Quick question.....A friend and i are having a heated discussion about the emotion love and we would like to know what other people think, well here it is.... Do you think that Love=lust, and desire......or do you think that this is what love is? Thanks -guyute- this one is for you em.....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This is the kind of "heated discussion" you have with your friends? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Anyway, sorry I have no input, I'm totally not interested, but I AM interested in what freaks you and your friend are... whats the deal with that anyway?
geezs hey man....whats the deal? you could have atleast done the courtious thing and not have written that......Dr. lou, i am very ashamed.....i had respect for youPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
LOVE= Hateful bitch who slaps you around....for some..butterflies and candies...for others a pointless waste of time. What you ask depends from person to person reallyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! .....there is no general answer to what you ask.
Sorry dude I was just kidding... but I do find it bizzarre. I just pictured people angrily arguing over if love was lust and desire and nothing more and it made me laugh. Now that I look at my post it does seem rude but I was just having a chuckle. Sorry.
ok makes sense.......i knew i could count on the sarge.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Scientific info on the subject I have read an article a short time ago, in a newspaper, that said that (true love) at first sight is based on genetics. Each person subconsciously looks for a person with similar genes. The article said that we can "see" all of the gene makeup and evaluate it right away (all done subconsciously!). What your conscious has to do is listen to impulses. I think love is a feeling all on its own. You can love someone aside from wanting to sleep with them. In the end, there are different kinds of love (make conclusions out of this statement i dont wanna type) Love has to be mutual. That's my only requirement for true love.
Sounds good whitewolf.....genes would be a probably play a big part in love from person to person......personality does, it is a big melting pot of love by the way Dr lou....it is no probPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
depends. philia, eros, and agape are somewhat different. i assume you mean eros which is definitely a heightened version of lust.
what do your friends desire? and what do they lust for? people who can not devied the difference between lust and love have never been in love simple realy but most people dont want to hear that so go figure a derivative quote from einstien comes to mind those who consider a fact to be a fact no longer think about the possibilities of what it could be so trying to convince another that they are wrong is mearly stating that one chooses not to change ones opinion to some extent. most people are in a state of denial so there for look for reasons to reinforce thier current dillusion or something else that does not confront thier own issue relating to the truth in the situation if it requires them to change the way they do things mostly
I would say the answer to your question is that it depends on the person. My concept of love and lust are different from others. For me, they don't cross over a whole lot, so I'd say diferent. For some they crossover greatly, so love and lust may be considered almost the same thing.
lust can be there but it is not needed for love. assuming that you are meaning only the love shared between two intimate people. For example, a couple may share both emotions but eventually say.. oh, when they are 80 and drooling, that lust really wont be there anymore, but they wont love each other any less. i will use my own relationship here. i love my b/f, i really do, we've been together quite a while and im happy with him. but as far as lust goes... i find it reather one-sided. i dont lust over him or desire him really. i just love him and that is why i am with him.
Love and Lust They are both about survival. Lust compells you to fuck. As such, the chances are higher that you'll propagate the species. Love is what compells you to remember your friends, it compells you to remember those who will likely be kind to you in the future. The more the love, the stronger the expectation of preferential treatment. (note that one's idea of "preferential" might seem like a freakshow to anyone else) They often get mixed together.
Love is like a floppy hat that women wear to those Horse Racing Carnivals and such. The "Carnival" itself represents life and the "Women" are an alogram (sp?) for hope and fertility. The 'Races" being run represent the many variable faeces of love. The "Jockies" represent everybody in the world's genitalia! and the book keepers metaphoricaly depict idols and forces that externaly influencing our notions (movie stars, kinky toys and the like . . .?). The Ambulance that follow the horses and riders as they career around the track in a devil may care manner (expecting the worst) represents ideas we have either forgotten to remember or that which we may have remembered we've forgot at some time or other in our past. Oh and the Horse themselves represent exstatencial invisible things that we can't see and are therefore not to sure about like misplaced feather-dusters . . . Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Glad you asked . . .
heyya wesmorris quote It's analagous to the conservation of energy really. It's "conservation of will". *shrug* ------ there is no will when one lives the lye it is only containment of damge which ofcoarse is not able to be done for ever so it leads to outbursts and other violent actions which are targeted at others and so cycles the negative aspect to manifest a feed back of total dillusion. the only test of will is to be true in truth in the face of those who seek to miss lead to conserve is to be lazzy in the emotional concept of love or lust as a pure thing but well beyond most peoples understanding i admit. so it makes such discussions a bit pointles to me in a way but i do try from time to time Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! groove on Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'm thinking of it as "effort" = will. Maybe you view it differently? You mean emotional damage? There is certainly a "cut-off" point beyond which the delusion cannot be recovered from.. no doubt, but some people work their way out of the delusion. Shock or will can do it. Regardless, some people living it can still exert effort or will, it's just limited to the extents of their (somewhat limited) perspective. That seems like an interpretation of circumstance rather than an objective observation. I think tests of will extend beyond what I view as being "true in truth". For instance, if you punch me in the face but I don't want to hurt you, it would require much will for me not to hit you. It takes will to excercise (unless you can make it habitual). Lots of tasks require will to perform. I don't see a lot of them as "being true in truth". I look basically at "will" as one's available "mind energy" or "that which can we directed by thought to perform an action or satisfy some condition whereby the person must focus intently and exert themselves to complety or satisfy it". Your terminology is likely significantly different. Is it that simple? You mean consiously I guess? I think a lot of people mislead because they think they're giving you truth. The way I term things, "to conserve" as you just used it would require "will" because you're purposefully focusing on a resultant. Are you familiar with the whole "conservation of energy" concept? I don't mean to be rude, I just don't know if you followed the analagy. What I was basically saying is effectively "a mind in a flow tends to stay in that flow. purposefully changing the flow requires effort. the bigger the change, the more the effort. minds have a tendency (if they are not consciously working against it) not to exert effort... but to go with the flow." Some crap like that. Well, even when people do have certain understandings of things, the subjectivity of the interpretation can be an overwhelming obstacle to effective communication of ideas. It takes a lot of effort to overcome it. I can't help it.
