Defining love

[Jameson]

Love is a concept in modern society which holds a certain mysteriousness and ambiguity. It has been said to be all we need and our greatest human strength, but what I've found is that this word really has no meaning to most people because they can't even give a good explanation of what love is.

If someone says the words "I love you", this sounds very sweet and might even be heartfelt, but what does that phrase mean? I say that words are tools to convey thoughts, emotions, feelings, etc. in a way so others can try to understand them. "Love" could mean (1)physically attracted to (2)infatuated with (3)care for more than myself, or even (4)I hate you.

I think my point is made. It seems today though that defining a word such as love is supposed to take away from the meaning of it, the romanticism of it. My question is: should love be defined between two people to have the word carry substantial meaning?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

But one of the simplest problem is that that word carries sooooo many meanings, dependant upon context, from an emotional Feeling to An act of withholding as to stand for what it is worth....

Very broadly interpretable term, that word, 'Love'.

Perhaps defining first the various kinds of "love" would make it easier to define? as per context.

[Epsilon=One]

Very broadly interpretable term, that word, 'Love'.

Perhaps defining first the various kinds of "love" would make it easier to define? as per context.If it is not reciprocal, it is not love.

See: Love is Reciprocal (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=197).

[Epsilon=One]

Love is a concept in modern society which holds a certain mysteriousness and ambiguity.If you are concerned with the mystery of whether, or how much, someone loves you, or not; ask yourself the question: How much do I love the other person?

Those feelings towards another person that are not reciprocal are not love.

If you truly love a person, you will not limit their options. True love is to free a person to be with another, where the love is greatest.

However, generally, true love comes from shared experiences, which increase with time. Love that does not strengthen seldom endures for long.

Love, like respect, is not a right and cannot be requested; love must be earned.

Feelings that are not reciprocal are something other than love.

Possession diminishes love. Such as the statement: this is my spouse. Even the possession connoted by a ring can have deleterious effects upon a relationship.

When I was young, I loved Marilyn Monroe. She didn't know that I existed. Therefore, it was not love. Possibly, desire, infatuation, etc., etc.

Obviously, a person cannot love a sunset, favorite meal, or a long walk, etc.

[rkjoyce]

How do you define "love"?

Well, I would say, that is just like the question:
How do you define a color?

For example; how do you define "blue"?

Just look up on a sunny day. And many flowers look like that.

Blue.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

If it is not reciprocal, it is not love.

See: Love is Reciprocal (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=197).
© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

11:10 AM 20/05/2006

That is Amorous love, Eros what about Philos, "love of a Friend" wherein what you do for that friend never truly finds reciprocity, but is given as a gift, an Act of Love....sorta like moving day that a Two-Four could Never-ever cover.....

Aside from that achieving reciprocity even in an amorous relationship requires that someone do the "Counting" as to assure 'even-stevens' sorta thing, and that isn't actually condusive to the Best relationship wherein each cedes to the Others natural strengths, or Assists at/with them, does there best to Help in shoring up the weakness's as (all people have them somewhere) to balance out relationally, with such result as it might work out to be an Un-equal form of 'reciprocity' that fufills enough of the needs, of each other, as to survive 'each other' ...over time...without someone always Counting.

How would you measure the count, anyways, when one persons actions can never really be said to be equal to another persons actions'?

[poetessmisty]

I dont know about anyone else, but everything I do is worth it based on the reaction I get. If I made someone happy, then we're even. Of course, I won't be used, and the second they don't sincerely appreciate my endevors, my help stops. I do however keep count of nice things that are done for me and try to give equally. For example, someone gave me all the baby clothes for my daughter when I needed them, Now that she's growing I'm not selling them in a yard sale, or donateing them to goodwill so they can be sold. I'm giving them away to someone else. While I'm not directly paying back the person who gave them to me (although, I will remember that they did) I am adding another "link" to the "chain of love" so to speak.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVII

Wondered how to answer to this...how to agree that it is a self-less giving that is the 'act of Love" Philos towards a complete Stranger, accepting that the deed is Good, (even if the end result is an abuse by the recipient, as (I) have seen some of that too in my life) and hoping that its' recipient also has a true need fulfilled, (as opposed to, simply, an ingratiated want) that is accomplished with both parties finding some essence of Joy, some sense of the "Happy within" that is comforting to carry....

