I have seen the word "Love" used a great deal in my life and I was wondering what everyone's definition of "Love" is?

To start, here is my definition:

To care about a person (or persons) more than you care about yourself.

I feel this way about my children, parents, and significant other. I care more for them than I do myself and therefor I sacrifice things for myself in order to provide for them.

How about the rest of you? What is your definition of Love?

I don't feel that 'sacrificing things' is a matter of love ... It could very well be an expression of guilt.

To me, the question is: Would I give my life for him/her/them?

The answer is only valid if a situation arises that requires it ... and you do.

The tragic approach to love there from Chagur. You can never truly know if you love someone until you die for them. You can never know if you are loved until they die for you.

Have you been watching Romeo and Juliet a little too much?

But then it is often the tragic that elicits the deepest emotions....

Just a crotchety reaction to a word that is used so often, and in so many different contexts, that it has become almost meaningless.

Can still remember the reaction of my ex when she half-seriously commented that she felt I 'loved' Bianka, my German Shepard, more than I did her.

My immediate, 'should have bitten my tongue', response was: "I know she'd give her life for me ... You, I'm not so sure about."

The unfortunate part was that my comment was prescient ... a couple of years later Bianka was killed protecting me. Still miss her.

I completely disagree with the first definition, although that's what's been pushed about as love in the past few years.

Romeo and Juliette was a play about two spoiled children who had no clue what love really was,

Love is desiring nothing but the good for the object of your love, whether it is your pet, or another person, or even a society. Love, of course, then does not exist for objects. This also means that you do not cater to their every whim. If something is not good for them, if it is harmful, a lover will keep their beloved away from it. A loving parent doesn't give their child dynamite, no matter how badly they want it.

Loving is not always easy. Some times it is a bit of work. And most importantly, love is not a feeling, it's not a flutter of the heart, or a light-headedness or any of that. it is a deeply held state of mind. Hope this helps.

Originally posted by Chagur
I don't feel that 'sacrificing things' is a matter of love ... It could very well be an expression of guilt.
...

Chagur,

I agree absolutely. That was not what I was trying to say. What I meant was that I care for them so much more than myself that I would be willing to sacrifice for them, not that sacrifice is the only form of love.

Originally posted by Riomacleod
Romeo and Juliette was a play about two spoiled children who had no clue what love really was.

OK now I've heard it all! Because they were spoilt they could not fall in love? :rolleyes:

We each have our own sort of value system (hopefully)--and one that makes sense. What I love and/or value will be held above all other things, all other people.

It's no sacrifice to do anything for someone who's worthy of my love. A blood relation or a wedding ring don't instantly make them worthy, however. It's an ongoing process of change and discovery. Calls for understanding and like-mindedness. Calls for an appropriate give and take. With children it calls for patience --everlasting it sometimes seems. :)

When I do care...when I do love...I do so very much...

~~~

My 2 cents

Counterbalance

I didn't say that. In their case, they had no idea what love really was, though.

I in another post quoted something I thought was from Aristotle, but I think I picked it up and may have polymorphed it a bit from the internet.

<CENTER>"For True Love to be, takes Two bodies and one soul"</CENTER>

The meaning for this is at first you feel in life a void, because you have half a soul. Somewhere out there is someone that also feels that same way, but when they meet with you (or you with them) you feel a whole soul that is shared with them.

This attractive feeling is beyond that of superficial feelings and is deep enough to know that your suppose to be together.

(Of course this can be similar to Aristotles remark on a Friend being "someone that shares the same soul")

I remember someone mentioning to me that they didn't like to use the word Love because so many people use it so often, and seem to lose it's meaning through it's use.
(i.e. they "Love" their wife but they don't fulfill her needs or She says she loves you, but shes seeing your friend when your not there)

So this gives the understanding that you shouldn't say that you love someone unless your heart burns with a passion of desire as to bequeath them their every whim...

Oops.. getting a little carried away :o

Originally posted by Stryderunknown
....
The meaning for this is at first you feel in life a void, because you have half a soul. Somewhere out there is someone that also feels that same way, but when they meet with you (or you with them) you feel a whole soul that is shared with them.
....
Oops.. getting a little carried away :o

Stryderunkown,

Wow! You put into words what I have thought for a long time. I have always felt that there is someone out there who, to use the corny words from a good movie "completes me". There have been times where I have felt like I have found that person, but the feeling was not mutual so they could not have been that person.

Now I totally agree with this defnition for Love between adults, but how would you define love of children? Hopefully not only in the terms of survival of the species or propagation of our genes. :)

And it's all right to get carried away, to some extent, where love is concerned as that's the whole point isn't it? :D

..is the essence of life, the energy that makes everything want to come into consciousness. It´s feeling of belonging wherever you are, because the love is your true home. That is what you are made of. :)

Love, not to be confused with desire.

There is no sacrifice in love. When acting out from love there can be no loss or gain. Love is a constant. It energy so pure and alive that it obliterates everything else. Love is the highest and most basic reason for excistance.
It can be beamed out of your being forever without ever draining the source.

Ooooh I love :)

I don't think there is such thing as True Love. There is unconditional love - the love you have for your children, parents, etc. But even that could be a feeling of obligation twisted to something we would like to be called love. I think love is something the human mind made up - to try to differ ourselves from animals. Try to make ourselves superior. I think that if True Love DID exist, than every person we have loved that way, we would still love to this day. I THOUGHT I was in love many of times. But I dont have those feeling anymore. I think it was more like infatuation, or desire than love. And if it was Real or True Love, than I would still love them, right? Well I would really like to believe there is that 1 out there for me. But I think it highly unlikely. We just have to find someone that makes sense for us, and take it from there.

true love to me is summed up in one word


selflessness


wow..love is the most powerful force in this universe.

ACK! No!!!


Nononononononononononononononononononono.

Love is NOT selfLESSness. Love is, in fact, the most true expression of the human condition. It is acting in our nature to love.

Strgrl:
Simply because you haven't experienced true love doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I've yet to experience a guatemalan prison, but I do know they exist. Experiencial data isn't the litmus test for being. :)

Stryderunknown:

Love is not completion. The human soul is not halved. It is full, and complete. When we talk about love, I think that most people ONLY think of the traditional love... at best, you are searching for a kindred soul, not the jigsaw puzzle that makes your life complete (A reason many marriages end in divorce is because people expect their love to give them direction, purpose, etc).

To love is to desire the Good forever. (a reiteration). Parents want only the Good for their children. Lovers want only the good for one another. Strgrl is correct, when you love someone, it's unlikely that you will stop, unless they betray your love. The trick in this matter is that love is a product of the mind. it ISN'T a feeling. It's so much more. Its an all-encompassing attitude, which you participate in fully or not at all. It is the case that her feelings were erotic, not agapic.

We are also given a second definition of love. To beget the Beautiful. I.E. Creation is love. I would say that art is love, but art has lately degraded to the cynical emotion tampering of the postmodern period. At one time, politics was also a labour of love, but the cynicism of modern times has largely made it into a way for uglier people to become celebrities.

And for the record, Aristotle was on crack.

The trick in this matter is that love is a product of the mind. it ISN'T a feeling.

Then isn't it possible its something the mind made up? And by the way - I didnt say I have never experienced love. I have. 3 or 4 times. Yet I dont have those feelings anymore. Now that I look back, it was infatuation or desire or whatever you want to call it. I really hope I meet someone who I will love forever, but like I said - its highly unlikely.

Someone who has never experienced any form of love in their life, will be pretty hard to win over in this argument.

Riomacleod, you are hot on the trail of a good and accurate definition of love, imo, but "feeling" is going to enter into love somewhere along the line (for virtually all people), though it may not be a continual component.

Also...

"Feeling" and "Love" are going to be defined differently by everyone who's encountered these things. For example, one man's love, is another man's lust...etc... No matter what he's told by others, lust will always equal love in his head, heart, body... Is he confusing physical feeling with love? Well, by some people's definitions, most certainly! But for him, it was nothing less than pure love. His experience; his happiness. (Not mine, but I don't live his life.)

Other feelings play into it, too. Or emotions. It all depends on how you look at it, and many don't look at it with an 'accurate' definition in mind. Love is something different to them with every new relationship--be it love with another person, a place, or a thing.

I like your view of love even if I differ with it a little. I think it's a cardinal sin to give over so much of ourselves to others in the name of anything, including love itself. I don't want whomever I love to give me what does not belong to me, (their self), and vice versa. I have no right to ask that, and could never accept that kind of 'sacrifice.' What I do give to such a mate will be given freely and will not be a sacrifice. We would both see it that way.

I can only love that which properly values itself, lives according to his/her own standards, and that can value me for doing the same. A win-win situation. Once we begin sacrificing even a part of ourselves to others, someone is set up to lose something. May not miss it right now, but we will eventually. Seldom do such sacrifices balance out.

We're humans, and this approach may not work perfectly every step of the way, or even work for the majority, but the rewards are worth the efforts. I prefer the "two wholes" walking in tandem approach.

As for Aristotle being on crack... Hey, they ALL were on crack in those days. --or lead-poisoning, or potent wine, or something... but not everything Aristotle proposed was off the mark. All of the earlier 'philosophes' contributed something worthwhile to our present understanding of everything, even if some of them showed us the ways NOT to think.

Your post brightened my day--thx!!

~~~

Counterbalance

Originally posted by *stRgrL*
The trick in this matter is that love is a product of the mind. it ISN'T a feeling.

Then isn't it possible its something the mind made up?
how is feeling not a product of mind,after all the final analysis is done by mind only?so much for sensor's signals to brain,i agree with you that love is a product of mind only.very true.

CB: I'm not just hot on the trail... I'm simply hot ;)


Seriously, Strgrl, simply thinking that you're in love doesn't make it so. I've believed lots of things that I've found to be false when they were really tested. The reasons you don't have the feelings anymore is because, simply, feelings are modes of yourself. They are transient... in the big picture, anyway. Attempting to make an infatuation/crush/whatever last forever is the reason why marriages mostly fail. I think that's why alot of divorces happen.. people still love one another, it's just that the Eros has faded to a routine.

Here's how to know if you've ever experienced love, Strgrl. Go back and think about all of your previous "loves". Do you still wish good things for them? Do you still want them to grow as people and flourish? That's what love is.

