»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
soulmates
| Philosophy 101 |
|
soulmates |
|
|
icebox Member Elite
since 2003-05-03
Posts 4383in the shadows 
|
Proposition: to search for soulmates is to seek total destruction of the self. Indulging lust (perceived as love) is a joyful pastime driven by yearning for contact with preferred compatible body types. If well managed, there is little down side. The joy, with or without orgasmic release, lasts until access ends, the tastes change, needs evolve or until a more compatible, or more preferred, body type is encountered. Soul contact, on the other hand, is not limited to linear time or the limitations of the physical and once achieved, it endures. For the participants the result is an incremental evolution of the soul, and in smaller part a contribution to evolution of the collective human spirit. However, contact with a true soulmate, or soul twin, always results in the loss of the individuality of the soul for the remainder of that lifetime. The two (or more) so joined are not able to perceive either the self or the other, only the joined product. The result is an ecstatic state in which all aspects of personality are lost. One can not exist without the other and either or both (or all) will choose death rather than consider separation. |
||
| © Copyright 2006 icebox - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
well...even in marriage I never believed the term soulmate was used...in fact I never heard the term until the internet became so available to the majority. ( then again I am on the aged side of life) And I agree, if one says the other is their soulmate and they can't live without them, they have lost a part of themselves. Partner is a more meaningful word along with other endearing ones...I think soulmate is over used today. But what do I know...I thought mine would last forever... M |
||
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
Icebox, it seems you have a far narrower definition of soulmate than what rests in my mind, for I've never felt a soulmate must be a twin of sorts, nor that the state of being a soulmate required either loss of 'self space' or identity. But it's a pretty poetic word.  Whether it has any concrete meaning is up to the individual 'soulmates' in any given relationship. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Soulmates is a currently fashionable fantasy. Read Mathew Arnold's "The Buried Life", (I could cite at least one other by Mark Strand but I don't think it readily available for reading). One can strive for companionship but in fact there is always a distance, a separation. |
||
|
Fee Member
since 2000-08-07
Posts 381Melbourne, Australia |
I have found my Soul Mate and he believes he has found his. Now with that comes this connection that neither of us can explain, we know when each other needs each other, even when we are millions of miles apart (he travels for work). But your right, I did lose part of me when we found each other, I would not know how to survive on my own, the thought of life without him now I have found him, frightens me to death. We found ourselves through a strange connection, a friendship developed, one that for years was platonic and so deep, we would speak daily, 6 or 7 times. It was about 3 years later that we became lovers. He is my best, friend, my reason, my rock, my solitude, my own definition of heaven on earth.... and Yes I agree, neither of us could live without each other. We need each other to get through each day. I can not explain except to say I understand your thoughts. Big hugs, Fee |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Which brings up the further twist: are soulmates found or created? |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
Main Entry: soul mate Function: noun: a person temperamentally suited to another so I guess that is fine until the temperament changes ... There are those, I think, believe a soul mate is one who is perfect for them in just about all ways... and of course..nothing is perfect.... And I find it strange(from experience of others on the internet) especially when people think they have found their soul mate, as they put it, through airwaves, cell phones, computers, without having ever met... especially while living with another partner in marriage or companionship...strange world of definitions we live in. sorry the old fashionedism (if such a word) still lives in me...and even I have had to learn that with no legal separation in my state...that with abandonment I have in fact been allowed to go forward with my relationship(s) despite not being divorced yet...something I even had to ask to protect myself. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Any two people may be soulmates if they are true to each other. |
||
Mysteria
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
Soul mate (as defined at Dictionary.com) n. One of two persons compatible with each other in disposition, point of view, or sensitivity. quote:I have trouble with those two sentences Ice, and I will explain. I think the word "soul mate" is a term used far too loosely lately, and has become a word like “love” that is used without knowing the real meaning. I see today’s soul mate is actually referring to the dictionary’s version of those words. It is someone found you can get along with "for now" that suits you, makes you happy, etc. but that is until the climate gets too hot, or cold, then it is splitsville. I am like Maureen and old school I guess. I think that both love and soul mate are verbs, not nouns, and both are something that you do that result in a pleasant experience. The fruits of your efforts result in something you feel including both pleasant and unpleasant feelings. In both good times, and the bad you stick it out, work it out, and grow from it. Both individuals should feel good, and if they don’t then you are neither in love, feeling love, and certainly have no bond with a soul mate, and are wasting your time in a toxic situation and should move on. I mean from both a "romantic," and a “friendly” relationship sense. A soul mate can be someone you share your most intimate self with and never have any sexual relationship, as were both of my experiences. In fact in your lifetime you are lucky to find one “real” soul mate, and I was lucky enough to have had two, one male, and one female, both are now dead. One a life long girlfriend, and the other was actually my boss and best friend. The last thing in those connections was ever the loss of self or as you put it “all aspects of personality are lost.” In fact, a soul mate puts no restrictions on a relationship, none, and wants you just the way you are in spite of all your flaws, and as they say, “love you in spite of them.” Two can, and do draw from each other to grow into all they can be without working at it, at least from my experience. Forgiveness is always at the forefront, as is communication, and there is no room ever for judgement, or feelings of dominance or superiority. As far as choosing death over separation that is the last thing I would like to think that a real soul mate would ever consider. I am a believer that any self-administered death is always created from a fear of life. I find that sad, as there is always an answer or help, always, but the choice to ask is the onus placed on the individual. I was actually thinking reading this today that maybe you saw the movie, “Sayonara” yesterday?  