Cold Diff. cont.

[Burgbud]

(Cobra) And you might discover how much you can know of another person by understanding patterns.

Patterns are certainly useful, but to what extent? You seem to believe they're completely defining. Once you detect the pattern someone fits into, you believe you understand them. I believe the patterns are guidelines; maybe a first step to understanding somebody.

Another word for "pattern", in this context, is "box". You pushed Fearless until she gave you enough information to fit her into your box. That's very limiting. If you pushed further, you might find she no longer fits your pattern. If you only push until a person fits an existing pattern your thinking is very much inside the box, not outside.

For a long time I thought very much like you do. I wanted to figure people out and pigeonhole them so I could go comfortably about my life having everything in its appropriate spot. If nothing else, the process of my divorce showed me that people don't fit so readily into the patterns I assign them...the differences in behavior is greater than the similarities. I now believe the better path is to steer my own way in the world and let those around me act as they will without having to categorize them. I once tried to organize and categorize everything in my world so that I could see my path thru it in advance. Now I focus more on learning how to adapt and correct my navigation in response to whatever the world throws at me. Allowing the world to be whatever it is is certainly more chaotic and less comfortable than my old way, but it seems more congruent with reality and more likely to be effective in the long run. YMMV.

Assumption on your part. I think I ALWAYS think in a positive, forward, non-fatalistic mode.

We're using "positive" in different manners. I think approaching things with a positive mindset is very helpful. I think being positive about something you can't actually be positive about is counterproductive. It's self-delusion.

No because it sounded to me like you did want solid, well grounded, certain advice.

What did I say that sounded like that to you? I suspect this notion was brought to the discussion by you out of whole cloth, but I'm willing to be shown wrong.

Three ways - either I misunderstood something about my underlying "corollaries," I misunderstood the facts or the situation, or the person is in denial and cannot yet see.

The fourth way is that *you* could be in denial and not yet able to see.

She might know everything I posted about her. If so I haven't heard it yet. If not, then I may have help to unravel something.

It's also quite possible that not everything you've posted about her is the truth about her. It may simply be that she knows herself better than you do and so when you post something about her that isn't right, she knows it.

Need, desire, want, proclivity, whatever... all just variations of degree.

A breeze, a gust and a hurricane are all just variations of degree as well. Degree is often important especially in an open dialog. You've made it clear, however, that you're not interested in open dialog. Your purpose is to convince the other party you're correct. What they say in response is only heard by you if it leads you to an alternative way of making your point. That's all well and fine, but most here use the forum for two-way, open discussion. Now that I understand your perspective your manner is easier to understand.

Oh, you take a position alright... But only by following, not leading.

If you're correct, so what?

Be careful what you wish for.

Say it

Heh. I didn't have anything about you in mind. When I get to talking about myself and my ideas and theories it can quickly turn into a deluge. Most of my current thoughts and ideas are relevant to my life. Since my life doesn't currently feature a relationship and since my interest in being in a relationship has taken a nose dive lately (I'm having a lot of fun doing whatever I want to do), my musings would be of little value to this forum. I still learn enough here to make it worth my while to hang around. The NMMNG book recommendation was worth the price of admission all on its own.

What you and others are really upset about is that I dissect other people's sitches but because I don't post all my emotions and feelings on this board, there is not sufficient ammo available for you or others to "get even" with me.

No, Cobra, what I'm really upset about is whatever I say I'm upset about. You can declare it to be something else if that makes you happy or makes your world more manageable but that doesn't change the truth. You seem to have a bit of a persecution complex. I think they make an ointment for that.

It's not about authoritative style, or confrontational comments.

For me it's about your saying you know things that are either unknowable or incorrect.

It's also about you writing paragraphs like this:

IMO, you are still espousing a very feminist mantra, one in which you think men need to be in touch with a woman's emotions, that the men should be focused on the woman's feelings for in that way conflict can be minimized and both will feel validated, secure and able to stand in a differentiated mode. But you model is not the kind of man I want to be or the kind of man I think anyone should be. I feel that a part of your "message" has a subtle emasculation of men that sort of turns me off the more I think of it. Sorry, that's just how I feel. I'm also beginning to develop suspicions why your H left you.

...and then telling us that the "suspicions" you allude to are that Fearless and her H were at different levels of differentiation. Paragraphs generally consist of sentences that are relevant to each other and your writing sticks to that convention. Right?