From: rchoy@clarify.com (Raymond Choy)
Subject: Re: Stand up girls! Re: Why? Why? Now I am telling you why.)
Organization: Clarify, San Jose
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:18:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.192517.23166@dsg.tandem.com> leung@DSG.Tandem.COM (Steven Leung) writes:
>First, Teresa (shui@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu) says:
>
>> Love is two ways. Give and take. ...
>
>I see nothing wrong about it.
>
>Then Raymond (rchoy@clarify.com) says:
>
>> ... Love is not two ways but a one way direction call "Give". ...
>
>And Chris (chris@iastate.edu) obviously agrees:
>
>> In conclusion, love is only one-way. If you expect to get back something, do
>> you really love him/her?
>
>I think that you two guys' perception of one-way love is only a special case
>of Teresa's model (for lack of a better word), i.e., with take=0. (Obviously, 
>there is another version of this one-way special case, right? :-) And if you 
>allow "Give" to take on a negative value, then it is in effect the sum of 
>"Give and take" in Teresa's model, right? 


No, it depends on how you look into her model. 

1st assumption you make: "Give and take" == Give + Take 

which may not be accurate because it might mean

"Give & Take" which is a logical operation implies both give and take
are 1's. Since I don't believe that it is always true that Give and 
Take should be 1's in order to have Love, I believe in one-way model.
(Mmmmm, maybe I should suggest a divided-two-way model, which makes 
       Being Love = Take
       To Love    = Give)

       

>
>As to Chris's last question, it seems to imply that if you expect to get back 
>something (anything?) from a relationship, then you do not really love the
>other party in the relationship. This sounds strange to me. If you ask people 
>around whether they [expect to] say, derive satisfaction from their loving 
>relationship, then I would say most would say so. What's wrong with that? Now
>if you say that you don't expect anything from your relationship, nothing wrong 
>either. But from your own experience to generalize into saying that it is not 
>a love relationship if one party in the relationship expects to get back 
>something from it, then I think you are imposing your narrow viewpoint (the 
>special case of the two-way model) on others, especially when considering the
>fact that the so-called two-way model doesn't really reject yours.


A divided-two-way model can merge into a two way model at certain point and
split back at another point. I think it is wrong to assume that you will 
be able to get something back in a pure love relation (of course it is 
different if you "paid" for it :-)). Love is one of the imperfect thing
in the world that did not follow the rules of "the more you give, the more
you get". Making such assumption will only make ones to feel sad, angry
or upset on others. Wrong expectation will easily ruin any relationship.


>
>Actually, you two's sensitivity/insistence on this perception of one-way love
>gives a hint of the real issue in a relationship: the [mis]matching perception
>of the "Give and take" on both sides, i.e., the issue of matching perceptions
>on both sides is as important as the issue of the concept/model of "love" itself.
>
>I think most participants in this net are academic/technical people, and as
>such, I'm quite surprised that we actually allowed ourselves to engage in 
>discussions of this highly important subject in such an undisplinary manner.
>Alas, how low can we go? Alright, I'll work hard this weekend to come up
>with a model/architecture/system/whatever about this hitherto seemingly 
>evasive concept of "love," 'coz continue to argue in this way is not only 
>incompatible with our great profession, but also might hinder our mission
>of extending real world love into virtual reality (VR).
>
>
>Steven
>------
>328. Seek opportunity, not security. ...
>        - Life's Little Instruction Book by H. J. Brown, Jr.
>

VR is dangerous and I strongly discourage it. Assumption, expectation
and "sweet dream" will only make you feel disappointed when one day
you come back to reality. 



-Raymond Choy-