Love?

[detectivepope]

Irrational longing and care, but to not have it makes life futile and devoid of joy.

 

[Phoenix Down]

I simplified it to those two lines because it was the simplest form in which I could express my idea, whilst not omitting any of the points that were central to it. This also allowed me to develop on the idea and distinguish more precisely between Love and what I labeled Evil, but what can be understood as "not love".


Agapooka

hey hey, no need to get defensive. The ENTP was just having a little fun.

Nice to meet you B- T- Dub.

res meae loqui cum grano salis

 

[Agapooka]

Oh, Phoenix Down, you mustn't try to assume what my tone is!

Such are the shortcomings of writing...

I don't get offended *that* easily. What I do far too easily is find opportunities to clarify things...

 

[Altruistic Muse]

I will post my theory. I apologise in advance for the fact that I express it almost mathematically...

First and foremost, I contrast Love with Evil. Both of these are forces:

Love is a connective (creates connection) and constructive force.
Evil is a separative (creates separation) and destructive force.

Unlike, the yin-yang, there is no equilibrium between Love (good) and Evil - they are completely incompatible. Each, however, *is* a dualistic force. Both Love and Evil have an active force and a passive force. Both of Love and Evil have a force that is oriented towards the Self (inward) and a force that is oriented away from the Self (outward).

To summarise in two lines:

1. Love has an active outward force (giving) and a passive inward force (receiving).
2. Evil has a passive outward force (guilt-giving) and an active inward force (taking).

Notice how the only difference is a polarity reversal.

* Giving is an active outward force, because the flow of energy is extended away from Self and because this movement is initiated by Self.
* Receiving is a passive inward force, because the flow of energy is extended towards Self and because this movement is not initiated by Self.
* Guilt-giving is a passive outward force, because the flow of energy is extended away from Self and because this movement is not initiated by Self.
* Taking is an active inward force, because the flow of energy is extended towards Self and because this movement is initiated by Self.

What are the implications of this?

What is the difference between receiving and taking? My question concerning "give and take" was a trick question, because taking is incompatible with Love. The ability to give, however, relies on the ability to receive.

I wanted to create a contrast between giving and a passive equivalent of an outward force, but I failed to find a word in our language for such a concept. "Giving" out of guilt is, however, an example of giving passively. It is done because the motivation to do so comes from the outside. It is motivated and therefore initiated by the outside world. Being the victim of a taker falls into this category, because we are thereby robbed of energy (a broad word), and the taker has initiated this movement of energy towards him/herself. I call the passive equivalent of giving "guilt-giving", but it is in no way limited to situations when guilt is the motivational or initiating force. Note that an expectation constitutes an outside motivational force. Expecting something of someone is a form of taking.

The assumptions and effects of each dichotomy (Love and Evil, respectively) are notable.

Love assumes infinite energy and because it is giving AND receiving perpetually, the energy is always in motion and distributed perfectly; it is continuous. This continuity creates connections. Also, because the initiating force of giving is Self (giving is active), it is not based on commitments, promises and expectations. Love is beautiful because it exists in the present and it is perpetuated by itself. It cannot be coerced into existence. It is therefore inherently spontaneous and in the present. Note the difference between the statements:

"I take care of you because it is something that I desire to do for you." (present tense + spontaneity)
"I take care of you because I agreed to do so in the past." (past tense + agreement/expectation)


Evil, for lack of a better word, assumes finite energy. One takes because one believes they will either run out or that they can control a limited resource. An infinite resource cannot be controlled. As such, attempts are made to trap the energy and prevent it from motion. The energy becomes stagnant. It only enters motion when another can persuade or force it towards themselves, so that they can hoard it. This discontinuity creates separation. Whereas Love distributes energy through continuity and connectivity, Evil must do so through dependence and bondage. It fears spontaneity and seeks to control energy flow through coercion and contract.


Agapooka

Haha, I love that you have tried to rationalise love here. Before I checked your type I thought this MUST be an INTP .

I think it depends on which type of love. Love thy neighbour, this is a choice. It has nothing to do with liking, it has to do with wishing them well. (C.S. Lewis decribes it thus). But it means wishing them well in the same way that you would wish yourself well. On your own journey, you never think to yourself, I don't love myself, I hope this goes badly for me. Or I disappointed myself with this yesterday, I don't deserve for tomorrow's meeting to go well. (This analysis goes for a well balanced person I suppose). In your love for others you are overlooking the little annoyances, and you are treating others with the sort of acceptance and the desire for accomplishment and happiness which you reserve for yourself and those close to you. It's quite liberating and warming (when you manage to do it even briefly).

