.... I was recently asked if it was true in absolute terms a claim that I had never received an order or my mother or my father, it seems that such a thing is hard to believe the world we live in, and however I have to say yes, that is absolutely true, absolutely.
.... The simple truth is that love is to please the beloved, and if I want to fulfill the desires of men I love, and if people who love me want to please my wishes, orders are meaningless. Libidinal system is the system of normal human relationship, that it exists. Orders and obedience belong to a hierarchical artificial.
.... Pleasing loved ones is a quality of love, a human quality, it is not something exclusive to mothers-housewives who have nothing better to what to pursue. Saying it would be almost tautological, if not for the dogmatic magma from seeing the obvious.
.... When it happens that each other desires are incompatible (I want to go to the movies and you want to go to football, for example), speak the things to make a decision, but let's look to the arguments that each are generally used for towards fulfilling the wish of his position. Between people who want things are not resolved with the imposition of the will of a otr @ @ about the difficulties pass the other way.
.... And this is because of the quality of the libido, which makes the happiness or welfare of the loved one is my happiness and well-being: it is the love affair that is nothing magical or spiritual, as evidenced the production of endorphins and hormones of the state of love, and as also evidenced by the very body sensation and perception of that state of love, what we feel, and how to set what we feel, feelings. The feelings that set, do and make psychic structure for complacency. All sublimation and mysticism are made only to justify the existence of what we feel in the state of love, and seize his fraternal relations function.
.... The general attitude of a mother or a father to accommodate the desires of their children 's is essential for its ability to grow developing complacency and love. This attitude implies a confidence in the ability to love and human creatures that can be developed that way. In this context to give an order is an insult and a humiliation, an affront to the integrity and dignity of their children 's, and involves the distortion of the relationship between mother-father and hij @ s.
.... I want to clarify that the use of the word 'via' (through the path of complacency or authority) is because actually it is not concrete or specific attitudes, but the general attitude that emerges from the state of love, and relationships dynamics down from that state.
.... If a creature from the beginning has been treated with loving and willing attitude, his general attitude is also loving and complacent, and no one thinks of putting things in terms of orders and obedience, such things happen in school, because there is another thing, are not loving relationships from the states.
.... If a creature from the beginning is treated with orders and their wishes have been treated as irrelevant fads, things pass by another different path. The road to war with l @ s s obesity, the tantrums, the tantrums, the blackmail, etc. But here what I have observed is perhaps not the first, but the second or third, the human creature is able to react and stand in the way of confidence and complacency, it has not atrophied too amatory capacity.
.... What hides the current situation is that there is a false notion of love. What we call love is not true love. In the state of love to anyone you think of giving orders, but to talk, explain things, applied to the resolution of the decisions with mutual love and care to achieve the best for your loved one.
.... Behind the authoritarian path there is an ignorance of what the human being is an ignorance and a lack of confidence in their abilities and qualities.
....¿ You can then educate "without limiting"? Why do most parents feel the need to "set limits?
.... limits have nothing to do with the type of relationship between people who are within these limits. Complacency is always produced within limits, of what is possible.
.... The issue is not within the limits (the limits are used as an excuse), but in the type of relationship from which to address the limits, what can or can not do. Parents still unaware of the social inertia and the path of complacency because nobody ever practiced with ell @ s, and therefore do not know exists or know how are their children and what they are capable. Know the capacity to love, to please, to understand, to take initiatives and be responsible for their actions, ie the qualities of their children 's. And treating them as if they had those qualities, as if they were selfish, stupid, useless, irresponsible, etc., I atrophy and makes them selfish, stupid, useless and irresponsible. This is what Ruth Benedict said in his Continuities and Discontinuities in cultural conditioning. Behind the supposed protection we give to our @ s hij @ s what is exercised is a mutilation of their main characteristics, a blockage of development right in the moment that depends on their training. This is one of the most important aspects of the magma dogmatic underpinning our society based on rule: do not know what they are made human creatures.
.... The questions and wonder that raises my statement that neither my mother nor my father ever gave me an order, large or small, a measure of the dogma that supports the rule. If even the relationship with the flesh of my flesh must be of imposition and domination, as it will not be so in the rest of society and yet I would have to be hard to believe would be the opposite, that a mother or father remain with their children 's relationship was the one not based on complacency.
.... In short, when you love someone you want to indulge their desires to make her happy. And if that person loves me too, also want to indulge my desire to make me happy. The relationship between two people is mutual pleasure, and in a relationship of mutual gratification orders meaningless.
