Love and Friendships in the Modern World

[Victor Pross]

Barbara: in order to fully know someone, we need to see how he behaves in a crisis, when standing by his principles puts him at risk. And that is something we cannot learn from letters.

It seems like a taciturn point to me. What has it to do with falling in love on the internet? Are you saying that even people who meet the “traditional way” shouldn’t date or marry-- until they see the other face some crisis? If not, why make this observation in the context of the current discussion? Sorry, I don’t get it.

[Ciro]

Are you saying that even people who meet the “traditional way” shouldn’t date or marry-- until they see the other face some crisis?

Victor, the reason is that every man should be able to answer for one's conduct and obligations.

[Victor Pross]

Victor, the reason is that every man should be able to answer for one's conduct and obligations.

Ciro, this I agree with this--as a separate point from the current discussion.

Edited October 30, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Barbara Branden]

Victor: "Are you saying that even people who meet the 'traditional way' shouldn’t date or marry-- until they see the other face some crisis?"

I said: "Yes, I think you can fall in love over the internet, in love with the qualities you've seen. You can know that those qualities are precious to you, that they arouse powerful feelings of love. But you cannot yet love the total person -- who is, after all, composed of body as well as mind and spirit -- because you cannot yet know the total person...But there's nothing wrong -- and much that is right -- about diving in head first and saying to oneself: I don't need guarantees engraved in stone, I want this experience, and I'm willing to accept whatever may happen in the future."

I have to end my participation in this thread. I've said that I wanted to say, and I've run short on time.

Barbara

[Guest Damage Inc.]

Barbara: in order to fully know someone, we need to see how he behaves in a crisis, when standing by his principles puts him at risk. And that is something we cannot learn from letters.

This is an important observation, Barbara.

I'm really enjoying the caliber of discussion on this issue. It doesn't bother me that I've been charged with all sorts of nefarious motives. I've seen great presentations from others who've better articulated many of my own former thoughts. It's great to see the smear tactics have been replaced by civil discourse. You'd think that those who descended to ad hominem attacks would pause to think about why they got - and still get - so irrational.

Wayne Simmons

[Victor Pross]

"Yes, I think you can fall in love over the internet, in love with the qualities you've seen. You can know that those qualities are precious to you, that they arouse powerful feelings of love. But you cannot yet love the total person -- who is, after all, composed of body as well as mind and spirit -- because you cannot yet know the total person...But there's nothing wrong -- and much that is right -- about diving in head first and saying to oneself: I don't need guarantees engraved in stone, I want this experience, and I'm willing to accept whatever may happen in the future."

Barbara, this is very reasonable and I agree with you on this point. After all, this is what Angie and I are doing. We don’t want this to be an on-going cyber relationship, and so early next year, we will be meeting. There may be a period of “adjustment” but so what? The love is grounded and strong. Barbara, it comes down to this. Angie and I merely feel we are getting a lot of “watch this rationalistic love feast crash and burn at the hands of reality, hee-hee” vibrations from some people. I’m not just speaking about what can be read online.

Edited October 30, 2006 by Victor Pross

[CNA]

Wayne,

Barbara said:

I said: "Yes, I think you can fall in love over the internet, in love with the qualities you've seen. You can know that those qualities are precious to you, that they arouse powerful feelings of love. But you cannot yet love the total person -- who is, after all, composed of body as well as mind and spirit -- because you cannot yet know the total person...But there's nothing wrong -- and much that is right -- about diving in head first and saying to oneself: I don't need guarantees engraved in stone, I want this experience, and I'm willing to accept whatever may happen in the future."

This is what this thread is about: Falling in love over the internet and that it is possible. Jody is a wonderful case of it and he even married the lady he fell in love with over the internet. Mike and Kat are great examples. Victor and I are great examples. It is possible to fall in love this way but have had many people saying, no, it isn't possible, and so on although it has been documented and has happened numerous times. Jody and his girl, Mike and Kat, Victor and I are not the only ones I know that this has happened to. I also know of another OL member that fell in love with a girl online, told her so before they met. They met and eventually also married. But I do agree that in order for it to continue and to thrive we will have to meet in person and that has already been planned and we are so very excited about it as it will be an extention of our love that has developed online.

Angie

Edited October 30, 2006 by CNA

[Victor Pross]

Yes, exactly what Angie said—if there has been any debate, it has been a divide between those who say “love is real and can be found--and spawned--on the net” and those who assert that it is "unreal" or “disturbing” or "rationalistic"-- and that those who engage in it are “love mystics” and that it is founded on lies and self-deception. Well, we the living are saying that the naysayers are WRONG and they have been proven wrong by every married couple now in love who met on the net. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. So that’s the end of it.

[Kat]

Jody,

Thank you.

