Theories of Love

[loseyourname]

The classic idea is that love is spontaneous and nearly effortless with the right person. Furthermore, you have no control over who you love and who you don't love.

A newer idea, expounded most fervently in The Art of Loving and more recently in The Road Less Travelled is that love is nothing of the sort. Love is a conscious act of will to do that which is loving toward a particular person, even in the absence of strong feelings, which are thought to come and go. Oftentimes, this may be counterintuitive, as is the case with tough love. Oftentimes, it might require a good deal of self-sacrifice and patience which are not characteristic of the typical passion one thinks of when one thinks of love.

So which theory do you subscribe to? I think most people would probably believe the second, at least partially, on principle. They know that making a relationship work takes a lot of effort and compromise and patience. But in the same vein, they do not practice what they preach, growing tired of people when they are comfortable with them and becoming resentful when the passion is gone.

[dstyle]

that luv she is a mothaf****a
from old school, i think i got it right

[fstkhnan]

I totally believe that we dont have control over who we love.....Iit just comes naturally!

[ckBejug]

I think it's both of those things. I am in the happy middle. You don't decide who you fall for, but when you DO fall in love with someone you have to do the work. You have to know how to compromise and give all of yourself to this person without ever expecting anything back, and never never do anything that could hurt him/her because it would be the same as hurting yourself.

That's what I think. And I will do, live, and breathe it to, when I'm in love.

[loseyourname]

There are problems with that. For one thing, it is outside of human nature to do things for a person without expecting anything in return. Furthermore, a person who loves you back should do plenty in return. Romantic love, unlike parental love or filial love, has to be a reciprocal entity. Another problem is that it is nearly impossible not to hurt someone. People who are in love with one another have a heightened sensitivity and are particularly vulnerable. I think the more important thing is to realize that you will hurt one another, but that that is only a product of the difficulty inherent in loving. Love is a process of continual growth, and you should have no expectation that things will be fine and dandy all the time. Love has a lot of wonderful qualities, but it has some rotten ones as well. All you can do is the best you can, and as Radiohead says, "the best you can is good enough."

[ckBejug]

Originally posted by loseyourname There are problems with that. For one thing, it is outside of human nature to do things for a person without expecting anything in return. Furthermore, a person who loves you back should do plenty in return. Romantic love, unlike parental love or filial love, has to be a reciprocal entity. Another problem is that it is nearly impossible not to hurt someone. People who are in love with one another have a heightened sensitivity and are particularly vulnerable. I think the more important thing is to realize that you will hurt one another, but that that is only a product of the difficulty inherent in loving. Love is a process of continual growth, and you should have no expectation that things will be fine and dandy all the time. Love has a lot of wonderful qualities, but it has some rotten ones as well. All you can do is the best you can, and as Radiohead says, "the best you can is good enough."

Myabe I am outside of human nature then. Also, I didn't say they shouldn't do anything in return, I said you give them your all not EXPECTING the world in return because to give them yourself and make them happy like that, that means the world to you anyway. As for the hurting thing, I meant you shouldn't (wouldn't, couldn't) do anything like cheat or lie... I know that sometimes when people speak things come out in a way that they didn't necessarily mean it to and they can end up hurting someone as a result, I've done it myself and felt plenty bad for it, so I know what you mean, I didn't mean honest mistakes like that.

[PASAMONSTER]

to be loved is not to know of love.

Love is the cruel unsolvable variable in the equation of life.

Forget love)) YKLT^U%RFDMGH man can;t een cuss anymore !!122r

[loseyourname]

It would appear we are coming to some form of synthesis here. The forum seems to believe that you have no control over who you will love, that it simply happens and that's the way it should be - perfectly natural. That, of course, is the act of falling in love. The act of love itself, however, we must keep separate. Loving someone is different from falling in love with someone and different still from being in love or even feeling love. The act of loving is not a feeling at all, in fact, it is an act. As such, it is under our conscious control and it does involve a great deal of willpower. We seem to have come to a general agreement that love should be altruist in nature, that we should love people while expecting nothing in return. In other words, love is virtuous in and of itself, and it should be practiced without passion or prejudice.

Is this what you are all getting at?

[dusken]

Originally posted by loseyourname The act of loving is not a feeling at all, in fact, it is an act. As such, it is under our conscious control and it does involve a great deal of willpower.

I could not agree with you less. It is a feeling that manifests itself through actions. When I was romantically involved I could not help but be. As a matter of fact, the will power comes into play when you try to separate yourself from the object of your affection. Making a relationship work and being in love are not the same thing.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by dusken Making a relationship work and being in love are not the same thing.