.... Certainly the question raised puts us at the frontier of basic conceptual dogma domination.
La Mimosa, March 2010
.... The simple truth is that love is to please the beloved, and if I want to fulfill the desires of men I love, and if people who love me want to please my wishes, orders are meaningless. Libidinal system is the system of normal human relationship, that it exists. Orders and obedience belong to a hierarchical artificial.
.... Pleasing loved ones is a quality of love, a human quality, it is not something exclusive to mothers-housewives who have nothing better to what to pursue. Saying it would be almost tautological, if not for the dogmatic magma from seeing the obvious.
.... When it happens that each other desires are incompatible (I want to go to the movies and you want to go to football, for example), speak the things to make a decision, but let's look to the arguments that each are generally used for towards fulfilling the wish of his position. Between people who want things are not resolved with the imposition of the will of a otr @ @ about the difficulties pass the other way.
.... And this is because of the quality of the libido, which makes the happiness or welfare of the loved one is my happiness and well-being: it is the love affair that is nothing magical or spiritual, as evidenced the production of endorphins and hormones of the state of love, and as also evidenced by the very body sensation and perception of that state of love, what we feel, and how to set what we feel, feelings. The feelings that set, do and make psychic structure for complacency. All sublimation and mysticism are made only to justify the existence of what we feel in the state of love, and seize his fraternal relations function.
.... The general attitude of a mother or a father to accommodate the desires of their children 's is essential for its ability to grow developing complacency and love. This attitude implies a confidence in the ability to love and human creatures that can be developed that way. In this context to give an order is an insult and a humiliation, an affront to the integrity and dignity of their children 's, and involves the distortion of the relationship between mother-father and hij @ s.
.... I want to clarify that the use of the word 'via' (through the path of complacency or authority) is because actually it is not concrete or specific attitudes, but the general attitude that emerges from the state of love, and relationships dynamics down from that state.
.... If a creature from the beginning has been treated with loving and willing attitude, his general attitude is also loving and complacent, and no one thinks of putting things in terms of orders and obedience, such things happen in school, because there is another thing, are not loving relationships from the states.
.... If a creature from the beginning is treated with orders and their wishes have been treated as irrelevant fads, things pass by another different path. The road to war with l @ s s obesity, the tantrums, the tantrums, the blackmail, etc. But here what I have observed is perhaps not the first, but the second or third, the human creature is able to react and stand in the way of confidence and complacency, it has not atrophied too amatory capacity.
.... What hides the current situation is that there is a false notion of love. What we call love is not true love. In the state of love to anyone you think of giving orders, but to talk, explain things, applied to the resolution of the decisions with mutual love and care to achieve the best for your loved one.
.... Behind the authoritarian path there is an ignorance of what the human being is an ignorance and a lack of confidence in their abilities and qualities.
....¿ You can then educate "without limiting"? Why do most parents feel the need to "set limits?
.... limits have nothing to do with the type of relationship between people who are within these limits. Complacency is always produced within limits, of what is possible.
.... The issue is not within the limits (the limits are used as an excuse), but in the type of relationship from which to address the limits, what can or can not do. Parents still unaware of the social inertia and the path of complacency because nobody ever practiced with ell @ s, and therefore do not know exists or know how are their children and what they are capable. Know the capacity to love, to please, to understand, to take initiatives and be responsible for their actions, ie the qualities of their children 's. And treating them as if they had those qualities, as if they were selfish, stupid, useless, irresponsible, etc., I atrophy and makes them selfish, stupid, useless and irresponsible. This is what Ruth Benedict said in his Continuities and Discontinuities in cultural conditioning. Behind the supposed protection we give to our @ s hij @ s what is exercised is a mutilation of their main characteristics, a blockage of development right in the moment that depends on their training. This is one of the most important aspects of the magma dogmatic underpinning our society based on rule: do not know what they are made human creatures.
.... The questions and wonder that raises my statement that neither my mother nor my father ever gave me an order, large or small, a measure of the dogma that supports the rule. If even the relationship with the flesh of my flesh must be of imposition and domination, as it will not be so in the rest of society and yet I would have to be hard to believe would be the opposite, that a mother or father remain with their children 's relationship was the one not based on complacency.
.... In short, when you love someone you want to indulge their desires to make her happy. And if that person loves me too, also want to indulge my desire to make me happy. The relationship between two people is mutual pleasure, and in a relationship of mutual gratification orders meaningless.
.... Certainly the question raised puts us at the frontier of basic conceptual dogma domination.
La Mimosa, March 2010