A person that loved you would never want death for you, and when they are dying actually hang on longer because they are worried about you! Death is in my opinion, makes us the most selfish we will ever become. I have seen that twice now in my lifetime, and there truly is nothing more humbling or painful, but it is a gift from a soul mate to you that you accept willingly. From my own experience, “soul mates,” generally and unknowingly each help the other to live a better life, puts the needs of the other first, and all is done with unconditional love, without judgement of any kind.A piece of you does actually die when you do loose a soul mate, but the beauty is, that the bond stays with you forever as you will always celebrate their life, and the bond experienced. To say you can't find another soul mate after yours dies, well I have no answers to that yet, as I haven't found another to replace either of them to date, and probably because they are with me always and cloud my vision to look? I have some wonderful friends, and those friendships I take equally serious "There's nothing worse that being an aging young person!" - Richard Pryor ~ Carpe' Diem ~ |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Maureen, "And I find it strange(from experience of others on the internet) especially when people think they have found their soul mate, as they put it, through airwaves, cell phones, computers, without having ever met... especially while living with another partner in marriage or companionship...strange world of definitions we live in." It's called distance lends enchantment, ( and a great deal of artistic license on the part of desperation, hope, or simple boredom). The internet is, in that regard, just another lounge with most of the lights out. John P.S. This recalls my best friend who, having divorced his wife, is actively seeking companionship, (and with some success), through the internet. I love the man like a brother, but his manner, (unless the topic is hunting, fishing, politics, military history), is about as attractive as a business letter, ( which should be no surprise for a general manager). He reads war books, couldn’t tell Rembrandt from ravioli and Basho is what you are when you’ve had too many beers, yet he has suddenly, and more than once recently, found himself the long sought “soul mate”. Heck, they send him naked pictures, ( he will not reciprocate given his weight, thinning hair, and obvious need for thick glasses). It seems “soul mate” becomes increasingly the expressed goal as the mirror more and more gives the wrong answer. It reminds of that story where the mother tells her son she has the daughter of a friend she wants him to meet and when he asks what she looks like her reply is “She has a nice personality”. [This message has been edited by Huan Yi (02-05-2006 03:13 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"The internet is, in that regard, just another lounge with most of the lights out." Try adjusting the brightness on your monitor. If yours is lacking light doesn't mean everyone elses is. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Does this mean Diane Lane isn't my soulmate? darn... Ice -- you write as one who found a soulmate -- if so, congratulations (and condolences). If it makes you happy -- I'm happy for it to be defined any way you want it. |
||
|
littlewing Member Rara Avis
since 2003-03-02
Posts 9655New York |
Ironically, I have found this and it is a most beautiful existence: Soul contact, on the other hand, is not limited to linear time or the limitations of the physical and once achieved, it endures. For the participants the result is an incremental evolution of the soul, and in smaller part a contribution to evolution of the collective human spirit. However, contact with a true soulmate, or soul twin, always results in the loss of the individuality of the soul for the remainder of that lifetime. The two (or more) so joined are not able to perceive either the self or the other, only the joined product. The result is an ecstatic state in which all aspects of personality are lost. One can not exist without the other and either or both (or all) will choose death rather than consider separation. I don't see it as losing self though, moreso rebirth of self through each other. A new entity. I also feel that death is used loosely here. For upon parting, there indeed would be a great spiritual death moreso than a physical death. I have felt that - I don't want to feel it again. Physical death has got to be much easier. I see that type of death here, as purely spiritual, that bond, gone, upon complete seperation. I have only experienced this once, know I never will again, and it was not my marriage - my relationship for 16 years or anything else like that. But I cannot imagine this person ever NOT being in my life for when the prospect of that person remotely leaving my life in any fashion came about, spirit left me. There was a complete void, never to be filled, something only experienced through the joining of my soul with this one soul. I cannot even explain it. It is beyond us. I just know its there and am ever grateful. I don't care for the soul mate word either. It goes way deeper than that - things, we, our race, do not even comprehend. I just know it comes from another plane and somehow set itself right in our paths when we needed to be found. That bond has always been there, seems from the beginning of time. We KNOW each other. Cannot explain it any plainer than that. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Proposition: to search for God is to search for total destruction of the self  ?In the course of discourse with myself, I have asked me, do I believe that we are all "one"? Hmmm. Yep I believe I do. So if we are collectively actually one entity that for the sake of this conversation we will term "soul"--then in actuality, we are all soulmates. Now, (and I am addressing Charly here) that leaves me a bit confused as to the conception of the twin flame as it is sometimes termed elsewhere. More please, sir. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"So if we are collectively actually one entity that for the sake of this conversation we will term "soul"--then in actuality, we are all soulmates." Serenity, That seems to me a wisest way to approach it. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