Then you couldn't agree with me more. I am separated being in love from the act of loving something or someone. One need not be in love in order to love.

I quote from Corinthians:

Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

I quote from Erich Fromm:

Love is an activity, not a passive affect; it is a “standing in,” not a “falling for.” In the most general way, the active character of love can be described by stating that love is primarily giving, not receiving.

Beyond the element of giving, the active character of love becomes evident in the fact that it always implies certain basic elements, common to all forms of love. These are care, responsibility, respect, and knowledge.

And finally I will quote myself:

Love is vulnerability and aching, it is strength on the brink of destruction, it's a bottomless emptiness bottomed out. Love is committment and sweat, love is willingness and sacrifice, it is the height of altruism and selfishness melded into one. Love is a spark that excites every nerve ending in your skin any time a certain person's fingernail grazes the surface or anytime her smile flashes before your eyes. Love is a controlled explosion in your heart that boils your blood and swells your extremities, it is quiet and magnificent, bold and risky, and it is the only thing I live for.

Again, I must reiterate the difference that I am trying to point out here. Falling in love is an involuntarily response to a certain stimulus, be it brains, beauty, or personality. Love itself, however, is many things. One of those things is a consequence of the feeling created by the ego breakdown associated with falling in love. Another thing is completely under your control, and that is how you will choose to display your feelings. In fact, there need not be any feelings present whatsoever. Feelings are fickle; they come and go. Love is not; love stays and love is forever. Falling for someone can lead to genuine love, but the two are not the same thing.

[dusken]

Originally posted by loseyourname Then you couldn't agree with me more. I am separated being in love from the act of loving something or someone. One need not be in love in order to love.


That is all lovely poetry but it is also not explanatory in anyway and seems to hold no weight in this discussion.

It seems that you have left your original post vague enough that we have this confusion. The vagueness is apparent in your words "the act of loving". By "loving" you can me the act of showing love or the feeling of love. A person acts to show love, but the love is involuntary. It will be easier to think about it in the form of a dependency.

[dusken]

Keep in mind that I made that last post without reading edited version of your last post.

[loseyourname]

Then let me clarify further. This isn't easy.

The act of love is any act done out of love. You can completely hate someone and still act out of love toward that person. It might mean taking in a former enemy that needs your help. In the case of romantic love, which is what this forum is directed toward, after all, it is every action that you take toward a romantic interest out of love. You might have strong feelings for a person, feelings that you associate with being in love, but that does not mean everything you do will be loving, or that your feelings will always be consistent. There will be things you do that greatly hurt the person, and those actions are not done out of love. There will also be times that you have strong negative feelings for the person, but these feelings do not preclude you from acting in a loving manner, continuing to foster the growth of both individual and couple.

Love is too important to be left to the whims of human emotion.

[dusken]

Having said that, what is your question? Whether rubbing your loved one's back is voluntary or involuntary?

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by dusken Having said that, what is your question? Whether rubbing your loved one's back is voluntary or involuntary?

I don't think you're taking this very seriously. This isn't about the rubbing of backs. This is about fostering human altruism and learning to get along with one another and working together toward a common end, regardless of what direction your fickle emotions attempt to pull you in. In the case of romantic involvement, it is about making a committment to a person that you know you can have a future with; it is about doing whatever it takes to keep that future alive and to keep that person at their best. It is not about following one's heart, because one's heart will lead you only in circles. It is about keeping your cool and sure, enjoying the euphoria, but determining whether or not there is anything deeper to it. If there is, then it becomes about making the necessary effort and exercising the necessary willpower to keep the symbiosis alive and well even when feelings falter, in fact, especially when feelings falter. It is only in the hardest of times that you will find out how much you really love someone. When love is not easy, and it is not natural, will you love anyway?

[dusken]

Originally posted by loseyourname I don't think you're taking this very seriously. This isn't about the rubbing of backs. This is about fostering human altruism and learning to get along with one another and working together toward a common end, regardless of what direction your fickle emotions attempt to pull you in. In the case of romantic involvement, it is about making a committment to a person that you know you can have a future with; it is about doing whatever it takes to keep that future alive and to keep that person at their best. It is not about following one's heart, because one's heart will lead you only in circles. It is about keeping your cool and sure, enjoying the euphoria, but determining whether or not there is anything deeper to it. If there is, then it becomes about making the necessary effort and exercising the necessary willpower to keep the symbiosis alive and well even when feelings falter, in fact, especially when feelings falter. It is only in the hardest of times that you will find out how much you really love someone. When love is not easy, and it is not natural, will you love anyway?