CB: Ok, back to you. First of all, thank you for the compliment. I appreciate it, and since this is what i've chosen as my profession, I hope that I do do a good job at it. Secondly, I have never had a problem separating the Eros feelings from the deeper love that I've had for any of my significant others-when I have actually had deeper love. I'm not going to diminish emotion, it is a powerful motivator. In my philosophy, Love is greater than a person. It's what you could consider a cardinal force or an infinite mode, and it is part of The Good, the basis for an infinite reality. Emotions, on the other hand are a finite mode of a finite mode-specifically, me. Now I have a few reasons why Love has no basis in emotion. The addition of finite objects can not make an infinite object. An object can not be more real than it's creator-or the process in which it is created. Finally, how can a mode of myself become greater than myself?

Experiencially, I suppose I can talk a bit on Love's bastard child infatuation. The biggest problem with the world is that media-art, literature, and mass media advertisment-have bastardized the true meaning of love. This is a by-product of Existentialist/Romanticist propaganda in our society, a system that's been gradually eroding culture since the end of the civil war. (this is the same reason Newton gets credit for Calculus instead of Leibniz... even though his models were what Einstein uses later). Anyway, it's true that we have these feelings. I will never deny that I have had crushes on lots of women. Hell... almost every one I see, I'll admit it. There's nothing wrong with the feeling, but it does eventually go away... it takes time, but eventually there's little infatuation left... and if you wind up not loving your partner... there's no reason to stick around.

Infatuation is a sense of newness, the thrill of the mysterious stranger that your partner is... it's necessary to realize that we have these feelings, and work through them... enjoy them while they last, but realize that feelings are different from modes of being.

Edit:
Oh, and the above is why I don't try to do philosophy with similies and metaphors.

RioMacleod:
Thanks so much for your opinion. I appreciate it. I agree somewhat, but wishing someone happiness is NOT love. Sorry. I dont know, maybe im heartless, but i still dont see a valid argument. I agree that the media has bastardsized love. Its everywhere and everyone wants to be in it. Your not born with love, you learn it.:confused: :confused:

Is everybody so overly concerned with pointing out what love is NOT in their opinion??? Are you afraid of saying what it actually IS, or do you just don´t know? :confused:

Try your best to explain what it IS, without telling what it is not, and you will be much, much closer to the truth.

Love is, not...not.

:)

there is no one definition because it is different for everyone. but for me i love something or someone if i can not even be around that person or thing and it makes me smile when i am all alone just by thinking of it or them.

I agree many people confuse enfatuation and love, that is why the divorce rate sores.
For true love to develop between people they need to spend a little more then a few weeks together, it can take years even decades to truly love someone you must be able to take all that persons good points and bad points for what they are, you must be able to look through outer apperences, true love is blind.
I belive when you fall truly in love then your not in love with that person rather in love with that person soul, to make a bond as strong as that takes more time then people are willing to give and yes some people are just not compatable.

It's not wishing someone happiness. It's desiring only the Good for them.

Bebe: I am explaining what love is. But any definition requires exclusions as well as inclusions :)

khjavy: You've touched on one of my own pet peeves. I'll agree that the experience of love changes between people, the same as the experience of color, sound, smell, etc... but as I said before, the experience of an object is not valid way of defining something.



Anyway, I'm not belittling emotion, feeling or experiences of love. But when you talk definition, you have to get past all of that chaff to get to what you really are looking for.

Why are we having such a hard time defining and describing the nature of love? We are all human beings. Although none of us has ever seen love, many of us claim to have experienced love. Yet, we interpret love differently. Why can't we agree on what love is?

Does love really exist? Where is the proof? Is love real or have we simply been indoctrinated into believing that love exists?

Why do so many people have faith in the existence of love?

Is love, like, God*?

*Whoever/Whatever your Higher Power may be.

For all of our similarities, there are just as many if not more differences. Physically, emotionally, mentally, chemically, culturally, etc...

We are individuals.

As such we view and experience everything differently. This shouldn't be so hard to understand. And Love? Love is most certainly going to be defined in an infinite number of ways. How we love and who we love...what we love...why we love... It all varies.

What a boring world if we all defined things the same way.

Is there a law that says we have to ??

Do we want someone to define love and then have us all conform and accept this our own definition?


"Live and let live."

"Love and let love."

Love is gentle, love is kind, love is patient, love is passionate, it does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud, it is not rude, it, is not self-seeking. Love is not easily angered, it keeps no records of wrongs, it always forgives, it does not lie, does not steal and it does not kill.

If you truly love and want to be truly loved, these are the principles that must apply, and be strived for. Love is a perfect union of states of mind and emotion--more than a feeling, more than a thought--a state of being.
:)

I for one, would not be happy in a world where everyone defines things differently. I don't think that should be the case. I do agree that everyone *experiences* Love differently, but the underlying reality is generally diffrent from the overlying experience

... the underlying reality is... that everyone doesexperience love in their own individual way; thus, their definitions are personalized. There is evidence of that on this thread. Even what seems clearly erroneous to some, would never be dismissed as such by others. Doesn't mean we can't try to define it, but the chances of ever coming up with a universally accepted definition are preeeeettty slim.

I still agree with Riomacleod that love is not selflessness and that love is not 'completion.' But that's my view... (and part of his)

In the very simplest of terms, imo, Love is honouring and preserving what one values. The methods of honouring and preserving will vary. The reasons for valuing will vary. The degree of value will vary. I, for one, would not agree with most other methods, reasons, or degrees...

All the same...