Kat

[Rich Engle]

The results speak for themselves. Can it be done? Yes, it has. Are results always good? Of course not. Are there advantages and pitfalls to be aware of? Uh, yeah.

One way or another, if things proceed, it results in a face-to-face meeting. One way or another, something is going to happen there.

There is a reponsibility when sparking away online; to be authentic. Just say what you mean, share what you want to share; share what you love, what's important. Slow and easy, friends first.

I definitely wouldn't nix it out completely--no way! I wouldn't be with the love of my life right now, and that's proof enough for me.

You just have to be authentic, and not go overboard.

[Guest Damage Inc.]

Yes, exactly what Angie said—if there has been any debate, it has been a divide between those who say “love is real and can be found--and spawned--on the net” and those who assert that it is "unreal" or “disturbing” or "rationalistic"-- and that those who engage in it are “love mystics” and that it is founded on lies and self-deception. Well, we the living are saying that the naysayers are WRONG and they have been proven wrong by every married couple now in love who met on the net. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. So that’s the end of it.

Notice how Victor conflates his potential relationship with actual successful relationships.

Angie does the same much more explicitly. They fail to see the distinction. There are no naysayers here.

Victor, Angie, et al, see what they want to see.

Wayne Simmons

[CNA]

Wayne, et al, see what they want to see and refuse to acknowledge the potentials of it and that it is possible, even after it has been well documented time and time again. It's new evidence, new knowledge, new doors that have been opened and have presented itself and Victor and I and others have embraced this new evidence, new knowledge, new possibilities without a problem whereas others are having a bit more difficult time with it due to their own lack of experience with it, lack of their own firsthand understanding of it. This whole issue has grown rather :yawn: We have our differences of opinions and obviously won't agree on this issue.

Angie

Edited October 30, 2006 by CNA

[Rich Engle]

I agree with you, Angie.

And it's OK that some have voiced concerns. Maybe what is being questioned is what motivated those concerns? Dunno.

It's true that Victor and Angie are being much more open-book about it in a forum than at least I've ever seen before-- they have high confidence levels. They have covered a huge amount of real estate with each other and that's where the confidence comes from, along with their confidence in themselves, their own minds and hearts. These are two high self-esteem people: decisions are made with total conviction.

I'm sure they're both hoping to cover some real real estate by now, tis true! :devil:

I had a different approach/situation, because, as theirs is, as all are, the conditions were unique, unique even outside of the relationship beginning without being in one another's physical presence. Because of those conditions (which I will keep private), and just because it seemed completely right, we pursued friendship first. You can do that on the Internet. For instance, I think it's fair to say that someone like MSK and I consider each other very good friends, even though we have never met or even talked on the phone.

You can do that. Happens all the time.

In my situation, we concluded that, for sure, even after we met in person, our goal was to pursue a deep, elegant, long-term platonic friendship. And we both would have been grateful and joyous for that.

'Course, that whole thing caved in pretty rat-a-tat-a-tooey... Sheesh.

[Victor Pross]

This post is for those who are open to new discoveries and possibilities.

Angie and I don’t have a “potential” relationship, we have an actual relationship. Our eventual meeting, it has already been said, will merely be a continuation of what has been established. Our values and thoughts parallel one another’s to such a great extent, it seems as if we have already met face-to-face and have known each other for years. When I monitor my insides, my thoughts, feelings—my reactions to Angie—I know for certain that the cynics are wrong. I can honestly say that I have never felt closer to another human being than I do Angie—pretty damn close, but not quite the same. And I have never felt such intensity from another human being. Angie clearly feels the same. It’s better when it works both ways.

Meanwhile, for us both, every word on the glowing screen has become a caress, a wink-wink or a kiss—both of us feeling the longing and love, the feeling being similar to human beings reaching out making physical contact. Naturally, speaking on the phone has drawn us even closer. Granted, it is not practical to maintain such a love relationship for a protracted period of time—neither is it desirable—and we don’t plan on this. Nobody can tell us that we are not in love. Based on this fact, it is soon that Angie and I will be removing ourselves from the ominous clutches of rationalism [yes, I’m being sarcastic].

It is with such possibilities—finding friendship or love---that the modern technological world is to be commended.

-Victor-

Edited October 31, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This topic has been done to death.

A flame war is ongoing between Wayne and Victor/Angie with a bad case of last-word-itis.

Enough, folks. If you have to fight, please take it off line.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Victor and Angie :baby: :baby: and Wayne :baby:

You're right, M.

[Jody Gomez]

Kat-

You're welcome. It's wonderful what you and Michael have, and it's real.

On another note: I think Michael said it well when he said that this topic has been done to death. I know reality. Michael and Kat know reality. Angie and Victor know reality. As far as I'm concerned the naysayers can simply kiss the reality of our "in love" asses.