Love, of the passionate kind, is multi-faceted. In my opinion, although certain people will inspire a similar kind of reaction, which someone craves in order to be in love with them, the actual feeling will be different in every circumstance. It is very easy to label obsession and lust as love, simply because you are riding on the crest of an emotion which you have handed over control to. Exciting though this rollercoaster may be, it is unsustainable, and almost everyone comes down with a crash. In relationship love, the feeling you should be searching for, to achieve a long term connection, is the wholesome kind. Where you want the best for the other person, not as much as you can own of them. And there is a sweet warm feeling that comes from thinking of them. It's light and easy, not raw and powerful, and destructive. The point is, an emotion can call itself love. But without being supported by the first kind of love, it often doesn't do so well.

 

[This]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpN60KKBAjc"]YouTube - Haddaway - What Is Love[/ame]

 

[Gaze]

i think it's difficult for anyone to define the "Feeling" of love for anyone else. We experience love on a personal and individual level. For some it's light and quiet, and for others, it's an explosive landmine. Each experiences love however it makes them feel.

 

[Altruistic Muse]

i think it's difficult for anyone to define the "Feeling" of love for anyone else. We experience love on a personal and individual level. For some it's light and quiet, and for others, it's an explosive landmine. Each experiences it however it makes them feel.

I'm sorry if it came across like that, that wasn't my intention. Of course I don't know exactly who feels what. But I do maintain that I've felt quite a few of the different "types". And many of them can be labelled love in my head, but very few are actually good for me or the other. And in my mind love if it rips apart and consumes, isn't love as it should be.

 

[Gaze]

I'm sorry if it came across like that, that wasn't my intention. Of course I don't know exactly who feels what. But I do maintain that I've felt quite a few of the different "types". And many of them can be labelled love in my head, but very few are actually good for me or the other. And in my mind love if it rips apart and consumes, isn't love as it should be.

[MENTION=991]Altruistic Muse[/MENTION] - sorry about the way I stated my point. . I agree with you that sometimes, we think we feel love but it's really infatuation or something else which doesn't really last. But love which consumes isn't not necessarily bad. It can be fun.

 

[not sure]

But love which consumes isn't not necessarily bad. It can be fun.

Driving off the side of a mountain, pass the guard rail, free falling to the earth kind of fun. Give me the plain, boring, steadfast kind. My sanity can't withstand the first.

 

[Altruistic Muse]

@Altruistic Muse - sorry about the way I stated my point. . I agree with you that sometimes, we think we feel love but it's really infatuation or something else which doesn't really last. But love which consumes isn't not necessarily bad. It can be fun.

Not a problem, mine was badly phrased too . I've done the crazy consumed love, I liked it at the time!! Or the times... I laughed and agonised and cried... I didn't like the crying bit! And the leaving voicemails at 4 in the morning bit! Ha I wouldn't change it but I'm happier without it I agree AS...

 

[Gaze]

Driving off the side of a mountain, past the guard rail, free falling to the earth kind of fun. Give me the plain, boring, steadfast kind. My sanity can't withstand the first.

ok, welll fine then! Stay on the comfy and calm love lane then. And i'll stay over here as I speedrace towards the edge of the cliff *biting my nails hoping i don't fall off*

 

[Agapooka]

Of course the "consuming love" is fun, but I don't call it Love - not as I have defined it, at least. This consuming force is also selfishly oriented (and a consuming force is a destructive force) - it is a quest for pleasure - for an emotional high.

I am not attempting to describe the feelings that can arise from Love. Some of them can be intense, but they are not the cause, although they can be a result. Love is destroyed when this polarity is reversed and the emotion is sought because it was associated with Love.

My definition only attempts to define the conditions of what Love is. Love can be experienced in so many ways that it is not worth trying to define the experience. It is creative and spontaneous, so it will always find new ways to manifest. What is important, however, is the foundation, and the fact that the manifestation of a thing is a result of that thing - and not the other way around.

I can say "I am happy." as the result of being happy, but saying "I am happy." will not make me happy. Likewise, I can feel a certain way as the result of Love, but pursuing those feelings will not have the same effect, because it will not effect Love.

