9 Reader Responses

1. Jecklin Says:
   October 29th, 2007 at 8:12 pm

   Reminds me of a (mis)quote from Tarkovsky…from Stalker?…

   We scrape against reality to remind ourselves that we are alive.

2. laura jane Says:
   October 29th, 2007 at 9:35 pm

   i tend to think that the sadness/suffering we encounter in any “love context” can be a pretty clear illustration of a neediness which usually manages to masquerade as something more noble, or at least more innocuous.. i think that all suffering would ideally call us to love and show us the ways in which we are still unknowingly being unloving.

3. alistair Says:
   October 30th, 2007 at 10:59 pm

   hmm, who`s not needy?

   we all need something from others. strokes of many different forms. a kind word. a touch. a kiss………

   these things all tend to lengthen our spines to various degrees and allow our chi to flow comfortably.

   it is the negative strokes that do the opposite.

   the harsh words, criticisms and blows, physical or otherwise.

4. Tim Boucher Says:
   October 30th, 2007 at 11:09 pm

   hmm, who`s not needy?

   He or she who is truly fulfilled.

5. alistair Says:
   October 31st, 2007 at 11:02 am

   ok, so how do we become fulfilled……

   i have had this discussion with monks before, but they sit on a mat for hours and and pray.

   we need strokes from others. this is how we are wired, for the most part.

   solitary confinement is a punishment for a reason, whether you choose it or it is provided for you.

6. Tim Boucher Says:
   October 31st, 2007 at 12:51 pm

   ok, so how do we become fulfilled……

   i have had this discussion with monks before, but they sit on a mat for hours and and pray.

   If you already know the answer then don’t ask me! You simply have to give *everything* up.

   http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2007...29/sell-all-your-demonic-possessions/

   we need strokes from others. this is how we are wired, for the most part.

   We are ‘wired’ to adapt to any conditions which are still conducive to physical existence. Period. This is why solitary confinement is not the end of the world.

7. alistair Says:
   October 31st, 2007 at 6:50 pm

   i didn`t already know the answer, i`m after a consensus. the strokes we seek allow us to thrive. when we move away from that we begin to die.

   there is a resistance amongst some regarding hugging, touching or otherwise attaining physical stimulus from others. i have noticed that when a person is genuinely attracted to another person the touching, hugging and other incedental physical contact amplifies.

   to actually discipline one`s self away from this form of interaction raises questions in my mind about the emotional state of one who would choose such a state.

   and i certainly don`t see the need for contact with other people as demonic.

   i see it as a healthy mechanism to engender community.

   i am the rogue monk who cannot tolerate the life in the monestary, and while i strive for the gnostic and mystical i stay balanced in the physical also.

8. Tim Boucher Says:
   October 31st, 2007 at 7:52 pm

   No, you’re not connecting with what I’m saying. I’m saying that I agree with you: people “need” to be touched and that it is healthy and positive and natural and people “need” to be in a community in order to thrive.

   But on another level, you don’t “need” that at all. You don’t “need” anything. And you cannot need those things because having drives and desires which only can be fulfilled by others means that you will never be fulfilled. See Epictetus and the sphere of the moral purpose. The only thing a man really controls is how he reacts to his sense impressions.

9. alistair Says:
   November 1st, 2007 at 10:16 pm

   yeah, now i getcha……….

   that is the paradox. not only do we need to be touched to stimulate something basic and nurturing in ourselves, but we need to unattach from the desire to find those strokes.

   so i sit with her and we smile and laugh, and i only know her first name. after nearly three months she finally gave me her cell phone number.

   i kissed her once, the second time we were together, and she coyly turned her cheek. not refusing the advance, merely deflecting.

   she called me today, and we met for lunch.

   she was radiant as usual, nearly six feet tall in her heels and brown two piece suit with long waving brown hair and hazel brown eyes flecked with red, mirroring my own.

   i read her tarot yeaterday and she first drew the five of rods, then twice drew the king of rods.

   i was stunned into silence as i looked at the cards, barely containing my suprise.

   are we these kings of rods, so tall and charismatic standing together?

   accept the perfection of the moment and know that she will return.

   or maybe this was all a dream and i will never see her again.