Put those fists down because I am taking this seriously. And, yes, it is about rubbing backs. When it comes down to it "...becomes about making the necessary effort and exercising the necessary willpower to keep the symbiosis alive and well even when feelings falter..." is referring to many individual acts akin to backrubs... maybe ones that you normally would not want to give. The decisions being made require the same approach to the relationship. You said it yourself: "This is about fostering human altruism." So again, I do not understand what you are asking with regards to voluntary and involuntary action. I am sure that after this discourse, most will agree that falling in love and harboring the feeling of it are all involuntary and taking those steps to ensure that the health of the relationship is maintained are decisions made out of respect.

[dusken]

Originally posted by dusken I am sure that after this discourse, most will agree that falling in love and harboring the feeling of it are all involuntary and taking those steps to ensure that the health of the relationship is maintained are decisions made out of respect.

And if they do not agree, then it is not a discussion of love but whether free will and altruism exist in general.

[loseyourname]

All right, I'm confused now. Where did you disagree with me?

[spiral]

Originally posted by loseyourname I don't think you're taking this very seriously. This isn't about the rubbing of backs. This is about fostering human altruism and learning to get along with one another and working together toward a common end, regardless of what direction your fickle emotions attempt to pull you in. In the case of romantic involvement, it is about making a committment to a person that you know you can have a future with; it is about doing whatever it takes to keep that future alive and to keep that person at their best. It is not about following one's heart, because one's heart will lead you only in circles. It is about keeping your cool and sure, enjoying the euphoria, but determining whether or not there is anything deeper to it. If there is, then it becomes about making the necessary effort and exercising the necessary willpower to keep the symbiosis alive and well even when feelings falter, in fact, especially when feelings falter. It is only in the hardest of times that you will find out how much you really love someone. When love is not easy, and it is not natural, will you love anyway?


You mention that love is about fostering human altruism, and then you say that it’s about having will power to keep the symbiosis alive. Symbiosis is a relationship where to beings benefit off of one another- which would mean that it is a selfish relationship.

[dusken]

Originally posted by spiral You mention that love is about fostering human altruism, and then you say that it’s about having will power to keep the symbiosis alive. Symbiosis is a relationship where to beings benefit off of one another- which would mean that it is a selfish relationship.

This is actually what I was referring to when I posted: "And if they do not agree, then it is not a discussion of love but whether free will and altruism exist in general."

We can argue until death that love and even altruism are all selfish. That is completely irrelevent because it is all relative.

[dusken]

Originally posted by loseyourname All right, I'm confused now. Where did you disagree with me?

I was disagreeing with you before I asked you to make the clarification. After you did, I was merely pointing out that you inquiry did not make sense.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by spiral You mention that love is about fostering human altruism, and then you say that it’s about having will power to keep the symbiosis alive. Symbiosis is a relationship where to beings benefit off of one another- which would mean that it is a selfish relationship.

Wrong. One being gaining at the expense of the other is selfish. Two beings working together for their mutual gain is not. I suggest you take this to Arvy's selflessness thread, for it is off topic.

http://forum.armenianclub.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1691

[ckBejug]

Taking responsibility for your feelings... My mom used to try to drill into me this idea that "love is a choice." I tend to be more of the mystic school of things. I think that love and all the other many splendored things come from a combination of free will and an aligning of the elements, so to speak. Some people just call to you more than others, and it isn't a rational falling into- to love them. But recently, I've been thinking more about taking responsibility for those falls. Maybe you can't choose who you like and ultimately who you love, but you can choose what you do about it. You can't just throw up your hands and say "I couldn't help it", and expect for consequences to melt away in the face of your accidental feelings. Sometimes you may fall into your feelings but to make them known is not just to fall, but to take the step off the safety of the precipice right before the fall. The good news is, I think loving someone that requires taking that scary step is all the more worth it than when you mindlessly shuffle off the edge...(or than when you are pushed off).

[spiral]

Originally posted by loseyourname Wrong. One being gaining at the expense of the other is selfish. Two beings working together for their mutual gain is not. I suggest you take this to Arvy's selflessness thread, for it is off topic.

http://forum.armenianclub.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1691

No, you're wrong.

what you are talking about is a case of 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours'.
This is how you defined love.

I think Dusken mentioned something like this too.

and I am not off topic, I highlighted two "points" you made, to show you that they contradict.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname The classic idea is that love is spontaneous and nearly effortless with the right person. Furthermore, you have no control over who you love and who you don't love.

A newer idea, expounded most fervently in The Art of Loving and more recently in The Road Less Travelled is that love is nothing of the sort. Love is a conscious act of will to do that which is loving toward a particular person, even in the absence of strong feelings, which are thought to come and go. Oftentimes, this may be counterintuitive, as is the case with tough love. Oftentimes, it might require a good deal of self-sacrifice and patience which are not characteristic of the typical passion one thinks of when one thinks of love.

