Falling in love with someones Soul, Urban Myth? (Page 2)

I also think it's difficult to separate a person's soul from their actions and their feelings about those actions. However, so many of us don't live our path. I have only met few people who truly do. I feel a person's soul dictates so much of who they are, including their choice to or not to. This is a complex topic, and one that has put me in a thoughtful mood.

Posted by LillyPetal
To me, loving someone's soul is an exchange of energy. I don't even have to know the person or have a prolonged interaction with them - sometimes I love someone for love's sake or God's sake.

So it's not in fact about that person's "soul", it's about you.

Posted by enfant_terrible

Posted by LillyPetal
To me, loving someone's soul is an exchange of energy. I don't even have to know the person or have a prolonged interaction with them - sometimes I love someone for love's sake or God's sake.

So it's not in fact about that person's "soul", it's about you.

click to expand

Almost all actions are about the person doing them. But when someone does something for love's sake or God's sake, it is the antithesis of selfishness. For example, inviting someone into your home and treating them hospitably when they have wronged you and you want nothing more than to hold a grudge or lash out.

In the case of the girl at the library, she didn't do anything for me, she didn't offer me anything, and I didn't take anything from her - not anything tangible, at least. Yet, I felt love for her.

Posted by tiziani

Posted by LillyPetal
I went to the Longwood Gardens with my boyfriend the day before yesterday. I was in love with the flowers, the squirrels, the trees, the running water...why limit what you can fall in love with. The environment overwhelmed me with humility. Perhaps I am wrong to say it's a human experience because that may imply that only human-to-human interactions can lead to loving the soul. But it can also be human-to-animal or human-to-other parts of nature.

There was this moment when my boyfriend sat me down in a narrow hallway. There was a seating area by the restrooms. He asked me to close my eyes; what happened next was incredible: a cacophony of sounds reverberating in my ears. I was able to shift my hearing focus depending on what I wanted to tune in to. We sat like that for quite sometime. In that moment, I felt connected to everything around me. I heard conversations, children laughing, footsteps, chairs dragging, water running, and feelings.

There are also moments I just touch foreheads with him. I inevitably close my eyes and inhale and exhale slowly. I feel rested and genuinely peaceful. My physical body seems to just melt away with no edges or limits. Gosh, I could stay there forever, but it's important that I return to a state of physical awareness. In those moments, I feel him. I love him, not for anything else but for who he is.

As far as I understand, the thread is just asking is this enough for you to commit to someone romantically for life or do you need more?

click to expand

I'm not sure why things are always measured in terms of romance, so perhaps I can't relate to it in that way and took it in my own direction. I answered the best I could in that moment with what I knew. I am thinking on it more.

Posted by SensitiveBlues
If your character is sheety so is your soul

Or is it the other way around? Hmm

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

It'd be utterly ridiculous to discount them as unimportant when considering longevity in a romantic relationship. From what I've just been told regarding the actual topic of this thread, I'm assuming that being "romantically" with someone means they are dependent on them? How can a person depend on someone who offers nothing else than who they think they are?

This is assuming the partner has options to provide security, food, recognition, sex, etc., but is choosing not to.

In less fortunate lives where poverty is a pre-planned reality set up by richer, greedier, more powerful and corrupt nations, then we romantic westerners will look at them and think: "Awww! Look at them living happily when they are half-starved and dying of such easily curable diseases. Their family is so cute! How utterly romantic! There IS hope of me finding my McDreamy!"

Is this what this entire thread has been about this whole time?!

one thing that is consistent...

if you can't make a man happy then you're shit out of luck.

if you can't make a woman happy same thing.

no matter who you are.

Posted by LillyPetal
In the case of the girl at the library, she didn't do anything for me, she didn't offer me anything, and I didn't take anything from her - not anything tangible, at least. Yet, I felt love for her.

You felt chemistry, not so sure about love.

Posted by lisabethur8
one thing that is consistent...

if you can't make a man happy then you're shit out of luck.

if you can't make a woman happy same thing.

no matter who you are.

But even that gets complicated as different things make different people happy. So if a man can't make a woman happy, perhaps she isn't the right woman. And a woman that can't make a man happy might mean she's with the wrong man.

Posted by enfant_terrible

Posted by LillyPetal
In the case of the girl at the library, she didn't do anything for me, she didn't offer me anything, and I didn't take anything from her - not anything tangible, at least. Yet, I felt love for her.

You felt chemistry, not so sure about love.

click to expand

Before I even spoke to her? What of the ones I haven't interacted with? Love is chemistry, so we are saying the same thing.

