| Blogs > shuel2002 > Speak Your Mind |
|
Makes perfect sense to me, Rainier.  Thanks for your comment.  Elaine Shuel
| ||
|
AlohaFriends2, that was an interesting comment and I appreciate that you made it.. If you have someone who is a companion, is it always love? You may have a friend who you enjoy doing things with and yet you are aren't "in love" with them. At least, that is my opinion. Does love always grow? Some believe yes and others no. I feel like you may never grow to love some people no matter how long you know them. What does everyone else think? Elaine Shuel
| ||
|
Sweet answer, Alpha. I believe in love too. Elaine Shuel
| ||
|
Rainier and I are on the same wave length. I enjoy my independence. I love house guests like family & friends, but after four or five days I would like them gone. Hope that you are doing well Shuel!! Hugsss~~~ I'm doing great, thanks. Hope you are too.Your comment made me laugh. Thanks.  I agree with Rainier too.Elaine Shuel
| ||
|
Hi Elaine....nice to see you blogging again. My answer to your question is no. I like my own space way too much to share with anyone else. That's not to say one cannot have a companion to do things with. You don't have to live with someone to care and love them. Nice to be back. Nope, you certainly don't have to live with someone to care and love them. Very true.Elaine Shuel
| ||
|
I know what you mean, Puzzles.  In certain ways that you have implied, living apart from a loved one can have advantages. However, i am sure the married couples out there would say that you learn to compromise and living together has its advantages too.Elaine Shuel
| ||
|
OrphanThing, thanks so much for that comment. It was well thought out and appreciated. Elaine Shuel
| ||
|
You're very welcome. Elaine Shuel
| ||
3/5/2016 6:30 am |
Nope. If I wanted companionship I would get dog.
| ||
|
Yes, cooking Elaine would be a dish best served cold. Thanks Bob. Elaine Shuel
| ||
|
Nope. If I wanted companionship I would get dog.  Elaine Shuel
| ||
|
We all assume that 's what's right and proper for each of us, is the same for everybody. Shuel, you have a uncanny ability, to create proper and right, without actually coming out and saying it. Your ability to separate companionship and love. Is just foreign to me. You define them both, yet both can't adhere to your definition. Love is not all or nothing, never has been. We like to see it as so. That people either love or don't love. It's not that simple....Love is but degrees. for me, there can be no companionship without some degree of love. Love takes on many faces, yet so many are unrecognizable. I guess it's possible for someone to want to be with someone, because you'd just want to be with someone. But that sounds silly to me. there has to be some preference, some guideline of who that person is. I just don't know anyone like that.. That is amoral, asexual, and apersonal. It says to me, it's a person who cant love. I just don't think that kind of person exists. The ability to love, creates love in all it's many faces.
| ||
|
That's great, emzie54. I hope you find someone special like you are. Elaine Shuel
| ||
|
We all assume that 's what's right and proper for each of us, is the same for everybody. Shuel, you have a uncanny ability, to create proper and right, without actually coming out and saying it. Your ability to separate companionship and love. Is just foreign to me. You define them both, yet both can't adhere to your definition. Love is not all or nothing, never has been. We like to see it as so. That people either love or don't love. It's not that simple....Love is but degrees. for me, there can be no companionship without some degree of love. Love takes on many faces, yet so many are unrecognizable. I guess it's possible for someone to want to be with someone, because you'd just want to be with someone. But that sounds silly to me. there has to be some preference, some guideline of who that person is. I just don't know anyone like that.. That is amoral, asexual, and apersonal. It says to me, it's a person who cant love. I just don't think that kind of person exists. The ability to love, creates love in all it's many faces. Elaine Shuel
| ||
|
I don't dictate what is proper and right, jiminy. I ask people for their opinions on matters and to be fair, i say what my opinion is. You may have not met anyone that would be a companion without some form of love, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Clearly your answer is that you would love the person you have as a companion. Thanks for your comment. I'm disagreeing with your definition of love. It comes in many forms and many faces. I believe the person who can just have a companion and not have a certain degree of love for that companion.....Cannot love. I think people like that do exist. I'm just not one of them. so you're right the person I would have as companion I would have to love, just not necessarily the kind of love you are trying to pose in your question. Which I infer you mean to be the proper and right kind of love.
| ||
|
no, I'm disagreeing with your definition of love. It comes in many forms and many faces. I believe the person who can just have a companion and not have a certain degree of love for that companion.....Cannot love. I think people like that do exist. I'm just not one of them. so you're right the person I would have as companion I would have to love, just not necessarily the kind of love you are trying to pose in your question. Which I infer you mean to be the proper and right kind of love. Elaine Shuel
| ||
|
I took your question to mean, Would you live with someone, who you could not be in a seemingly long term committed relationship with? You called that love. If that's wrong, you need to explain what you meant. I can only tell you what I thought you meant. You're right you have not defined love. you said it like it has only one meaning. So define it, If it's different than what I thought you meant.
| ||
|
I took your question to mean, Would you live with someone, who you could not be in a seemingly long term committed relationship with? You called that love. If that's wrong, you need to explain what you meant. I can only tell you what I thought you meant. You're right you have not defined love. you said it like it has only one meaning. So define it, If it's different than what I thought you meant. Where did I expand to say love has one meaning? There are many kinds of love. I love my boyfriend a different way than I love my family. My love for my friends is yet another type of love. As far as marrying someone you don't love, you said those who could do that are incapable of real love. I disagree. A woman may marry a guy for money or loneliness and just like him. She can then meet the man of her dreams and fall in love. To say that once someone marries without love they are incapable of real love, is something you would have to prove. I see no basis for that statement. Elaine Shuel
| ||
|
Sorry I don't understand that response. Can you please clarify your comment? Thanks rachida. Elaine Shuel
|
×
×