And convenient for promiscuity |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Isn't Democracy too? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
So Diane Lane IS my soulmate?  |
||
|
Mysteria
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
Sure looks that way Reb, and that would mean that Matthew McConaughey would be mine I guess If I am allowed two, then throw in Brad Pitt for good measure. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I think we must see a general sense to love and a specific sense. Love or soulship with all humans doesn't mean we have the same extraordinary relationship with every one. Extraordinary love is love that we give extraordinary inspiration too. It is like fire. When it is stretched out to everyone it is light. But when it is extradinarly united it is a star. When it is fast and brief it is lightning. Thus the same thing has different bendings, times, thicknesses, thinnesses, quicknesses. A soulmate on a general sense is like saying a "fellow human that I love and am bound to in the kinship of humanity" A soulmate on a specific sense is like saying "an intimate lover that I am extraordinarly bound to above all other humans, by loving and being loved by him or her more extraordinarly than all others" |
||
|
Ratleader
since 2003-01-23
Posts 7026Visiting Earth on a Guest Pass |
Not destruction -- completion. I hope the term “soul mate” is the most misused and therefore misunderstood in our common parlance—or vice versa, that is's the most misunderstood and therefore the most misused. If there’s one we treat worse it would be a tragedy. Remember though, that anything I say may be wrong. I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but I know a few things and think some others, and may think something else tomorrow if I see things differently then…..so here goes…. I don’t think “soul mate” – the matching of souls – has anything to do with love. People who feel that joining, those who already match in that way, or who feel themselves growing toward it, are more likely to love…but that doesn’t mean the matching/joining of souls IS love, or requires love in order to happen. Lust is also separate from love, and even further removed from joining as “soul mates.” Every religion I know of makes the growth of the soul one of its most desired components, and most of ‘em make it a main purpose of human existence to care for the spirit you were born with and make it better by the time you die. A religion being about something doesn’t make it right, but if virtually all religions share a common tenet, even if those same religions contradict each other in very basic ways, it’s a pretty good indication that there’s at least something valid in that common thread. So, I think we can make the assumption that it’s about growth, about building spirit, adding a good ring to the tree and maybe a branch or two, while we’re here. Now a different tack: In the orphanages of communist Rumania, children were raised like puppies in a puppy mill, with a little exposure to language maybe, but no “human contact” with their keepers, body service with no bonding. They became stunted monstrosities, with twisted souls if there ever were such, because they were left without the opportunity for their souls – their spirits – to be taught, shaped, nurtured, through contact with other spirits. In other words, there’s little or nothing to change bad growth in a soul that’s isolated. It may remain unique, but the goal is for the soul to become better, stronger, smoother, more resilient, not just unique. There are soul mates out there, that’s an absolute certainty, and it is possible for one person to find another person whose spirit matches the shape of their own so well that when they meet there is a binding, a knitting of the fabric that happens without either of them trying for it in any way. I think that when the bonding comes, it is a bond which will exist from that point on, regardless of space, time or any other dimension, and once it has been formed, may even exist in the past. Where souls come from is something no one knows, but I don’t accept the idea that all souls form in pairs, yin and yang, and then spend eternity seeking each other after they are split asunder. Just my predilection, no particular reason except that it sounds ‘way too pat, too chick-flick romantic, far too much like Sweet William and Bonnie Barbara Allen (moderns read “Sleepless In Seattle”), to be real. It may happen that way, and I do think it occasionally does happen in a similar way, perhaps with twins….but not as a matter of course. One thing that does seem real is, if the match is clear enough, and one or both of the two people sensitive enough, one may be aware of the other’s existence even at a great distance, without their ever encountering each other physically. Such people simply know, in the way that the tuned circuit of a radio resonates to some distant station that the listener will never see….or at a more intimate but far more mundane level, the way you will often “just know” when someone is staring at you, whether you can locate them physically or not. I also think that everything I’ve spoken of so far, is so rare that it’s barely on the radar screen. Far more common is for people who are drawn to each other for other reasons – even lust – to grow together in spirit until they reach a soul mating, knit by time and growing in much the same way as those natural pairs. Given that the whole idea is to grow your soul and make it better, given that isolation leaves the soul with little nurture and with no way to correct the twists that come from random growing, and given that bonding with other spirits does provide those things, I think that one who finds a soul mate, or feels growth toward soul bonding with another person, but fails to take advantage of the opportunity, cheats their own soul, and will inevitably come to the end of life, as less than they could have been. ~~(¸¸¸¸ºº> ~~(¸¸¸¸ºº> ~~(¸¸ ¸¸ºº> ~~~(¸¸ER¸¸ºº> ______________Ratleader______________ [This message has been edited by Ratleader (02-06-2006 11:43 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: I'm not sure I understand what you're meaning by "soul mate", but I'll give you my initial thoughts, and we can take it from there... What you're suggesting, sounds like using human relations as a means to an altered state of consciousness. If human relationship is just another "estatic" state where everything is perceived as "one", then it is a just a path to a nirvana-like state of dissolution. If you've already admitted that indivduality is lost, surely the necessity of the relationship itself is lost too, since this is not the only way to such a state of consciousness. Mystical literature of all kinds attests to many "ways" to such a feeling. Isn't the self, and the relationship, subject to becoming trivial, irrelevant, devalued? You've sort of dismissed traditional relationships by pointing out that too often "lust" can be mistaken for love. But what about the possibility of love being real? There are beautiful marriages, without the mystical practice, where a great degree of satisfaction is obtained ... even a deep "oneness". I guess I'm just trying to compare what you're saying with what I know of Christian Marriage. The Christian take on marriage is similar to the take on theology in general ... a great degree of intimacy is possible, but individuality is not lost, nor viewed as "evil". God wanted us to be ourselves, and yet be able to love someone outside of ourself. So I guess my questions are: 1) Is loss of individuality a good or desirable thing? and why? and 2) Will personal relationships be devalued, or trivialized, if they are viewed as means to an impersonal end? Stephen. |
