Teacher asked us for a simple discussion post on love...

SO WHAT IF I ALREADY POSTED THIS ON METBB!!


My feeble attempt to define love is that it is first and foremost some sort of feeling muddled between the collusion of our senses and the inexplicability of the Divine. But it is not a feeling in the likeness of a physical sensation, therefore, it is not a stimulus for "love cannot compel". It is not a form of attraction, passion, obsession, desire, want or any other distraction of some sort. Love seems to manifest itself in the mental framework, but to contain it in such a framework seems to debase it. If it is to be beyond the influences of passion and desire, then love must be self-less. The self is tempted to enter and create a self-hood composed entirely of temporal emotions/distractions for that is all the self, as a temporal entity, can understand. For these reasons, the self easily associates love with fleeting passion or any other emotion that can temporally sustain it. However, the self will never be able to satiate its desire and sustain itself because nothing of a temporal nature is sustainable. The self, in all its deficiencies, senses the sustaining power of love, and so, futilely chases the contorted image it has composed of love. Operating in this fashion, the self exhibits the traits of psychological egoism, whereby all actions are performed from the basis of self-satisfaction or self-"love". The world, with all its objects and things, are merely mediums for the self to achieve its elusive end of gratification. For these reasons, we seem so apt to "love" the wrong things, though we simply conflate and confuse love with our sense's desire for fulfillment.

Before I said that love cannot be influenced by the desires and passions of the self. Reasonably, this seems to necessitate that love exists beyond the self, or, perhaps more appropriately, beyond the lower-self which only seeks self-hood in the temporal, physical world. For this to be possible, there must be a higher self, and it, instead of seeking union with the temporal seeks union with the eternal. Personally, I consider the higher self to be our true essence, namely, the soul. I think that the faculty of the soul is love, while the faculty of the self is reason. The soul is an infinite vessel seeking the infinite fulfilling essence of love. Love becomes the satiating force of the soul, ultimately allowing it to reside in perfect stability and balance. This love must be pure, existing beyond the defilement of the self. This means that it is marked by self-less humility, indifferent in scope and aim, and unrelenting devotion. The soul, out of love, harvests love and releases it in one continuous action; all for the sake of love. If we do not love, then we are truly lost and forever bound to become meaningless in the emptiness of our pursuits.



----------------------------

one response so far

usually if I have to read something twice, its because I don't quite agree, or get or understand whats being said, if I read it 3 times, it usually means its quite interesting, I read your thread five times, I found it very touching, meaningful and very insightful.  cuddo'snicely said, I'm touched.
thanks much
your friend
***

love, simple?

it just doesn't work

I read your post twice to try to better understand it.
gotta say that I'm still not sure I really do understand it.
what i got from this is that love (according to how you describe it) cannot be attained by the lower self, which is the part of us that lives in the temporal, real world.
so is there a point in even trying to find "love" then, or should we just leave it to fate?

Thorny wrote:

I read your post twice to try to better understand it.
gotta say that I'm still not sure I really do understand it.
what i got from this is that love (according to how you describe it) cannot be attained by the lower self, which is the part of us that lives in the temporal, real world.
so is there a point in even trying to find "love" then, or should we just leave it to fate?

WTF VLAZ YOU ASK ME TO POST THIS FOR YOU AND NOW YOU DONT RESPOND

anyways, take into account that the lower self is not your true "self". It is fabricated through desires and wants, it wants nothing more than to uphold itself. Our true essence is hidden beneath the turnings of this world. We can live according to our higher self through self-reflection and constant vigilance(madeye moody).

For example, if someone wants love because they are lonely then this is a false conception of love. They simply want psychological comfort. Love must blossom solely from the basis of love. You love your parents not because you are lonely, but for the sake of love and its goodness you love them selflessly. It is the activity of the soul, pure and boundless.


You can only find love within. Love is a state and activity of the soul. If you seek love externally it most likely to placate some desire.

hope that clarified a little bit

i like what you wrote. your point is presented well and it's a solid argument.


But i disagree. If you are talking exclusively about platonic 'i love my mom and dad and sister and cousin' type of love then I am more willing to agree with what you said.

But if we are talking romantic 'i will do anything for you and to make sure you are always happy' love, then I disagree almost entirely.


Love is passion. It has to be. you cannot love someone passionless. Therefore love can be affected or influenced by passion. and desire. If you are in love with someone, you long to be with them. so see them, to hold them, to breath the same air and fill the same space. You want to be one with them. Therefore love can and is influenced by desire. It's not a selfish desire, but desire nonetheless. You cannot love someone without desiring them. If that is the case, then move back one space to Platonic love. See the same for attraction. Be it physical, mental, or that mysterious otherworldly attraction that exists and is unexplainable. Love can compel. Love can drive. Love can motivate. Love can and has been and tends to be a bit selfish. But not in the 'it's all about me' way. If you love someone, you care about them immensely. You want them to be safe. You want them to be happy. You want them to be taken care of. And you want to be the person fulfilling those things. So by selflessly doing all you can to make the person you love happy, you are, in essence, fulfilling your own selfish desire for the person to be happy. You want them to be happy. You make them happy, filling your desire.

That is all I have time for right now. But that should get you started.

unicorn wrote:

hope that clarified a little bit

actually, not much.

I think I more closely agree with Vlaz on this one.
But some people think I'm cold and heartless... so what do I know.

Thorny wrote:

unicorn wrote:

hope that clarified a little bit

actually, not much.