Posted by tiziani

Posted by LillyPetal
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

It'd be utterly ridiculous to discount them as unimportant when considering longevity in a romantic relationship. From what I've just been told regarding the actual topic of this thread, I'm assuming that being "romantically" with someone means they are dependent on them? How can a person depend on someone who offers nothing else than who they think they are?

This is assuming the partner has options to provide security, food, recognition, sex, etc., but is choosing not to.

In less fortunate lives where poverty is a pre-planned reality set up by richer, greedier, more powerful and corrupt nations, then we romantic westerners will look at them and think: "Awww! Look at them living happily when they are half-starved and dying of such easily curable diseases. How utterly romantic! There IS hope of me finding my McDreamy!"

Is this what this entire thread has been about this whole time?!

I think it's pretty much just asking, let's say you went an entire year with someone where you fell deeply into the part of each other's mind that connects with all life around you on a holographic level, like closing your eyes in the park and upping your senses at will in each other's company.

Then at the end of that year one dat, he disrespects you in an argument by trashing your house because he doesn't agree with the way you're dressed.

What counts more in terms of committing your future with that person? The year of soul connection or the one day of personality clashes?

It's assumed that you're both in love with each other the entire time.

click to expand

My love for him would make me feel concerned as to why he was upset to that degree that he had an intense emotional outburst. I would definitely want to communicate with him to understand him better. So, what happens next?

Posted by LillyPetal

Posted by enfant_terrible

Posted by LillyPetal
In the case of the girl at the library, she didn't do anything for me, she didn't offer me anything, and I didn't take anything from her - not anything tangible, at least. Yet, I felt love for her.

You felt chemistry, not so sure about love.

Before I even spoke to her? What of the ones I haven't interacted with? Love is chemistry, so we are saying the same thing.

click to expand

Yes that's what chemistry is, an unspoken/unexplainable bond.

Posted by enfant_terrible

Posted by LillyPetal

Posted by enfant_terrible

Posted by LillyPetal
In the case of the girl at the library, she didn't do anything for me, she didn't offer me anything, and I didn't take anything from her - not anything tangible, at least. Yet, I felt love for her.

You felt chemistry, not so sure about love.

Before I even spoke to her? What of the ones I haven't interacted with? Love is chemistry, so we are saying the same thing.

Yes that's what chemistry is, an unspoken/unexplainable bond.

click to expand

There ya go! ^___^ #ScienceANDGod #NotScienceVsGod

Posted by LillyPetal

Posted by enfant_terrible

Posted by LillyPetal

Posted by enfant_terrible

Posted by LillyPetal
In the case of the girl at the library, she didn't do anything for me, she didn't offer me anything, and I didn't take anything from her - not anything tangible, at least. Yet, I felt love for her.

You felt chemistry, not so sure about love.

Before I even spoke to her? What of the ones I haven't interacted with? Love is chemistry, so we are saying the same thing.

Yes that's what chemistry is, an unspoken/unexplainable bond.

There ya go! ^___^ #ScienceANDGod #NotScienceVsGod

click to expand

Chemistry is deceiving though. It's more rooted in the school of biology than spirituality. Imo

@tiziani
All of that reminded me of an article i read yesterday, which will add more for you to ponder.

http://idealist4ever.com/we-miss-the-idea-of-that-them/

ps.. i was going to post it but it had this whole weird middle section about about don't let your husband beat you or something, but then it gets good again.

@tiziani

In relationships, I firmly believe that actions either build up a relationship or dismantle it. Before I act, I ask myself: "Will my actions lift us up or pull us down?" For example: I have dark moods; I want to push the world away and retreat into myself. Recently, I fell into that mood, and my boyfriend could sense that something was not right. "I feel apart from you and I want to feel close." I lay in bed thinking. Here he was doing his part to lift us up: he was reaching out, he was showing genuine concern, he promised to not try and fix my emotions, he made me feel safe and when it seemed as though I was not going to respond, he sent me an audio text with his voice telling me he loved me. So, what was I going to do to lift us to a higher plain? I picked up my phone and I called him; it went against a habitual series of events that I had gotten used to for years whenever I was in my dark place. And now, for him, for us, for the sake of our love and our relationship, I was doing something different.

By the end of the night, I was in a better mental place as was he because he was let in and was not abandoned in feelings of concern.