||
|
Martie
Moderator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-09-21
Posts 28049California |
stephan "So I guess my questions are: 1) Is loss of individuality a good or desirable thing? and why? and 2) Will personal relationships be devalued, or trivialized, if they are viewed as means to an impersonal end?" My take on what icebox is saying is that 1) loss of individuality IS NOT a good or desirable thing and therefore, soulmating is not a good and valuable thing. Charly...be sure to say if I'm wrong here. I agree with Ed and Essorant. Essorant said: "Extraordinary love is love that we give extraordinary inspiration too. It is like fire. When it is stretched out to everyone it is light. But when it is extradinarly united it is a star. When it is fast and brief it is lightning. Thus the same thing has different bendings, times, thicknesses, thinnesses, quicknesses. A soulmate on a general sense is like saying a "fellow human that I love and am bound to in the kinship of humanity" And Ed...this last part of what he said really seems right to me: "I think that one who finds a soul mate, or feels growth toward soul bonding with another person, but fails to take advantage of the opportunity, cheats their own soul, and will inevitably come to the end of life, as less than they could have been." Like everything, we all experience life in a different way, thoughts and experiences about soulmates are no different. I think it's true that many romantisize the idea, but I also think that this kind of relationship is a true thing that can happen, and should, and makes each person better for themselves and others. To know love from a soulmate, and I do think it is unconditional, is to experience the best of being alive. icebox...I'm glad you brought up this subject, as it fascinates me. I hope others will offer up their feelings and opinions in this thread. I know we won't all agree on everything, but seems like at least on one thing we agree, that is that soulmates do exist. |
||
|
Astaroth_Fox2 New Member
since 2006-02-07
Posts 1Texas, USA |
I belive that the Soulmate is a misconstrued idea. It is to be belived that souls can actualy connect. I belive that the only time this would be possable is a simultainious near death experience, where one dosn't necessarily expeirience soul contact. So, my belife is, soulmates simply happen by chance, and are created by severe shared trauma. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
What an interesting thread! Charly, I have to agree with you that “to search for soulmates is to seek total destruction of the self,” that soul contact is not limited to linear time, and that it does contribute to the growth of one’s own soul. The word “self” is the key. Littlewing, in my view, seems on target with her response that the “death” is a spiritual one. What I am not sure of is whether or not it is possible to have more than one soul mate; whether there is that one and only love of all life times. It seems to me that there are, what I call, soul clusters. In other words, a number of different players in our incarnation that have chosen (out of love) to play certain roles in the development of our souls. I think all too often a soul cluster member gets confused with a soul mate. There’s the rub, and usually the growth lesson, perhaps. I like Sting’s lyrics to “A Thousand Years:” A thousand times a million doors to eternity I may have lived a thousand lives, a thousand times An endless turning stairway climbs To a tower of souls If it takes another thousand years, a thousand wars, The towers rise to numberless floors in space I could shed another million tears, a million breaths, A million names but only one truth to face A million roads, a million fears A million suns, ten million years of uncertainty I could speak a million lies, a million songs, A million rights, a million wrongs in this balance of time But if there was a single truth, a single light A single thought, a singular touch of grace Then following this single point, this single flame, This single haunted memory of your face I still love youI still want you A thousand times the mysteries unfold themselves Like galaxies in my head I may be numberless, I may be innocent I may know many things, I may be ignorant Or I could ride with kings and conquer many lands Or win this world at cards and let it slip my hands I could be cannon food, destroyed a thousand times Reborn as fortune's child to judge another's crimes Or wear this pilgrim's cloak, or be a common thief I've kept this single faith, I have but one belief I still love you I still want you A thousand times the mysteries unfold themselves Like galaxies in my head On and on the mysteries unwind themselves Eternities still unsaid 'Til you love me Many times, it occurs to me, the true soul mate is unattainable, thus leading to more than one spiritual death. It wouldn’t surprise me, however, if having found the unattainble that the continuation of the soul’s existence in connection to the human form would no longer be a necessity. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Oh, and I don't think the dictionaries have the definition right, either...lol. |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