I think I more closely agree with Vlaz on this one.
But some people think I'm cold and heartless... so what do I know.

haha fair enough.. Well I'll admit that I haven't figured out where personal love fits into this definition so yes im forced to only consider platonic love. If Love must be indifferent, because it cannot distinguish then how can two people fall in love. Right now, I would be inclined to say that it is the result of some working together of the higher and lower self,,, one desires which pulls two people together - the other i dont know or it could somehow be a reflection of the supreme love, and action physical representation of the system of love. Neither one seems satisfactory.

Man this is giving me a serious headache, Im going to think this over and read.

unicorn wrote:

Man this is giving me a serious headache, Im going to think this over and read.

For practical purposes my advice is not to think about it. Just go with the flow and you will eventually end up where you are meant to.

however this doesn't mean sit back and do nothing. Sometimes you do have to go out of your way to find someone to be happy with, but other times things just fall in to your lap.
I went looking once and the relationship was not worth much, and another time I gave up trying and a short while later I had an amazing relationship.
though... I am currently single so obviously even the "good" one didn't last, so maybe I don't actually know what I'm talking about.

you are definitely thinking about it too much. It's not as complicated as movies make it seem. And I don't know where you're going or getting all this higher and lower self crap. But it's just making the whole thing more complicated. Love is simple. It just is. Get it? Love is. End of story.


Mike Define Love for us please?

Ok. Love is.


/end

Vlaz wrote:

you are definitely thinking about it too much. It's not as complicated as movies make it seem. And I don't know where you're going or getting all this higher and lower self crap. But it's just making the whole thing more complicated. Love is simple. It just is. Get it? Love is. End of story.


Mike Define Love for us please?

Ok. Love is.


/end

love love

Love is more complicated than complex vector calculus... and believe me I would know.

Love is when Alina starts running.

Panini wrote:

Love is when Alina starts running.

because we all love to watch you run?

Thorny wrote:

Panini wrote:

Love is when Alina starts running.

because we all love to watch you run?

Because Alina is scared of love? Get it?

Panini wrote:

Thorny wrote:

Panini wrote:

Love is when Alina starts running.

because we all love to watch you run?

Because Alina is scared of love? Get it?

Oh, I got it. I just didn't want to get it. I like mine better.
do you often speak/type in the third person?

Thorny wrote:

Love is more complicated than complex vector calculus... and believe me I would know.

no one is impressed.

Thorny wrote:

Panini wrote:

Love is when Alina starts running.

because we all love to watch you run?

:thumbsdownfacepalm:

Vlaz wrote:

Thorny wrote:

Love is more complicated than complex vector calculus... and believe me I would know.

no one is impressed.

Thorny wrote:

Panini wrote:

Love is when Alina starts running.

because we all love to watch you run?

:thumbsdownfacepalm:

I think I will always openly hate you.

this is why we're such good friends.

Thorny wrote:

Panini wrote:

Thorny wrote:

Panini wrote:

Love is when Alina starts running.

because we all love to watch you run?

Because Alina is scared of love? Get it?

Oh, I got it. I just didn't want to get it. I like mine better.
do you often speak/type in the third person?

Well, it was a DEFINITION! Definitions should be in the 3rd person!


@ Mike!

I gotta agree on the definitions should always be in third person.

Panini wrote:

Thorny wrote:

Panini wrote:

Thorny wrote:

Panini wrote:

Love is when Alina starts running.

because we all love to watch you run?

Because Alina is scared of love? Get it?

Oh, I got it. I just didn't want to get it. I like mine better.
do you often speak/type in the third person?

Well, it was a DEFINITION! Definitions should be in the 3rd person!


@ Mike!

well if it is a DEFINITION.. I mean CAPS makes it that important...

Thorny wrote:

Panini wrote:

Thorny wrote:

Panini wrote:

Thorny wrote:

Panini wrote:

Love is when Alina starts running.

because we all love to watch you run?

Because Alina is scared of love? Get it?

Oh, I got it. I just didn't want to get it. I like mine better.
do you often speak/type in the third person?

Well, it was a DEFINITION! Definitions should be in the 3rd person!


@ Mike!

well if it is a DEFINITION.. I mean CAPS makes it that important...

Ooooohhhh...it's on buddy!

Panini wrote:

Thorny wrote:

Panini wrote:

Thorny wrote:

Panini wrote:

Thorny wrote:

Panini wrote:

Love is when Alina starts running.

because we all love to watch you run?

Because Alina is scared of love? Get it?

Oh, I got it. I just didn't want to get it. I like mine better.
do you often speak/type in the third person?

Well, it was a DEFINITION! Definitions should be in the 3rd person!


@ Mike!

well if it is a DEFINITION.. I mean CAPS makes it that important...

Ooooohhhh...it's on buddy!

bring it on. I could use some entertainment.

Thorny wrote:

Panini wrote:

Thorny wrote:

Panini wrote:

Thorny wrote:

Panini wrote:

Thorny wrote:

Panini wrote:

Love is when Alina starts running.

because we all love to watch you run?

Because Alina is scared of love? Get it?

Oh, I got it. I just didn't want to get it. I like mine better.
do you often speak/type in the third person?

Well, it was a DEFINITION! Definitions should be in the 3rd person!


@ Mike!

well if it is a DEFINITION.. I mean CAPS makes it that important...

Ooooohhhh...it's on buddy!

bring it on. I could use some entertainment.

I don't do nudity.