Just some stuff...

This is something I wrote a few years back. It addresses questiong I myself had about love, and the writing of this article cleared some of that up for me. It is just as it is titled: The Ramblings of Love.

The Ramblings of Love

The questions, theories, and ideas surrounding the concept of love, in no particular order.

Love. It is as mysterious and unexplored as the greatest natural phenomenon, but somehow as sure and predictable as the shadow by your side. It is the common ground between people of all races, color, levels of prosperity, and levels of intelligence. It is the source of compassion; it is perhaps what has kept a race built on greed in existence.

Is one man meant for one woman, or in other words, does true love as we know it in theatres or dreams exist? One would argue not. From the perspective of a Christian this would be hard to believe considering one is not with their spouse in the afterlife. One could, however, deduce that they are indeed meant for a soul mate, a spouse, as God has a plan for everybody. To provide a clearer distinction between the two I present you with this. God has a plan for everyone. Say His plan for a certain someone includes his or her spouse dying at an early age. Now it was obviously in God's plan for them to be together, as well as for her to die prematurely. In theory, that event was supposed to occur, and the living should feel no obligation to deny further relationships, unless God has put it in his or her heart to do so. But love, as the little girl sighs about and the little boy denies, is plausibly a fanciful wish; one created out of a life one wished existed, or even more probable, one's desire for pure love. This desire as viewed from a Christian perspective is agape love, or God's love for us. From anyone else's point of view, the concept of love can be baffling, and can mix up a cauldron of questions

Is love simply a figure of one's imagination, a concept fashioned in an attempt to please the craving to be wanted? Or perhaps love is simply a chemical imbalance in the body. Naturally, the entire human race would shake their heads no. After all, who wants to believe that there is indeed no decent part of man? Any naturalist should question their beliefs; in some senses it seems that it is either love or the world. For a naturalist everything is measurable, down to the smallest particle of air or gas. One could count the days of the year, weigh a rock, or measure a stick; but one cannot put a measurement on love. It's ridiculous to even try and put a unit to it. Can one really say they love another more or less? One might conclude that everything considerate is done out of love. One might donate to a charity because they love the cause. Then again, one might donate because it makes them feel good about themselves. Which brings me to my next theory

Love amongst humans is nearly inarguably impure. In other words, one does not give love without receiving something in return. For instance, the most obvious form of love, by human nature, is love between a man and a woman. The driving force is often but not invariably lust. Either side to the relationship gets something out of it, whether it is a feeling of inclusion or simply physical benefits. The individual returns the favor, and the cycle goes on. Not all spoils of love are so evident. A love for a best friend may root from the need for a feeling of security, someone to lean on. Or possibly to gain knowledge, experience, or popularity. To put any confusion up to this point at bay, I am not arguing that love does not exist, or even that pure love does not exist, but that pure love does not exist on earth.

So what then is love? I have come to a definition in my cerebral journey: As darkness is the absence of light, and cold is the absence of heat, love is the absence of greed.

0 Replies

i'm not much interested on "why" and "What" is it that you wrote this poem. I was more on interested on the poem itself. And i 'was dissapointed'. i didn't like it much. Sorry to say but, it also didn't seem to be...that nice. I don't want to hurt your feelings. perhaps i just don't like it because i don't have the same wheels like what is in your head. Just keep writing. Adn do not be a 'plastic'.
___________________________________________________________
"it could be a shallow mind, a heartless life, a fearsome night. But in the end, of every sight, light will be your ounly guide."

0 Replies

Golf - I read this a few days ago and it sparked some thoughts, but I wanted to think about them before I responded.

Quote:

Love. It is as mysterious and unexplored as the greatest natural phenomenon, but somehow as sure and predictable as the shadow by your side. It is the common ground between people of all races, color, levels of prosperity, and levels of intelligence. It is the source of compassion; it is perhaps what has kept a race built on greed in existence.

I think this rings true (in my mind, at least).

Quote:

Is one man meant for one woman, or in other words, does true love as we know it in theatres or dreams exist? One would argue not. From the perspective of a Christian this would be hard to believe considering one is not with their spouse in the afterlife.