Love is an idea. For each person, a blank canvas upon which he/she may explore their own creativity with the notion of just what love IS to them, as well as to the larger world.

~~~

Counterbalance

Diversified testimonial evidence not withstanding:

If one denies the existence of God* for lack of proof then how and why does that individual accept the existence of love? (If one does).

*Whoever/Whatever your Higher Power may be.

Originally posted by Counterbalance
....

I still agree with Riomacleod that love is not selflessness and that love is not 'completion.' But that's my view... (and part of his)

....

All right, then what about the only quote from, dare I say it, the Bible, that I remember...

"greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friend" or something to that effect.

Isn't that equating an ultimate sacrifice with love?

"For True Love to be, takes Two bodies and one soul"

I mentioned this before and Riomacled replied:
Love is not completion. The human soul is not halved. It is full, and complete.

Riomcled, the way you wrote it gives an understanding of a "Hater" rather than a "Lover". Always pointing out the negative aspects and faults of everyones cases towards their understanding of love, which inturn defies the very nature of its meaning.

I mentioned my Explaination due to something else that is encompassed with love. Passion and Romance, of course I'm sure you will try to twist these two words and there meanings into some demorilising state.

If you ask of me what I class as love, I would also mention two types. One that is expected of a mother for a child, that is maternal (Or two close family members with a platonic relationship) where no matter what you've done or what faults you have they are still there if you need them.

The other love is the one you mention of people marrying or becoming "Items". So they might encompass passion and take it along an near infactuating path, perhaps someone acts romantically or at least tries to keep something bonding between them.

I suppose you could say that love is like a candle burning in someways: A draft might extinguish it's flame putting it's fire out, or eventually the candle might burn all the way down to the point where there is no more wax or string to burn.

True love for me would be that of a latern that is fueled from a gas pipeline, that can't burnout through lack of material to burn, a draft won't extinguish it as the torch is eternal.

On another note Rioacled
Aristotle was never on crack, since crack is produced Chemically from Coca nd Coca originated from South America, which at his time of life wasn't even discovered and coca wasn't brought to Europe until the 16th Century AD by the Spanish (The world after his existance was still thought of as flat)

Although Aristotle was known to have been using Hemlock for it's "Properities" which tragically caused his premeture death through an overdose. (since Hemlock in quantity is a poison)

Stryderunknown:
If this were the simile board, or the metaphor board and not the General Philosophy board, I'd give it to you... unfortunately, saying love is like a lantern doesn't really get us to the core of what it really is. Certainly, it gives imagery, but there is still no definition. What makes love different from eternal hatred? Or jealousy? These are both long-lasting emotions which burn like a fire...

For those who aren't aware, the root of passion is To Suffer. I've been trying to avoid this part of the argument, because it gets messy, since English is about the sloppiest language there is.


"For True Love to be, takes Two bodies and one soul"

This is just wrong. First of all, bodies are not required to love. Second of all, it requires two SOULS. Human beings are WHOLE beings. We're not split mysteriously. We are not half-entities. We must strive to fine a person who complements us. Not the person who we must find to become a whole being. That's an ugly codependant road.


CB: I agree with you, but my mind isn't swayed. I think you're taking too light of a view of definition, although your most recent is a definition that I could live with as a "common ground" of sorts-even if it is a bit situational.


Stryderunknown:
Ok, and if you want to get bitchy about an offhand remark, South America WAS discovered in Aristotle's time, there IS evidence of trade between anchient egypt and south america. I was just making a simple statement that I don't agree with Aristotle almost categorically-I'm a platonic, go figure. SECOND of all, the greeks had calculated the circumference of the earth within like a percent BEFORE aristotle. Columbus knew about this, knew the circumference and wasn't surprised in finding land because according to the greatly exaggerated distance to East Indies that the portugeese had given-to discourage another nation from setting up an eastern route to the area. So, before you go spouting your mouth off, read a book.

Riomacleod

Let me point something out to you about my mentioning of Aristotle, It wasn't meant as a personal attack at you, So you can as HAL would say "Take a chill pill".

You are right that Mexico (Atlantis) was known by the ancient world and was traded with, but not in the way you percieve. It's almost as if the people that made it there got there by accident.

As for the information I know, it did come from books, and a whole host of other sources, so it's not like I was just outputting it from some flight of fiction.

Anyway I hope that clears that up and we can continue the discussion with some diplomacy without resorting to name calling ;)

I meantioned the Candle because it is a metaphorical and possibly old philosophical method of stating my meaning.

In simple terms Love can eventually burn out and thats why people leave, sometimes someone does something that acts like a draft and extinguishes the flame. (namely sleeping with someone else)

As for my explaination of an eternal flame, that is what love is, as mentioned before true love is unconditional, eternal and felt soulfully.

As for the definition of true love I put forwards, I don't mean two bodies entwined between silken sheets, I mean two bodies (A man and a woman, but due to recent gay rights protests it has to be omnifarious in statement)

Admittedly my explaination is based on a classical representation of love, from ancient Greece. Things would be far different then as True love was how I defined it with the meaning that a man and a woman that felt a mixture of emotions coelsce between them would become an "Item" and they would see themselves as only half-souls while they "existed" through life single.

Of course that has changed through evolution and Society, But it doesn't mean that the explaination is any less a reality.

What it also was meant to explain was that for true love to be takes two people that love one another, not a lier and a hater.

Theres one more saying that I'm sure your going to hate, but that is not the reason I mention it.
Love conquers all!

It's meaning is that of the love of music soothing a savage beast, but love conquering that of negative emotions and factors.
If you live your life with negative thoughts of a person, and react like they are true, then that person will one day NOT disapoint you, because they might find that your overwhelming negativity too much to conquer with just love.

If you still disagree... No problem, I shall stick to my views and understanding no matter how deep they are, and you to your own. Afterall, love is not war :D

The Aristotle on crack thing was just an offhand joke. I felt the need to respond since the information you put up was in some places incomplete and in others just wrong.


My point is that you can love things without bodies. I can love my country, and I can love God... two examples of bodiless entities. I can love Beauty and hate its absence. I'm not even sure that love has to be reciprocated for it to be love. In my definition it doesn't.


And yes, I'm still going to disagree with you until you put down the metaphors.

LOVE IS A BALANCE BETWEEN YOURSELF AND EVERYTHING ELSE. WHEN SOMETHING IS AROUND YOU, WHETHER HUMAN OR AND INANIMATE OBJECT, ITS ENERGY CAN BE FELT. WITH THIS ENERGY A SORT OF BALANCE IS ACHIEVED BY BOTH OF THESE ENERGY WAVES, IF YOU WILL, FORMING ONE NEUTRAL WAVE. THIS NEUTRAL WAVE BOUNCES OFF AND COLLIDES (peacefully speaking) WITH EVERYTHING ELSE TO ACHIEVE A CERTAIN HARMONY...LOVE.;)

It's the phenomerones! Yours and hers attract--that's the initial stage--then your brains start producing certain chemicals designed to make each party addicted to each other for the natural act of copulation, birth and rearing of offspring (what an unendearing word). As time goes by less of the love potion is produced and each party begins to see the other for what they really are. If they're lucky and sensible they work with each other, compromising and cultivating the relationship with or without strong binding force of unendearing word. Continuation of this careful cultivation and plenty of sex make the brain ejaculate more of the love juice making the parties more and more addicted. Of course many outside elements play a role in the relationship, cultural, familyal, financial, personal interests and ambitions and more, each thing can help to make or break a love bond. Eventually, if they stay together and 'in love' each person becomes a crutch for the other, unwilling to give up the fix of familiarity, intimacy and support. Such is true love btween the sexes.

Love of things.. the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that 'love' of anything is just a chemical thing in the brain. A mind-body reaction, mind pleasure drops to suit the occassion or the object--the sunset, the ocean, the craps table, the Gibson in the showroom, kicking the cat--all based on the individuals psyche, intelligence, emotional level and culture. Your meat might be some ones poison but only you know how surely sweet it tastes. The mind doles out its own custom made designer drugs, the pharmacist toiling away back there in the neurals making all the decisions--you vill enjoy zis-you vill not enjoy zis--but who wrote the prescription? Your genes firstly and most foremostly, then your environment, your peers, your culture.. your experiences of life. Perception=Reaction. But perception itself is so subjective and changes with your mood--chemical changes-shifts in perception-chemical imbalances-mood swings-chemicals, drugs, we are walking drug factories. We got so much home-grown dope in our heads that if it were possible, we would be illegal.
I just love all this philosophy shit oops! Shooting up again ts ts, I should be banned.

So love is boiled down to a biochemical reaction designed to propagate the species?

Does this mean that Love is also experienced by other animals in the animal kingdom? If so, how do they express their love?

As another, separate question to everyone, what are the acceptable expressions of Love or is there any limit to an expression of Love?

No, No, but they do emote.
Yes, there is a limit to the expression of Love. There is the logical limit to which if you only desire the good for your love, then you will not express your love in destructive ways-that is, Love can only be expressed in terms of The Good, and any action that is contrary to the Good is contrary to Love. Another expression of Love is beautiful creation. That is, a child, a well-ordered society,
On the other hand, there're many expressions of affection. What those are, and what are acceptable is more of a style/cultural sort of thing, and is (generally speaking) value neutral.

Perception=Reaction

Certainly, when we talk about reflexes, this is the case. I hope you mean Perception -> Reaction, and not that the two are actually equal in some way. The true path would be Perception -> Imagination -> Cognition -> Rationalization -> Transmission -> Reaction. Of course, with too many people the path is Perception -> Imagination -> Reaction... with MAYBE cognition thrown in. That is the general path which animals follow as well, basic and medium patern recognition, emotional response and immersion, basically all of the traits of the bestial appetitive soul.

tablariddim, it cannot be only the way you provide because, as I argue before, I love my mother, and my father, and my sister, but have not once had the urge to have sex with any of them. What you mention is more like what happens with beasts in terms of reproduction, because they do not have the same rationality that men do.

"Love is an idea. For each person, a blank canvas upon which he/she may explore their own creativity with the notion of just what love IS to them, as well as to the larger world."
I like that answer........alot.:p

Love has no one definition nor can it be described by one single person..Foreveryone it has a different meaning.

I believe ..We can not buy love because it is a gift given freely. When we are truely embraced in love we know it is because others truely care for us. We are secure because we know others cherish us for who we are.

Love is a feeling of calm, though not passionless, it not need be passionate. Though intimate, it does not need to be always an explicit communication between two people. Each is possed by the other, yet neither is consumed.

A lovers individuality and freedom can be enhanced by the expanison of the spirit that the beloved brings. The sound of the others breathe is indisitnguishable from our own. Hearts beat in unison and spirits join facing the world now not as two but as one.

Love is not jealous, it is not snobbish, Love is never rude..nor is it prone to anger

Love rejoices with the truth not with what is wrong. Love's Forbearance has no boundaries.

Love has a power to endure..and to give pain

Yet with everything love comes with, I know no one would ever give up their chance to have loved someone or to have been loved..

My definition of love is that it is the opposite of apathy. Love is a strong feeling, while apathy is indifference toward another person.

Jpaul:
Hate is a pretty strong feeling. I think that we all agree that sexual attraction can be a *very* strong feeling. Jealousy can be a very strong feeling too. I think that we'd all agree that love isn't any of these things.

Magenta:
That's very poetic, thank you. However, I don't think that it really gets to the underlying reality that Love is. A duck has white feathers, two orange feet, a orange bill, and go squak. But so does a goose. Even still, we could list every physical property of a duck, to distinguish it from every other thing, but we still wouldn't be anywhere near getting to the underlying reality of the duck.

Ahhh... we're still defining "Love!"

~~~

tablariddim...

You ain't kiddin' about those pheromones! Chemistry of various kinds can play a huge role in what attracts people, and in what keeps them in a relationship. In that sense I'd agree that it can enhance or detract from the experience of Love, or in the actual initiation of a "love experience," though chemistry, in this sense, generally applies only to romantic/physical love.

Don't know that I, personally, could ever fully equate "attraction" with Love, but there are people who do. They swear by it. And if the chemistry should fail, or a "tolerance" be built up over time, then the once convinced person is often prone to believe they've fallen out of Love.

Some might call this a "Frenchman's" kind of love.

(It has it merits. ;) )

~~~

SeekerOfTruth and blonde_cupid...

You've both brought up "Love" as it's defined in many bibles.

To some, yes, these concepts are definitive; totally acceptable. For those who don't accept that a god or gods exist, such assertions hold no water, and I doubt that all 'believers' would claim that Love cannot be encountered, experienced, or understood unless it's viewed/defined in these narrow and vague ways.

As for sacrifices, one definition of a sacrifice is: "Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one thought to have a greater value or claim." And I'd go ahead and say that if pressed for it, this would typically be what most people would offer up as an accurate definition.

For myself, Love does not equal a sacrifice. I see sacrifices as being harmful to both or all parties (or even "things") involved. However, with a few types of people, we might say that a sacrifice is only potentially harmful because people themselves have potential. People can learn and grow.

A "sacrifice" made because there is enough evidence that the other person will grow and learn--as with our children--is not actually a sacrifice unless the child has given blatant evidence that they truly don't deserve such. It requires us to be very tuned in to the person; to really know what they and/or we are about; to be honest and realistic. Part of what makes parenting such a challenge. Sometimes our offspring simply don't value the same ideas or things that we do, and some never never change their minds even after grown. This may be a bitter pill for a parent to swallow, but if they delude themselves and continue to make "sacrifices" in the name of Love... or a love... that are clearly not valued by the child, then this is not a win-win situation. It can, in fact, be very harmful.

There are numerous scenarios that can be used to explain this kind of view of (or objection to) making sacrifices. Not all will agree or understand what I'm saying here. No problem.

And the same or similar is true with other relationships. And even when we consider non-human or intangibles. Think of the environmental debates--the pros and cons of saving this species or that. "Sacrifices" are made for ideas, ideals, beliefs because of one's conclusion that they love/value a said 'thing.' Those who do reason that their act was a sacrifice might be better off to step back and review their reasoning. Those who claim their act was in no way a sacrifice, may or may not need to do the same. We always need to be aware of what we do and why when a potential sacrifice is involved. "Love is blind" some might argue. "Unconditional love" is true love, others might insist. But such platitudes are improper in my view.

"Love" is goooooood pure stuff in my book. And as Love pertains to relationships, I think it appropriate that "conditions" be applied to my sharing or offering it.

Sorta in the way Riomacleod described it, I will wish "the good" for others, including many strangers. But in the end, my idea of love is one of a discriminating Love. What I have to share in the way of Love is extremely valuable.


~~~


It's meaning is that of the love of music soothing a savage beast, but love conquering that of negative emotions and factors. If you live your life with negative thoughts of a person, and react like they are true, then that person will one day NOT disapoint you, because they might find that your overwhelming negativity too much to conquer with just love.


Hiya Stryder!

I think you've brought up something essential here.

It could be that when a person exudes "overwhelming negativity" that they are actually exhibiting a lack of self-love. By inflicting this negativity on others, especially a child, they are in a variety of ways teaching that child (or the victimized party) to undervalue themselves as well. Bad stuff, imo.

