Oxymoron

And love is... ?

I mean, if A = B and B is undefined, then A is also undefined.

Your definition of love will be interesting.

galiel

Even the Spanish Inquisition? Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Oxymoron

That explains the burning hot poker in my ass and my morbid fear of paella

dostf

-Love is the key.
-To love everyone is madness, for most do not deserve your love.
-To love those who do not love you is foolishness.
-To love those from the past is one sided and not true
-To love one that returns your love without expectation is beautiful, and gives one the taste of non existence
-To love the one who loves truth and meet them face to face is to go toward the truth in beauty
-To love the one that IS that truth, one ceases to exist and becomes the truth itself that is HUMAN BEING

Be seeing you...

Oxymoron

Yeah, and life is a bowl of cherries. In what way, exactly, does this - admittedly poetic - piece of writing relate to my ordinary life?

I do not doubt the existence of emotion, powerful bonding emotion at that, which originate in the "oldest" parts of my hardware. (I say hardware because emotion is tied up with central nervious systems, endocrine systems, sexual organs... My poor little rational cognitive mind probably doesn't know what's hit it.) Feelings are complex (duh), but to build up all this mysterious pap about them is hardly good debating material.

Mr. Sammi

It is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved...

If one can propose love as an experience from which the information of experience can be obtained and further to this one can wrest knowledge from the experiences WHICH may better the human condition of life THEN the poet's line would be existentially true.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

dostf

Originally posted by dostf:
-Love is the key.
-To love everyone is madness, for most do not deserve your love.
-To love those who do not love you is foolishness.
-To love those from the past is one sided and not true
-To love one that returns your love without expectation is beautiful, and gives one the taste of non existence
-To love the one who loves truth and meet them face to face is to go toward the truth in beauty
-To love the one that IS that truth, one ceases to exist and becomes the truth itself that is HUMAN BEING
Be seeing you...

Yeah, and life is a bowl of cherries. In what way, exactly, does this - admittedly poetic - piece of writing relate to my ordinary life?
(oxymoron)

-Since you ask......

-To love everyone is madness, for most do not deserve your love.
--- I do not subscribe to the christian mentality of "loving everyone", it is to my understanding not reasonable and actually harmful to an individual. Basically giving your love to "all" is like casting valuable pearls amongst cats---they have no idea of the value and do not appreciate its beauty

-To love those who do not love you is foolishness
--- Proper love requires 2 reciprical parties..fairly self evident i think...

-To love those from the past is one sided and not true
--- The problem with loving those from the past, be it Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, whomever, is you can never look them in the eye and see if they also love you..therefore not useful...

-To love one that returns your love without expectation is beautiful, and gives one the taste of non existence
--- if you have ever been in love with another person, you have had the experience of "losing yourself" in that person. Your(self) ceases to exist because of this love for that person for a time. Time, space, your body, thinking, etc. all have no meaning in this place.

-To love the one who loves truth and meet them face to face is to go toward the truth in beauty
---if you meet another human being who also shares your desire for "truth", your discussion begins at the knowledge stage...each educating and correcting the other without any "personal benefit" to one or the other. This leads to an affection for that person as you like what they are saying, as it is "correcting your falsities".
If the process continues, this affection turns to love of that person which is not "seperate" from that "truth". This gives a person the taste of "non existance" (of self) and is very beautiful indeed.

To love the one that IS that truth, one ceases to exist and becomes the truth itself that is HUMAN BEING
---To find that human that has "past" their "self" and love them, allows one to also fully go past their "self". Others will always "reflect" some of their own ego, ideas, uprbringing, past knowledge, to you. However this individual is not unlike a clean mirror, that reflects only "you". When your "mirror" is also "cleaned" there is no refection at all. Sorry if this to "poetic" or "garbly", but words are really useless here...

Be seeing you...

Tristan Scott

I think to say “God is Love” makes sense. I would be more apt to say that “Love is a god,” or that “love is similar to God.” I also think that trying to assign logic to either Love or God is not really possible since neither God or Love are logical any more than they are tangible.
Anyway, I believe that Love, like God, can only be explained philosophically.

According to Diotima, Socrates’ tutor of love, Love was conceived on the birthday of Aphrodite. Evidently the god Plenty had too much to drink and passed out while the goddess Poverty decided that it would be advantageous to her to have a child by him so she slept with him and they conceived Love.

Diotima claims that “Love is who binds men to the gods. A mediator who spans the chasm which divides them, and therefore in him all is bound together, and through him the arts of the prophet and the priest, their sacrifices and mysteries and charms, and all, prophecy and incantation, find their way.” “For God mingles not with man, but through Love.” She says.

I would recommend reading the entire dialog in Symposium.

Gibran follows this philosophy in his definition of love when he says: “When you love you should not say, "God is in my heart," but rather, I am in the heart of God."

I would recommend reading the entire piece found here:
<a href="http://www.diablosundevils.com/Gibran/gibran02.htm" target="_blank">http://www.diablosundevils.com/Gibran/gibran02.htm</a>

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: Tristan Scott ]</p>

thebeave

I don't think there is a universal answer to this. It depends on what happened in the relationship. If, in the relationship, you truly learned a lot, improved your values, received much joy (which on balance was greater than any misery you received, including the breakup) and feel like it made you a better human being on account of it, then I would say "Yes".

On the other hand, if the person you loved beat the crap out of you on a regular basis, sexually abused your kids, destroyed your self-esteem, confined you to the house, etc. then obviously the answer is "No".

Seems pretty simple to me.

Of course, if you are thinking about a possible future relationship and are asking the question, then obviously the answer is "I don't know".

One thing that kinda bugs me is people who always seem eager to defend every miserable, abusive, even life-threatening relationship they had by saying, "Well, I would do it all over again, because I learned so much about myself ...blah...blah...blah."

Oxymoron

Love not tangible? Do you really mean that? Or do you mean that it is abstract?

In any event, I suggest that the only reason "love" is hard to pin down is because it has multiple meanings and because it has a mythology of its own. The "love" that xians usually speak of bears no relation to the emotions people feel in their daily life.

People who think emotions are not logical have been watching too much Star Trek. Being scared when faced with a threat is not just logical, it is very sensible if my genes are to survice. Feeling bonded with my family makes sense for similar reasons. My personal experience of these emotions is a functions of my central nervous system, but doesn't make having emotions any less logical.

The sentence "God is love" is therefore translated as "(fluffy feel-good badly defined concept) is (another airy-fairy ill-defined concept with multiple ambiguous meanings), so you will excuse me for asking for clarification at the very least.