Is this a commonly held Christian belief - that one is not with their spouse in the afterlife? How could anyone possibly know this?

Quote:

Is love simply a figure of one's imagination, a concept fashioned in an attempt to please the craving to be wanted?

I think it can be.

Quote:

Or perhaps love is simply a chemical imbalance in the body. Naturally, the entire human race would shake their heads no. After all, who wants to believe that there is indeed no decent part of man? Any naturalist should question their beliefs; in some senses it seems that it is either love or the world. For a naturalist everything is measurable, down to the smallest particle of air or gas. One could count the days of the year, weigh a rock, or measure a stick; but one cannot put a measurement on love. It's ridiculous to even try and put a unit to it. Can one really say they love another more or less? One might conclude that everything considerate is done out of love. One might donate to a charity because they love the cause. Then again, one might donate because it makes them feel good about themselves.

True

Quote:

Love amongst humans is nearly inarguably impure. In other words, one does not give love without receiving something in return.

I disagree. Particularly when you witness love between a parent and a child. The child does receive something in return for the love he or she shows the parent, but they are not aware of that dynamic and that is not why they give love - it is not a manipulation for them. It's instinctive. And even when a child has the experience of a parent or caregiver as abuser - they often feel loyalty and love for that person-simply because they are known and familiar to them.

Quote:

For instance, the most obvious form of love, by human nature, is love between a man and a woman. The driving force is often but not invariably lust.

What about "like"? What about admiration or respect?" There are all sorts of driving forces that produce the feeling of "love".

Quote:

To put any confusion up to this point at bay, I am not arguing that love does not exist, or even that pure love does not exist, but that pure love does not exist on earth.

I disagree. I think someone like Mother Theresa displayed pure love for all of humanity. I think Nelson Mandela displays pure love for those who were his jailers and persecutors for so many years by forgiving them. I think pure love is very rare - but I think it does exist - even here on earth.

Quote:

So what then is love? I have come to a definition in my cerebral journey: As darkness is the absence of light, and cold is the absence of heat, love is the absence of greed.

That makes "love" passive. That makes it the absence of something instead of the addition of something. I think love is active. The absence of greed or malice doesn't translate into love - that's more like indifference, which again, is passive.

I think love begins with empathy and continues through compassion and into active caring. It's only after you recognize someone as another human being with value that you can even begin to care about what happens to them. All of that has to happen before you can even begin to attach the label of "love" to a person or relationship. And after that - I do think there's a chemical element to it - chemistry, symmetry (or dichotomy in an interesting way that's attractive to someone) of personality and ideals, recognition of a particular soul or spirit, etc. etc. Love isn't easily defined - I just know it's more than the absence of greed or anything else that's negative.

Thanks for posting this - it was interesting to think about.

0 Replies

aidan wrote:

Is this a commonly held Christian belief - that one is not with their spouse in the afterlife? How could anyone possibly know this?

aidan-

Yes, it is a common belief. For Christians in my past environments (and these environments have been diverse but by no means justly representative of the Christian population) the focus of Heaven is to glorify and worship God indefinitely. I look at it as Earth, but pure. We were put here to worship and glorify the Lord.

I would also like to add that I'm not you're average cookie cut Christian. I'm critical to say the least, and think BEFORE I believe.

0 Replies

aidan wrote:

What about "like"? What about admiration or respect?" There are all sorts of driving forces that produce the feeling of "love".

Read again, its a double negative (oops!). I'm saying that it is often lust, but not all of the time. "Often but not invariably".

0 Replies

aidan wrote:

Quote:
To put any confusion up to this point at bay, I am not arguing that love does not exist, or even that pure love does not exist, but that pure love does not exist on earth.
I disagree. I think someone like Mother Theresa displayed pure love for all of humanity. I think Nelson Mandela displays pure love for those who were his jailers and persecutors for so many years by forgiving them. I think pure love is very rare - but I think it does exist - even here on earth.