So which theory do you subscribe to? I think most people would probably believe the second, at least partially, on principle. They know that making a relationship work takes a lot of effort and compromise and patience. But in the same vein, they do not practice what they preach, growing tired of people when they are comfortable with them and becoming resentful when the passion is gone.

I can see where this is veering off to. Personally, and this is from my own experience, I can't speak of others, I have found out that no matter where or with whom, I can always have control of letting myself fall in love or not.

[spiral]

Agreed

[Anonymouse]

Mind over body.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by spiral No, you're wrong.

what you are talking about is a case of 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours'.
This is how you defined love.

I think Dusken mentioned something like this too.

and I am not off topic, I highlighted two "points" you made, to show you that they contradict.

Chill out logic Nazi. There is no contradiction unless a symbiotic relationship necessarily implies selfishness. It does not. A being can act simultaneously in self-interest and in the interest of another. It is an action in the interest of the couple. It benefits both, and both benefit from it. Not that that makes any sense, but I think you know what I'm getting at. You can't reduce every act to being out of self-interest and then say that it is under your conscious control. That is a contradiction.

[spiral]

Originally posted by loseyourname Chill out logic Nazi. There is no contradiction unless a symbiotic relationship necessarily implies selfishness. It does not. A being can act simultaneously in self-interest and in the interest of another. It is an action in the interest of the couple. It benefits both, and both benefit from it. Not that that makes any sense, but I think you know what I'm getting at. You can't reduce every act to being out of self-interest and then say that it is under your conscious control. That is a contradiction.

Yes, a being can act simultaneously in self-interest and in the interest of another. However, simply because the person also acts in self interest of another as well as himself, doesn’t mean that the second act cancells out the ‘selfishness’ of the first. Nor does it make the person’s act of self-interest any less selfish. If in the same relationship- we take out the first act-the act of self-interest, the person would not willingly stay in the relationship if the relationship composed solely on acting for the other’s interest, and gaining nothing in return.

Thus, it’s not about love, its about benefiting from a relationship. The symbiosis simply ensures the relationship because each benefits from it, and thus have a reason to stay.

And you mentioned this earlier stating that “it is outside of human nature to do things for a person without expecting anything in return.”

So exactly what are you arguing, and what am I wrong about?


You can't reduce every act to being out of self-interest and then say that it is under your conscious control. That is a contradiction.


Please tell me, exactly how is this a contradiction?

Because I don’t see it.


and The logic Nazi is completely chilled out


:D

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by spiral Agreed

So since we agree that there is mind over body, I will never allow myself to fall in love with a non-Armenian.

[spiral]

Originally posted by Anonymouse So since we agree that there is mind over body, I will never allow myself to fall in love with a non-Armenian.

Nor would I

[Wise]

Hello My friend! I am a new user! I am happy to this altercation with you! I love Romantic life! Love,what is found in my deep heart! BUT!!Women are loveless!!isn't it Bro?? It talk with my acquaintance and with experience!The female is loveless. She desires DRAMA, she desires problems, she desires imperfection. The woman when goes through her young female years with her beauty begins to learn the power of it, the effect it has on men. She becomes desired by a number of men, this it self taps her ego, she is asked out, she says no, yes, no yes. She ever dates if the man is attractive, she dates if the man is successful, she dates if he is rich. She cares not if a man loves her. When she reaches this type of man, this man that is capble of deep love, she doesn't understand it. She doesn't want this, she wants to go out party, be seen with powerful men, to flaut her male, to make other woman evny her for her man. This type of man does not love, it's action that he takes that makes him more attractive to her.

You have all heard about woman, they state they desire a challenge a man that is not needy, this means a man doesn't fall into deep love. To a woman, when her man sleeps with another woman, she trys even harder to pls this man, it not because she loves the man, they can't they are incapble, it is because she doesn't want to be alone, she doesn't want the shame of losing this high class male and so the other females not to tease her on her loss. If another man comes into the picture while this relationship is going, he is more successful, higher class than the ones she is with. She states to the current boyfriend it's over because your cheater, but in fact it's because she has found another man that she flaut to her female friends much higher then the old one. She lies about the cheating so the moral world(men) can not despise her. where the xxxx is LOVE?? I know it is exist!!I am metarialism...BUT!! its all about BUT!! i still have more about WOmen!! i will right you then!! just reply me back!! dont YOu think i have rights??

[anileve]

Originally posted by Anonymouse So since we agree that there is mind over body, I will never allow myself to fall in love with a non-Armenian.