I know Michael and Kat, and Angie, and I hope to get to know Victor better. I know them all from this medium we share. I hope that each of them individually, and as a couple, has all the happiness that a lifetime can offer. I give them my well wishes, and the benefit of the doubt as thinking individuals: not because I'm a Polyanna, but because I'm married to my soulmate. And, I met her online.

Ciro-

ahem...my beautiful wife and I are still waiting to be the guests of honor at a certain mad Italian's restaurant.

I just bought a new book, 1,000 Places To See Before You Die, but I make my own lists. When can we be have the pleasure of dining with you?

[Jody Gomez]

Barbara-

Do you know how many people have fallen in love with you through your words? But, I don't want to start anymore rumors. ;)

[CNA]

Mike,

I agree that this subject has been beaten to death many many times over. When the thread was revived, I thought to myself, Oy, here we go again. (sighing) This subject/debate or whatever has really grown quite tiresome then and now. There are differences of opinions and obvious there will be no agreement on this subject of love over the internet. But at any rate, I am in agreement with you, let's leave this behind.

Angie

[Kevin Haggerty]

Hey Michael,

I'm sorry it's taken me several days to write this. If I had known what kind of reaction my remarks would get here, I wouldn't have posted them just before a major holiday weekend. (Major at least, around my house. Happy Celtic New Year, everyone!)

At this point my desire to salvage the discussion has all but evaporated in the face of the crowd of well-spoken people who nonetheless seem hellbent on vehemently and harshly misjudging me. When people so self-righteously and flagrantly insult me as Jody and Victor have here, accusing me of a list of crimes I never even alluded to, I find it hard to justify answering them at all.

But you are a different matter entirely, Michael. You and, of course, Barbara, though I have no apologies to make to her. I'm extremely grateful to Barbara for interceding so eloquently on my behalf. (Barbara, thank you so much for acting as my guardian angel in this thread--your honorary wings and halo are in the mail!)

I'm so sorry you felt implicated in my remarks about Victor's article, Michael. You said my post was "one-sided" which is ironic to me, because I posted it in reaction to what I saw as a terribly one-sided discussion of intimacy and the Internet over which Victor was presiding. I found Victor's framing the debate as the true romantics vs. the nay-saying cynics and his high-handed dismissal of Ciro a little despicable really. I hate framed debates and my strong feelings thataway lead me, I think, to state my case too strongly. And I fear I hurt you and Kat. For that, I am very sorry.

My intention was to present my point of view not as the One True Way, but as a third option to upset Victor's easy, self-flattering and false dichotomy. When I spoke of how I felt about the first time I say "I love you" to someone, it was a passionate statement of my values, not a denunciation of all those whose experience varies from my own.

I never meant to imply that no one could fall in love after meeting on the Internet. Or that the process of falling in love couldn't begin over the Internet. I was of course well aware of where I was posting, well aware of your relationship with Kat, it's genesis, and your many eloquent tributes to Kat and to your relationship.

I was laboring to speak to the nature of knowledge and the nature of reality; how and when do we know a thing? I suggested that Internet contact was not enough to give a person conclusive knowledge of reality outside the Internet. What makes us human is not reducible to Internet chat.

You, yourself said that love found on the Internet needed to be tested. That's all I was saying. Without the test, you cannot be certain. You can be confident, you can take the romantic risk, but the truth of whether or not the love you feel between yourself and someone you correspond with online is real cannot be known until it is verified by real life contact. I meant to suggest that what "happens" on the Internet is, therefore, fundamentally theoretical--not as a way to denigrate what happens here, but simply to be accurate and give non-virtual reality its due. Some theories, after all, are very strong, very compelling, sound, reliable even, but theoretical all the same.

Can that be so bad? I think taking a risk is one of the most beautiful things we can do. But risking is hard and it's scary as all get out. It brings us closer to the possibility of loss, and by implication, death itself. People find all kinds of ways to deny risk, to pretend to certainty that isn't there, security that can never be and so avoid the exquisite anxiety that life presents to those of us who can look it in the eye and keep breathing anyway.

I think the more aware we are of risk, the more of life there is to savor. We needn't jump off an airplane to experience risk, we need only do what we are afraid to do. Right now. Whatever it is. The more mindful we are of our fears, the more triumphant our joys when they are realized.

But Victor's reasoning denies the risk of trusting someone over this uncertain Internet. He speaks as if he risks nothing, that he has nothing to learn about Angie from meeting her face to face that could impact his love for her negatively--it's a done deal, the two of them click, it's as if they've known each other for years, everything's so natural and easy, etc. The Internet has circumvented reality and removed risk, removed the open-endedness of trust, removed the meaning of hope from this specific transaction--hope cannot enter the equation when the outcome is certain. "As if" has eclipsed "in fact." (And Jody calls me postmodern!)