Interestingly enough, while this is a pretty piece of prose, the entire statement is nothing shy of foolish romanticism better suited to a Harlequin novel rather than a statement on life/love. One of the most depressingly common mistakes made by people searching for or "in" love is the need for someone to "complete them," or someone to "make them feel good/great/incredible/etc.," or even someone whom they "couldn't live without." In fact, anyone searching for a type of love that consists of these ideals is only defining who they are by who they're with - another word for that? d e p e n d a n c y. How can you be happy being with someone else, if you aren't happing being with just yourself? Love? Soulmates? A soulmate (if the overused generic descriptive of some utopian inter-personal relationship can suffice for anything so infinitely complex) would be someone who doesn't complete, but instead complements. It wouldn't be someone you couldn't live without, but rather someone you enjoy being with. It wouldn't be someone who made you feel good, it would be someone you could feel good with. Have you ever read the novella by Stephen R. Donaldson called "The Killing Stroke?" An apt analogy follows from there that no one can destroy your sense of self; that is a choice only you can make. Your choices cannot be taken away from you any more than your sense of self can be. You define who you are, no one else. If you're asking someone else to, and that's what's called being "in love," count me out! |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I believe that's called hedonism. At best, it's communal masturbation and, at worst, it's using people. The "down side" is that other people aren't meant to be "well managed," a clever euphemism for used. Humans, I think, are hard-wired to want more than a purely physical relationship, and at least one person (and usually both) end up getting hurt when they pretend otherwise. quote: A relationship that requires no work, no sacrifice, no compromise, is just a fantasy. While it's probably normal to want to find something of value that doesn't ever have to be earned, I honestly don't think it's very realistic. Soul mates, in my opinion, aren't discovered, but are created. Day after day after day. I'd like to think we can find something that lies between selfish hedonism and equally selfish fantasy? |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
While both Christopher and Ron make valid points about "love," I thought the discussion here was "soul mates." To me, that is all about love, but not necessarily a "romantic" thing. Although, the "attraction" often teaches us through that vehicle. You are both speaking toward the dictionary definition; but I do not agree with the definition and I suspect I'm not the only one. For me, a soulmate is the ultimate catalyst in teaching a soul about infinte love/universal love. Sometimes, and I would venture a guess here, most times, it is an extremely painful growth process, and I think, involves loss almost always...the impetitus to force a soul to make a choice. In other words, it is not the story of "Cinderella." More like, "Romeo and Juilliet" or "The Thornbirds" if you want to err on the side of the soulmates having a physical relationship. My interpretation of Sting's prose deals with that concept...and not a Harlequin Romance. Just some ideas. Who knows, maybe tomorrow my ideas will have changed. [This message has been edited by iliana (02-08-2006 10:19 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron, That was a great reply. It has a lot of wisdom. (I know you don't think I ever agree with you. lol. So when I strongly do, I feel I need to tell you now and again ... friend) Stephen. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Came back to add one more "soulmate" pair -- Anthony & Cleopatra. My point is that soulmates do not necessarily complete each other in the sense that two halves make a whole. Rather, perhaps that feeling of two halves making a whole is so strong that it causes each of them to grow to the point where they have to make a choice about the direction of their lives -- whether to submerse their souls in each other or to grow toward their own identity as a unique reflection of the divine spark. A soulmate, in my mind, could well be a sort of mirror image of self -- many times a person falls in love with their own reflection; but I believe it is equally an opportunity for that person to recognize their own flaws, and thus, the growth. Love between two people can certainly be a teacher; I have no argument there whatsoever. It's just that I do not believe being in love constitutes a situation of soulmates per se. Nor do I see a soulmate as a utopian situation -- I see it as an extremely strong, unexplainable connection between two people that leads to ultimate soul growth if the parties so chose to brave the ride -- it involves a recognition of each other that is generally unexplainable by normal standards. Ultimately, I believe the experience either leads one to "loss of self" in physical/spiritual union, or to a deeper understanding of agape love (still loss or a spiritual death of self). Perhaps, it might lead to a physical death, as well, if one is not able to accomplish either option. Obviously, I embrace the concept of reincarnation. Really got me thinking and I am enjoying reading this thread. [This message has been edited by iliana (02-09-2006 03:03 AM).] |
||
|
littlewing Member Rara Avis
since 2003-03-02
Posts 9655New York |
Well, thats the whole idea though. Within another, you find yourself, know yourself better, they should bring YOU out even if you don't even know you are in there. Actually, the both of you see better within your own selves. There is nothing selfish or needy. This is a naturally occurring instance and is rare. Something like this is not tried for, worked at or hard to do , it just IS. Unconditional acceptance of the spirit. (Don't any of you have this?) Within this bond, you find each other, within that you find yourself. It is not fake, fairytale stuff either. You think you know yourself well until you find this. When you reach this, then you realize: Where have I been? See? I will stand by this notion because I experience it every single day through my very best friend and my son. Both on completely different levels. I think everyone is running away with this "love" factor. That should be the last thing to play into this, along with the definitions of "soul mate" and "twin flame" You need to have an understanding of self first, then an understanding of the other person. From there, you should not have to even try. It takes care of itself. |
||
|
Ratleader
since 2003-01-23
Posts 7026Visiting Earth on a Guest Pass |
I do see, littlewing -- and that was the whole reason I said what I did up there. You're absolutely right. This discussion may be doomed to fall short though, because in order to know that bond you need to be aware of your spirit, and very few people have that awareness. So, we will talk of love and lust and person-to-person bonding, assuming we're talking about soul mates, when we're only talking about person-to-person relationships. The paring of two spirits is something entirely different, though it almost always involves love or leads to it. What we won't get is, spirit and personna are two different things. We'll fail here because there will be two groups of people talking (there already are two groups), without becoming aware that they speak different languages -- languages which share the same words, but some of those words have entirely different meanings. ~~(¸¸¸¸ºº> ~~(¸¸¸¸ºº> ~~(¸¸ ¸¸ºº> ~~~(¸¸ER¸¸ºº> |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