That’s absurd, how can you tune your feelings? If it was that easy to condition ourselves to love someone, there wouldn’t be so many single people around. Human soul has no barriers, it carries a certain emotional connection that cannot be enforced or replicated, it’s unique and unexplainable. Love recognizes no racial differences, nor material factors, that’s pure love. But if you are determined to choose a partnership in order to keep the bloodline pure, well then it’s for the mere goal of preserving the gene pool rather than obeying heart’s desires.

[Sip]

Originally posted by anileve That’s absurd, how can you tune your feelings? If it was that easy to condition ourselves to love someone, there wouldn’t be so many single people around. Maybe that's exactly the reason why there are so many younger singles as they choose to explore rather than to love :) Then as time goes on, trends seem to indicate that the tuning tends to favor love to exploring and at some point they stop their search and settle for their currently found "true" love. Just exactly when that threshold is crossed of course varies greatly from person to person.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by anileve That’s absurd, how can you tune your feelings? If it was that easy to condition ourselves to love someone, there wouldn’t be so many single people around. Human soul has no barriers, it carries a certain emotional connection that cannot be enforced or replicated, it’s unique and unexplainable. Love recognizes no racial differences, nor material factors, that’s pure love. But if you are determined to choose a partnership in order to keep the bloodline pure, well then it’s for the mere goal of preserving the gene pool rather than obeying heart’s desires.

Call it absurd lady, but that is the way it goes. It's that simple, I have control over whether or not I fall in love.

No one said the human soul has any barriers, and love does indeed have no boundaries. That doesn't mean one cannot exercise control over oneself.

And this is not about "keeping the bloodline pure", for the record.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by spiral Thus, it’s not about love, its about benefiting from a relationship. The symbiosis simply ensures the relationship because each benefits from it, and thus have a reason to stay.

What is this? An attempt to define love out of existence? Does this mean no human emotion is real, for all are manifestations of self-interest?


And you mentioned this earlier stating that “it is outside of human nature to do things for a person without expecting anything in return.”

What's wrong with wanting something in return? If I did indeed say expecting, that's probably too strong a word, but certainly people would like something in return. Nonetheless, I would say most parents continue to love children that are complete *ssholes and give absolutely nothing back.

So exactly what are you arguing, and what am I wrong about?

That there is a difference between self-interest and selfishness. Also, just because a person benefits from an act does not mean necessarily that act was done so that the person would benefit. That assumption is logical fallacy, and the fact is, you can't possibly claim to know a person's motivation. Heck, most of the time, people don't know their own motivation.

Please tell me, exactly how is this a contradiction?

If every act is done out of an unconscious cost/benefit analysis to maximize self-interest, then conscious control is only an illusion. You are not in control. You have no choice but to do that which is best for your own interest.

[spiral]

Originally posted by anileve That’s absurd, how can you tune your feelings? If it was that easy to condition ourselves to love someone, there wouldn’t be so many single people around. Human soul has no barriers, it carries a certain emotional connection that cannot be enforced or replicated, it’s unique and unexplainable. Love recognizes no racial differences, nor material factors, that’s pure love. But if you are determined to choose a partnership in order to keep the bloodline pure, well then it’s for the mere goal of preserving the gene pool rather than obeying heart’s desires.


It’s not so much the ability to condition yourself to love someone, rather the ability to condition yourself to NOT love someone. And still- It’s not so much the ability to condition yourself to NOT love someone, but the ability to condition yourself to not act on your emotions.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by spiral It’s not so much the ability to condition yourself to love someone, rather the ability to condition yourself to NOT love someone. And still- It’s not so much the ability to condition yourself to NOT love someone, but the ability to condition yourself to not act on your emotions.

Indeed, mind over body keeps a strong character.

[spiral]

Originally posted by loseyourname

If every act is done out of an unconscious cost/benefit analysis to maximize self-interest, then conscious control is only an illusion. You are not in control. You have no choice but to do that which is best for your own interest.


First off, I wasn't talking about every act, I was talking about love.

However, I believe that every act should be that of conscious selfishness, rather than unconscious selfishness. And because I believe that all acts should be of conscious selfishness, my belief of having conscious control is still valid.

[loseyourname]

So you choose to do what you would otherwise do anyway? Sounds quite appealing. Also sounds like you have little choice.

[Wise]

Guys..heal...everything is comedy...dont be that serious.What a fine comedy this world would be if one did not play a part in it!so LET US ROCK'n ROLL!!:cool:
Nice meeting all of you!
we have one life to live,Remember that no man loses any other life than this which he now lives, nor lives any other than this which he now loses.