I think it's critical that we love ourselves, and I also think this will be the most individualized Love experience of all. Still, how we value ourselves (or don't) will affect our abilities to not only love anything or anyone else, but our ability to comprehend the multiple meanings of this thing we're calling .... Love.

~~~

Okay, so some will disagree with the above, but that's expected.

~Wishing you all good things~

Counterbalance

Guess I'm going to have to stick my 2¢ in.

Love is meeting someone whose chemical signals make you feel
good. Usually, it's a person of the opposite sex.

<a href=http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/01/010725.chemosignals.shtml><font color=red>Chemical Signals</font></a>

And could explain why the 'loved one' is the most beautiful person in the world ... ;)

PS Another link to a review of a book which might be of interest in this area:

<a href=http://www-news.uchicago.edu/citations/01/011118.emotions.html><font color=red>Upheavals of Thought</font></a>

Love is the antithesis of reason.

(But what if one is in love with reason?)

You pose a wonderful question! Alot people express their version of feeling"love" by expressing it with words. We are a socitey that thrives on verbal communication. But I believe humans have come out of their shell and given and or made up their own version. Some say love is expressed through lovemaking, it being the physical side of love. Well to balance that we allow our emotions to close that circle. Nowadays, love is being separated by how a man feels and interpets love and how a woman does. Love cannot be put on a gender or a specific thing, such as another person or animal. How is one to identify love when love has not reached them? So we use our intuition to guide us. I thought I knew the definition of love when I was 18. Yeah I was so wrong. Intead I tried to justify actions that could fall into that "love"category. I discovered that I didn't even know who I was and had no clue that love was this complicated. Then I learned that love is not as complicated and actually truly simple. To love is to want, need and know yourself. As a married woman now, I finally found the secret to love. Here it is: There isnt one. Love is a feeling in your heart and in your mind, not a "thing". It guides you, protects you and allows you to make decisions that will either make you misreable, or simply allow you to relax and enjoy your life. There are alot of people in this world that feel love is highly overated. These kind of people do not allow love to come to them and rescue them from the depths of their misery. It is almost the feeling of winning the lottery: if you choose the cash payout or the yearly check. Frankly, I would rather stretch that love out than have it surround me when I am not ready. Please feel free to contact me anytime!! Michelle poet221877@hotmail.com

"I have seen the word "Love" used a great deal in my life and I was wondering what everyone's definition of "Love" is?

To start, here is my definition:

To care about a person (or persons) more than you care about yourself.

I feel this way about my children, parents, and significant other. I care more for them than I do myself and therefor I sacrifice things for myself in order to provide for them.

How about the rest of you? What is your definition of Love?"

I believe your definition is correct and encompasses love, but it is also limited and leaves out something which doesn't seem to have been mentioned-that love exists in a plurality of different forms rather than as a single, definable thing. I'm going to base what I'm going to argue heavily on the philosopher Mortimer Adler's essay "Love" under 'The Great Ideas: A Syntopicon-Volume 1' by Britannica.

The ancients identified three main types of love, for which they used the words 'eros' (sexual love), 'philia' (love of friendship) and 'agape' (charitable love). Sexual love is basically the love one feels when experiencing sexual desires for someone (i.e. wishing to have a physical union with them). The love of friendship is the 'altruistic' and unselfish love one feels for a beloved friend, which doesn't necessarily include sexual love, and charitable love is basically love based on pure acts of charity and giving, with no selfish end desired. In addition to these three kinds of love, we can add what theologians might call 'Love of God.' Love of worldly things and material posessions can also be included, but usually this sort of 'love' is based more on desire to posess rather than a desire for union.

In addition to these four kinds, the findings of modern evolutionary biology seem to indicate many forms of 'love', be it for family, kin, a friend, or even an entire community-have their basis in genetics (i.e. the survival and reproduction of one's genes). Whilst I believe genes and biochemistry are not all there is to love, they do offer powerful insights into the question.

In my view, the four kinds of love identified by Adler seem to cover what I've seen (and to some extent, experienced) as love. In romantic relationships, it seems to me that 'love' is physical, emotional, (and in many relationships) also at a spiritual level. In familial and kin relationships, it seems love is also emotional, spiritual and physical, with a large amount of friend-like altruism thrown in. Friendships and love of God, however, may not necessarily be physical in nature but can still involve very strong feelings of love nevertheless.

So is love an object, an emotion, an idea, a social act, a belief, or just biochemistry in action? I think love occurs in so many diverse ways in forms love can be considered (though perhaps metaphorically, especially if we call love an 'object') as each of these things. Love clearly engages the purely physical, i.e. sexual arousal, floushing skin, beating heart, etc, but it also engages the mind (feelings of union, peace, strife, emptiness, etc that make such great poetry) and the soul (the desire to transcend, to join with something greater than oneself, what some might call God). Love is obviously beautiful but also terrifyingly powerful and risky; it seems though, that as one poet supposedly put it, 'It is better to have loved and lost, than never loved at all.'

love is, quite simply.....


"The ACTIVE care and concern for anothers well-being.
The person you choose to love is chosen in accordinance with your deepest convictions and values."

You love someone you value.. and your values are up to you.

it has nothing to do with spirit, or any form of mysticism.

it has to do with values, values that you yourself have chosen(or have had inflicted upon you forcefully)

however, there is a profound difference between:

Love, Sex, friendship,


write that down, and dont forget it.

chemical signals have nothing to do with your values.
chemical signals cause the sexual attraction, which in turn has nothing to do with love.


And... giving up your life for someone does not mean anything, other than the fact you are a self sacrificial moron who has been influenced by kant.

I think love is when you can not imagine life without the other person and you are both emotionally dependent on each other.

squashbuckler- what has kant got to do with it?

love is a feeling beyond words; it is complete security. . .

:eek:

The Word love is a misnomer.

what are the profound differences betwen friendship love and sex that you can so accurately keep them apart squashbuckler?

I agree with what you said re chemical signals, and i agree with what you said re values i guess too, although also more than values.


However i think people often go on a journey involving all three of friendship, love and sex and i think that is the best situation for marriage actually. I also think you can get to sex through love, rather than through initial chemoical signals as you get to know your friends.

So what are the profound differences?

…Love
Why that damn four-letter burden has been so popular for conversation lately, I don’t know, but it won’t leave me alone. I’ve asked about ten semi-significant people to define it…all answers different. I wonder if there is one way to say it, one way to limit something so rare, so astronomical, to a few single syllables in hopes that you won’t have to explain yourself if you accidentally regurgitate it on your lover’s shoes. Love, sex, marriage, birth, death, insanity, engagement, life…all letters, all random symbols that control us. I never let any of them bother me. I was the one that controlled the words; I was the author, the poet that articulated a person’s deepest feelings, and most forsaken thoughts into something that made sense. Now everything is so blurry, and these lines and circles are now controlling me.
The definition of Love?
Some say it’s elderly couples that still warm each other after 50, long, cold years…some say its something that you cannot live without…others say it merely an addiction, and that you might as well do heroine instead of finding a person…at least the drugs will be there in the end.
Then I sit. And look at this paper, wondering why I’m even contemplating this, and then I question myself-something that I never do.
If love is an addiction, one that you cannot detoxify yourself from, even in old age, then why, every time it is brought up, a certain boy’s name is tacked to the end of the sentence? When I began questioning myself, did others follow?
“Are you in love with him?”
The definition of Love?

…Damn

hello!
I think love is a strong desire or affection for someone who you care for for any reason. And it has different levels. A mother`s love toward her child is different from the one between two lovers. People who believe in God, love Him differently.
But the core of all these is knowledge. The more you know the subject of your love, the better you try to love him/her.
And I do believe it is a divine gift. If you have it, you have it and if you are not gifted with it, you must try to obtain it. It is not something that you can get it without. It is within. You shoudl try to discover it and breed it, like what you do with flowers and greens.
And one important thing: love does not expect but it is a matter of giving without expecting any thing in return.
Mowlavi, the Iranian great poet has something like this:
out of love, the sour becomemes sweet...
out of love, the thorns become flowers...
out of love, the dead becomes alive...
and all these arises from knowledge.... with love and thanks
:)

I thought I knew what love Was, but what love is another matter. I know what love can do from examples..
Love is a healer, it can make Rainy Days happy ones.
It can Cure the common cold, Fill the empty Stomach, put life back into Sad eyes,
.. Love is a surgeon... it can skillfully remove the Heart, cutting it cleanly from its cavity, no marks, no Blood, yet the scars are etched deeply,
..Love is elusive.. where it goes when its gone, or where it comes from is generally unknown universally, there is a either a lack of, or an abundance of.
..Love is uncontrollable.. Running rampant is many directions, sidestepping those who want it, chasing those who do not.
..Love is undeniable..it can create a hunger for more, Denying the body and Spirit the essentials of existance..
..Love is a master..It can rule a home and fill it with treasures, make it shine with new paint and Laughter.
..Love is Destructive... Lack of it can lay waste to a home, exposing the Barren walls where pictures hung, No longer a home, leaving ghostly patterns of the past.
..Love is Sad.. Leaving Echos of footprints and Laughter, only tears to control the Dust.
..Love is for fools..People pray, dream and chase for it, die for it, die with it, die without it, trading pride for humiliation.
..Love is confusing.. often giving without recieving, recieving and unable to return it, loving one who loves another, who loves another, who loves yet another, a Vicious circle of pent up feelings.

...Love Sucks and blows, fast and slow,
...From simmering embers to active Volcanos..
...Ask anyone in control to define love,
...My answer is ..Heck if I know!
...My advice is take a pill and chill,
...step away from the body a while..
...Attempting to resolve with much ration,
...Often brings a shrug and a smile..
...

Hi Slim.
That was fantastic and poetic and had a lot of truth in it. That very well describes romantic love. It makes me feel like being like that again- i know it is mad if that description is true, but there is nevertheless something very enchanting just about being in love, dont you think?

(I think there is also a quieter kind of love than that that is also possible beteen a man and woman. i suspect that is what is behind many lasting happy marriages.)

"That was fantastic and poetic and had a lot of truth in it. That very well describes romantic love. It makes me feel like being like that again- i know it is mad if that description is true, but there is nevertheless something very enchanting just about being in love, dont you think?"

...Thanks for the compliment ele...It has been years since I felt it, but I remember, and it brings a flood of Desire.. For all those reasons I no longer pursue Love. Rejection is the opposite of love and it hurts like Hell.. like getting the Heart broken without hope of reward. I do not put mine out like that. The love inside me waits patiently now, no longer erratic, waiting for an Angel to step from the darkness with her light. The look in the eyes of longing, little signs of a flame, small gestures between us should show, Then its time to Give Love again..Between the two of us I think it will light the entire universe.

