Re: "Tis better to have loved and lost . . ."
Posted by Eddie on 01/28/2003 07:18:57

In reply to "Tis better to have loved and lost . . ." posted by John on 01/24/2003 19:41:56

Sorry Coach I was up late last night finishing this post and when I got
to class here this morning I see you have beat me here; but I’m going
to post this anyway before I read your new post.

>Coach said: So, remarkably, I don't seem to be suffering these days,
but I *am* still spun.

>>Rakesh said: The silver lining is that you are not suffering;

I say “spun” is likely much closer to the suffering side of the
pendulum swing than not.

>>…”for a mindful warrior if they are living in this world… it is O.K.
to
be human once in a while…”

To constitute a mindful warrior, would seem to me to be “human” in the
highest degree, as much as possible “while & by” living in this world.
Though by similar sentiments such as Rakesh’s statement, as I’ve quoted
above, “human” gets a bad rap through wrong usage as representative of
mechanicality most of the time.

And again I take the completely opposite position on Rakesh idea
with “rejection”. Firstly I credulously experience stances in rejection
as an adult, than I was ever constitutionally capable of when I was a
child. And secondly I’m not at all sure from the somewhat vague
ramblings that you have made here Coach, as to which of you has
actually done the rejecting, which could strongly entail whether you
had learned any lesson whatsoever.

Though I must sensitize with Rakesh of your using the word "rejected"
that perhaps you (were) taking things too personally. But even this as
I reflect on it, (with only the tiny bits and pieces you have given
here) could have been your projection entirely. She may have meant you
too simply, “slow down big boy”. But I honestly don’t have enough
information to assess the situation clearly. So what I say here is
simply food for thought, if any of it might by chance fit into any part
of your own reality there.

>yet she is certain that "it isn't meant to be," as the saying goes.
And I get it.

Nothing you have quoted her to say makes this a statement clear reality
to me. Maybe I just misread your post. If so, I’ll gladly stand
corrected.

>. . . when I get a little clearer about. uh, *what happened*??? Maybe
you Kiddies can help me figure that out.

This statement is one of a number of your comments (sentiments) that
have made me question your take on her motives.

>I would say—and this is probably the first time in my life in this
situation that I can say this and really mean it: it *is* "better to
have loved and lost than to never have loved at all?"

This has always seemed to me to be the “natural” out come of this play
in my experience. Love, “True Love” [[[NEVER]]] fails. I have
personally [[[Loved]]] as couples love, or true romantic love, five
different women in my life. But then sometimes more quickly and other
times very slowly after the dust (fall-out-debris) had settled, I came
to know and fully understand that I loved each and every one deeply and
still do today. We have simply grown and or moved apart in this world.
But the love that lives in my heart has never been lost, not to me
anyway. Unconditional forgiveness for them and my self is the key to
this one. And I can honestly say it is infinitely better to have loved
and lost than to never loved at all.

>"You're the sweetest man I ever met . . . and I don't feel 'that way'
about you."

Now if she actually said these words to you, you might be right (no
guarantees even with that of course, he, he).

>So for a month I was treated *better* than any girlfriend, or even
wife had treated me before (not that I would have deserved it!), by a
truly wonderful and even spectacular woman…

That could make any mans racehorse gitty-up real quick, maybe even to
quickly.

>…who knew from the outset that I really didn't "stand a chance with
her."

Again is this your assessment, or were these her direct comments?

>Walter pointed out to me: "She picked you. And she had her own
criteria and plan. The whole play was written before she met you. Your
part in it was already written."

Now you may have given Walter more details than I have picked up on,
and this “possibly” sounds like “experienced” wisdom speaking, if it
was assessed in the right vernacular.

>And I tried to tell her the truth of what I was feeling then. And she
said: "Don't do that."

Could it have been she was just not ready yet? From here I do not have
a clue, yet. But I do know telling a woman your “true” feelings before
her “emotional mind” has became trusting and acquainted enough to have
it verbalized i.e. enter through her intellectual apparatus, is very
frightening, regardless of their intellectual capacity. Kind-a the same
principal as learning to feed a young fawn by hand, that has lost her
mother. You and the fawn must learn together (to-get-her) at “her” pace
not yours.

>This woman had obviously picked me. And she obviously admired and
appreciated me. It was as if she would do practically anything to
please me.

Here you go again, and this sounds like something that could have had
potential, as long range as even it might ‘have’ been. Could it have
been she was in the (in her own time) process of picking you?

>And yet . . . picked me for what?

Maybe she didn’t know yet?

>You can be candid with me, Folks!

Well I’ve certainly been that.

>"John, you're one of a kind," she told me out of the blue, the last
time we went out together. "I don't know," I said, "I'm just an
ordinary guy."

Liar, you “are” one of a kind! Just like the rest of us. And you have
many tremendously “good” qualities to bring to any relationship you
choose to be in. and you know this John, what was the ‘man’ doing here?

>In the end, it was the light of the full moon through my window that
showed me that she wasn't *really* picking me, and that I couldn't
*really* stand by her.

John, I hope there was something a little more substantial (down to
earth) than the “Light of the Full Moon” that prompted your action to
terminate this thing. If in fact “you” did terminate it. As a side
note: the root of lunacy is likely fear.

>I had no blame of her at all when I called the next day and said
goodbye. I was impecable about that. She made no effort to change my
mind.

John please she cannot be held responsible, to change your mind, or for
your change of mind, any more than she can be held responsible for your
heart feelings toward her. Maybe she wanted you to be sure, or maybe
even relentless. Or as I have already stated, maybe she just wanted to
take her time. And really one short “moon” cycle isn’t that very long.

I sure hope you didn’t jump the gun on this one my dear friend.

Looking forward to seeing you back in class, and I hope I got it all
wrong on this one.

Your Pal

Eddie

Archived 09/22/2003