Defining Love

[bobsgirl]

The mind is very protective of us...even when we don't know we need it.

I don't know Cate...I'm pretty analytical...well ok nothing compared to you ...but I tend to look at it a different way. Not so much an experiment...my words you quoted were just a matter of fact. I tend to think of it more on a pro-con basis. I lose way more by cutting myself off to love than I gain by keeping my heart open (even taking into account the downside of love). Cost benefit analysis on my part.
Pure and simple.

What I have learned though, is that I'm capable of loving more than one person at a time...heart 'wide' open, I guess.

I wonder, though. In this society, the norm is to close your heart to romantic love once you have found a committed partner. I agree that you can love two people at the same time. It's exhilarating and excrutiating at the same time.

I'm still stuck on going through the pain when a love is over. I tend to have a very cynical view of love these days. My priority now is to protect myself.

 

[midwestyankee]

I like that very much. So, what comes first? lol Just shoot me!!

I think hope is first, the heart wants and craves love but I think you need hope to allow for the openness. I think once the heart has a taste of love - in many forms - it becomes a life long job so to speak.

I think it's quite possible to be surprised by love. I used to think differently but I now believe that we have absolutely no control over our love; we fall in love because we fall in love, not because we see someone we want and will the love to happen. The hope that is necessary to make the love last can come later, though perhaps not much later.

Just my couple of cents, with no guarantee of sense whatsoever.

 

[midwestyankee]

I wonder, though. In this society, the norm is to close your heart to romantic love once you have found a committed partner. I agree that you can love two people at the same time. It's exhilarating and excrutiating at the same time.

I'm still stuck on going through the pain when a love is over. I tend to have a very cynical view of love these days. My priority now is to protect myself.

BG, it has been my experience that in tis society the norm is to close your heart to all romantic love once you have found a committed partner - including romantic love with your partner. As for happening across someone else and finding love there as well, if that is what the gods of love have in store for you then all you can do is hang on for an amazing ride. N'est-ce pas?

 

[bobsgirl]

BG, it has been my experience that in tis society the norm is to close your heart to all romantic love once you have found a committed partner - including romantic love with your partner. As for happening across someone else and finding love there as well, if that is what the gods of love have in store for you then all you can do is hang on for an amazing ride. N'est-ce pas?

Mais oui. Just hold on to your heart when the emergency brake gets tripped.

 

[Cathleen]

I don't know about this closing the heart idea - (imagine that from me, the one that says her heart is always closed), but I have this thought just as energy begets energy I can see how love inspires more love.

I agree we fall in love with who we fall in love with and it's wonderful most times. I've noticed there are times that feeling love or feeling in love opens my eyes and I see love where I hadn't prior.

 

[midwestyankee]

Mais oui. Just hold on to your heart when the emergency brake gets tripped.

This is when it's handy to have friends around to help break your fall.

 

[SlvHoshi]

What I find interesting here is that throughout this thread people have been quoting great writers to explain love. While fear is probably the strongest of human emotions I believe that love is the most important. We as writers have tried for hundreds of years to put a finger on just what love is. it's got so many different levels it's not really definable. one thing's for sure: we can't control it. I agree in that it's something that just is. And, maybe it's better that way, to not be able to define it. hell, 'least it gives us witers something to ponder if not keep the rest of the world on thier toes.

cheers!

~Hoshi

 

[midwestyankee]

What I find interesting here is that throughout this thread people have been quoting great writers to explain love. While fear is probably the strongest of human emotions I believe that love is the most important. We as writers have tried for hundreds of years to put a finger on just what love is. it's got so many different levels it's not really definable. one thing's for sure: we can't control it. I agree in that it's something that just is. And, maybe it's better that way, to not be able to define it. hell, 'least it gives us witers something to ponder if not keep the rest of the world on thier toes.

cheers!

~Hoshi

Hoshi, I'm glad that you entered into the discussion here. I thoroughly agree with you that love s the most important thing. If we do not love, we barely exist. However, with all due respect, I would like to disagree with one point you made here.

I think that love can be defined because any experience that is held in common between humans must have common characteristics that can be identified. If love did not have some characteristics that we all recognized as being more or less the same thing, we wouldn't even be able to talk about it.

That said, love exists in several forms and the forms each have a range of stages. Taken together, this means that at any one time we may be experiencing a variety of loves that all look a little different. Some people experience this and decide that love is either many things or an undefinable thing. The fact that many of us find it very challenging to arrive at a definition that covers the many forms of love does not mean that it cannot be defined.

 

[Cathleen]

Yank and I agree about love being definable... if only I could manage to make a living from such activities.