0 Replies

aidan wrote:

Quote:
To put any confusion up to this point at bay, I am not arguing that love does not exist, or even that pure love does not exist, but that pure love does not exist on earth.
I disagree. I think someone like Mother Theresa displayed pure love for all of humanity. I think Nelson Mandala displays pure love for those who were his jailers and persecutors for so many years by forgiving them. I think pure love is very rare - but I think it does exist - even here on earth.

The argument of the article is that there is always personal gain. What was Mother Theresa doing? I know that in the Christian world works here on Earth translate to rewards in Heaven (parallel between Muslim?). Was she working towards rewards? Personal feeling of accomplishment? Who can really say? She's dead.

Same goes for Nelson Mandala. Perhaps a feeling of peace is a motivator. Thats not so far is it? In the end, strife seems almost a burden to keep around. Why do we do it? Human nature?

I was reading Marx today in Social and Behavioral Science Theory, and I remembered this article. I'm glad I did Smile

.

0 Replies

aidan wrote:

I disagree. Particularly when you witness love between a parent and a child. The child does receive something in return for the love he or she shows the parent, but they are not aware of that dynamic and that is not why they give love - it is not a manipulation for them. It's instinctive. And even when a child has the experience of a parent or caregiver as abuser - they often feel loyalty and love for that person-simply because they are known and familiar to them.

I had a similar problem when writing this. I asked my best friend what he thought about my dilemma. It was this: we've been friends for a long time, and in the end if I had to make the choice, I'd take a bullet for him. Without hesitation, I'd make the decision that his life was worth more to me than my own. How would that work?

He had a simple answer. Perhaps the greed in dying might be that you don't have to live with the knowledge that the blood is somehow on your hands? I thought about it and came up with a couple of things. After death I don't see a time for suffering. Many people see eye to eye here (see: suicide). What is there to lose if one dies? Without feelings, where are things like guilt? But to live, that is to experience vulnerability. One can hurt if they're alive. One can feel guilt, etc.

0 Replies

aidan wrote:

That makes "love" passive. That makes it the absence of something instead of the addition of something. I think love is active. The absence of greed or malice doesn't translate into love - that's more like indifference, which again, is passive.

I think love begins with empathy and continues through compassion and into active caring. It's only after you recognize someone as another human being with value that you can even begin to care about what happens to them. All of that has to happen before you can even begin to attach the label of "love" to a person or relationship. And after that - I do think there's a chemical element to it - chemistry, symmetry (or dichotomy in an interesting way that's attractive to someone) of personality and ideals, recognition of a particular soul or spirit, etc. etc. Love isn't easily defined - I just know it's more than the absence of greed or anything else that's negative.

Thanks for posting this - it was interesting to think about.

One point of the article is to show the numbness of love. It spoke of "pure love." What is purity? Its the absence of imperfections. To be greedy is to desire personal gain. The absence of such a feeling is my definition of love.

In reference to the second paragraph quoted above: there are rewards for every one of those instances. Physical attraction holds the rewards of sexual attraction, sharing personal ideas could result in a feeling of "team", being a part of something, etc.

To be honest (and I know I should never say this) I wrote this from as objective a point as I could manage. There is a lot in there I don't want to believe, and maybe a little in there I don't believe.

Thanks for reading and replying to this. I'm going to message you to see your replies.

Smile

0 Replies

Quote:

The argument of the article is that there is always personal gain.

No, I just can't agree with that. I don't know whether you do or not - I'm just saying, I don't agree with that particular premise in the article you're referring to. Sometimes love happens when there's nothing to be gained and everything to be lost. And sometimes love continues even after the hope for any relationship or gain has passed- just because of who or what that person was or meant to you. In fact, I guess that's what I think a definition of pure love might be - that you love someone for who or what they are without even thinking about what they can do for you
Sometimes people love people in spite of what they do for or to them, and not because of it.

Quote:

What was Mother Theresa doing? I know that in the Christian world works here on Earth translate to rewards in Heaven (parallel between Muslim?). Was she working towards rewards? Personal feeling of accomplishment? Who can really say? She's dead.

