What do you describe...
...a person that you met on this forum claiming to be alexithymic, having told you that she would like a motherly relationship and an emotional connection with you, said that she doesn't want to leave you and then she unjustifiably disappeared?
...and how do you describe her
If she (or anyone else) tells you that too early on, don't trust that too fast.
between motherly relationship and any other kind of relationship is that the first is inherently everlasting. You build other kinds of relationships, but mother gives birth to the child and to their bond. Ok such a relationship built on this forum is not the most natural thing, but according to some theories and movements (e.g. matriarchy) motherly relationships are not confined to the natural bond between the mother and the child. So if the lady above is not ashamed of her attitude, I am sorry for her derogating the holy meaning of being a mother.
I don't really understand the idea of some person who probably hardly knows you playing the mother. Maybe after you two have known each other IRL for a decade, at least. Not before.
call your mother "mother" at the age of ten or did you call your mother-in-law "mother" after ten years?
Time matters is an oversimplified stereotype. Have a look at this article about relativity:
Relativity is one of the most famous scientific theories of the 20th century, but how well does it explain the things we see in our daily lives?
Formulated by Albert Einstein in 1905, the theory of relativity is the notion that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. The theory explains the behavior of objects in space and time, and it can be used to predict everything from the existence of black holes, to light bending due to gravity, to the behavior of the planet Mercury in its orbit.
The theory is deceptively simple. First, there is no "absolute" frame of reference. Every time you measure an object's velocity, or its momentum, or how it experiences time, it's always in relation to something else. Second, the speed of light is the same no matter who measures it or how fast the person measuring it is going. Third, nothing can go faster than light.
The implications of Einstein's most famous theory are profound. If the speed of light is always the same, it means that an astronaut going very fast relative to the Earth will measure the seconds ticking by slower than an Earthbound observer will — time essentially slows down for the astronaut, a phenomenon called time dilation.
Any object in a big gravity field is accelerating, so it will also experience time dilation. Meanwhile, the astronaut's spaceship will experience length contraction, which means that if you took a picture of the spacecraft as it flew by, it would look as though it were "squished" in the direction of motion. To the astronaut on board, however, all would seem normal. In addition, the mass of the spaceship would appear to increase from the point of view of people on Earth.
But you don't necessarily need a spaceship zooming at near the speed of light to see relativistic effects. In fact, there are several instances of relativity that we can see in our daily lives, and even technologies we use today that demonstrate that Einstein was right. Here are some ways we see relativity in action.
So relativity in action is that if the speed of light is the pleasure given by a mother, the time to get this depends on the velocity of your desire. And common sense dictates it is better not to be stationary like the observer. In other words, there is no reference point for a mother (like there is only one mother), the pleasure given by a mother is always the same and mother is superior to any other concept or object, and this lady should be really ashamed of her attitude.
I would see the mother in law as "mother" or whatever other intimate thing after them having proven themselves and their reliability for ten years, yes. Not before. Same applies to everyone else. Biological mother is the exception because of obvious biological reasons.
TIme isn't relative in the newtonian framework, which applies fine for normal life stuff, this is what common sense says. ;)
And I never said that lady shouldn't be ashamed. Unreliable people should all be ashamed. All I am saying is, don't trust bs too soon. That idea of yours about it depending only on the velocity of desire is butterly wrong. As you've yourself just experienced it for yourself.
It is up to you whether you are willing to learn from this experience tho'. I've said everything I could to help with that.
butterly = utterly
Biological mother is the exception because of obvious biological reasons...being obvious to your senses.
The ten years relationship applying to everyone is driven by your perception.
So if you don't accept the theorem (intense desire, less time), you cannot but admit to our being two people perceiving the same thing in a different way. This is also relativity in action.
How did you conclude I trusted her? I guess you mean that I believed that she would like to be my mother and have an emotional connection with me. In other words, I shared some secret with her and I pinned hopes on her. Well, you are totally wrong, because firstly I didn't share any secret with her (the motherly concept is a generally acceptable concept I support) and secondly even if I expected that I have an emotional connection with her, this could not be feasible, because I have no emotions (she has distorted ones as she is a psycho).
No, I won't learn from this experience, because this narcissistic psycho (who is 100% ugly, hideous and sterile) is not able to blacken the motherly concept. But you should study the relativity theorem. Last but not least, would you stop drinking water or having fun if somebody offered you a dirty and contagious glass of water or she tried to irritate you? Let me guess...you would wait for ten years to drink water and have some fun...
and the nickname of that freak generously giving advice on the forum is "thoughts".
So if you meet it, pass it over.
Not my problem if you don't want to learn from this experience.