yes, yes, they also say "love, it is a river". Either way, these definitions are so mired in Easternism that you're not really defining what it is, you're just trying to make pretty poetry that people hope can fool others into thinking that it's deep.

..Love is undeniable..it can create a hunger for more, Denying the body and Spirit the essentials of existance..

Sorry, not Love. Passion and lust perhaps. Love is the ultimate affirmation of body and Spirit and is the essential of their existance.

.. Love is a surgeon... it can skillfully remove the Heart, cutting it cleanly from its cavity, no marks, no Blood, yet the scars are etched deeply,

Again, passion... you all DO know that there is a difference, right? Agapic versus Erotic love? I'd assume that people interested in the subject would have at least heard of the difference.

It has been years since I felt it, but I remember, and it brings a flood of Desire.. For all those reasons I no longer pursue Love.

Well, you're not persuing what you think is Love, which is good, because you were persuing passion. Perhaps now you will be able to step back from your search to find something that is actually existant, rather than something that is a finite mode of a finite mode (namely desire and emotional need).

(I think there is also a quieter kind of love than that that is also possible beteen a man and woman. i suspect that is what is behind many lasting happy marriages.)

Yes, it's called Love, and those are the people who understand that there is a significant difference between Love and between sexual/emotional need/desire.

A better example for people who seem to desparately need analogy.

Love:Lust::Beauty:Pretty.

I'll explain that better if people need to be shown the difference.

........"Slim Shrugs and Smiles"......




Ok.... I'm gonna sit over here>>>> by this tree and learn something....maybe...


life without Passion is not living, and loving without Passion is not life. Sexual Passion is Different from Passion for Others.. I'm not Confused..

I'm not waiting patiently for an Easy Lay, Love to me is Trust beyond compare, a feeling of being one, knowing that one will always be there.. My gift of Love is not sold, to be bought by the highest bid, Its an offer of my Love to Hold, Its a Feeling I WANT to Give..

Love should only be considered a naturally evolved trait like any other and nothing more.
Giving its definition as "what it feels like inside you" is displaying your animalistic simplicity as an organism.
Like sex is fun sure, but we all know its just the mechanism of reproduction, the "fun" we feel is just natures way of making us do it.
In the same sense, the feelings love give us are irrelevent, what it truely is in reality is a trait that evoled to bring greater success to the species that experience it. Mammals and birds started "loving" their children, this gave their children greater success rates and allowed for mammals and birds in general to become more complex. Later animals started evolving to the point where sex partners would love eachother and this brought even greater success so love has been evolving to feel stronger and stronger over generations for all the species that aquired it.
In the human species(and probably others like elephants and cetaceans) it has become so powerful that the individuals assume it must be some magical force, beyond the natural world and of some divine mystical origin. This of course is false and only proves our ignorance and underestimation of the capabilities of evolution and natural selection.

Also when you realise this it is alot easier to control it's "power". Reality checks are the best medicine for a broken heart;)

I think Slim is saying he is waiting until love comes to him now and has in the past done the being in love thing. he doesn't see a point in persuing love. I think the comments putting down what he said and also assuming i did not know what i was talking about when i said happily married love is quieter and described it
were out of place and not quite understanding what had gone before.

Rio, there is also no harm talking about passionate love, which can and does exist. Passion doesn't exclude love even if it involves sex. A passion for a person is more than sexual. It is also more than just attraction and does move into the areas bordering love. Especially i think, if unrealised and non-sexually fulfilled. being in love , when you are always thinking about the other persona dn wantingt o be with them and are pleased to see them and talk to them is significant surely, even if it is only becaus eof the dominance by another person of your life thoughts and feelings.

.. Doc!.. Thaat.... ThaTs some Cold observations Dude!... Gezz!...


Love to me is The Kindred Spirit I need, a certain Face and Scent, to have the one very near me that I Trust Wholely, ONE I view as a work of art, poetry in motion, the movements of walking, talking, the way she stands, movement of hands, music of voice, The Hair in the wind, the soft lipps that speak, the eyes that Speak also, looking for me, the warmth of the familiar body, the look of peaceful beauty in sleep, and in times that we must part, I long to just hear her speak.. simply knowing that I am wanted, needed, accepted with my flaws, as I also accept hers, and allowed to give infinately all, without reserve.. I Suppose that sounds a little Foolish......

Beauty is in the eyes of the Beholder, and I'd rather Beholding one for two as one..

Ah... Well.. that was fun...Maybe I am a little confused...

"and I'd rather Beholding one for two as one.."
What does that mean?

"Beholding one for two as one"

I want only one lady and wish the two of us can become one As a team, as one against trouble, as one in Happiness, as one for each other.. to be complete.

The Power of Two Spirits working together in Unison, can be awesome.. I Believe all things are possible at some point in time. To have ones own Cheering Section in a mate, one who relates without words, who can speak wisely for you in your absence, who knows what makes you tick.. I think it can happen, if not in this life, maybe another one. I don't need or want just a SpaceFiller......I'll wait for the one..

Aww..Heck...
Heres a Poem I wrote for one in absentia... maybe it fits, dunno.

This Rose

A fresh new Rose, Just picked from the Best,
I give it to you, I've accepted the Quest..
To Love you and Keep you, til Death do us part,
I give you my Love, I give you my Heart..
With a strong Hand to Hold and a shoulder to stay.
I give you my Life and I'll Love you always..
Its a Delicate thing now, the soft petals that glow,
take hold of it Gently, watch after this Rose..

Originally posted by ele
Rio, there is also no harm talking about passionate love, which can and does exist. Passion doesn't exclude love even if it involves sex. A passion for a person is more than sexual. It is also more than just attraction and does move into the areas bordering love. Especially i think, if unrealised and non-sexually fulfilled. being in love , when you are always thinking about the other persona dn wantingt o be with them and are pleased to see them and talk to them is significant surely, even if it is only becaus eof the dominance by another person of your life thoughts and feelings.

And you don't, in any way, see that as a problem? If your life is being dominated (your words) by feelings for another person? That is pretty much the definition of Passion.

Remember that it has only been recently (ie Romanticist Poets) that passion has meant anything other than what I find at dictionary.com:

1. A suffering or enduring of imposed or inflicted pain; any suffering or distress (as, a cardiac passion); specifically, the suffering of Christ between the time of the last supper and his death, esp. in the garden upon the cross.

Obviously this pain is not physical, but emotional. Times when you feel empty without that person, that you need that person with you, that you can't bear life to go on a moment longer without that person is all full of emotional anguish, that we misclassify and call Love because people don't know any better anymore (actually ever since the Romanticism movement in art and literature).

life without Passion is not living, and loving without Passion is not life. Sexual Passion is Different from Passion for Others.. I'm not Confused..

I Suppose that sounds a little Foolish.. lol.. ok, EVEN if she can't speak or walk...as long as she has ..um...tits.... and loves me.

Er... I think you may want to re-read this post in about 3 years and see where you are in your emotional development then.

Well Rio.. I suppose you are correct in your way and I in mine.. I'm an American in Texas and I'm .. uhh.. in my Prime? I'm 50 years old and have been married more than one time.. I look back on when I was 10, 20, 30, 40 years old and In my Heart I still feel the same. I still have a passion for life and people I love.. dedication! Even though I have most likely failed many times, I am still in Love with Love and I have many Passions.. I am now much more mature with it, about it and for it.

..My Idea of Passion without reading from a book is that it means dedication.. like Being Passionate about my work, my Art, My Home, my Duties as a Single Father. Passion can be strong and has inner bearings on the spirit.
Being Lackluster or nonchalant about certain things that matter, is a lack of passion for it. Like taking the Long way to work, or home for that matter.. If the Heart is not there, you shouldn't be either.

Christ suffered in passion during that time, not because he feared Death, But because he knew his fate and he knew one of his Disciples would sell him out, and one would deny him. He pained for the children and things yet to be done.. he knew his quest would not be completed and Faith in him would have to serve as an Icon. He was passionate about life after Death and wanted to His people to know that the pain of crusifiction would pass and his rewards were soon, he did not want ot fail.. his dedication was Great. I think there is also a Play about that time in Christs life entitled the same. passion is a Great feeling in the Heart.. ...Lust on the other hand, is about feelings of desire and may have more Primal instincts to drive it.

..Without trying to sound crude... Making love to someone is a world away from simply getting Laid.. It is an Art in itself, an Action that Requires giving yourself over to someone you CARE about.. Their fufillment is uppermost and every action must add to the Creation and Elation through proper timing, attention and Technique .. Like fingertips lightly tracing the outline of the Nipple, or the soft lower parts of the belly, the nape of the neck, or nibbling the lobe of the ear, lightly working your lips to theirs for a play of the tongue, not lingering too long away from all other sensitive areas of the body and spirit you Passionately Join, light kisses placed carefully yet recklessly in a teasing, touching dance, not like a fiddle but more like a fine Violin, the Musician makes music that touches the deep senses of places yet discovered...till rockets blast off, bells and whistles sound and the dizzy feeling takes control, and you want not the end, but the duration of the feeling..like a rollercoaster changes ways unexpectedly, or the feeling of fast acceleration, Making Love is expectant of yet to be, a Drug but without a hangover is a continued, controlled elation. and its free... Knowing there more from where that came from creates passion.. and yeahh... uh..lust...Ok..I'll give you that one.

...Then ya have a cigg and ask, "Was it Good for you Too?" if she cooks a BIG Breakfast and feeds you vitamins, bathes you in the shower or tub, maybe fluffs the pillows you lost off the bed.. but does not make it up yet, you did ok..

Rio, Maybe I Got it all Wrong and you are right....

I Do Hope I didn't offend anyone here, in my passion for the subject of Love, I was rendered Temporaily insane.. and flew into a fit of passion in a passionate display of lust, which I mistook for passion passionately.. I tend to get carried away sometimes, But I'm ok now..


passion
SYLLABICATION: pas·sion
PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: pshn KEY
NOUN: 1. A powerful emotion, such as love, joy, hatred, or anger.
2a. Ardent love. b. Strong sexual desire; lust. c. The object of such love or desire.
3a. Boundless enthusiasm: His skills as a player don't quite match his passion for the game. b. The object of such enthusiasm: Soccer is her passion.
4. An abandoned display of emotion, especially of anger: He's been known to fly into a passion without warning.

passion
SYLLABICATION: pas·sion
PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: pshn KEY
NOUN: 1. A powerful emotion, such as love, joy, hatred, or anger.
2a. Ardent love. b. Strong sexual desire; lust. c. The object of such love or desire.
3a. Boundless enthusiasm: His skills as a player don't quite match his passion for the game. b. The object of such enthusiasm: Soccer is her passion.
4. An abandoned display of emotion, especially of anger: He's been known to fly into a passion without warning.

Right, but that's only been the usage since the mid 19th century, and I think you can trace the debasement of several of the Platonic Ideals to just about that time and the deliberate attack on them by the Romanticism movement (as a denial of the Classical movement).