That's true, she is dead. Actually, I think she was Christian - or maybe I've just always assumed that because she was a nun. Are there nuns in other religions besides Catholocism?
Anyway - she probably did feel better when she performed her charitable works- but don't you think that's more of a residual effect and not the reason she did them? I mean, there had to be some impetus for her to perform her first charitable work other than how it made her feel - or what she received - because she didn't know yet that it would produce endorphins in her brain that gave her a buzz. So what was behind that first charitable work? Maybe pure love.

Quote:

Same goes for Nelson Mandala. Perhaps a feeling of peace is a motivator. Thats not so far is it? In the end, strife seems almost a burden to keep around. Why do we do it? Human nature?

I was just thinking that. I was thinking that God (to me) is Peace - or absence of strife- such a great, descriptive word- "strife" it sounds like what it is. And this can take any form that enables any individual to find it (peace). Because when an individual is at peace, they aren't agitating or jockeying for position - they just are. And when enough individuals are happy and peaceful enough just to "be" - and allow others just to "be" -that translates into peace for large numbers of people.
But, I think you're right - human nature rebels against it-especially the part about allowing others just to "be". There are all sorts of rules and guidelines we impose on others about how they have to or should "be" all the time.
Truthfully, I think unhappy people want to see other people unhappy because if they see other people happy - it makes them think there must be something wrong with them-so they have to reduce happiness whenever they see it-so they'll feel equal. Whereas if they would "love" happiness when they see it -in the form of a person, activity, or ideal or cause, they'd be more likely to find it for themselves.

Quote:

I was reading Marx today in Social and Behavioral Science Theory, and I remembered this article. I'm glad I did .

I'm glad you did too - love, peace, absence of strife -I'd be interested to hear how Marx viewed them. Talk about everything being equal-his vision is impossible (in this world at least) because the truth of the matter is, noone sees him or herself as equal- each person wants to believe in his or her own uniqueness - and in fact they are unique. But human nature translates differences and uniqueness into "better" and "worse" or "good" and "bad" instead of just "you" and "me" as human beings who deserve the same amount of dignity and respect just because we "are"- maybe that's the definition of pure love. What do you think?

0 Replies

aidan wrote:

Quote:
The argument of the article is that there is always personal gain.

No, I just can't agree with that. I don't know whether you do or not - I'm just saying, I don't agree with that particular premise in the article you're referring to. Sometimes love happens when there's nothing to be gained and everything to be lost. And sometimes love continues even after the hope for any relationship or gain has passed- just because of who or what that person was or meant to you. In fact, I guess that's what I think a definition of pure love might be - that you love someone for who or what they are without even thinking about what they can do for you
Sometimes people love people in spite of what they do for or to them, and not because of it.

Right, but when arguing something you have to first agree on the base of it. The rest is true if you consider the assumption stated to be true. Its funny, what you said there last about love being affection without thinking what they can do for you... isn't that being completely free of greed? It seems there that you would agree with me.

Quote:
What was Mother Theresa doing? I know that in the Christian world works here on Earth translate to rewards in Heaven (parallel between Muslim?). Was she working towards rewards? Personal feeling of accomplishment? Who can really say? She's dead.

That's true, she is dead. Actually, I think she was Christian - or maybe I've just always assumed that because she was a nun. Are there nuns in other religions besides Catholocism?
Anyway - she probably did feel better when she performed her charitable works- but don't you think that's more of a residual effect and not the reason she did them? I mean, there had to be some impetus for her to perform her first charitable work other than how it made her feel - or what she received - because she didn't know yet that it would produce endorphins in her brain that gave her a buzz. So what was behind that first charitable work? Maybe pure love.

Behind her first work? Maybe that place in Heaven. Maybe not, but the point is there is that there is a possibility. Also, the majority (I don't know any that don't) of Catholics percieve themselves as Christians, and I believe many are. I once lived in a convent... in Guam probably. I was young.

Quote:
Same goes for Nelson Mandala. Perhaps a feeling of peace is a motivator. Thats not so far is it? In the end, strife seems almost a burden to keep around. Why do we do it? Human nature?

