Are you going to tell me that hearing a disagreeable joke was not part of the scenario of potential victims which you had in mind? — Sapientia

I am going to tell you that any offence they took from the joke is not the harm to which the para refers. It is the subsequent loss of their job when they adopt the practice of offensive 'banter' themselves. I presume you would agree that loss of one's job is generally a greater harm than being offended by a joke. There is nothing pedantic about this. The criticism was based on a complete failure to comprehend what the paragraph said.

Interesting post, and seems to provide some good evidence of the unhappiness of romantic love. In tribal societies, perhaps this area is a bit less complicated, but we have made it an overwrought and over-complicated subject in the "modern" world of the individualized marketplace. — schopenhauer1

This is actually a good a point from an anthropological perspective; indeed, if your original statement about loneliness and attachment is about bargaining - capitalistic - then romance or relationships can be considered economical in nature. For those in tribal or agrarian environments, marital decisions and even the number of children are essential as part of their economic subsistence, and because they identify with kinship and custom that our 'individualistic' society does not, the decision to do this is fiercely protected. The fact is that our society influences how we perceive and identify with the external world and there is no compatibility between the principles underlying social-economics with the principles that underlie love, because the latter is not an economy and one cannot 'conform' to a model. That makes the experience - authentically - a marginal phenomenon by non-conformists and only sweeping changes to social-economics can the phenomenon be more than this individualistic experience.

It does not, however, mean that our modern adaptation of relationships is completely mistaken and negotiation is an essential part of the longevity of any union. There are elements in both that are advantageous and reprehensible; I don't like the idea of bargaining or 'selling' myself neither do I like the unequivocal submission to custom.

Thus we fill this need by seeking out partners to connect with physically and on an emotional level. It is just part of the human animal, and like I said.. is a special case of fleeing boredom and is only relevant to social creatures such as the human being. — schopenhauer1

I think any emotional connection is last for many people, the initial prompt being physical and that in itself - the concept of 'beauty' or what is attractive - can also be influenced by society (what one considers attractive could merely be an unconscious submission). Whilst we are social creatures, we need to transcend this 'blindness' so to speak to our social environment and reverse the chain of events through a consciousness of our decisions vis-a-vis relationships. So, as an example, there are men who are in relationships with women that they have no connection with at all, but socially the women are accepted and even loved, they are attractive, they are thus satisfactory because since other people love them then so should the men, all the while behind the scenes they are silently deteriorating and cheating etc. There is bargaining there, but how much of yourself do you bargain?

I think that if non-conformists - who genuinely epitomise 'individuality' and so have an independent mind - needn't actually be anti-social, but rather they have merely transcended the unconscious submission to societal expectations. Only when they meet someone of the same calibre can any 'genuine' connection be made.

*Bullshit detector goes off* — Agustino

Do you have one?

When a client starts telling me how easy it is to work for him, how simple his project is, how nice he is etc. I know he wants to screw me - he either wants a very cheap price, or otherwise wants to abuse my labor. I tend to refuse to work with such clients. And when a girl tells me how incredibly loving she is, but how all guys she ever dated were such pricks, I instantly know that she's looking to abuse me. Only an abuser tries to "sell" him or herself. Great clients, those I love working for, tend to be the people who say here's what I'm looking for, take it or leave it. They don't need me, they come from a position of high value. I tend to learn the most from them, and also enjoy it the most. They also pay well - that's why they never have to negotiate. — Agustino

There are nuances that you have to detect during interaction with such people and I understand where you are coming from here, perhaps because I did not articulate that with that said-person, I took a risk by allowing myself to love someone who was ultimately deceitful, the 'client who would abuse labour' and so by opening my heart I was hurt the process. I refuse, however, to cave into this hurt and believe that existential lessons are learnt enough to ascertain whether the intention is genuine. I am happy to take that risk, but I am learning to better understand whether this risk far outweighs the ultimate goal of allowing myself to love someone. Does that make sense?

Your authenticity is nothing but a dream. There is no such authenticity. The only authenticity is before God, in the world people get together and form groups, ideally, to serve God and better the world. Not abandoning each other - loyalty - is merely an expedient allowing for success. Building a network of great friends everywhere is a good thing - it really allows you to do much good in the world.

And I don't think you understand what loyalty means. Loyalty means not abandoning the other even if they are pricks once you have made that commitment. — Agustino

There is no complete authenticity because we cannot entirely transcend society (unless we completely remove ourselves), but it is really about the capacity to transcend toward an awareness or consciousness that will enable you to train your mind and take an objective approach to decision-making. This takes time, wisdom, experience and even making mistakes, but it is a process and the tool - our minds - is there for us to actually utilise. Unfortunately, most do not transcend to this state of conscious awareness and mostly it is because of fear. How you identify with loyalty, for instance, could merely work in parallel to custom and the people around you that you may identify with, but genuine loyalty is about removing oneself from that unconscious submission or automaton behaviour and overcoming the fears that kept you from thinking for yourself that will enable you to approach relationships with your heart. There is authenticity, it just isn't easy.

Love is not economical. You cannot serve God and mammon.

Do you have one? — TimeLine

Last I checked I did, what happened, did you steal it in the meantime? :s

Does that make sense? — TimeLine

No. Next question please.

Unfortunately, most do not transcend to this state of conscious awareness — TimeLine

I'm not interested in transcending towards that state, so I cannot buy what you're selling, sorry.

Love is not economical. — TimeLine

That love transcends economics is clear - someone who loves you won't abandon you even if you're destitute or poor for example. However, that love also involves economics is also without question.

You cannot serve God and mammon. — TimeLine

That is true.

I am going to tell you that any offence they took from the joke is not the harm to which the para refers. It is the subsequent loss of their job when they adopt the practice of offensive 'banter' themselves. I presume you would agree that loss of one's job is generally a greater harm than being offended by a joke. There is nothing pedantic about this. The criticism was based on a complete failure to comprehend what the paragraph said. — andrewk

Yes, I see that now. I didn't realise that that quote was taken out of context. I thought that that quote was the paragraph.