[PASAMONSTER]

like that saying wise

[anileve]

I don't understand the concept of controlling who you chose to fall in love with. If the statement is true then it is also true that you can condition yourself to fall in love as well. People seem to accept one theory without a consideration and acceptance of the other. Love is indeed an act of harboring ones selfishness by allowing the illusion of altruism . It is the idea of love that we fall in love with, not the person. The reason why you might fall in love or love someone is because in the essence that person makes you feel wonderful about yourself, the feeling that the person gives you, rather than just the need to compromise your interests with an absolute indifference to the self-gain, in which case it isn't love for every human action unconsciously seeks self gratification.

Love is not an empirical matter, it is one formula that cannot be explained or controlled. Our existence revolves around various definitions of love and if one would be able to control love then it would mean that it is no longer a necessity to function in which case it would invalidate our existence.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by anileve I don't understand the concept of controlling who you chose to fall in love with. If the statement is true then it is also true that you can condition yourself to fall in love as well. People seem to accept one theory without a consideration and acceptance of the other. Love is indeed an act of harboring ones selfishness by allowing the illusion of altruism . It is the idea of love that we fall in love with, not the person. The reason why you might fall in love or love someone is because in the essence that person makes you feel wonderful about yourself, the feeling that the person gives you, rather than just the need to compromise your interests with an absolute indifference to the self-gain, in which case it isn't love for every human action unconsciously seeks self gratification.

Love is not an empirical matter, it is one formula that cannot be explained or controlled. Our existence revolves around various definitions of love and if one would be able to control love then it would mean that it is no longer a necessity to function in which case it would invalidate our existence.

You see I have no dispute with the assertion that love is that which you described. It is indeed not empirical, nor can it mapped. It is intangible, ethereal, and it feels god damn good. Our existence does indeed revolve around forms of love, but I believe the discussion was pertaining to love for another person, i.e. what we commonly refer to as love, or "true love", etc.

With that in mind, the question arises, can it indeed be that what we refer to as 'love', is controllable? Love is unreason, no doubt, hence "love is blind", and hence it is powerful when one adheres to it. But do we simply just fall victim to love or can we control it? Obviously my answer is yes, but you may feel free to disagree, for I only speak of my own experiences.

[anileve]

Actually I was referring to love from every angle. Love is really one concept, but it's severed into different branches. Romantic love is really a platonic love with lust, in every instance of love the formula is the same and an extra element is simply added to make people to believe that it's an entirely different matter.

As for controlling who you fall in love with, perhaps by avoiding the person all together it is possible to achieve, but even in your case I am sure you have come across the situation when the feeling you felt for someone was ethically wrong due to certain factors, yet you couldn't help but feel something beyond your control. As I've said before, if the theory of “love control” you are protruding is possible, than it must be true that you can just as well condition yourself into loving just about anyone, and we both know it isn't so. Love wouldn't be such a mystery and encompass such attachment, emotion and value if we were able to control it. Something we can explain or control loses its essence and becomes a luxury item, in that retrospect we are far from reality, for a human being cannot survive without love, thus it's a necessity we must have to feel complete. Sort of like belief, something we all have but can't always control or explain precisely (especially due to your theory that faith begins where reason ends).

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by anileve
As for controlling who you fall in love with, perhaps by avoiding the person all together it is possible to achieve, but even in your case I am sure you have come across the situation when the feeling you felt for someone was ethically wrong due to certain factors, yet you couldn't help but feel something beyond your control. As I've said before, if the theory of “love control” you are protruding is possible, than it must be true that you can just as well condition yourself into loving just about anyone, and we both know it isn't so.

I would beg to differ madamme, for you are attempting to do exactly what you argued against in your previous post, to quantify and map love by trying to make an all encompassing definition applicable to all.

I have said repeatedly in my experiences that I have been able to control whom I fall in love with. Is this a surprise? The feelings that might be "beyond my control" are nothing but lust, and yet even that mind can control. It is a matter of self-conditioning of strenghtening thy mind over thy body. The "theory" is not only possible it is in use and in work, and I am not the only one here who agrees with this, but it is entirely possible to use self restraint in whom you fall for. To suggest that somehow this means we can condition ourself to "love anyone" is incorrect and has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

We can fall in love with anyone ( obviously from the pile of humans we are attracted to and have similarities with ), but it is ultimately up to us on whether or not we choose to fall.

[Wise]

Losers are already losers and i donno why they pretend....whatever!!! i enjoy the show!! well,I can repeat myself. Love is when you are faced with another who appreciates, acknowledges and confirms who you are, so in the end, you love yourself around that person. You don't love that person. But maybe this point of view is a little cynical, but bear with me, I try. Also it was mentioned that there are 3 types of love; maternal, romantic and Platonic. Did you know that with the rising of capitalism (industrial society, division of labor, and all things associated with it), came along the growth of romantic love? Many more people started writing in their diaries after WWII, and this proves to be self-reflection. When self-reflection is in the picture, the search for reassurance begins.