And, frankly, I don't believe Victor's certainty. I call it bluster. If he's alive, he's nervous as hell about that first meeting. And he's frightened of losing everything. If he's not nervous, if he's not frightened, then what the hell is all the fuss about?

Thank you, Michael, for extending your good will to me in this uncertain world. I look forward to meeting you in person, and I hope and I trust that it will be a great day for both of us.

-Kevin

P.S. (to whom it may concern): You may be shocked to learn that I met the woman with whom I intend to spend the rest of my life right here, in cyberspace. We've been together for three years, so far, and we're very much in love. I've met several women on the Internet over the years. I'm no stranger to this stuff, and I've got nothing against it. I've had some very good and some not so good experiences here. I wish you the best, whoever you are.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kevin,

Dayaamm!

After finally getting the flame war to calm down...

LOLOLOLOLOL...

Well, hell, anyway...

Thank you for your kind thoughts. May they return double to you, and you know I mean that.

May I make a suggestion? In the same manner I suggested excess of rhetoric was an element of your initial post, but the spirit was positive and you actually were shooting for the best in life, we extend the same thinking to Victor and Jody and all the rest. (For example, although they didn't say so, I have no doubt the present lovebirds are prepared to see reality objectively when they finally meet and if there are any lies or serious misrepresentations, there will be consequences to the love. I think they are just singing like lovebirds because they are so happy and went overboard with some excesses of rhetoric. The issue was not to teach the world to be irresponsible, but simply sing from the joy they feel instead,)

I see people lining up on different sides of an issue as enemies when I am kind of confused about what the issue worth fighting over actually is. From what I see, everyone--both sides--is trying to do and be and live the best they can, especially on the issue of love. We are all expressing it so differently, though.

I do have a few comments I want to make in order to look at an idea or two that you brought up that I found intriguing, but later...

I want to see if an intelligent discussion continues (which interests me greatly) or a flame war and/or piles of justifications (which doesn't interest me at all).

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Ah, MSK... his conducting talents shine. B)

There is no room for "flame wars" in this place. Hmmm, wait, that's wrong:

There will never be true flame wars in this place; that is the difference.

Because it is a place of peace and love, as well as the ideas.

That statement I just made up there is something you won't see elsewhere. Go look if you wish. It requires a certain composition to speak in those terms.

rde

That filthy, despicable Unitarian guy, bwah ha ha!

[Guest Damage Inc.]

Ah, MSK... his conducting talents shine. B)

There is no room for "flame wars" in this place. Hmmm, wait, that's wrong:

There will never be true flame wars in this place; that is the difference.

Because it is a place of peace and love, as well as the ideas.

That statement I just made up there is something you won't see elsewhere. Go look if you wish. It requires a certain composition to speak in those terms.

rde

That filthy, despicable Unitarian guy, bwah ha ha!

What's worse: someone who is nice and yet doesn't have the guts to tell you what they really think of your ideas? Or, someone who is perhaps mean (but not necessarily) but is upfront and honest with you?

Wayne Simmons

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Wayne,

I am unsure what you want to say. What do your rhetorical questions have to do with this discussion?

Michael

[Rich Engle]

What's worse: someone who is nice and yet doesn't have the guts to tell you what they really think of your ideas? Or, someone who is perhaps mean (but not necessarily) but is upfront and honest with you?

Rhetorical on the surface, Michael. But it came from somewhere, in this instance a response to what I wrote.

I'll take a stab at it. Let's just cut through the bullshit, shall we? It's entirely likely that Wayne, er, "Damage" (telling) just violated his own statement. I work in a rough-and-tumble business environment, Wayne, so why don't we tango for a minute? After all, while what you said was rhetorically phrased, it was in fact a reply to me, so that means I'm up. I could be entirely mistaking you; it might be an honest question you ask, but if so, as Michael says, it's massively out-of-context. I don't buy that.

You, sir, didn't like what I said, not one bit. It hit one of your buttons, and your response was not atypical or out-of-line with anything else I've ever seen out of you. Do you think peaceful automatically equals weakness? Insincerity?

,.

The truth is always important. It is The Truth. But does that mean it should always be delivered, any time, any place? Sometimes maybe better to not stir someone else's soup-- rather, let them do their process.

Does your statement imply that the only way to deliver authenticity must be wrapped in "meanness," as you say? And, by extension, do you (yes, you) gain pleasure from that? If so, why, and how does it make you feel? Vindicated? Superior?

Hey, you laid it down, again. I think you enjoy this sourness, I really do. You so often come off as a spoiler.

Why?