I was just thinking that. I was thinking that God (to me) is Peace - or absence of strife- such a great, descriptive word- "strife" it sounds like what it is. And this can take any form that enables any individual to find it (peace). Because when an individual is at peace, they aren't agitating or jockeying for position - they just are. And when enough individuals are happy and peaceful enough just to "be" - and allow others just to "be" -that translates into peace for large numbers of people.
But, I think you're right - human nature rebels against it-especially the part about allowing others just to "be". There are all sorts of rules and guidelines we impose on others about how they have to or should "be" all the time.
Truthfully, I think unhappy people want to see other people unhappy because if they see other people happy - it makes them think there must be something wrong with them-so they have to reduce happiness whenever they see it-so they'll feel equal. Whereas if they would "love" happiness when they see it -in the form of a person, activity, or ideal or cause, they'd be more likely to find it for themselves.

You're right, strife is a terrific word, and cultures are different so it will live on to be as descriptive as it sounds. I think you're also right about unhappy people finding ways to make others unhappy; if you can't achieve something, lower the standard to something you can. Again, you're right about the cure for them. Its a vicious cycle though, and they can't get out of it because it'd be contradictory to their nature to see hapiness. All they want to see is despair.

Quote:
I was reading Marx today in Social and Behavioral Science Theory, and I remembered this article. I'm glad I did .

I'm glad you did too - love, peace, absence of strife -I'd be interested to hear how Marx viewed them. Talk about everything being equal-his vision is impossible (in this world at least) because the truth of the matter is, noone sees him or herself as equal- each person wants to believe in his or her own uniqueness - and in fact they are unique. But human nature translates differences and uniqueness into "better" and "worse" or "good" and "bad" instead of just "you" and "me" as human beings who deserve the same amount of dignity and respect just because we "are"- maybe that's the definition of pure love. What do you think?

His vision is surely impossible. With all else equal, who would be a doctor over a janitor? And those who were doctors, why would they find cures or otherwise advance technology if they were going to get paid the same? He has a very stale view in this respect I think. Static.

I love what you said there about human nature translating differences and uniqueness into better and worse instead of you, me, or just different.

I don't, however, think that version of love could work because people wrong other people, and for those people to just forgive is impossible, at least here on Earth. You could relate it to my article: perhaps the greedy party is the one that keeps the count, wheras the loving, non-greedy party is that which gives up and forgives. God forgave us so that we could go to Heaven and be forgiven... I'm not sure that all follows, but it makes at least a little sense to me Smile

.

0 Replies

Sorry, I did that wrong. Thats why I didn't try it like that the first time. Read in the quotes, my notes are there. Thanks,
Bryan.

0 Replies

Don't worry about it.

I agree about Marx's vision as being unrealistic. In fact, as egalitarian as I try to believe I am, I don't think I'd make a good communist. I do believe that extra effort and work should result in different results for a person than laziness and mediocrity.
I like the idea of everyone being taken care of though. That's one thing that really impresses me about England (where I live) as compared to the US (where I'm from). There just seems to be a more caring attitude about the group or population as a whole. People tend to look at things with more of a community spirit here, than the individualistic, isolationist, every man for himself spirit that everything is viewed with in the US.

Forgiveness is not impossible- just rare. That's what makes it so amazing when it truly happens.

0 Replies

aidan wrote:

Don't worry about it.

I agree about Marx's vision as being unrealistic. In fact, as egalitarian as I try to believe I am, I don't think I'd make a good communist. I do believe that extra effort and work should result in different results for a person than laziness and mediocrity.
I like the idea of everyone being taken care of though. That's one thing that really impresses me about England (where I live) as compared to the US (where I'm from). There just seems to be a more caring attitude about the group or population as a whole. People tend to look at things with more of a community spirit here, than the individualistic, isolationist, every man for himself spirit that everything is viewed with in the US.

Forgiveness is not impossible- just rare. That's what makes it so amazing when it truly happens.

I totally agree that people who put effort into things should profit, and those who sit around shouldn't get any richer. I was born in the Phillipines and lived in a military family my whole life, so comming from that I don't see the US as too bad. I never really thought about it, but the military embraces a lot of Marx's ideas.