Got me to thinking about the 'Un-written rules' of 'even-stevens’ How if it is you who has 'given' you can call it 'even-stevens' and it is Fine, Great, an act of Love....but when it is you who have done the 'giving' and the other calls it 'even-stevens'....well, friendship counts there as for a friend you know ...know well, you might just agree anyways and it becomes 'an act of love'....but it is also the 'other side of that proverbial coin', the 'door' has been opened to it, the door to it becoming 'Highway robbery'! if the recipient calls 'even-stevens' and the giver is not willing to give it Completely/totally for free, in the simple sense of having done another 'a favour' and there is a debt, and indebtedness even if it is ONLY to a/the 'return of a FAVOR'...Money Need NOT be involved, after all, what we are looking for is the 'selfless act' (usually of giving) as that, especially in/with friends, is what helps to solidify friendships, over time, both the mutual sharing AND the other times 'selfless acts', the acts of Love, Philos, Love of/for a friend, noted as the Highest form as when it is to a complete stranger and it fulfills there immediate (And/or Future{?}) need...

Nice to see that (I) am not the only person in the world who at least looks/seeks to try.....but as it explains above .....be wary/beware...try to at least know that where you are giving is 'trustworthy' as that helps to ensure that who gets it, needs it, and it isn't well, read a piece in the paper about a couple who scammed a Church (Body of People) out of a House, answering back (when questioned as to why they just sold the house that the Good people of that church had purchased for them) something like they (The Church People) should 'leave it up to God' 'let God take care of it' which.....well, (I) wonder if they (the Scammers) realize that they are dealing with People of Faith, Faith in that very God you tell them they should leave it to, cause you can be quite certain God Knows it, a few (Willing) witnesses too....there may just be a point where all of those people (the church people) will feel sorry for you, once again......but they will maintain that Faith in God as it is in that, that that God will remove from them any 'sadness' that they felt, at/in your Second passing/death.

True Acts of Love are always rewarded....here, or better ...there.

Have a nice Friday!

[kavana]

In my humble opinion Love is a desire to give.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

In my humble opinion Love is a desire to give.Sounds nice, but some people only give - to get, that isn't love, not in my opinion.

[kavana]

You are right. But I am not talking about calculations that we make when we give. Our Ego is a very precise machine - it calculates every single action, it knows exactly how much to give in order to receive.

I am talking about desire to give, which is above calculating Ego.

;)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

You are right. But I am not talking about calculations that we make when we give. Our Ego is a very precise machine - it calculates every single action, it knows exactly how much to give in order to receive.
I am talking about desire to give, which is above calculating Ego. ;)
© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVII

Uhmmm yes but desire runs into lusting as that is the origin of Lust - Desire.

As for how presice our egos are well, not a 'machine' as they (our Minds) aren't as 'presice' as any 'machine' on the Planet, we make Waaaaay more mistakes then they (machines) do, plus we can self repair! :D :eek:

[kavana]

lust (lst)
n.
1. Intense or unrestrained sexual craving.
2.
a. An overwhelming desire or craving: a lust for power.
b. Intense eagerness or enthusiasm: a lust for life.
3. Obsolete Pleasure; relish.
intr.v. lust·ed, lust·ing, lusts
To have an intense or obsessive desire, especially one that is sexual.


And what's wrong with "lust"?

If one has a lust to give - that is great!!!!!!!!!!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVII

lust (lst) n.
1. Intense or unrestrained sexual craving.
2. a. An overwhelming desire or craving: a lust for power.
b. Intense eagerness or enthusiasm: a lust for life.
3. Obsolete Pleasure; relish.
intr.v. lust·ed, lust·ing, lusts
To have an intense or obsessive desire, especially one that is sexual.


And what's wrong with "lust"?

If one has a lust to give - that is great!!!!!!!!!!unrestrained overwhelming obsessive Desire is NOT Love except that it is SELF LOVE AKA EGOTISM-EXTREMIS

That is NOT 'an act of Love' towards 'another' as it is exclusively an act of Love towards Self!

[kavana]

Wait a minute here.
You just took apart the whole concept.

Love is NOT a desire itself.

Love is a desire TO GIVE.

And if it is unrestrained overwhelming obsessive Desire TO GIVE, then it is 'an act of Love' towards 'another'

[kavana]

Just found this. I think it takes us a bit further form where we are now in our discussion:

Love is a sensation of pleasure from an object that gives me pleasure.
If I am a desire to receive, then I must look for someone who gives me pleasure.