I also know that there is a thin line between love and hate. I think you can only possibly HATE someone if you LOVED them. Personally, nobody can hurt my feelings. Nobody can piss me off. The trick is to get someone I love, to do something really stupid and mean, and I'll give 'em hate, easy.

Good luck on your threads
Love: a powerful chemical, realised at various time's at variable degrees causing various mood's.Thats love

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Wise Losers are already losers and i donno why they pretend....whatever!!! i enjoy the show!! well,I can repeat myself. Love is when you are faced with another who appreciates, acknowledges and confirms who you are, so in the end, you love yourself around that person. You don't love that person. But maybe this point of view is a little cynical, but bear with me, I try. Also it was mentioned that there are 3 types of love; maternal, romantic and Platonic. Did you know that with the rising of capitalism (industrial society, division of labor, and all things associated with it), came along the growth of romantic love? Many more people started writing in their diaries after WWII, and this proves to be self-reflection. When self-reflection is in the picture, the search for reassurance begins.

I also know that there is a thin line between love and hate. I think you can only possibly HATE someone if you LOVED them. Personally, nobody can hurt my feelings. Nobody can piss me off. The trick is to get someone I love, to do something really stupid and mean, and I'll give 'em hate, easy.

Good luck on your threads
Love: a powerful chemical, realised at various time's at variable degrees causing various mood's.Thats love

Such wisdom. Maybe you should write a book?

[Wise]

Thank you dear! i am really proud!

[Wise]

True Love

Never underestimate the power of love.
This is one of my philosophies that I will always stay true to.
I could never change how I thought about this one.
I have been underestimated before.
I have also underestimated the power of love.
That is something I will never ever be able to do again.
I almost underestimated it recently.
But then I realized if her and I weren’t meant to be it would have been ended already.
Trouble is something that is a second sense to me in a relationship.
I have had good ones and bad ones.
I recently had to look at my life and figure out what kind of relationship I needed.
I have seen many different forms of love and feelings.
There is teen love, puppy love, fools love, and true love.
I am a lucky person in the fact that I have been able to encounter and make through all the different.

Love is something that comes and goes but when you find the right one it seems like forever before you can experiance it

Butterfly--- No matter how times you get mad at your love, REMEMBER, there is always a reason for madness.
l
loving someone will not always guarantee to be loved back, but it's a guarantee of hapiness for not being afraid to show how you really feel...
Jenny-Love just doesn't fade away in one day...

I have a Wise question and i would like to have a good answer not sarcastic one:cool:

They say you have two heart's one in ur chest and the other in your stomach....does the one in your stomach get broken to???
I am really Mad to have an answer specially from Miss Butterfly
:cool:

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by anileve I don't understand the concept of controlling who you chose to fall in love with. If the statement is true then it is also true that you can condition yourself to fall in love as well. People seem to accept one theory without a consideration and acceptance of the other. Love is indeed an act of harboring ones selfishness by allowing the illusion of altruism . It is the idea of love that we fall in love with, not the person. The reason why you might fall in love or love someone is because in the essence that person makes you feel wonderful about yourself, the feeling that the person gives you, rather than just the need to compromise your interests with an absolute indifference to the self-gain, in which case it isn't love for every human action unconsciously seeks self gratification.

Love is not an empirical matter, it is one formula that cannot be explained or controlled. Our existence revolves around various definitions of love and if one would be able to control love then it would mean that it is no longer a necessity to function in which case it would invalidate our existence.

You're mistaking the whole point of this thread. What you describe is the act of falling in love, not the act of loving. They are two separate things. One is a feeling, the other is an action. The two need not coincide. The feeling is not quantifiable, as it is a feeling, and as such is intangible to anyone but the feeler. The action is not the same.

[Wise]

Loseyourname- The Supreme Wisdom whose distinctive name is Wise and here i go ...if you are not in the act of LOVE you will never and EVER describe the act of falling in love.To describe something means YOU understood something and in your thread you just stopped the sense when you put the contrast in between the act of falling in love and the act of loving...To do the action you have to feel it on your body, in your neorons system!! You cant express if you dont feel it! so here is my emlightment and descernment to you my friend.What is love?I never knew until a special person came and whispered something in my ear SHe whispered something so softly these whispering words I’ve never heard these words not going in one ear and out the other just going in and straight to my heart.These words never left me they pondered in my thoughts wondering what to do and what to whisper back.I never had this feeling I never felt this kind of warmth never felt a touch like HERS nor the closeness that we shared I thought and thought of words to say words that would mean the same as the words SHE once whispered words that would lead straight to HER heart after being in HER loving arms.SHE hold me and me holding HER never wanting those moment to pass always wanting this to last...so all i want to say is that YOU have to feel the whole meaning of word not only hear about it or study about it!thats not enough and with all my convinience i really appriciate for this communication...
Wise