So, in answer to your question, yes. I have a choice to either walk away or to meet him with patience and kindness, and I would choose compassion and love. I have no doubt that he would, too, and if we are both putting in an honest effort to lift each other up, there is no way we will not find peace somewhere out there in the meadow of our union.

It definitely takes more effort to hold onto the good than it does to allow the bad to consume the good. Negative emotions can devour the good ones as quickly and as easily as an unchecked flame can a forest. I actually prefer it that way: that appreciation is a proactive effort that requires active, conscientious thought. Things should not be so easy. I prefer having to put in parts of myself or "work." It's interesting because I had this very same conversation with him. He asked me one night, "Do I deserve you?" I laughed and told him I often wondered the same thing about him, if I deserve him. "I think that as long as we continue to appreciate one another, and actively show that appreciation, we will deserve one another." It was an important question he asked me, and till today I wonder if I articulated myself right. But that's what cuddles and kisses are for - to fill the crevices where words fail.

Posted by tiziani
There's also a flipside.

Let's say you meet someone where you do manage to solve all personality clashes and you come to a compromise on any difficult issues. You have growing respect for one another and you took all the right boxes on the outside with each other.

But you also have this soul connection that keeps throwing up negative emotions out of nowhere. Deeply disturbing visions of you both assaulting one another, being violent and becoming embittered with one another. Even though that connection has never physically happened between you both in the external world.


Do you overlook the soul connection and say the way you fell in love with each other's character is good enough?

God, no.

Posted by tiziani

Posted by Scenic
If we're talking literally about souls...then I don't think you can love someone's soul unless you fully know and understand what a soul is. Considering science cannot prove the existence of souls, we still know nothing about it. We can theorize...but, that's it.

In a less literal sense, I still don't think you can love someone's 'soul'. My idea for this one is that unless you know someone utterly and completely that you cannot love their soul. And, you cannot know someone utterly and completely. You can't. Unless you think with their mind, move with their body, experience everything they've experienced since their earliest memory...you just can't.

You don't have to know everything about a person in general to love them, but then that's not the same thing as going to the extreme of saying you love their soul.

Does a soul always have to be measured in finite values?

click to expand

To me it does. That's the only way to know that what we think is accurate. Not to mention, people apply such loose terms to things...look at how many people on here think they've met their twin flame. If such a thing exists and if all those people really have met their twin flame, then that doesn't match what many theorize it to be. So, what is the truth? If you don't know the answer to that, then you can't be sure that what you think is the soul actually is what it is. You could be believing in something completely different.

It's like believing that all those ye old teeth whitening pastes actually helped whiten your teeth...lots of people used them...and after research came out on the subject, it showed why many people were having dental issues. What you originally thought was the case turned out to be completely wrong since no scientific research was available on the topic. I think using a space example here would have been better...like something about a previously unknown particle...but I don't know any of those off the top of my head. : (

Posted by LillyPetal

Posted by lisabethur8
one thing that is consistent...

if you can't make a man happy then you're shit out of luck.

if you can't make a woman happy same thing.

no matter who you are.

But even that gets complicated as different things make different people happy. So if a man can't make a woman happy, perhaps she isn't the right woman. And a woman that can't make a man happy might mean she's with the wrong man.

click to expand

well yeah....basically, Lily.

Posted by lisabethur8

Posted by LillyPetal

Posted by lisabethur8
one thing that is consistent...

if you can't make a man happy then you're shit out of luck.

if you can't make a woman happy same thing.

no matter who you are.

But even that gets complicated as different things make different people happy. So if a man can't make a woman happy, perhaps she isn't the right woman. And a woman that can't make a man happy might mean she's with the wrong man.

well yeah....basically, Lily.

click to expand

I felt the need to say it. It bothered me inside because "butter out of luck" sounds too permanent for me. Don't mind me.

Posted by LillyPetal

Posted by lisabethur8

Posted by LillyPetal

Posted by lisabethur8
one thing that is consistent...

if you can't make a man happy then you're shit out of luck.

if you can't make a woman happy same thing.

no matter who you are.

But even that gets complicated as different things make different people happy. So if a man can't make a woman happy, perhaps she isn't the right woman. And a woman that can't make a man happy might mean she's with the wrong man.

well yeah....basically, Lily.

I felt the need to say it. It bothered me inside because "butter out of luck" sounds too permanent for me. Don't mind me.

click to expand

no i totally agree.

they are INCOMPATIBLE.

if you can't make eachother happy, what's the point??

you're just there to make babies. if anything.

short lived passion, and then the rest of the day and night you can't stand eachother.