I think the very basic commonality of being human confirms we can engage in discussions about love and many other topics. I've learned quite a lot from other's sharing their thoughts and experiences. It has helped me see love in ways I hadn't before, as well as see love in my life.

Actually, because of people sharing themselves I've been able to open myself to love. That was (is) no small feat. The help others had no idea they were giving me has had a wonderful effect on my life.

 

[krazeekat]

It used to be that I was so sure what love was but of late, I'm not so sure anymore. I don't know Cath .. I just hope I don't go down the cynic road.

 

[de-valmont]

Personally I think love is so broad an expanse that it truly does defy a true definition, but that only means that attempting it is even more the challenge.
The thing I try to find is the commonality in all these differing loves. Where is that common strain between the star crossed lovers exploring passion for days at a time, locked away from the world and creating a land entirely of their own, and the two 70 year olds who sit as they have for yours barely speaking a word, for none is needed.
Also the causes of failed love, and the hurt and how after the most intense of loves it becomes ever harder to find something you feel deserves the definition. But still given all this, and taking into account my own failed affairs f the past, nearly every poem I write is trying to find that definition. So I guess there's a romantic left in here after all, it's just a little less accessible that perhaps once it was.

 

[Lyrical Fool]

I think it's quite possible to be surprised by love. I used to think differently but I now believe that we have absolutely no control over our love; we fall in love because we fall in love, not because we see someone we want and will the love to happen. The hope that is necessary to make the love last can come later, though perhaps not much later.

Just my couple of cents, with no guarantee of sense whatsoever.

What a great thread, and some great poetry/thoughts going on here.

My thoughts on the matter:

I believe that love is merely energy, or vibration, if you will. It is both similar and dissimilar to that "magnetism" that someone spoke of in regards to staying away from due to committed circumstances.

Love itself is perfect. It's divine. It's the relationship, the actual relating that we do that can mess up our perception of love.

Because it's merely vibration, every single love we experience is unique. Physiologically speaking, when one is "in love," they have the same biological reactions, yes? Butterflies in the stomach, increased heartbeat, etc. And yet...looking at your current love, could you truly say that your feelings toward that person(s) is exactly like the way you've loved before? Even two friends...the basic feeling (love) is the same, but do you really love each friend the exact same way? I don't think so. Just a different level/frequency of vibration.

I believe that love is the strongest force in the Universe. God is, after all, Love, and not Fear. Fear is man's greatest downfall.

Take this scenario: A mother, with a child, has a gun pulled on her. Frightened of the gun, she will still typically stand between the gunman and the child.

Love can conquer fear. It doesn't always, but I think that's because people allow fear to control them. That's a choice, even if an unconscious one.

Another choice : Like attracts like, and we attract what we are. How we present ourselves gives us a "pool" from which to draw love. That's our choice, even if we don't recognize it as such. Whose vibrations match up with ours isn't really our choice.

So in essence, we both choose, and don't choose, who we fall in love with.

 

[ewopper]

One of my favorite threads 'Defining Love' is no longer active but the questions and interest remain. Recently I've noticed lots of threads describing relationship trouble, many wondering about the idea of being 'in love' and loving someone. So I thought I'd just openly steal the original thread's original post.



To begin: What is your definition of love?

What experiences helped shape your definition?

What have you read that helped form your definition?

Taking familial love as a given, what other forms of love can you identify?

What are the limits on loving? Can we love more than one person at a time (again, all outside the category of familial love)?

What freedom do we gain through love? What constraints do we take on through love?

What is the difference between being in love and loving someone?

my definition of love is there's two sides what we call love [the good side] and what we call hate [the negative side] but the summation is if you can put up with their bullshit you love them lmao

 

[Cathleen]

Welcome to the thread ewopper - sometimes the bare bones of it are that you do just accept the bs.

I've been thinking about committment lately and then read the following, it wasn't the first time I've read it and it hit me differently this time. Thought I'd share it with you all, if you'd like to share your thoughts.

This is from The Seat of the Soul by Gary Zukav...from the chapter on relationships:

"There are certain growing dynamics that can occur only within the dynamic of commitment. Without commitment you cannot learn to care for another person more than yourself. You cannot learn to value the growth of stenghth and clarity in another soul, even it that threatens the wants of your personality. When you release the wants of your personality in order to accommodate and encourage another's growth, you attune yourself to that person's soul. Without commitment, you cannot learn to see others as your soul see them - as beautiful and powerful spirits of the Light."

 

[Cathleen]

It used to be that I was so sure what love was but of late, I'm not so sure anymore. I don't know Cath .. I just hope I don't go down the cynic road.