i'm not offended slim. i related to most of your post. i agree with it. Well this part anyway:

"I still have a passion for life and people I love.. dedication! Even though I have most likely failed many times, I am still in Love with Love and I have many Passions.. I am now much more mature with it, about it and for it. "

Yes, re dedication to worthwhile ideals and acting on them, and yes re the being in love with love. it is nice to be human and be capable of feelingt hese feelings.

"..My Idea of Passion without reading from a book is that it means dedication.. like Being Passionate about my work, my Art, My Home, my Duties as a Single Father. Passion can be strong and has inner bearings on the spirit.
Being Lackluster or nonchalant about certain things that matter, is a lack of passion for it. Like taking the Long way to work, or home for that matter.. If the Heart is not there, you shouldn't be either."

I like that and pretty much agree with it.

"Christ suffered in passion during that time, not because he feared Death, But because he knew his fate and he knew one of his Disciples would sell him out, and one would deny him. He pained for the children and things yet to be done.. he knew his quest would not be completed and Faith in him would have to serve as an Icon. He was passionate about life after Death and wanted to His people to know that the pain of crusifiction would pass and his rewards were soon, he did not want ot fail.. his dedication was Great. I think there is also a Play about that time in Christs life entitled the same. passion is a Great feeling in the Heart.. ...Lust on the other hand, is about feelings of desire and may have more Primal instincts to drive it."

I am not religious, but i relate to what you say here too.

"..Without trying to sound crude... Making love to someone is a world away from simply getting Laid.. It is an Art in itself, an Action that Requires giving yourself over to someone you CARE about.. Their fufillment is uppermost and every action must add to the Creation and Elation through proper timing, attention and Technique .. Like fingertips lightly tracing the outline of the Nipple, or the soft lower parts of the belly, the nape of the neck, or nibbling the lobe of the ear, lightly working your lips to theirs for a play of the tongue, not lingering too long away from all other sensitive areas of the body and spirit you Passionately Join, light kisses placed carefully yet recklessly in a teasing, touching dance, not like a fiddle but more like a fine Violin, the Musician makes music that touches the deep senses of places yet discovered...till rockets blast off, bells and whistles sound and the dizzy feeling takes control, and you want not the end, but the duration of the feeling..like a rollercoaster changes ways unexpectedly, or the feeling of fast acceleration, Making Love is expectant of yet to be, a Drug but without a hangover is a continued, controlled elation. "

true. and it felt nice to read it too.

RioMacleod, i also would liek to say to you that I am happily married and have what i referred to as the quiet kind of love and do value it in reality a great deal. That does not mean i dont recall the feeling of being in love slim describes well and that i do not recall with fondness and a sense of ongoingess earlier relationships involving a deep and abiding passion for and involvement and entasnglement weitht he spirit and imagination and sexuality and soul of another person. that does not mean that I dont value it. I also experience the passion re sex related slim describes with my husband. I ahve been fithful nearly twenty years and expect to continue so.

Right, but that's only been the usage since the mid 19th century, and I think you can trace the debasement of several of the Platonic Ideals to just about that time and the deliberate attack on them by the Romanticism movement (as a denial of the Classical movement).


I'm Certain I think I can almost understand that, But it was before my time and me not knowing possibly lead to me debasing the Platonic Ideal and I'm almost Certain I do not Know any Romans and never meant to deny any Classics Their Bowel movements ..
...
Please accept my Humble Appologies..

Thanks for the Compliment ele... I look upon Passion and love as a stepping stone to Bliss, But Being Feverishly Passionate can lead to Confinement and unhappiness in some aspects. In the Case of Jealousy a feverously Passionate person can confine and destroy anothers Bliss .. I'm Not a jealous person toward My Romatic Intrest having outgrown the insecure stage long ago! Absolute trust is essentual in each others growth and leads to a deeper Love with apprechiation for the freedom to be an allowed individual. I cannot stand to be confined and not trusted, nor Do I thinks its fair to hobble my partners movements and any career achievements.. To be a successful team and have the contentment of one, I believe the inner growth of each other can directly lead success for Both. To be one in Spirit is possible from great distance I think!

ele, the quite kind of Love you speak of is the most Enduring type and also the most Peaceful if it is secure. In my above posts I wasn't touting a Frantic type of Love.. Those can be sressful and lead to great differences that can destroy what one seeks to protect, thus losing trust and eventually Killing a Beautiful Dream unintentional.. Once gone it is likely gone for good for one or the other. I detest harsh words in anger or aggravation that were not maybe not meant yet cannot be recalled. I think many people do not know what love is or how it should be cultured and fed to remain healthy after 50 years or so.. I've seen old couples that were still hopelessly dedicated and loving in their Eighties, and the secret it seemed was that they Always had kind words for each other equally and Total Respect was always shown in public.. One cannot fix or mend a faulty Trait of their Partner by disrespect and public embarressment. A caring Heart Should never be bruised and is Priceless beyond compare! I think the trick involes being acutely aware of the others wishes, wants and needs.. Many people try to rekindle a Flame of Love they thoughtlessly smothered with Selfish, petty paybacks and most always it was beyond repair yesterday, and it is sad that they realized too late. One Needs to count blessing everyday and say "I love you" often .. I can't ever imagine it would get old hearing it or be overdone. It gives the comfy feel.

ele: "true. and it felt nice to read it too."

.. lol.. that Cute! was it good for you too?
.. It felt good to Describe it.. I fear I'm getting rusty

..ele..Quote: I am not religious, but i relate to what you say here too.

My Granpaw was a Southern Methodist Preacher and I was Raised in Church, so I absorbed a Lot. I do Not attend anymore and do not concider myself Religious, Certainly Not a Nuroutic Bible thumper! I am very spiritual however and feel there is a higher power of intellegence and Spirit. The Bible itself is interesting in the History and accuracy of mankinds Perils. I feel the Ten Commandments are a good Guide as to How society can achieve realtive Peace if Followed even remotely.

.. Much of Religion in todays world has distorted the intent and content of Mankinds Duties leaving them far short of any Real Grace From God or the Power of all that is.. I want no part of the circus, yet there are Great wonders in the Heavens for Anyone to concider... I do Believe in UFOs and feel they may be the Angels of the Bible. I do not adhere to any strict policy other than my obligations to add Peace and Harmony to society whenever possible, and to live with as clean a Spirit in truth and mercy towards others and certainly do not covet anyones property for my own, including another mans Wife or other Precious Posessions.. I am Honest to a Fault with myself and others... Not liking the Heavy Heart that goes with Guilt of Dishonesty insisde myself. I Rather be poor than to live in a mental Hell of my own making.

Divine love is without cause, requires no action, is not give and take, Divine Love is the sharing of a joyous Heart.

A miserable soul has no love to share with anyone.


:eek:

Hi Slim. Just a quick hello. I am working today, and have kids to get ready etc, and dont have time to respond in detail at the moment, but will do so. I am enjoying how you are. :)

Hi Slim, I thought this deserved a response:

"Like fingertips lightly tracing the outline of the Nipple, or the soft lower parts of the belly, the nape of the neck, or nibbling the lobe of the ear, lightly working your lips to theirs for a play of the tongue, not lingering too long away from all other sensitive areas of the body and spirit you Passionately Join, light kisses placed carefully yet recklessly in a teasing, touching dance, not like a fiddle but more like a fine Violin, the Musician makes music that touches the deep senses of places yet discovered...till rockets blast off, bells and whistles sound and the dizzy feeling takes control, and you want not the end, but the duration of the feeling..like a rollercoaster changes ways unexpectedly, or the feeling of fast acceleration, Making Love is expectant of yet to be, a Drug but without a hangover is a continued, controlled elation. "

"Hands sliding up the chest, breasts pressing against the chest, hands caressing the breadth and strength of the shoulders, feeling the muscles of the arms, stroking the jawline. Hot. sweet, kisses on the lips, the neck, the chest, the stomach. Hands cariessing the thigh muscles. Licking , slowly, gently. Hovering, breathing. Hands beneath the buttocks, sucking, moving, breasts pressing, carressing, until the loved one loses control. "

Just the other side of the story. :)

Riomacloud:
Right, but that's only been the usage since the mid 19th century, and I think you can trace the debasement of several of the Platonic Ideals to just about that time and the deliberate attack on them by the Romanticism movement (as a denial of the Classical movement).

The idea of 'Platonic love' as propounded in the modern press has absolutely nothing to do with Plato.

Obviously this pain is not physical, but emotional. Times when you feel empty without that person, that you need that person with you, that you can't bear life to go on a moment longer without that person is all full of emotional anguish, that we misclassify and call Love because people don't know any better anymore (actually ever since the Romanticism movement in art and literature).

Oooh! You're read Heine and Goethe and Sacher-Masoch. Sweetness - romanticism is not studied enough.

Romanticism was a strange movement, a cure that became a sickness.

Yes, it's called Love, and those are the people who understand that there is a significant difference between Love and between sexual/emotional need/desire.

Damnit Rio, you make me grin by bringing up one of my favorite movements and now you're getting all judgemental.

Romantic love is caused by a temporary imbalence in the way our brains process dopamine and (perhaps serotonin? Nobody's quite sure yet). Unfortunately, the virulence of this emotional state causes people to get very, very silly about it.

Add the fact that most moderns have nothing to do but get silly over trivial things, and you have our current culture.

The Romantics did not place undue emphasis on love, though. Romanticism origionally focused on vitality and sensualism rather than decay (not to moralize focusing on decay) and Romanticism CERTAINLY is not responsible for the John Gray sort of tripe that is currently popular. To associate Romanticism with "being romantic" is to do a grave disservice to Romanticism.

slim and ele, this forum is dedicated to philosophy, not cybersex (unless you wish to discuss the philosophical implications of cybersex). If you wish to type such exchanges about "Hands cariessing the thigh muscles", please IM each other.

Besides, you almost made me puke. :)

"Thanks for the Compliment ele... I look upon Passion and love as a stepping stone to Bliss, But Being Feverishly Passionate can lead to Confinement and unhappiness in some aspects. In the Case of Jealousy a feverously Passionate person can confine and destroy anothers Bliss .. I'm Not a jealous person toward My Romatic Intrest having outgrown the insecure stage long ago! Absolute trust is essentual in each others growth and leads to a deeper Love with apprechiation for the freedom to be an allowed individual. I cannot stand to be confined and not trusted, nor Do I thinks its fair to hobble my partners movements and any career achievements.. To be a successful team and have the contentment of one, I believe the inner growth of each other can directly lead success for Both. To be one in Spirit is possible from great distance I think!"

I understand the theory and see what you mean, but I am by nature jealous. I think jealousy plays a role in bonding securely two people actually and at least for me, it is a part of any love relationship that i think is a natural one and should be accepted. I guess your comment about insecurity may apply to me, but i think fundamentally i am an insecure type person. My husband says i reminded him of that song, "Like a candle in the wind".