0 Replies

Don't get me wrong - I realize how lucky I was to be born an American-every place I've traveled, I leave convinced that as much as I might like visiting there, I had benefits bestowed upon me, simply by being born in America, that other people born and raised in other places didn't. Because my American childhood was a great, fun, secure and fulfilling childhood- but I was born into a white, middle-class family- I realize it's different for people born into different circumstances. Still, I wouldn't trade it for any other childhood in any other country - not even England (which I love).
When you're an American, you constantly hear that and are surrounded by the sense that anything at all is possible- it becomes a real part of who you are and what you believe you can do as a person. And I love that spirit and think it is almost uniquely American- that's the whole premise the country was founded on.

I just think (at 300,000,000 people now) America, as a government, is overwhelmed. The idea of anything being possible for every citizen is being put to the test. I'm not criticizing. I can see how hard it'd be to enact every privilege and right for every single one of those people.
And maybe that's where the every man for himself attitude comes from - there's no longer enough for everyone - so everyone has to scramble to get theirs.
Do you live in America now?

0 Replies

Yes, I live in Washington, but I was born in the Phillipine Islands and lived in Guam, Southern California, and a few other places for a short amount of time. I totally agree with you government wise, being in the Military I've had my fair share of dealing with the government. I'm not really following you here though, could you elaborate?

0 Replies

How're you doing? Elaborate on what part?

I don't have any new twist on what's wrong with America. What bothers me are pretty much the same things that seem to bother a lot of folks who have the same mindset I do - governmental and corporate corrucption, rampant greed (of the individual as well as the government), the vast dichotomy between rich and poor, and the seeming disinterest in addressing that in any meaningful way (which I admit will take generations and a complete overhaul in just about every system -educational, medical, vocational, social, etc.- and paradigm that currently exist in the US).

I just think there could be different priorities set in the American government as well as in the minds of individual American citizens. What bothers me sometimes is the resistance to enlightenment and the stubborn refusal to view situations from all points of view- instead of only that of the monied elite (in government, as well as in society in general).

I think Americans can be very selfish people- and sometimes can show concern only for those issues which directly affect them. Having said that - I feel we've been conditioned to believe it's okay to be that way - in fact more than okay - that it's our right and privilege to fulfill our own needs and not worry about anyone elses. And having lived in and visited other countries, I've observed that's not the way other countries govern, those are not the types of values that are instilled in their citizens, and to my mind it seems to work more smoothly as a whole for a larger percentage of citizens. I think we could do with more of that community-minded spirit in America.

At the same time, I love America and a lot of Americans dearly. It's my home. The huge majority of my family, friends and people I love are Americans. There are so many good things about the American spirit and land that I'll never be able to deny, and would never wish to. It's been a fabulous place for me - I just wish systems were set in place for it to be that way for every American citizen.

Happy Thanksgiving by the way!
PS- why do you say you can't spell?

0 Replies

I totally agree with you. I think that priorities in America are somewhat misaligned, but people are people and they'll do whats best for themselves. I don't think that America is outside of the pack though. Look at governments in some of the poorer places in the world. They tend to be overun by organized crime and money scandals. Basically anywhere that there is a large gap between the rich and the poor, there is greed. Wherever someone is losing money someone else is taking it. Countries have been like this since the beginning of time, and if its not taking their citizens money its using their bodies for labor or war.

America is my home, and I fight for its freedom. Some people take the war in Iraq farther than I do, but I love America. Its my family, as it sounds like it is yours. It was attacked, and I just want to kill those people, and whoever else decides its a good idea to threaten the livelyhood of my country. I don't even pretend to understand the political agenda of the war in Iraq, but for me its irrelevant. Sorry for revealing my brutish side. I guess its a little off of my track, but thats how I see it.

I'm great, how are you? I hadn't been on here for a while and kind of stumbled upon it so I thought I'd reply.

I say that I can't spell because its true. I won't edit this blurb so that you can see my errors; more often than not I use spell check Razz

.

0 Replies

I almost forgot... Happy Thanksgiving! I'll have you know I've read both your poem about Halloween and your poem about Thanksgiving to my parents and friend's parents. Needless to say, all loved them, especially the Halloween one.

0 Replies

Just some stuff...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know