I'm glad to have you share here kk - I am hoping the same of me too.

 

[Cathleen]

What I find interesting here is that throughout this thread people have been quoting great writers to explain love. While fear is probably the strongest of human emotions I believe that love is the most important. We as writers have tried for hundreds of years to put a finger on just what love is. it's got so many different levels it's not really definable. one thing's for sure: we can't control it. I agree in that it's something that just is. And, maybe it's better that way, to not be able to define it. hell, 'least it gives us witers something to ponder if not keep the rest of the world on thier toes.

cheers!

~Hoshi

(Please forgive me for increasing the font size - my eyes are getting old.)

Do you think fear is stronger then love? I know both have levels of intensity but my gut is telling me love is far stronger. Fear is a paralyzing emotion to me, and love is the opposit. I'll have to think more about the idea.

Thanks for sharing Hoshi.

 

[wicked woman]

Welcome to the thread ewopper - sometimes the bare bones of it are that you do just accept the bs.

I've been thinking about committment lately and then read the following, it wasn't the first time I've read it and it hit me differently this time. Thought I'd share it with you all, if you'd like to share your thoughts.

This is from The Seat of the Soul by Gary Zukav...from the chapter on relationships:

"There are certain growing dynamics that can occur only within the dynamic of commitment. Without commitment you cannot learn to care for another person more than yourself. You cannot learn to value the growth of stenghth and clarity in another soul, even it that threatens the wants of your personality. When you release the wants of your personality in order to accommodate and encourage another's growth, you attune yourself to that person's soul. Without commitment, you cannot learn to see others as your soul see them - as beautiful and powerful spirits of the Light."

I don't know Cate...maybe I'm misunderstanding...but I've had relationships where there was no commitment...as in not being significant others...but we cared for the other person more than ourselves...where our desires were sometimes at cross purposes and yet we still wished the other was happy. Seems to me Zukav is suggesting that's only possible in a committed relationship.

Or is my definition of committed relationship too limited?

 

[Cathleen]

What a great thread, and some great poetry/thoughts going on here.

My thoughts on the matter:

I believe that love is merely energy, or vibration, if you will. It is both similar and dissimilar to that "magnetism" that someone spoke of in regards to staying away from due to committed circumstances.

Love itself is perfect. It's divine. It's the relationship, the actual relating that we do that can mess up our perception of love.

Because it's merely vibration, every single love we experience is unique. Physiologically speaking, when one is "in love," they have the same biological reactions, yes? Butterflies in the stomach, increased heartbeat, etc. And yet...looking at your current love, could you truly say that your feelings toward that person(s) is exactly like the way you've loved before? Even two friends...the basic feeling (love) is the same, but do you really love each friend the exact same way? I don't think so. Just a different level/frequency of vibration.

I believe that love is the strongest force in the Universe. God is, after all, Love, and not Fear. Fear is man's greatest downfall.

Take this scenario: A mother, with a child, has a gun pulled on her. Frightened of the gun, she will still typically stand between the gunman and the child.

Love can conquer fear. It doesn't always, but I think that's because people allow fear to control them. That's a choice, even if an unconscious one.

Another choice : Like attracts like, and we attract what we are. How we present ourselves gives us a "pool" from which to draw love. That's our choice, even if we don't recognize it as such. Whose vibrations match up with ours isn't really our choice.

So in essence, we both choose, and don't choose, who we fall in love with.

Oh I'm liking you a lot! I see another chronic ponderer.

You have said so much here - thank you very much.

One thing I keep noticing is that given the view I have at any given moment changes what, how and why I think what I think. When it comes to these subjective concepts I feel like a leaf in the wind at times.

 

[Cathleen]

I don't know Cate...maybe I'm misunderstanding...but I've had relationships where there was no commitment...as in not being significant others...but we cared for the other person more than ourselves...where our desires were sometimes at cross purposes and yet we still wished the other was happy. Seems to me Zukav is suggesting that's only possible in a committed relationship.

Or is my definition of committed relationship too limited?

I don't know WW - maybe your definition is more limited then his concept.

I understand what you're saying but I do think to transcend to the depth he speaks does require a deep committement. I agree there can be those good wishes with others we love but haven't formed a committed relationship.

I think to reach the depth he asserts then a committment is required - soul to soul. I think it takes a great deal of time too. To develop that selflessness in a relationship seems different they wishing the other the best. It is wishing the other something more - I can't find the word at the moment - but something bigger or stronger or ..... obviously something I don't know.

I like your special request.

edit: ok - that cross purpose you mention... in my mind I'm thinking it has not so much to do with cross purpose so much as devine purpose and it isn't that it is crossed but intrinsically wished for the other. I seem to want to use the word infinite or immeasurable. ???? I'm frustrated...