I did once have a boyfriend whom i did feel compelled to accept he may have other relationships, but this was because of his nature at the time. It seemed to be essential to his character and spirit, that i loved, that i didnt bind him. That was many years ago before I married. I agree sharing of spirit can be across great distances, and in a way i feel i still share the spirit of that earlier boyfriend and anyone whom i have loved, whether in a male-fmale sense or evn in a family sense, after relatives have died.

"ele, the quite kind of Love you speak of is the most Enduring type and also the most Peaceful if it is secure. In my above posts I wasn't touting a Frantic type of Love.. Those can be sressful and lead to great differences that can destroy what one seeks to protect, thus losing trust and eventually Killing a Beautiful Dream unintentional.. Once gone it is likely gone for good for one or the other. I detest harsh words in anger or aggravation that were not maybe not meant yet cannot be recalled."

I think if you love then much can be recalled and much can be foirgiven. I also hate anger and one of the early things in my relationship with my husband we established was that he frightened me when he was verbally aggressive and he started to do this much less. I think it was a good communication thing anyway for him and me as it meant we both got to talk about the issue rather than me being scared and upset and him being aggressive.

" I think the trick involes being acutely aware of the others wishes, wants and needs.. Many people try to rekindle a Flame of Love they thoughtlessly smothered with Selfish, petty paybacks and most always it was beyond repair yesterday, and it is sad that they realized too late. One Needs to count blessing everyday and say "I love you" often .. I can't ever imagine it would get old hearing it or be overdone. It gives the comfy feel. "

I agree that a relationship needs to be valued and difficulties worked through and an awareness of or at least a willingness to care about the other's needs are important.

Xev, the bit you objected to was just a response to the little bit slim put into his post describing how one responds with passion and how that relates to sex and how consideration of the other's needs and joy is important in true love. I am sorry if you found it offensive.

The Joy of love, is to be loved.......or love is a hypocrite emotion witch i hate with all my heart, yet, need it to survive in this world.....see what i mean......

Love can mend your life of love can break your heart-Sting

Originally posted by Xev
Riomacleod:
Damnit Rio, you make me grin by bringing up one of my favorite movements and now you're getting all judgemental.

Romantic love is caused by a temporary imbalence in the way our brains process dopamine and (perhaps serotonin? Nobody's quite sure yet). Unfortunately, the virulence of this emotional state causes people to get very, very silly about it.

If by judgemental you mean willing to discriminate between two obviously different phenomena, then paint me judgemental. I find it hard to believe that I'm the only one who sees the difference between the unhealthy deep down need for someone and the love that can develop between two people over time. Maybe I came on too strong about the nature of passionate love, and a little too negative, but if you look at your lover and the only thing you hear is 70's porno music, then you have a problem.

The Romantics did not place undue emphasis on love, though. Romanticism origionally focused on vitality and sensualism rather than decay (not to moralize focusing on decay) and Romanticism CERTAINLY is not responsible for the John Gray sort of tripe that is currently popular. To associate Romanticism with "being romantic" is to do a grave disservice to Romanticism.

I don't know who that is to, but if it's to me, I think you might want to skim my earlier posts again. Romanticism was focused on vitality and sensualism in a completely physical way. In fact, to such a degree that I'd imagine that a lot of Romantics would agree that there is nothing but the tangible. I mean, they're pretty obvious about the things they don't like (ie the theme of Frankenstein AND Dr Jekyll is the same. Science=bad.). If you want to read a suprisingly "good" (in the philosophical sense) book by a godawful writer, I'd suggest reading Bram Stoker's Dracula with your mind on this very topic. (in fact, if you're interested in an analysis of Vampirism as an example of Passionate love, I have a paper available. here (http://www.geocities.com/riomacleod/Vampirism.html)


slim and ele, this forum is dedicated to philosophy I second that.


I understand the theory and see what you mean, but I am by nature jealous. I think jealousy plays a role in bonding securely two people actually and at least for me, it is a part of any love relationship that i think is a natural one and should be accepted.

You think that mistrust is a natural part of a loving relationship? Jealousy bonds two people? ele, that is a good topic for quiet meditation some day in the future. How do you love someone you openly admit you don't trust?

Riomacloud:
I find it hard to believe that I'm the only one who sees the difference between the unhealthy deep down need for someone and the love that can develop between two people over time.

How do you judge "health" in a sick society?

As for "unhealthy deep down need", it is impossible to need another person. Need is a choice, freely undertaken.

I don't know who that is to, but if it's to me, I think you might want to skim my earlier posts again. Romanticism was focused on vitality and sensualism in a completely physical way.

Are you suggesting that there is something besides the physical universe?

In fact, to such a degree that I'd imagine that a lot of Romantics would agree that there is nothing but the tangible.

Nothing but the physical, yes, many would agree. However, the lure of the supernatural was strong for the Romantics.

I mean, they're pretty obvious about the things they don't like (ie the theme of Frankenstein AND Dr Jekyll is the same. Science=bad.).

Not precisely. First, you are looking at Romanticism in terms of Mary Shelley and Bram Stoker? (I'd class Stoker more with the Victorians) This seems a skewed sample. Try Blake, Coleridge, Goethe and Shelley.

Romanticism was focused on the regeneration of life in an age increasingly dominated by machines. To this end - passion, rather than bourgoise contentment. To this end, naturalism rather than the steady encroachment of machines and men onto the environment. To this end, the individual rather than the herd.

To your article, you seem to have only read 'Interview' and not the following books. (Correct me if I err)
Lestat is not as Louis initially portrays him. Louis, you must remember, is somewhat weak and very, very morally torn by his nature as a vampire. He often recriminates upon the most available object to blame - Lestat.

Nor do I think Ms. Rice's point is to uphold the vampire as a symbol of passionate life. Rather, her vampires are interesting more because they are not simply over-passionate humans.

How do you love someone you openly admit you don't trust?

You love someone you openly admit that you don't trust. It is that easy.

Society has become so hedonistic and so focused on its small pleasures that it would avoid any pain, no matter what the consequences of that avoidence entail.

slim and ele, this forum is dedicated to philosophy, not cybersex (unless you wish to discuss the philosophical implications of cybersex). If you wish to type such exchanges about "Hands cariessing the thigh muscles", please IM each other.

Well, Flipp me a fish! When I read that I was emotinally deterred for a couple of seconds, then I thought I should perhaps remind or postulate on the very same observations or "gist" of this Forum.
..I do not take offense to your "warning" or Advice" having been at this site for long enough to observe you, Xev, as a Highly complex and provocative person with a thought provoking attitude and outlook that is refreshing at times, peacefull and times and at others so Damn analytical it is horrifying to read and not have a Librairy on hand. I know you are the Mod on this thread, so you can Delete me, Bump me, or Kiss my ass, or do all three, I would hope that you kiss my ass first with the loving way ele describes, but that is highly unlikely. You are free to do as you wish!

.....OR, we can continue this thread with some very "Human" observations about the original posters intent .

...If you will note my Offending post that kicked this thread into its Quandrious state started with me Pre-Applogizing if It sounded crude, not wanting to look like a pervert or a lush, But the Thread needed Some "Very Human" input into a Very Human Subject, Which is... EVERYBODY's Definition of Love! The next post I made stated that I hoped I Hadn't offended anyone. I posted the Foreplay text One time only, not wanting to, or intending to hij-jack this thread and turn it into a "Cybersex" thread.

...ele, whom I think is very "Human", Sweet, and observative, ALSO has added, and IS still a member of Said Humans who, according to Rio is thinking Wrong? about a "Human" fallacy, again... according to Rio! ..ele has 20 years under her belt of living with the same husband, probably in and out of Love at times, and maybe knows MORE than You Me or Rio about ..."Her Definition of Love"

.... To Define what Love is, you "Should" first ask what Love Does and what leads to the illness and Sad state of Disrepair or repair..I think! Needless to say, "Humans" reponded with some very curious defensive and offensive posts and I think what we posted was appropriate, unless of Course you wish to stick your head in the sand and hinder the search for the answer to where "People" and love figure in in with oppressive and Smug and Unflexible Book-Descriptive Ideas (Rio) ..."Everybody's Definition of Love" is an inner sanctuary exclusive to them.. Yet the Joy, Pain, anger and flood of emotions it brings are universal.

My Question is.. Why Ask if you aren't willing to discover? Discovering entails a Balanced outlook and approach. Its not who is better edcucated or with a large array of books to research, OR who knows bigger Words!

Asking a question of a group of people from varying locations and family will bring several responses. If you ask something personal, I would think all would BE Prepared For a Personal Response. Moderating influx of That is akin to censorship.

I think it could open up a can of worms, or it could bring a more enlightend wisdom.

This is an Example of Off Topic....


Not precisely. First, you are looking at Romanticism in terms of Mary Shelley and Bram Stoker? (I'd class Stoker more with the Victorians) This seems a skewed sample. Try Blake, Coleridge, Goethe and Shelley.

Romanticism was focused on the regeneration of life in an age increasingly dominated by machines. To this end - passion, rather than bourgoise contentment. To this end, naturalism rather than the steady encroachment of machines and men onto the environment. To this end, the individual rather than the herd.

To your article, you seem to have only read 'Interview' and not the following books. (Correct me if I err)
Lestat is not as Louis initially portrays him. Louis, you must remember, is somewhat weak and very, very morally torn by his nature as a vampire. He often recriminates upon the most available object to blame - Lestat.



"I don't know who that is to, but if it's to me, I think you might want to skim my earlier posts again. Romanticism was focused on vitality and sensualism in a completely physical way. In fact, to such a degree that I'd imagine that a lot of Romantics would agree that there is nothing but the tangible. I mean, they're pretty obvious about the things they don't like (ie the theme of Frankenstein AND Dr Jekyll is the same. Science=bad.). If you want to read a suprisingly "good" (in the philosophical sense) book by a godawful writer, I'd suggest reading Bram Stoker's Dracula with your mind on this very topic. (in fact, if you're interested in an analysis of Vampirism as an example of Passionate love, I have a paper available. here "
ssm


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
slim and ele, this forum is dedicated to philosophy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I second that.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... lol.. A double standard.. I Have no idea what you two are speaking of, It deals with History in the Past and is Boring as Hell to most people, not ot mention it never mentions love. If you two want to speak exclusivly about things over other peopls heads, perhaps you should PM each other? Yet you can castigate some for describing an act that has the word Love in it, and .. Who and WHAT does Romanticism , vampirism, Classic movements and Dracula have to do With "Your Description of Love"



Lovemaking is tied to Love, Believe it or not. Passion is also a Human Trait that has marked the World for generations. One without the other is Half of Nothing. Both make a whole. If Talking about it makes you sick, Id say you can't be too well when you avoid it, and ANYONE who wishes to annalize love and NOT Suffer through a little Poetry needs to study something that Doesn't require feelings. Think of Farm Tractors or something. ... the Duck Analogy was Funny..lol.. NOOO Clue Dude! An open mind is a Gift...

Soo, It wasn't Good For Both of You Too? Rio... Dude...Lose the Holier than Thou B/S.. Nobody is Amazed Yet.. Like you.


"Fuck authority, fuck authority
Kill the president and seniority
Fuck authority, fuck authority
Lets murder a society"