How can love exist between two human beings? Baal HaSulam explains that for this to happen people have to be similar in their properties. The universal law is effect in the entire Universe, in all the worlds, including ours; it is called the law of equivalence of form.

According to this law, I sense, perceive, and comprehend only the things that are common between me and the object that I investigate, perceive, and observe. If no common property exists between a certain object and me, I am unable to sense it. If there is no commonality in thought - at least, minimal or partial - between another human being and me, I am unable to understand him or her.

When I establish a connection with someone, I understand the person to the measure of the equivalence of form in our desires and thoughts (it must happen both in mind and heart). It can also happen that even if I understanding someone, I draw away, but still there is a certain connection between us. Equivalence of form is a condition for establishing a connection to someone or something.

But if two egoists do love each other, how is it possible? In such a case, they have to resemble each other in their properties. I have to love whatever the other person loves, to hate whatever the other person hates, and this how we will connected with each other.

kabbalah.info/engkab/translated_lessons_texts)/lectures_at_the_educational_center_nekuda_shebalev/12232004_unconditional_love.htm

:) :rolleyes: :cool:

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVII

Wait a minute here. You just took apart the whole concept.
Love is NOT a desire itself.
Love is a desire TO GIVE.
And if it is unrestrained overwhelming obsessive Desire TO GIVE, then it is 'an act of Love' towards 'another'
Not if the other person is saying "NO" as then it all flips over to the other side and is Exceedingly selfish and wrong and BAD! AND OOOOOH SO NOT LOVE

and this...unrestrained overwhelming obsessive...is not a person willing to take "NO" for an answer...so how can that be love??

P.S. noticed how you have slipped from the word LUST to LOVE as we had been discussing Lust...your post #13...Right?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVII
(SNIP) But if two egoists do love each other, how is it possible? In such a case, they have to resemble each other in their properties. I have to love whatever the other person loves, to hate whatever the other person hates, and this how we will connected with each other. [/I] (SNoP)A true egotist will 'love another' only to serve themselves.

After that, see the above posting, & please, stick to the topic? sorta? well 'word use' or 'words used' or 'words being used' ....love and/or lust as they are not really the same thing.

[freethinker]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVII

True Acts of Love are always rewarded....here, or better ...there.

Have a nice Friday!

It appears you believe in heaven.

Defining love isn't as much of a puzzle (since it is an emotion/feeling and no different than defining anger, hate, happiness, joy, sadness, etc.) as defining what warrants love. 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. There is SOMETHING within that calls to another. A physically ugly person can be truely loved, hence appearing beautiful to him/her who loves that person, leading us to understand that love is not physical attributes, but something within. But what is it that is possessed by one that draws another?

There are as many kinds of love as there are kinds of other emotions. A person CAN love a sunset, or a flavor of ice cream, or a color. Love is something that is solicited by anything or anyone who sees it by bringing peace, comfort, joy, ... . So anyone can 'love' things that render those good feelings by it's properties.

[Epsilon=One]

There are as many kinds of love as there are kinds of other emotions. A person CAN love a sunset, or a flavor of ice cream, or a color. Love is something that is solicited by anything or anyone who sees it by bringing peace, comfort, joy, ... . So anyone can 'love' things that render those good feelings by it's properties.I define love as a term that is synonymous with romantic love that is separated from all else but caring and understanding for another person with a bond that at times seems physical as with molecular bonds.

Where the term love is used otherwise, as indicated throughout this post, there are other terms, with different connotations, that should be used.

Thus, love is perfectly reciprocal. To know another's love for you requires only your analyzing your true love for them.

Unfortunately, in most close relationships, possession is an unwarranted, destructive quality of love; such as: I love my spouse.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVII

It appears you believe in heaven.
Defining love isn't as much of a puzzle (since it is an emotion/feeling and no different than defining anger, hate, happiness, joy, sadness, etc.) as defining what warrants love. 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. There is SOMETHING within that calls to another. A physically ugly person can be truely loved, hence appearing beautiful to him/her who loves that person, leading us to understand that love is not physical attributes, but something within. But what is it that is possessed by one that draws another?
There are as many kinds of love as there are kinds of other emotions. A person CAN love a sunset, or a flavor of ice cream, or a color. Love is something that is solicited by anything or anyone who sees it by bringing peace, comfort, joy, ... . So anyone can 'love' things that render those good feelings by it's properties.
An act of Love is a/the feeling that follows it.