The easy answer is to always defend a position by claiming that the other side hasn't experienced [fill-in-the-blank]. The reality is that regardless of whether you attach it to love or lust or friendship or the way she eats her ice cream sundae, common perception is the completion and I just can't support any theory that requires another individual to make [you] a whole person. quote:Another well-turned sentence. Apparently talking about soulmates inspires some good writing! You have me up to the end of this statement iliana. I will even go so far as to, heh, agree with what you say as an alternative/option. Spiritual growth, much as physical growth, is rarely painless. Another person can certainly aid (act as a catalyst) to that growth. In fact, one might even say that it _requires_ a person outside yourself in order to spur that growth; if left solely to ourselves, without interaction, where would we find the impetus to experience or desire that growth?After that, though - I still have to disagree. Your sense of self is exactly that - yours. No one else can cause or choose to destroy that. Only you can. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Christopher said: "After that, though - I still have to disagree. Your sense of self is exactly that - yours. No one else can cause or choose to destroy that. Only you can." Exactly, Christopher. It is always about choice. Sorry if I was not clear. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Ed, I hope you're wrong about the discussion failing because I think it's an interesting topic. Also, thanks for making the distinction clearer...I was trying to do that but fell short. |
||
|
Mysteria
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
quote:You hit the nail on the head there Ron!  Strangely enough, I think we refer to the result of our ongoing efforts as "love." I like to think of it as total acceptance without judgement myself, and love is just a small and pleasureable part of it. |
||
|
Ratleader
since 2003-01-23
Posts 7026Visiting Earth on a Guest Pass |
It won't, if people know there are two ways of looking at the same set of words...that's why I said it that way, to alert anyone who hadn't realized that was the case. Yo Christopher -- not hiding, clarifying. There are things that not everyone has experienced, and when talking about them we have to take that into consideration. ~~(¸¸¸¸ºº> ~~(¸¸¸¸ºº> ~~(¸¸ ¸¸ºº> ~~~(¸¸ER¸¸ºº> |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
I agree completely, Ed - we do need to take it into consideration, but there's no justification to discount someone's reasoned opinion based solely on a presumed lack of like experience. |
||
|
Ratleader
since 2003-01-23
Posts 7026Visiting Earth on a Guest Pass |
Amen -- and plenty for us to learn from both viewpoints, so..... ~~(¸¸¸¸ºº> ~~(¸¸¸¸ºº> ~~(¸¸ ¸¸ºº> ~~~(¸¸ER¸¸ºº> |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
 wishing more would express opinions here |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
ok... I think the Stupid pill ma nature gives us when we fall in love is a truly wonderous drug. Mind you, understanding how the drug works doesn't make me any more immune to it than understanding heroin would make me immune to that. But, over time it wears off. After that -- reference my post on love. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I think I understand what you're suggesting, Iilana, but I don't see that process necessarily requiring a connection to love, souls, or mates. Making choices is simply a part of life. Indeed, I think the most difficult choices, the choices that offer the greatest potential for growth, rarely involve others directly. Don't believe me? Ask a priest, a teacher, or a soldier. Ask Martin Luther King, Jr. or James Earl Ray. Ask Nathan Hale or Benedict Arnold. I don't believe people are forced to make choices because they meet someone with whom they connect. The choices are always there, always waiting to be made. Moreover, famous names and circumstances not withstanding, I don't think people are shaped by the big choices so much as the big choices are shaped by the people . . . and by the tens of thousands of small choices that inevitably lead up to big moments. The catalyst for all those choices isn't a soul mate, but just day-to-day living. And that's okay, too, because I think, for anyone searching for growth, day-to-day living offers all the challenge that will ever be needed. Ed, Sue, your view of soul mates is lovely on the surface, but it could never work for me because it implies a static, unchanging relationship between people who either never grow or who, miraculously, always grow in the same direction at the same pace. "Two pieces that perfectly fit" can never be more than a snapshot. The movie, viewed with an added dimension of time, would either show two pieces that stop fitting quite so well or, if they work really hard at it, two pieces that ebb and flow and occasionally even overlap and pinch. What works for me isn't a relationship that starts out perfect and always stays that way, but rather a relationship that starts out good and, every passing day, grows into something better. I just can't see that happening without a lot of work and at least a little pain. |
||
|
Ratleader
since 2003-01-23
Posts 7026Visiting Earth on a Guest Pass |
Static? Unchanging? Goodness no, Ron -- that's the opposite of what my view is, and the opposite of what I said in my response. As I said up there, it's about growth and change. ~~(¸¸¸¸ºº> ~~(¸¸¸¸ºº> ~~(¸¸ ¸¸ºº> ~~~(¸¸ER¸¸ºº> |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
"What works for me isn't a relationship that starts out perfect and always stays that way, but rather a relationship that starts out good and, every passing day, grows into something better. I just can't see that happening without a lot of work and at least a little pain." Ron, I appreciate everything you said and agree with most of it as to relationships in general. The soulmate/twin flame relationship is a rare thing that I do believe exists as I believe I have experienced it. Not a physical intimacy but a spiritual one. At first, extremely frightening...later painful...and ultimately I believe we both have gained better understanding of universal love. It has been an association which has changed both our lives 100% for the better, but not without great pain and having to face the truths about ourselves unfolded within the confines of mutual respect and complete acceptance. |
||
|
littlewing Member Rara Avis
since 2003-03-02
Posts 9655New York |