~~~~~~~~~~~~Slim~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

slim:
I'll reiterate that this forum is dedicated to philosophy, not cybersex and not analysis of relationships (although these two might have philosophical implications).
If you have issue with this, you are free to fuck off and/or to complain to the admin.

As for censorship, that's my job. I censor that which is not conducive to rational, productive discussion. Further contentless posts will be deleted.

“...ele, whom I think is very "Human", Sweet, and observative, ALSO has added, and IS still a member of Said Humans who, according to Rio is thinking Wrong? about a "Human" fallacy, again... according to Rio! ..ele has 20 years under her belt of living with the same husband, probably in and out of Love at times, and maybe knows MORE than You Me or Rio about ..."Her Definition of Love"”

Thanks Slim. Very nice of you.


“Romanticism was focused on the regeneration of life in an age increasingly dominated by machines. To this end - passion, rather than bourgoise contentment. To this end, naturalism rather than the steady encroachment of machines and men onto the environment. To this end, the individual rather than the herd. “

I agree totally with your statement of what Romanticism as a movement was about Slim.. When I first became a Romantic was years ago, in school in poetry class. I loved Byron, Wordsworth, Shelley(Percy Bysshe), and liked Keats . I think it also had not just a great respect for nature, but truth, beauty and reality and humanity as real people.

I also think that it is not unusual for a romantic definition of love to include treference to passion and to the physical expression of a spiritual love. I think that is what Slim and i both posted about. It was not “lust” or “self-appeasement” type posting, it was demonstrating what a man and a woman can do for each other to physically express their spiritual valuation of the other person and their joy in and appreciation of the other person by trying to create the person’s joy and pleasure physically andgive them delight and fulfillment and happiness and peace and contentment.

There are some people by the way, for whom love is purely a chemical reaction, they would say that love is lust. I dod not ascribe to this view, but i have heard it expressed. I feel these people may as well say love doesn’t exist.

There are others for who it is only a social relationship, and has to do with similar backgrounds and compatibility. I dont dismiss htis entirely, but it is also not what love is.

I note that someone else, riomacleod i think, first raised the possibility that Slim was talking about sex when he talked about passionate love. I think Slim’s resposne was to demonstarte he was not, he demonstarted what having passion for another person may involve, in a way that was loving i thought.

I think both Slim and I agree that ideally the best love combines passion for the other person and the kind of quiet love we all agree is important. That inner certainty and instinct towards the other person that seems somehow to relate to things beyond the self, like God or some other form of naturall quiet belonging, not sexually driven by still in a way instinct driven. What i have with my husband encompasses the quiet kind of love where we feel we belong together in some way. It also involves some fairly passionate sex. We also share some attitudes and understandings. I suppose i feel where we are not quite so compatible is in the area of shared imagination, creativity and mentality.

In life, we often do not have the ideal. We compromise and so it is in relationships too i think. We choose someone we can happily live with and hopefully be faithful to, for we regard thenm enough that we would not hurt them by choice, and we have something worthwhile rather than nothing. But i think a good man is indeed hard to find. And i think my husband is a good man. And i love him. And i love absolutely my children.

Regarding jealousy riomacleod, it is not amatter of not trusting my husband that makes me feel jealousy. It is natural for me to feel jealousy. I vale my relationship with him, and i fear losing it. He is daily in situations where he meets other people and has longterm relationships with them at work. I know that relationships can deepen and trun to love or sex. It makes sense to fear and worry, to me. Maybe it is just becaus ei am the way i am. I am insecure. I need reassurance. I am loved. I find it hard to believe my husband loves me, as as i have experienced it, noone else ever has. (except my kids i guess). I find it hard to understand and at times i find it hard to believe as i can not see it in his actions.

As I see it. If i was to have a relationship with you, and you demanded of me that i was not jealous, i would think that would be afalse basis for the re;lationship. It wouldn’t be true. I ythink it is preferable to deal with the facts and live with the truth. I susupect you can not fporm a good relationship with someone unless you can accept them as they are at the start.


hey slim, i liked your comment to xev re f..ing off. the other day in class a yr 9 boy told me to f..off when i asked him to spell something. I looked around the class, adn said sorry, i cnat, there doesnt seem to be a suitable partner. next time i sasked him to spell a word he said the same thing. i said, what again? Already? I dont think i'm ready again yet. The third time i asked him to spell a word, he said. Okauy, i'll have a go miss. give me an easy one. :)

i'll have a go miss. give me an easy one.

Thats Funny!.. Children are another Topic that is difficult to explain. Those Little Humans come up with some very provacative Questions at times and they seem to have Flashes of Brilliance. They also require a Lot of Love, Patience and understanding at times when you feel Anything But! Raising mine Taught me the value of Patience and Longsuffering, and If it were not for my Love of them, I think I would have run away from Home years ago. I think I did my best, or the best I knew anyway! I lost the Instructions and Box they came in when they were New. Each one has their own personal Default switch that must be found in order to continue Teaching them. I have to treat each one differently and "Plug In" mentally, and also watch their mood swings for signs of Depression, Confusion or Anger. I think Grownups also have that, and in a Marraige or Relationship it must be reset at times so the inner Doors of Thought will Remain open. One thing that is always consistant about the Human mind is that it is In-consistant in Growth, and Apathy or Selfishness can allow Mental Monsters to encroach in Any Relationship, be it Parental or Spouseual. I always try to Probe my Loved ones intellectually with suggestions and Questions that do not arouse Anger or Frustration. Kind words can unlock Closed Doors.

...Do you Teach a Class?

Oh, thought i said i taught before. Yes, I teach casual in high schools. I only work 9-2.30 or so so i can pick my own kids up from school. My teaching areas are english and socail science, but i very often teach different subject areas.

I think i missed responding to this post earlier Slim. Sorry.

“The Power of Two Spirits working together in Unison, can be awesome.. I Believe all things are possible at some point in time. To have ones own Cheering Section in a mate, one who relates without words, who can speak wisely for you in your absence, who knows what makes you tick.. I think it can happen, if not in this life, maybe another one. I don't need or want just a SpaceFiller......I'll wait for the one..”

very nice sentiment but may mean the waiter ends up lonely when other action could have meant many years not quite so lonely?

“This Rose

A fresh new Rose, Just picked from the Best,
I give it to you, I've accepted the Quest..
To Love you and Keep you, til Death do us part,
I give you my Love, I give you my Heart..
With a strong Hand to Hold and a shoulder to stay.
I give you my Life and I'll Love you always..
Its a Delicate thing now, the soft petals that glow,
take hold of it Gently, watch after this Rose..”
Edited by slim on 08-27-03 at 03:26 PM”

I very much like this poem Slim. I understand how scary it is to offer your love to someone. One of the first images i used in one of the early scripts i wrote was someone crushing a flower underfoot. It was to emphasies their character and symbolize the way they were crushing the spirit from one of the other characters. I think if i recall it had a lot to do with social and family repression of individuality and hope. I was sponsored to attend a writing conference on the basis of that script.

The earliest script I wrote involved a weird young philosophizing girl and many other characters who I perceived as kinda fragments of her. It had form i gave it through setting it to music i related to that i had heard. It was a school based thing. I did the lighting for it and directed it. It had to do i guess with differences between and within people and being pulled in many directions and life and death.

Much alter i wrote a script re a young man falling in love with an older woman, meeting her in a bar. It was kinda mannerist and blackly humourous but very loving and was about individduality and freedom. It was written against the id card proposal of the time, and the “upper classes” and “pretentiousness” and ‘work place conformity and mealy mouthedness and the advertising industry and family pushing. The young man is stunned by her beauty as if in an ad or other thing, but in acting in this stereotypical way he escapes the dominance of his family and family job which are also stereotypical, and kind of finds himself, in his success by his own methods in the advertising business, but does he really? This receeived a professional workshop but due to political sesibility of the director to the work- i think she thought i was right wing- she didnt understand it- it was not taken further

I’ve also written what was meant to be a radio play- my first heavily dialogue based play, which oi later changed to be suitable for stage. It achieved neaqr performance twice. Once missed out on a director for radio, and once the cast became unavailable. It was a kinda whodun