"Ten years" may have been an exaggeration but some time frame is definitely required to get to know what someone really is like.
Intense desire on its own isn't enough to know what someone is really like.
You trusted her, yes, to be there for you, and when she wasn't, you got upset and posted on this forum decently angrily. That means pinning hopes on her.
And it also means that you do have emotion: some kind of anger most likely and perhaps some other emotions along with it. Since some emotion did DRIVE you to POST here.
Also, you do have emotion in terms of wanting her to be your "mother" and give you emotional support that way. Again, this may be an unconscious emotional desire for you, sure.
The drinking example was a silly parallel. I can go and get another drink somewhere else, is my answer.
And, when I said learn from this experience I didn't mean "blacken the motherly concept". I meant learning how to pick the right person for it.
The relativity theorem, while an interesting idea, doesn't have much to do with people skills, so I don't think it's too helpful for problem solving here.
just like you did on me (you just called me unconscious and emotional), but I will notice that you are ignorant to protect potential debaters of yours from your ignorance, just like I noticed that "thoughts" is a malicious psycho.
- "Maybe after you two have known each other IRL for a decade, at least. Not before."
- "I would see the mother in law as "mother" or whatever other intimate thing after them having proven themselves and their reliability for ten years, yes."
- "Ten years" may have been an exaggeration"
If "ten years" was an exaggeration, then what is the "at least ten years"?
You wrote it two times. So if writing "ten years" is an exaggeration, what is writing "ten years" two times? I guess it's two exaggerations.
Because you don't understand the relativity theorem in action, it doesn't mean the relativity theorem doesn't perfectly apply to everything by simply changing the variables. My example was a relativistic one, because my sources could be the need or the desire and my variables were time and velocity just like in the mother example. I am sorry you didn't understand it again.
People's reactions and desires are driven by rationale, consciousness, morality, instincts, reflexes and not by emotions as you imply. Emotions are all above in its worst form. I raised the awareness of the forum members, that's all. How would I describe such a person without using the appropriate words? Someone with emotions would express his anger, I didn't. I don't want her to be my mother, because she cannot be a mother and she blackens the motherly concept.
So it's you with emotions and me without emotions. Your reactions are relative to your emotions, but my reactions cannot be translated the same way, because I have no emotions. Here changes the reference point. Relativity in action.
So a woman in her forties or fifties can treat you like a mom, be concerned about you and even clearly state that she wants to be your mom and when you are about to ask her to be your mom, then she will stop talking with you, she will say that she cannot escape the framework and you don't know her, she will be scared of her dad and one thousand additional hilarious excuses. The immature behavior of women, even that of some moms, is incomparable.
Lol wait, since when is being told that you may have emotions is a derogatory remark? And I didn't say you are unconscious, I said you may have unconscious emotions. The two aren't the same thing, but not my problem if you want to misinterpret statements.
And then calling me ignorant is somehow not a derogatory remark? You are a real hypocrite.
So I don't care to try and help you further and I won't be nice to you either. Too bad because you are really clueless about people if you think physics can provide a good explanation about people matters lol. And lol, you thinking that because I don't think the theory of relativity is a good explanation here must mean I don't understand it was funny. :)
People's reactions are driven by emotions too, often unconsciously. You did express anger unconsciously, in your last post above too. If you one day manage to accept that, that will be a big step forward in self-growth.
My statements and explanations are based on Reason, physics or whatever, they are actually based on something.
What are your statements and explanations based on? You provide numerous diagnoses around the forum, on every topic, on every issue, on every problem. So are you a physician, a person with specialized experience, an alexithymic (as you falsely claim) trying to provide help based on his issues, what the fuck are you, what gives you the right to express opinion and provide advice on every issue, topic and problem on this forum?
I have been keeping an eye on you for the last months and I must say and warn the users of this forum that you are the same scammer having been loitering around the forum since 2016 under different nicknames (thoughts, tiger1), providing answers of an "expert", taking advantage of forum users' issues and trying to engage people in private conversations, with a view to defrauding them and illegally obtaining money from them, just like as you did with me when you pretended to be a woman with motherly instincts who wanted a motherly relationship with me. Unfortunately for you, I wasn't convinced by your malicious acts and urges and you didn't get any money.
What you are doing is called fraud and it is a crime in the international law.
Administrators of this forum you should immediately remove this scammer from the forum. You should make it clear that this is a forum giving the opportunity to people with alexithymia or common issues to discuss their concerns or this forum is a free place for scammers just like this piece of shit (tiger91-thoughts) to defraud well-intentioned users and illegally get their money. Otherwise, I will report the incident to the competent authorities.