Falling in Love

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by felizitation Quoting myself, such a pleasure ...

I do not believe in love. I associate it to a lack of maturity, to the best way to "feel" sthg for someone without knowing anything of the concerned person. It's also a way to justify our animal needs.
It is the greatest fakeness a human brain has ever created.

Falling in love is also a will of dependance, regarding shtg or someone, in order to be freed from ourselves. Because simply Men can't bear the idea to have a reduced field of freedom, but their will does not sustain this idea.

I'm expecting your reactions (just forget the last threads). So dude, do I sollicitated your fingers ? (without any off-color allusions of any kind)

I don't have the slightest clue what you mean by soliciting my fingers (I'm assuming that's the word you meant to use - correct me if I'm wrong).

I don't see how you can say love is immature. Falling in love prematurely and stupidly, maybe. But love itself is far different. I don't really think there can be much doubt that it exists. People certainly have feelings toward other people that can cause them to behave in ways they otherwise would not behave, ways that can arguably make them a better person, at least better to the object of the feelings. Love, however, is far more than just a feeling. Love is a committment, a conscious act of will, as you said, to treat a person as they want to be treated, as is best for their spiritual nourishment, even if the feelings may waver sometimes. Let's face it, feelings are very fickle - they come and go, but in the best relationships, they always come back, and neither party freaks out when they're not there.

Falling in love is an act of dependence. It is an acknowledgement that no matter how happy one may be alone, how productive, how complete, they will be more so with someone else. I'm all about independence, and I can certainly get by on my own with the best of them, but you know what? I don't want to? Life can be wonderful alone, but it so much sweeter with that special someone to share it with. Humans are still social animals, and we need that intimacy. Don't discount the feeling or the act just because it may have an instinctual basis. The origin of love is not relevant to the conversation here. The existence is. You seem to not realize that by describing in relative depth what you think it may be, you are acknowledging that it is there. Don't think so much, and run with it. There are things a woman can give that a man can never give himself.

[felizitation]

Originally posted by loseyourname I don't have the slightest clue what you mean by soliciting my fingers (I'm assuming that's the word you meant to use - correct me if I'm wrong).

I don't see how you can say love is immature. Falling in love prematurely and stupidly, maybe. But love itself is far different. I don't really think there can be much doubt that it exists. People certainly have feelings toward other people that can cause them to behave in ways they otherwise would not behave, ways that can arguably make them a better person, at least better to the object of the feelings. Love, however, is far more than just a feeling. Love is a committment, a conscious act of will, as you said, to treat a person as they want to be treated, as is best for their spiritual nourishment, even if the feelings may waver sometimes. Let's face it, feelings are very fickle - they come and go, but in the best relationships, they always come back, and neither party freaks out when they're not there.

Falling in love is an act of dependence. It is an acknowledgement that no matter how happy one may be alone, how productive, how complete, they will be more so with someone else. I'm all about independence, and I can certainly get by on my own with the best of them, but you know what? I don't want to? Life can be wonderful alone, but it so much sweeter with that special someone to share it with. Humans are still social animals, and we need that intimacy. Don't discount the feeling or the act just because it may have an instinctual basis. The origin of love is not relevant to the conversation here. The existence is. You seem to not realize that by describing in relative depth what you think it may be, you are acknowledging that it is there. Don't think so much, and run with it. There are things a woman can give that a man can never give himself.

Solicitating your fingers: making you want to write sthg
The word itself, "love", is something so fuzzy that we can put whatever we want into it.
We may define love by its consequences, not by itself (intrinsic definition). We may observe it, not controlling it. Even now, I'm providing properties of love, not a good definition.

By the way, love is a notion you put BETWEEN two people. I'm not arguing (ok i'm arguing but a very little) that connection does not exist between two people. I was a little provocating (you deserve it ) but the whole idea is that I don't want to give a name ("love" for instance) to the feelings/interactions that I may have with a girl.

"Falling in love" ... pfff . this is the immature stuff. U don't fall in love anymore, you make choices of your own free will. Too easy to say 'Falling in love', the perfect slave of the feelings, no will, no reason.

As you said: "Don't think so much, and run with it", this is the point. Do not even try to name it, it unique and precious.

[texan]

felizitation you say >>>> Men can't bear the idea to have a reduced field of freedom

This is true, but isn't life about trade-offs? We give up one thing to gain something else. We look at all the options and freedoms available and weigh the pros and cons before we make a "choice". When we as humans "fall in love" aren't we limiting some freedoms to be with that one person but also gaining new freedoms. In a simplistic sense let's say you can choose to be single and sleep with many women, or you choose to be with one and get married. Now both have positives and negatives, and both have freedoms associated with them and freedoms we have to give up.

loseyourname said >>>>> Falling in love is an act of dependence

I would call it interdependency.

Losername You also say >>> Humans are still social animals, and we need that intimacy. Don't discount the feeling or the act just because it may have an instinctual basis.

