Desire and Relationships

Well, to finish an earlier thought, I must continue with the nature of relationships and how they relate to both knowledge and desire.

So, it seems to me (please, correct me if I'm wrong here) that people base their desire of relationships mainly off of their emotional response to the knowledge or appearance of another. To me, it does not seem to be an equal balance of desire. People relate their desire to be with and around other people mainly based off emotion, intuition, and human instinct. People seem to find commonalities with each other based off how they emotionally respond to each other a lot more often than actual knowledge of each other. But, I tend to think emotions are temporal states of being, and thus a relationship based solely off emotional impulse seems a lot less credible for success than the ones based off actual knowledge, actual knowing what and who that other person is, thus they don't last as long.

BUT if a relationship is more completely based off actually getting to KNOW the other person, from common interests to life-long endeavors, perhaps more meaningful and successful relationships could be attained for all. Of course, this does take a degree of truly knowing oneself, to know who one is and what one wants out of a relationship is by no means an easy process to attempt to explore. 

So, I'll just at least share my own. I know for me, personally, I need relationships that value 1. Conversation 2. Companionship 3. Equality 4. Compromise 5. Commitment 6. Dedication to fostering a considerate and balanced love. This list is exhaustive, but flexible and they are tenants I am certain I need to be in a relationship. At least for me.

speaking of conversation, a lil something that got me thinking...

"Contrary to many of the linguistic theories of the day, which focused on diachronic linguistics or the changes in languages over time, Saussure developed a theory of synchronic language, how language works in the present. He argued that the relationship between the spoken word (signifier) and object (signified) is arbitrary and that meaning comes through the relationship between signs, which are for Saussure the union of signified and signifier. So the word "tree" means  by custom only and not through any intrinsic relationship between the sound and the thing. That's why both "arbol" and "tree" can both signify the same signified. English speakers construct meaning by distinguishing between tree and treat and trek as well as between tree and bush and flower. Meaning, then, comes from understanding what a thing IS NOT rather than from knowing in any kind of ontological sense what a thing IS. Meaning is constructed through difference, particularly through binary pairs (man/woman, good/evil). There is no absolute Platonic ideal "out there" to anchor meaning. There is no truth that is not constructed. There is nothing outside language. Language speaks (through) us. Language is thus a system of signs or a semiotic system, but merely one of many, all of which construct meaning, which does not exist outside the semiotic system."

sourced from http://www.ic.arizona.edu/ic/mcbride/theory/305struct.htm