This, I believe, is what sometimes happens in relationships. At first, there is sometimes something beyond lust and infatuation - sometimes there is an actual spark of Love, but then it becomes a habit. It becomes the past and the precedent for future expectations. These expectations cause a polarity reversal which destroys Love and creates a taking relationship. "It just isn't the same as before." Actions feel empty. Days pass us by and everything feels mundane and repetitive. If one expects to repeat past experiences, how can they engage in something inherently spontaneous?


Agapooka

 

[TigersGoRAWR]

I think that love spurs out into many different things. For me, I love multiple things in one person. I don't think love can ever be shown to it's full. It's so powerful. I don't think enough words nor actions could signify love. I believe that when you love someone, you love them for who they are and how they make you feel with every touch and word.

I try and show my love as much as I can, but I still feel I could give more.

Love is love, and it keeps me alive.

 

[randomsomeone]

I think love is a cosmic force/principle that permeates everything everywhere on some level. Sounds simple, but (I think) it is the polar opposite of this. One can live in harmony with it, in dis-haromony with it, or in rejection of it in varying ways. Yes, there are a range of human expressions, but it is also much, much more than that. My 2 cents....

 

[Agapooka]

I think love is a cosmic force/principle that permeates everything everywhere on some level. Sounds simple, but (I think) it is the polar opposite of this. One can live in harmony with it, in dis-haromony with it, or in rejection of it in varying ways. Yes, there are a range of human expressions, but it is also much, much more than that. My 2 cents....

I must have misunderstood, because it seems that you are saying that:

"I think that Love is A, but I think that it is the opposite of A."

I'm a bit confused.

Other than that, I like where you seem to be coming from. What is the distinction between living in disharmony with Love and rejecting it? I have also expressed that Love goes far beyond any expression thereof. In fact, I stated that the expression is just a manifestation of it, but it isn't Love, in and of itself. You say that Love is much more than a "range of humans expressions". This is the purpose of this thread: to explore what Love fundamentally is, beyond the manner in which it can be expressed.


Agapooka

 

[muir]

Everything comes from either love or fear

 

[randomsomeone]

I'm a bit confused.

I meant the polar opposite of simple, or simply expressed...so complex, varied and nuanced in it's reality that it is beyond full knowing. Sorta what one might expect from a cosmic principle.

 

[Gaze]

. . . the expression is just a manifestation of it, but it isn't Love, in and of itself.
Agapooka

This i agree with. I think doing and feeling are two very different things.

 

[randomsomeone]

I have also expressed that Love goes far beyond any expression thereof. In fact, I stated that the expression is just a manifestation of it, but it isn't Love, in and of itself.

I would agree.

What is the distinction between living in disharmony with Love and rejecting it?

This might be expressed of the "two ways" or "two path" concepts that are written about in many cultures. One way leads to life and good, one way leads to destruction. While meant to promote a right approach to life, I think there is more to this...it actually speaks to some deeper fundamental alignment, one that is seen in the entire cosmos in a far more complex form. Humanly speaking, we can align with love and/or we can live in illusion/disharmony (or a combination of the two). We can also intentionally reject the idea altogether, but I feel this, too is generally still a more complex illusion.

 

[Agapooka]

I meant the polar opposite of simple, or simply expressed...so complex, varied and nuanced in it's reality that it is beyond full knowing. Sorta what one might expect from a cosmic principle.

Ah! In this case, let it be known that I haven't even begun to scratch the surface of understanding how this force interacts with each facet of reality. I am posing a much simpler question: what is the nature of this force?

I have a few ideas, but ultimately, I am left wondering.

This might be expressed of the "two ways" or "two path" concepts that are written about in many cultures. One way leads to life and good, one way leads to destruction. While meant to promote a right approach to life, I think there is more to this...it actually speaks to some deeper fundamental alignment, one that is seen in the entire cosmos in a far more complex form. Humanly speaking, we can align with love and/or we can live in illusion/disharmony (or a combination of the two). We can also intentionally reject the idea altogether, but I feel this, too is generally still a more complex illusion.

Yes, I was asking about rejection as opposed to simple disharmony. I understand the distinction between harmony and disharmony, though.

I see something similar going on here, too, except that unlike the Christian concept of being punished or rewarded, depending on which path is chosen, I see destruction as an intrinsic result of not Loving. To me, it is as obvious as the fact that pain is the result of being hit on the head with a hammer.


Agapooka