Very true, but I think he views it as fake, and Immature and shouldn't be called "love".

felizitation if it is just fake and immature and has a strong basis in human nature. And you deny yourself being engaged in it, isn't that limiting some freedom?

You say >>>> I don't want to give a name ("love" for instance) to the feelings/interactions that I may have with a girl.

Then what the heck would you call it? And aren't feelings immature? Seldom are feelings based on logic. And how do you know when you are a slave to the feelings and when you are choosing your free will? And in the end you said its unique and precious, but in other sentences you acted like its fake. Do you mean most people when they fall in love they are just being gullible to their own feelings, But you would never fall for them? And when a feeling turns into a passion does that make you a slave to it?

Do you see where I'm going with this, there is no black and white with "falling in love" just a massive grey area. And others acting on their feelings and interactions by falling in love doesn't make them a slave to their feelings or make them immature or make them fake. It makes them HUMAN

[jahannam]

Originally posted by felizitation Quoting myself, such a pleasure ...

I do not believe in love. I associate it to a lack of maturity, to the best way to "feel" sthg for someone without knowing anything of the concerned person. It's also a way to justify our animal needs.
It is the greatest fakeness a human brain has ever created.

Falling in love is also a will of dependance, regarding shtg or someone, in order to be freed from ourselves. Because simply Men can't bear the idea to have a reduced field of freedom, but their will does not sustain this idea.

I'm expecting your reactions (just forget the last threads). So dude, do I sollicitated your fingers ? (without any off-color allusions of any kind)

terrible ...
somehow the way you were raised (i.e. your dad) taught u to deny love.
it might be that men in your family are too proud to announce that they feel vulnerable towards a certain woman. it's a matter of ego you know? specially the middle eastern ego. the nasty one.
anyway, this is so sensitive of an issue for me, I refuse to even START arguing with you about it.
lack of maturity.
i'm sorry, but you're the ultimate example of a selfish someone who's afraid of commitment and the expression "in love"..
"I'm not arguing that the connection exists.."
what the hell is that???
what's that connection?
oh wait
you're a guy
you're thinking sex.
crap how did I forget.
(yeah and apparently I wasn't gonna argue)

[Arvestaked]

Originally posted by jahannam it might be that men in your family are too proud to announce that they feel vulnerable towards a certain woman.

There is no better feeling than making yourself truly vulnerable to a woman and them positively responding and making themselves just as vulnerable to you.

But just plain sexuality second in line.

[felizitation]

Originally posted by jahannam terrible ...
somehow the way you were raised (i.e. your dad) taught u to deny love.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
It sounds like a very very ... very far allusion to Nietzch's work. You may add all the oeudipian syndrome, with the fear of castration and you obtain the trendy "psychology - how to start" method.

Originally posted by jahannam
it might be that men in your family are too proud to announce that they feel vulnerable towards a certain woman. it's a matter of ego you know? specially the middle eastern ego. the nasty one.
anyway, this is so sensitive of an issue for me, I refuse to even START arguing with you about it.
lack of maturity.
i'm sorry, but you're the ultimate example of a selfish someone who's afraid of commitment and the expression "in love"..
"I'm not arguing that the connection exists.."
what the hell is that???
what's that connection?
oh wait
you're a guy
you're thinking sex.
crap how did I forget.
(yeah and apparently I wasn't gonna argue)

Oulalala... You're trying to explain a few lines of what I exposed by rebuilding whole my life, giving me a new character, a new family, new experiences. Thank you.

Noren essem:
You remind me a bulldozer in a flowered meadow ) You're funny though

First of all: I'm on the very opposite of selfishness.
Second: I told several time to a girl that I was loving her. Each time but once, I have regreted.
Even 4 years after: I know I'm still in "strong feelings" with her. I will all my life feel strong feelings for her.

However, what is what we call love ? strong feelings ? Not only, it should be share in the same manner, it should be imutable... blablabla it's an idea.

I was feeling good with a girl, then I was wondering if I was in love. Being so far away the purest idea of love, I was wondering if it was true love, if it will last ...
The fact is that this word is disturbing my relationship. I simply live it how it comes, i do not need the mould of the perfect relationship, socially speaking. I do not need to say I love, nor i do not want to.
I'll see if i loved someone after my death

[texan]

felizitation you answered jahannam post exactly like I thought you would, she was a little harse with you and simplistically leaping to conclusions. And just like you said >>>You're trying to explain a few lines of what I exposed by rebuilding whole my life, giving me a new character, a new family, new experiences

Notice how she only seems to blame males and the men in your life when she says you have problems with women.


way you were raised (i.e. your dad) >>>> Notice no mention of mother

feel vulnerable towards a certain woman. >>>> Notice women make you feel inferiour and make you not want to "fall in love". You weak man you, you men are all so weak in the presence of superiour women.

matter of ego you know>> she means male ego like women don't have egos

you're a guy you're thinking sex. crap how did I forget. >>>> Women use this line so often its amazing we let them get away with it. Like oh they don't think about sex, like violette said once "men try to exagerate it, women try to downplay it". And she is right they downplay it and hide the truth of how much they think about sex, and then they turn around and use the "you men only think about sex". It's so manipulative and it tries to make us Men feel guilty. And I seem to recall jahannam saying this once.

