke of Heaven and how Pat’s with the > Lord and other such homelies: "Pat’s dead.  Pat’s fucking dead." > My relationship with Claudia is dead.  It’s fucking dead. > bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Eleonore Beaudoin) wrote in message <news:cji40c$nvv$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>… >> Instead of seing the dispointment side (only), I look at it from the >> perspective of what it does to another to put expectations on them. Abd/or >> what it does to me when one expects me to this and that… >> When we do, it means the other has some implicit condition to fulfil, and >> that becomes a burden, because it is not appreciated so much as "expected". >> It becomes no less than a debt to pay and is acted upon as such both by >> the one fulfilling the expecation and the one seing their expectations >> met, in no time. Expectations lead to taking for granted. >> Of course, there is expectatiosn and expectations. If one says "I expected >> X to walk in at 4, cause every day for the ast 20 years X walked in >> exactly at four"….It mifght be said in the context of "how dare you not >> walk in at four??", where the other times are not appreciated as much as >> that oen reproached and underlien for nt meeting an implicit demand and >> condition. But if said to cops for instance, in the context of a missing >> person, the ""expectation"" might end up saving a life, for the one used >> to the habits of the missing one fast seing something might  be wrong… >> The difference then is the ATTITUDE. >> If it is done to measure how lovED we are rather than done out of loving, >> it can only lead to the dismantlement of the relationship. >> The one that acts to be loved, that does things to be lovED, not out of >> loving, not bringing their share of love in the exchange, simply making it >> unbalanced and disfunctionally dependant. >> > AFAICT if one just cherishes another for who they are, >> > they’ll never be let down. >> > – Michaela >> —

–

Response:

Left Hand of Empire (jack_foreig…@yahoo.com) writes: > bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Eleonore Beaudoin) wrote in message <news:cjkne6$cg$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>… >> Scuse moi, I was sayign this in reply to Michaela’s words, and not sayign >> this in any link at all to Claudia. >> In fact I did not even notice the thread title nor thought fo you and >> Claudia then when I replied to Michaela’s words. > Sorry if my post came across as a personal attack, but I really was > reacting to the ideas, not to the persons (posters — you and > Michaela).

Sorry, but you were rude, and agressive and still are. Not ideas are: you are. So your pretending otherwise above just does not hit me as meant nor honest. Abnd dishonesty you can shove immediately where Claudia waited four years to get you to shove. If thewre still is room. If not, put it in storage.  > > The thread’s obviously about me and Claudia,

Obviously not anymore, Belly Button:):).Were you under the illusion of the thread being your exclusive control and property, narcisse? Welcome to ngs, dear. Live and learn. Many threads around are about things quite other in contents than what their original title said. I think for instance of "a little bird told me" that never had a thing to do with birds, and that originally was about telling others I was sick and to send comforting words. It now became soemthing else entirely, which is quite fine and good and normal and gra=eat and all that. Tons of threads turn out this way. If you want exclusive attention, go see a psy and pay 137 dollars please. Or EMAIL SKLENGE. You show being a rude man unless someone is at your service, buddy. And you seem quite preoccupied wiht your grand self and never bother with anyone else than those kising your narcisstic ass. And you fell on the wrong gal to try that on. My sleeves are rolled. Coem on, give it your best shot, asshole.  and if the comments turn > to relationships in general, do not be surprised that such comments > are viewed within the specific context of the conversation at hand (me > and Claudia).

Yep. Rude and stupid at it. Hopefully he undesrtands what rudeness feels like by now, if he is not too stupid for that. Listen, I am sorry that to you this Claudia bobo is delicate stuff and that it felt to your precious centre of the universe as if everyone that woudl exchange ideas would have to talk you and Claudia,and that I butt in indelicately with my big shoes. But in no way does that justify your being such an assho9le that you can not pass for this kind man ditched by a woman in my eyes. YOU, sir, demand of others that they be delivccate when you show absolutely gratuitously rude to me for the nth time, when I did nothign to you sdave not kiss your butt excalty in the crack as you so wanted. So tell you what, belly button. The name ain’t Claudia, and I won’t stretch it four years. YOU are NOT the centre of the universe. Start liking it, as they say. >> That’s the thign with ngs. Threads belong to no one, and take many varied >> directions. That was just one of them. > That’s also part of the problem sometimes.

You really like to look for problems don’t you? I am sure then you will find plenty everywhere. Namely with anything that ainlt you you you and you, narcissist of my smurf. > Again, I do apologize  because though I was upset, I was upset at the ideas being oddly > "inappropriate,"

Scuse me, but I find you more than inappropriately acting. Therefore you do not serve well as a reference to what si appropriate or not. Yet….  Heard me bug you with it before? Then why don’t you respect others as they do you? Are you too important to be intruded in your exclusive thread? Is this a designer’s thread or soemthing? Gee willikers…. TOUCH GROUND. But better take a ladder to get off them high horses!  not at anyone in particular — it’s as if, to return > to the funeral analogy, I overheard a remark which I found tangential.

It was tangential in your twisting it arounc a la egoventred way, bringign everythign back to you even hen you are told for the nth time that it was not. I know you’ probably like to go on acting like it was, the world has no rigth to revolve without you beign its centre, and must be impossibel for you to imagine that more than Claudia donlt give a shit about the centre of the universe it it is you. But nah ner. Again, you ain’t mine. So deal with it. >  Sure you can say "well, I wasn’t talking to you anyway," but that’s > besides the point of my annoyance, which is at the idea, not that you > said it to me or whoever else.