I see what everyone is saying and agree with so much of it especially the fact that NOBODY but yourself can ultimately change the course of your life or your self/spirit. That is up to you essentially. *nodding to Christopher* What I am saying is by having that rare bond with someone, it can AID you in finding where you need to be, help you to realize your mistakes, learn from them and move on or stay where you are if its a good thing. (sometimes even if its a bad thing, there must be something to be learned there either by you or by them, or both) I dont think life experience has such a role in it - it is more a level of maturity and spiritual awakening or awareness. *nodding to Ed* Age is a perfect example of that. I see no "age" in people . . . I see what is inside of them, that is where the connection lie. Spirit. Sharon hit it right there, love being a "bonus" to a spiritual bonding. Your "soulmate" (I despise using that word) doesn't even always have to be about love either. We are here to learn guys. Think of how many people you have been bonded to that have caused you grief or you caused them grief. That doesnt mean they may NOT have been a "soulmate" . . . I am grateful for those lessons or else I probably would not be having this discussion right now, which I think is an amazing one at that and would like to see it keep going. We all learn from this. Ron? Sue, your view of soul mates is lovely on the surface, but it could never work for me because it implies a static, unchanging relationship between people who either never grow or who, miraculously, always grow in the same direction at the same pace. I have to disagree with you here because I am living this and have been and I am not stuck in some unchanging world or have rose colored glasses on either. NOTHING is static about the people I am bonded to, through them I found so much in life, without them, it just would have been a much more difficult path. Can I say I would have eventually learned what I have? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. I am grateful for such people and there is not one thing that occurs in my daily life in the bonds I speak of that does not allow me, unconditionally, to grow, as spirit, as a human, a woman, mother, lover, friend and writer. As a person. I would liken NOT having such bonds to owning a library full of books I never read. I never said "perfect fit". NOTHING is perfect. Life is hard. Have I said this was perfect, I did not. I said it existed and I am aware of it and its lovely. Your ending lines are correct. I completely agree. That doesnt mean that there isnt an amazing spiritual bond present. People stay together every day for the wrong reasons, people that don't fit AT ALL and why? Maybe they have that bond, maybe it isnt a "love" bond. Maybe they have lessons to learn. I never said this was all about love. I said it was a spiritual journey and it is. Beautifully said Jo: but not without great pain and having to face the truths about ourselves unfolded within the confines of mutual respect and complete acceptance. Lessons, its all about lessons. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I've experienced that kind of relationship, too, Jo. More than once. Many, many, many times more than once. Sisters, parents, children, lovers, and even a few very special friends. In my experience, Jo, the flames aren't twin but are legion. They exist anywhere people are willing to open themselves to real honesty, both with themselves and with others. And, yea, I've also had relationships (two in 56 years) where the flame only flickered and died, snuffed by pretense and fear. Those are the exceptions, though, not the rule. |
||
|
wranx Member Elite
since 2002-06-07
Posts 3689Moved from a shack to a barn |
A discussion like this can be much like trying to explain the color orange to a blind man. The idea of soulmate might be explained by the advent of a complete and innate understanding of the "other". An instant understanding requiring little effort. I know of two people, a generation removed, raised in disimilar fashion, and in separate geography...who truly do "get" the other person in every respect. But it runs deeper than that. Not so much mirror images, as being able to see one's self in the other...whether in the mundane or the esoteric, the differences are merely semantics. And yes, I'm well aware how "love" can be manufactured, bent and shaped to fit, if you will. But that's effort, and what this is, is nothing if not effortless. Pain? I dont think the notion of soulmate precludes pain. It occurs, and both people know the whys and the hows of it...Both understand its causes and effects, and if its worth it (and it would be) will overcome it. Please excuse the disjointed ramble...lol Just my thoughts on the subject |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Wranx....I think you and I are on the same page here. Ron....while I truly appreciate your perspective and have also had the types of relationships you describe (and still do in most cases), I think that wranx's description is closer to my definition.  |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Ron, it's like wranx said....trying to explain the color orange to a blind person -- I don't think I am able to come up with the right words to explain why this soulmate thing is any different than what you have described. I can, however, add that it is truly a "mystical" thing. Also, I think there is the possibility that "twin souls" and "soul clusters" exist. For me, those are different -- all extremely special relationships. All are there out of love even if sometimes a person plays the villian; and all are for the purpose of growth, not just for ourselves individudally but for themselves, too. I don't pretend to know the real truth of any of this and can only base it on my own experience. I would add, Ron, that if you have experienced this more than one time, you are truly, truly blessed! ('course I think you're blessed anyhow  ) Maybe I've just been reading too much Edgar Cayce. lol [This message has been edited by iliana (02-09-2006 11:41 PM).] |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Newsflash to Ron.... I just read this thread to my husband. He commented: "Ron is sounding more and more like he is my soulmate." lol (apparently, he agrees with your thought process on the matter) |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
What do you think is the most important part of a soulmate-relationship? |
||
|
Ratleader
since 2003-01-23
Posts 7026Visiting Earth on a Guest Pass |
For starters, truth, forebearance, and the willingness to grow. ~~(¸¸¸¸ºº> ~~(¸¸¸¸ºº> ~~(¸¸ ¸¸ºº> ~~~(¸¸ER¸¸ºº> |
||
|
Martie
Moderator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-09-21
Posts 28049California |
What do you think is the most important part of a soulmate-relationship? To listen with honesty and to forgive with compassion. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
hmmmmm....I kind of think the "shock" of it awakens the consciousness to further insight into the "whole." |