As for love of Ice cream (Etc) that isn't really love it is simply enjoyment of a flavor, of an intense craving for something even though the term/word 'love' can and is used as it is a sense of 'adoration' of something.

That said adoring something that is material seems an utter and absolute waste of the emotion as that substantive item feels nothing from it, or in return of it...so generally (I) personally would find that a 'bit' of a waste of time, and energy and emotion.

P.S. the pink and the green seemingly contradict each other as Loving a color solicites NOTHING! (Self-love? = egotism!)

[Epsilon=One]

P.S. the pink and the green seemingly contradict each other as Loving a color solicites NOTHING! (Self-love? = egotism!)Do not edit the quotes of others without so noting.

You have often resorted to this form of editing. It is deceptive.

[freethinker]

I define love as a term that is synonymous with romantic love that is separated from all else but caring and understanding for another person with a bond that at times seems physical as with molecular bonds.

Where the term love is used otherwise, as indicated throughout this post, there are other terms, with different connotations, that should be used.

Thus, love is perfectly reciprocal. To know another's love for you requires only your analyzing your true love for them.

Unfortunately, in most close relationships, possession is an unwarranted, destructive quality of love; such as: I love my spouse.

Ok, I'll accept that, but only in part. Two things though; "To know another's love for you requires only your ananlyzing your true love for them." What about when, in a marriage or relationship where one has the deepest love but the other cheats? If the one who has the love analyzes his/her love for the other, it doesn't really reflect the love the other has, does it?

Secondly: "..., possession is an unwarranted, destructive quality of love; ..."
If the bond of true love is as that of molecular bonds, isn't that a form of possession? How can a person have that bond with another without truely belonging to the other? They become one, therefore they belong to each other. The difference I see is there is a possessing as in belonging, then there is possessing as in controlling.

[Epsilon=One]

"To know another's love for you requires only your analyzing your true love for them." What about when, in a marriage or relationship where one has the deepest love but the other cheats? If the one who has the love analyzes his/her love for the other, it doesn't really reflect the love the other has, does it?Yes, it does. Love is reciprocal.

Think deeply about your question; eliminate all emotions but love . . .

Secondly: "..., possession is an unwarranted, destructive quality of love; ..." If the bond of true love is as that of molecular bonds, isn't that a form of possession?Any form of possession is a destructive bond. I have no idea what your connotation of "molecular bonds" may be.

How can a person have that bond with another without truely belonging to the other?There will be little true, deep bonding if there is "belonging." Only with complete freedom is there a strong bond, which usually is love.

They become one, therefore they belong to each other.If such is so; they are most likely mutually oppressive. The goal of an individual spirit should not be immersion within another; it should be complete freedom. When a love is strong, one can give this freedom to another. There must be reciprocal love for any strong love. Such love is self-promoting; love either grows vibrantly or withers.

When love is vibrant there is no concern with "belonging." "Belonging" is a requisite of doubt; where there is doubt, there is not real love. Or much else, including religious faith . . .

The difference I see is there is a possessing as in belonging, then there is possessing as in controlling.Semantics and connotations aside, "belonging" still has adverse effects when applied to love. People can love one another. However, people do not "belong" to other people!

[svetlu]

I like this one:

"Love is an ultimate sensation felt in the connection between all souls to the Creator." Rav Michael Laitman (http://www.laitman.com), PhD

And this one:

Love - the Unifying Factor Between All Elements in Reality (http://www.kabbalahblog.info/2008/02/love-the-unifying-factor-between-all-elements-in-reality/)

[babyis37]

1 .Baby Noah Animal Expedition DVD* A musical introduction to animals around the globe* Features bonus language learning with Spanish, French and English tracks* Includes the music of Beethoven, Mozart and Strauss* Appropriate from 1 year

[petplarup]

Thank you so much for the post. It's really useful.

[michelroyid]

I don't have an idea about your question ...But Love is any of a number of emotions and experiences related to a sense of strong affection and attachment. Love can never be just one single feeling in itself, but is an emotion built up from two or more feelings.....

[sehelly617]

Hello. And Bye.