 

[wicked woman]

I don't know WW - maybe your definition is more limited then his concept.

I understand what you're saying but I do think to transcend to the depth he speaks does require a deep committement. I agree there can be those good wishes with others we love but haven't formed a committed relationship.

I think to reach the depth he asserts then a committment is required - soul to soul. I think it takes a great deal of time too. To develop that selflessness in a relationship seems different they wishing the other the best. It is wishing the other something more - I can't find the word at the moment - but something bigger or stronger or ..... obviously something I don't know.

I like your special request.

edit: ok - that cross purpose you mention... in my mind I'm thinking it has not so much to do with cross purpose so much as devine purpose and it isn't that it is crossed but intrinsically wished for the other. I seem to want to use the word infinite or immeasurable. ???? I'm frustrated...

Maybe my definition is too limited. When I think of commitment, I think of SO. But if I stop and think more...and your comment

I think to reach the depth he asserts then a committment is required - soul to soul.

I have friendships like that...and those are the ones I was referring to. There is an inexplicable connection...our souls touch each other. Often we're very different people and to an outsider our friendship would make little sense. I just don't think of it as a commitment...but perhaps it is.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear...by wishing the best for them etc. I meant wanting their happiness, even sometimes at the exclusion of my own...putting their needs ahead of mine...in that selfless unconditional love way.

As for cross purposes...I meant something similar. Where what we both wanted couldn't happen together...say we're both enamoured of the same man and he's monogamous so only one of us can have a special relationship with him...I'd back away or alter my relationship with him to be 'just' friends.

Any ways...it's an interesting concept.

 

[Cathleen]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear...by wishing the best for them etc. I meant wanting their happiness, even sometimes at the exclusion of my own...putting their needs ahead of mine...in that selfless unconditional love way.

I think this is committment - I can't see it differently. You are committed to their best interest.

I understand about the wanting what can't be. I think on some level that is a kind of committment - those cross purposes, when it is with someone we love dearly, then it is a committment of sorts. I know the feeling, WW, I think by letting go of what we hoped for the relationship is a sign that the committment is there.

I'm beginning to wonder if committment occurs in each relationship... even those deemed not prolonged or significant. I guess it is based on deepth then.

 

[Pyro Paul]

love is your willingness to let the sanguine fountains of life flow from you so that they may continue their journy, even if its with out you...


im sorry its so dark im a little depressed. (and if you dont get it, good)

 

[midwestyankee]

It's good to be back among the ponderers.

I would like to toss my few pence worth into the discussion on committed relationships. I think that "committed" is sometimes used to mean "exclusive" and that creates problems in understanding what we say. Some people seem to argue that unless one establishes exclusivity with a partner, there can be no commitment and therefore no love. I don't agree.

In my view, we can be committed to someone else's happiness and can care deeply for that person without the relationship being purely exclusive. At the same time, we all know of many relationships that are exclusive but where there s a lack of emotional and spiritual commitment. Neither term can fully categorize a relationship; additional information is required.

WW's example of a relationship where two people were enamored of a single, monogamous, individual is an excellent one. All three could be quite committed to the emotional and spiritual well-being of each other without any exclusivity being a prerequisite for the love.

 

[wicked woman]

It's good to be back among the ponderers.

I would like to toss my few pence worth into the discussion on committed relationships. I think that "committed" is sometimes used to mean "exclusive" and that creates problems in understanding what we say. Some people seem to argue that unless one establishes exclusivity with a partner, there can be no commitment and therefore no love. I don't agree.

In my view, we can be committed to someone else's happiness and can care deeply for that person without the relationship being purely exclusive. At the same time, we all know of many relationships that are exclusive but where there s a lack of emotional and spiritual commitment. Neither term can fully categorize a relationship; additional information is required.

WW's example of a relationship where two people were enamored of a single, monogamous, individual is an excellent one. All three could be quite committed to the emotional and spiritual well-being of each other without any exclusivity being a prerequisite for the love.

Well you know my answer to this, but since others might not....

I agree! For me, a relationship doesn't need to be exclusive to have a commitment.

I guess I was getting caught on another issue though. When I think of commitment, as I mentioned, I think of SO relationships (whether exclusive or not). I think from Cate's comments though, it can be opened up to other relationships...say close friendships. I'd just never thought of being 'commited' to a friendship...and yet it can be as strong and loving as some SO relationships.

 

[midwestyankee]

Well you know my answer to this, but since others might not....

<snip>

and yet it can be as strong and loving as some SO relationships.

Or better!