Presence and absence, friends and lovers

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Is it a fair generalisation that friendships are based on being with a person, whereas one defines romantic love by the time yr not with that person?

Robbie Lumsden (Wallace Stevens HQ), Friday, 2 April 2004 14:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Possibly, but what do you mean by 'romantic love'?

Sick Nouthall (Nick Southall), Friday, 2 April 2004 14:45 (twenty-one years ago)

part of me thinks this argument might beg the question.

anyway, by Romantic Love i mean a love that isn't the love one has between friends or family. perhaps sexual, but i think that wd be a weak definition.

i'll think up a more clear definition soon...

Robert Lumsden (Wallace), Friday, 2 April 2004 14:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Sorry to Aja out here, but...

WHAT?!?!?!?

Super-Kate (kate), Friday, 2 April 2004 15:00 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah--what?

RJG (RJG), Friday, 2 April 2004 15:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Ok what I mean, and this might be more specifically related 2 *crushes*, is that: One becomes friends with someone, generally, by spending time with them, so that friendship is in a sense an acknowledgement of having had fun times or having been through things with people. It is backwards looking in that regard. With *Crushes* on the other hand, generally don't come from experience, but rather from a feeling that more could come of it. If U know the feeling of seeing someone U really like and then when U're with them U just ignore them, or babble at them and go away feeling like U missed and oppurtunity, then U'll know what I mean when I say that in these cases Presence is another form of absence (thank you Jacques Derrida...)...

hope that's clearer.


(4 the record, my "4" "2" and "U" usage is NOT txtspeak, but is an homage 2 the minneapolis midget)

Robbie Lumsden (Wallace Stevens HQ), Friday, 2 April 2004 15:07 (twenty-one years ago)

I think I can see what Robbie's driving at. There's an important aspect of romantic love that is about longing and fantasy. That isn't the case with friendship.

Louella, Friday, 2 April 2004 15:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, but there's a difference between Love (romantic or otherwise) and a Crush. If you haven't grasped that yet, you haven't grasped the difference between reality and fantasy.

Super-Kate (kate), Friday, 2 April 2004 15:09 (twenty-one years ago)

this guy is funny.

RJG (RJG), Friday, 2 April 2004 15:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Of course i've grasped that (the banality of love is not something that has escaped my all 2 *romantic* conception of life)...

but I still think the basic impulse is there with lovers, albeit in a diluted form...

Robbie Lumsden (Wallace Stevens HQ), Friday, 2 April 2004 15:11 (twenty-one years ago)

funny how?

I am a wit, a grotesque and a total fanny.

which one 2day?

Robbie Lumsden (Wallace Stevens HQ), Friday, 2 April 2004 15:12 (twenty-one years ago)

I think it might actually be Prince...

winterland, Friday, 2 April 2004 15:13 (twenty-one years ago)

If you are going to discuss Crushology, please use the correct terminology. And you will find several (million) threads on the subject, on which I've already expressed my opinions about what they signify.

Super-Kate (kate), Friday, 2 April 2004 15:13 (twenty-one years ago)

I am new 2 this place, and the hugeness of any of the archived threads scares my laziness 2 much. so 4give me if i retread old ground...

Robbie Lumsden (Wallace Stevens HQ), Friday, 2 April 2004 15:14 (twenty-one years ago)

If I was Prince, 'Robbie Lumsden' is exactly the kind of pseudonym I'd choose.

winterland, Friday, 2 April 2004 15:15 (twenty-one years ago)

well if U spend yr life with the handle "Prince Rogers Nelson", i think it would be entirely logical 2 have an enthnically cleansed Proddy scottish name as yr pseudonym.

Robbie Lumsden (Wallace Stevens HQ), Friday, 2 April 2004 15:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Prince would never use the word "fanny".

The Huckle-Buck (Horace Mann), Friday, 2 April 2004 15:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Crushology would be a good start, the various types of crush and their symbolism are about 10 posts in.

Super-Kate (kate), Friday, 2 April 2004 15:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Prince does occasionally use oddly british words (cf. "turned on the telly" in Sign 'o' the times...)

Robbie Lumsden (Wallace Stevens HQ), Friday, 2 April 2004 15:19 (twenty-one years ago)

God, I just searched for "crush" and about 90% of the posts are by me. The other 10% are by Toraneko. Heh heh.

Super-Kate (kate), Friday, 2 April 2004 15:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Robbie, are you any relation to Roddy?

Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Friday, 2 April 2004 15:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Crushes are mega, fundamentally. but they are a bit of a headfuck, and do turn U in2 the most pathetic creature on god's earth.

is it just a sense of opportunity? i get that feeling that i don't want happiness i just want the idea of happiness. perhpas 2 do with my age

"Thou has nor youth nor age
But as it were an after dinner sleep
dreaming on both"

(no relation 2 noted scottish poet Roddy Lumsden, nor even Viv. I have one entirely minor professional footballer cousin (and he ain't even a lumsden) but that's it...)

Robbie Lumsden (Wallace Stevens HQ), Friday, 2 April 2004 15:26 (twenty-one years ago)

that should read "don't want happiness i just want the idea of the potential of happiness

Robbie Lumsden (Wallace Stevens HQ), Friday, 2 April 2004 15:37 (twenty-one years ago)

and there should be a guitar solo behind it and your own voice double-tracked behind it singing seconds...

winterland, Friday, 2 April 2004 15:38 (twenty-one years ago)

double track! pas! i want a whole male voice choir of me's singing everything in a ridiculously complicated harmonic fashion.

Robbie Lumsden (Wallace Stevens HQ), Friday, 2 April 2004 15:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Robbie! Fancy seeing you here...

I often only notice how much I care about people, friends or lovers, when they're not around. The rest of the time I suppose I'm too self-absorbed to give it much thought.

(I did wonder, about your 2ing and 4ing. I still don't think I understand.)

Cathy (Cathy), Saturday, 3 April 2004 00:14 (twenty-one years ago)

hey cathy - just thought i wd check out this site (i feel seeing as I do nothing at my nonwork, and my current favourite discussion board has been as slow fuck recently, this might be more 2 my taste). The 2ing and 4ing is merely a facet of my Prince obsession ( and a desire 2 be absolutement moderne* - (does an asterisk after a statement indicate that it is a joke on this site? if not that's what I mean...))

I thought this was gonna be anonymous! i'd put in my normal pseudonym as my user name, and what comes out! my standard everyday name so that every1 can tell who it is. I might return under a new fancy pseudonym (after a 2 day thinktank session with my closest advisors) and perhaps using the odd words "to" "too" "for" and "you"...

Robbie Lumsden (Wallace Stevens HQ), Saturday, 3 April 2004 00:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Anonymity is for wimps -- I'm sure I could guess it was you anyway, even without your more obvious writing quirks.

ILE is always an easy way to kill time. You might like it.

Cathy (Cathy), Saturday, 3 April 2004 09:06 (twenty-one years ago)

Yahoo literati and ILE - will i ever do anything now?

speak soon

Robbie Lumsden (Wallace Stevens HQ), Saturday, 3 April 2004 11:05 (twenty-one years ago)

Maybe healthy forms of love are based on being with a person, and unhealthy ones by the time away from them.

N. (nickdastoor), Saturday, 3 April 2004 11:25 (twenty-one years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.