[loseyourname]

You can very easily separate the action from the feeling. You can behave in a loving manner toward something or someone without having any feelings whatsoever, good or bad. There is usually a correlation, granted, but there need not be. Furthermore, they are two distinct entities. One is a state of mind, and the other is a certain behavior that may or may not be dictated by that state of mind. If you not going to grant that a person can love something without being in love, certainly you will grant that one may act in a hateful manner toward an object of great affection. This is the dichotomy I am attempting to highlight.

All too often it is the feeling that is strived for. A person aims to be in love, rather than to love. You look for a certain person that makes you feel a certain way. I don't feel that is the correct to go about it. I think we should be looking for someone that we can love, whose growth can be fostered, and thinking primarily of what we can offer that person. You are speaking more of being loved.

[anileve]

Originally posted by loseyourname You're mistaking the whole point of this thread. What you describe is the act of falling in love, not the act of loving. They are two separate things. One is a feeling, the other is an action. The two need not coincide. The feeling is not quantifiable, as it is a feeling, and as such is intangible to anyone but the feeler. The action is not the same.

No my dear I am not mistaking the point of the thread, rather I was addressing Anons words:

Anonymouse:So since we agree that there is mind over body, I will never allow myself to fall in love with a non-Armenian.

In this case I was referring to the act of falling in love, I don't see how I misconstrued the point of the thread. :confused:

[spiral]

Originally posted by Wise Loseyourname- The What is love?I never knew until a special person came and whispered something in my ear SHe whispered something so softly these whispering words I’ve never heard these words not going in one ear and out the other just going in and straight to my heart.These words never left me they pondered in my thoughts wondering what to do and what to whisper back.I never had this feeling I never felt this kind of warmth never felt a touch like HERS nor the closeness that we shared I thought and thought of words to say words that would mean the same as the words SHE once whispered words that would lead straight to HER heart after being in HER loving arms.SHE hold me and me holding HER never wanting those moment to pass always wanting this to last...so all i want to say is that YOU have to feel the whole meaning of word not only hear about it or study about it!thats not enough and with all my convinience i really appriciate for this communication...
Wise


oh, geee, tell us what she whishpered in your here... woulda ya'

[PASAMONSTER]

Wise, you are fool, but the luckiest fool i know and I would give countless lifetimes just to feel how you feel for one second.


I'm happy someone still has the spirit of Love!

[Wise]

GOD IS LOVE so am iI

[Wise]

Thank YOU PASAMONSTER!!!! You are my kind on this forum... Love makes you feel special...

[Wise]

Love and You will Loved Back!

"GIVE a little love to a child, and you get a great deal back." So wrote the 19th-century English writer and critic John Ruskin. Probably most parents will agree that it pays to love one's children, not only because of the love received in return but, more important, because of the positive effect this love will have on them.
The book Love and Its Place in Nature observed, for example, that without love "children tend to die." And Ashley Montagu, noted British-born anthropologist, went so far as to say: "The child who has not been loved is biochemically, physiologically, and psychologically very different from the one who has been loved. The former even grows differently from the latter."

"Children raised without being regularly hugged, caressed or stroked . . . have abnormally high levels of stress hormones." Indeed, physical neglect during infancy "can have serious long-range effects on learning and memory."

These findings emphasize the need for the physical presence of parents. Otherwise, how can strong ties develop between parent and child? But sorry to say, even in affluent parts of the world, the tendency now is to try to supply a child's needs apart from his or her parents. Children are sent away to school, sent away to Sunday school, sent away to work, sent away to summer camp, and given money and sent away to places of recreation. Thrust out of the family nucleus, circling in orbit at a distance, as it were, millions of children naturally come to feel—if only subconsciously—neglected, unwanted, and unloved, surrounded by a hostile world of grown-ups. Such a prevailing feeling among children may be one reason why there are an estimated 3,000 street children in Berlin. Typical is young Micha, who said: "No one wanted me anymore." A nine-year-old German boy similarly complained: "I would rather be our dog."

Love is all we got

[sleuth]

That was the mission of Jesus...show humans the real love...everything HE did and said ,we can conclude in one word LOVE.HE showed love ,HE taught love and HE preached love.LOVE will save the world.

wise do you know Ruskin?hmmmm....

I love this forum :)...full of surprises.