"our sexuality is a big part of our lives. not talking about it only makes you an immature person. you're only hiding your thoughts for some reason, cuz as we all know, EVERYONE thinks about sex often."

Hey jahannam stop thinking about sex all the time and fall in love instead will ya. ROTFLMAO

felizitation how about the questions I asked in my post? I look forward to a reply.

[felizitation]

Originally posted by texan
But how about the questions I asked in my post? I look forward to a reply.

Are you a girl ?

No its just because I prefer answering girls ...

[felizitation]

Originally posted by texan This is true, but isn't life about trade-offs? We give up one thing to gain something else. We look at all the options and freedoms available and weigh the pros and cons before we make a "choice". When we as humans "fall in love" aren't we limiting some freedoms to be with that one person but also gaining new freedoms. In a simplistic sense let's say you can choose to be single and sleep with many women, or you choose to be with one and get married. Now both have positives and negatives, and both have freedoms associated with them and freedoms we have to give up.

Yes of course, our surroundings limits our freedom. But, i can say that these surroundings is a constant state (complied to live with it, grown on it etc ...). When you think about loving someone,first, it's a changing state, then you know that the idea of love will undoubtely reduce your freedom. It's not necessarly the other person, but often yourself, because of the feelings (pain, headache etc ... )



(i'm censuring the looseyourname's part )

Originally posted by texan
felizitation if it is just fake and immature and has a strong basis in human nature. And you deny yourself being engaged in it, isn't that limiting some freedom?

Yes you're right, in the extent that it is not natural (ie you do an effort/work on you). But I never rejected the fact that feelings will never exists any more (except for the veeeeeeeeery kind shaolins)

Originally posted by texan
You say >>>> I don't want to give a name ("love" for instance) to the feelings/interactions that I may have with a girl.

Yes I agree with myself

Originally posted by texan
Then what the heck would you call it? And aren't feelings immature? Seldom are feelings based on logic. And how do you know when you are a slave to the feelings and when you are choosing your free will? And in the end you said its unique and precious, but in other sentences you acted like its fake. Do you mean most people when they fall in love they are just being gullible to their own feelings, But you would never fall for them? And when a feeling turns into a passion does that make you a slave to it?

Do you see where I'm going with this, there is no black and white with "falling in love" just a massive grey area. And others acting on their feelings and interactions by falling in love doesn't make them a slave to their feelings or make them immature or make them fake. It makes them HUMAN

I'll call it interest, will, choices, and underlying feelings/appeal. Feeling cannot be imature. Since imature tends to create a great polemic:

Me, and I, agreed on the fact that the word imature was inapropriate. Imature was choosen to cell this state of mind into a period completely rooted in the past.
By the way, this wrong word awoke you all . But I still lay the stress on the fact that the more experienced we are, the more reasonable we become. Which is to say that we look at our feeling from a different manner, and we try to build an shape more objective of the person in front of you.

[texan]

felizitation You say >>> Yes I agree with myself

And >>> Me, and I, agreed on the fact that


What, are there 2 of you? LOL. I didn't know France now has cloning. Or are you pregnant and the fetus is capable of communicating.


You also said >>> But I still lay the stress on the fact that the more experienced we are, the more reasonable we become. Which is to say that we look at our feeling from a different manner, and we try to build an shape more objective of the person in front of you

AMEN, I concur with that.


You also say >>>>>> it's a changing state, then you know that the idea of love will undoubtely reduce your freedom

But isn't life full of changing states? And that being said does that mean having children reduces your freedom, if so why do so many people have children? You even said "Men can't bear the idea to have a reduced field of freedom". So why are so many babies being born every year? And why just focus on the negatives like "pain, headache etc ... ", do you see no beneficial gain when you are in love? Or no additional freedom gained?

I got your point on the immature word issue.


You also say >>>> I'll call it interest, will, choices, and underlying feelings/appeal

True, true, BUT. What defines the difference between being in a relationship with a women and it contains all those elements except one "being deeply in love with her". The feelings, the appeal, the interest, all those apply to most girls I have dated in the past. But I wasn't in love with all of them, just a select few. There has to be something there that TRIGGERS it, and that can't be easily explained. Human nature taking over not logic. You can run away from it, you can say I won't be a slave to it, you can say your experiences will help you learn from your mistakes and make better choices. But it still won't stop it from happening.

My view is cautiously embrace it. Very cautiously, but still embrace it, and enjoy the roller coaster ride called "falling in love"