You were rude and agressive gartuitopusly towards meand are still so. So come again, buster. Ain’t no such thing as a delicate asshole, so cut the frills off. >> As for you and Claudia, I have nothign to say, no eulogy no nothing. >> What coudl oen say….? >> As you say yourself…. >> It is fucking *********dead********!!!!!!! > Yes, and I am still in mourning.  This means that ideas which > challenge the "factual basis" of my grief — as per your and > Michaela’s comments —

For f.. sake…. Lil arrows pointign at you, is that all people are to your belly gutton majesty? I can not say for Micahela in her place, But again, deaf head, my words had nothign to do at all with you and Claudia. Spotted you as an asshiole from your second post, and did not care to write about you and Claudia. Got that? > will occasion a sharp rebuttal from me.

Try and sharpen this:)  But > you musn’t take it "personally,"

….pfft…. He is just being apersonally agressive, and only systematically with me. yes dear? I say no dear, Bugger off. Or get ready to face the same shit you serve women. Trust me, people her never saw me give anyone what they did not deserve and I am sure about my move this time too. as I do attack the ideas, however > aggressively.

Blah blah blah, agressive, not personal, don’t mean too, though agressive, blah blah blah. A man of hsi convictions, riiight.  Right. Anythign that does not pat your little bobo and kiss your little bleeding heart you attack. Course, narcisse. And I dared talk without talking about YOU, oh my gawd!!! Kiss *MY* ass!:) You don’t suffer for having lost Claudia. You suffer cause you don’t have someoen to play "you are my king, oh king, for the king, a la king…!" like a doggam latin declinaison! When she was there, you din care. Now that she’s gone, you use her to catch the next. I know your type by heart, sadly. So rememebr to try and dial a different number and get off ""my"" thread! LOL:) > Again, as with the funeral analogy: you two "debating" the ontology of > Heaven is besides the point of bereavement,

Again, a narcissist tryign to shine while popuring ridicule on two posters that wrere not rude to him, that were suppotive and kind, is being a total asshole. You dented the mirror hon. Awwww….  Say, since it is not about "us two", Michaela and I why donlt you shut the fuck up? Shall we act liek you? "Talk abotu what we talkd or we will pour ridicule on you?". You said it was not about me and Michaela, and ar upset if others donlt talk abot yo and Claudia. Then you have double standards, and try sitting on this: since you say this is not about me and Micahela, and since according to you, what matters is that oen talks about those they post-follow on, then shut up! Thsi was Michaela and I talking!! :)  and, whatever the actual > intentions do serve to effect a challenge of the survivor’s sense of > grief — that is, by saying "don’t worry, he’s in a better place now" > one is in effect if not in intent denying the very right to grief, > since there is nothing really to grieve since residence in Heaven is > no unhappy end (which is analogous to the sentiments you and Michaela > express, suggesting, if not logically implying, "idolatrous love" on > my part, etc. —

Odd. I don’t even rememebr havign talkd about heaven nor "he’s in a better place now". Are you aware that you hear voices??? > again, whatever your intentions, that is the effect).

Again, the only right intention with you is kissing your ass. Well, kiss this!!!! And get out fo my thread LOL:)  That’s all. —

Response:

bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Eleonore Beaudoin) wrote in message <news:cjkne6$cg$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>… > Scuse moi, I was sayign this in reply to Michaela’s words, and not sayign > this in any link at all to Claudia. > In fact I did not even notice the thread title nor thought fo you and > Claudia then when I replied to Michaela’s words.

Sorry if my post came across as a personal attack, but I really was reacting to the ideas, not to the persons (posters — you and Michaela). The thread’s obviously about me and Claudia, and if the comments turn to relationships in general, do not be surprised that such comments are viewed within the specific context of the conversation at hand (me and Claudia). > That’s the thign with ngs. Threads belong to no one, and take many varied > directions. That was just one of them.

That’s also part of the problem sometimes.  Again, I do apologize because though I was upset, I was upset at the ideas being oddly "inappropriate," not at anyone in particular — it’s as if, to return to the funeral analogy, I overheard a remark which I found tangential.  Sure you can say "well, I wasn’t talking to you anyway," but that’s besides the point of my annoyance, which is at the idea, not that you said it to me or whoever else. > As for you and Claudia, I have nothign to say, no eulogy no nothing. > What coudl oen say….? > As you say yourself…. > It is fucking *********dead********!!!!!!!

Yes, and I am still in mourning.  This means that ideas which challenge the "factual basis" of my grief — as per your and Michaela’s comments — will occasion a sharp rebuttal from me.  But you musn’t take it "personally," as I do attack the ideas, however aggressively. Again, as with the funeral analogy: you two "debating" the ontology of Heaven is besides the point of bereavement, and, whatever the actual intentions do serve to effect a challenge of the survivor’s sense of grief — that is, by saying "don’t worry, he’s in a better place now" one is in effect if not in intent denying the very right to grief, since there is nothing really to grieve since residence in Heaven is no unhappy end (which is analogous to the sentiments you and Michaela express, suggesting, if not logically implying, "idolatrous love" on my part, etc. — again, whatever your intentions, that is the effect). That’s all.

Response:

Filed under: Happiness Loneliness

Related Posts

• The Rose
• What's behind just another face in the crowd...
• Here's goes...
• Contemplating divorce
• I hate my life
• Just a few observations and other blabby"stuff"
• Loneliness remembers what happiness forgets........
• SPOILER
• Another long and lonely weekend
• All Alone