From: chris@iastate.edu (Chris WONG)
Subject: Re: Stand up girls! Re: Why? Why? Now I am telling you why.)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 02:35:47 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? 

Don't play mathematics in love!
Don't you see the word 'EXPECT'?
If you expect to get something back in the first place, this won't be a good
intention. Huh? But, if the other party give you love(care, concern or
whatever) this would be obviously nice.

Wait a minute! Are you guys complaining about the unsatisfaction from your
partners? That is complaint... that means you guys were expecting ...
See what I mean?

>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.

Well, I admit that I was saying a more ideal situation... but, love is ideal...
if you really want love... try your best to find or build an ideal love... but
if you give up to the reality, you'd never find a happy life.

If you think my viewpoint is narrow, you're narrow-minded then. I was giving
my personal opinion and I'm not saying who's wrong or right. Everyone has his/
her way of life as long as s/he is happy. It really doesn't bother me.
But, I really hate complaint. I like understanding. Like I understand my girl-
friend and she understands me a lot, we trust each other. We talk things out.
We try every ways to build a good relationship.

Anyway, I'm a optimistic person. I'm hoping everyone would be living happily
and smoothly with his/her partners.

>Actually, you two's sensitivity/insistence on this perception of one-way love

I agree with two ways love too. Some people like it and they have a good
relationship in this way. You can have both one-way or two-way loves if you
want.

>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

Are you technical? Who else is technical? I'm a fool in life. Life is cruel.
God love all of us. He is the only technical one. Academic? ... I don't know.

>such, I'm quite surprised that we actually allowed ourselves to engage in 
>discussions of this highly important subject in such an undisplinary manner.

I quite know what I'm saying.

>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

Ah! Professional, great! You've got your points.

>of extending real world love into virtual reality (VR).

Your mathematics' way, reality = - virtual.
My religion way, reality = virtual, true reality = not virtual.

Steven, I'm not flaming. I somehow agree with you on some of your points, but
let's give the right to the other buddy to live in their own way.

In conclusion, everyone is right and wrong except within oneself, s/he is
always right!

Am I saying something? It seems rubbish. I am.

>
>Steven
>------
>328. Seek opportunity, not security. ...
>        - Life's Little Instruction Book by H. J. Brown, Jr.
>


Newsgroups: soc.culture.hongkong