||
|
littlewing Member Rara Avis
since 2003-03-02
Posts 9655New York |
*nodding with Martie* |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Agreeing that those are all important aspects -- hard to pick just one thing really. In my above post, when I used the word, "whole," what I'm referring to is the cosmos, the all. To put it in a smaller sense, maybe the fact that the relationship awakens a part in each person to the fact that there is something which they are a part of which is much bigger than themselves. Not that this cannot happen without the soulmate, but it is almost a tangible thing in these type of relationships, I think. It is like an awakening to a new awareness. Here's a thought -- maybe the soulmate is the one who is the impetus to the change of perception which is needed most in the other person (that is, if the person makes that choice), whether that be on a physical level, emotional level, or spiritual level -- what do you think? |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
"What works for me isn't a relationship that starts out perfect and always stays that way, but rather a relationship that starts out good and, every passing day, grows into something better. I just can't see that happening without a lot of work and at least a little pain." I agree, Ron. After rereading much of this thread..why not just call some of your definitions for soulmates.. friendships...close loving friendships for isn't that what a friend does, they are honest with you, give you support when needed, (minus the sexual needs) help you see your mistakes and give you suggestions and hold your hand and let you cry on their shoulder when needed...that's what it sounds like to me. Today's definition of soul mates to me, is exactly how icebox interpreted it..just read poems on other sites or or here, if you know someone for instance who had a "special" relationship with someone online and considers them a soul mate...and if it isn't your spouse or significant other..than what does that say for your "real life" partnership? Another person can not complete you...You are already completed...and are "whole" you may wish to have someone to love you or be at your side to enjoy what choices are out there to share..but you are never half a person. I am sure I am not making sense to most...but you can't just change the definition of a word to suit you. Change or find another word to be closer to the meaning you want. After 35 years of marriage..almost all good..I wouldn't even say my husband was my soul mate, although even in these last years of separation he is everything to me now that most of you are saying a soul mate is. He is a "good caring friend" (lucky for me) who has fallen out of the kind of love we once shared...but is still there while we continue to grow... even if apart. If he had been my soulmate and then it ended as it will eventually, I would be half of who I was/am..and I actually am more now than I have ever been. M |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
"What works for me isn't a relationship that starts out perfect and always stays that way, but rather a relationship that starts out good and, every passing day, grows into something better. I just can't see that happening without a lot of work and at least a little pain." Who thinks the relationship with soulmates is perfect, Maureen? Did anyone say that? Just curious. |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
I quoted Ron..sorry I didn't make that clear as I said underneath that I agreed with him on his statement... ask Ron besides nothing is "perfect" in life, even if we say so...it's something we strive for or at least hope to attain in happiness or accomplishment. M |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
thx M-lady....now I remember |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
when did we first start using "commonly" the words soul mate... just curious. I hadn't heard it until I began reading and posting on the internet...and never heard it in the outside world even of friendships or marriage... I don't mean each individual word..but the combination of |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Maureen, I am not sure where it originated. In the Jewish faith they use a word, b'shert, which means something like 'meant to be.' I think the modern, new age, if you like, definition of soulmate comes from Edgar Cayce's 'receivings" -- not really sure. And, I'm certainly NOT an expert on this! I find his renderings on this topic really interesting: http://www.edgarcayce.org/about_edgarcayce/soulmate/soulmate.asp BTW, Cayce was a Christian, a very devout one. (He died around 1945 I think.) The concept has really been around for many, many years. I read several books in the 60s. Also, suspect that the subject may be addressed in certain Hindu practices of which I know almost nothing -- maybe someone else can address this topic and you'll find out more. |
||
|
littlewing Member Rara Avis
since 2003-03-02
Posts 9655New York |
Jo, you couldn't have said this better: there is something which they are a part of which is much bigger than themselves Thats it . . . and nothing IS perfect - that would be a fairytale . . . Maureen, I do have to disagree here, I know what you mean by it but I have many times felt half a person, even if I were whole, I never saw it for myself, another always helped ME to see myself and THAT is what this is all about but this was your quote: ..but you are never half a person. I will never be whole until I cross over and even then I have a lot of answering to do . . . If I were whole, I would stop learning, growing. I think it is pretentious to claim oneself to be whole. (happy, well-adjusted, self-assured, confident, independent, YES) Its all perception . . . we all have our own perceptions. |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
I guess we all have our own definitions of "whole", too. For I believe in growth etc..but I believe we can live as one being and my definition meant "not needing that other half", which I thought everyone is defining as a mate, another human. Of course we are always growing and learning and sometimes even unlearning and regressing...but soul mate meant another person..that is what I meant by half/whole. besides..feeling..is not the same as being...we all feel at times less than what we wish to feel..that does not make us half of ourselves... that's the only way I can explain my position which is only going to be my own as yours is your own. |
||
|
littlewing Member Rara Avis
since 2003-03-02
Posts 9655New York |
ahh, I completely agree with you Maureen, on not needing another person to complete you, to survive. and you just taught me something right there by your last quote on feeling and being. Thank you. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
