Re: Definitions and boundaries

Posted by Ryan on September 22, 2001 at 11:37:54:

In Reply to: Re: Definitions and boundaries posted by Primer Gray on September 22, 2001 at 10:18:54:

I love how people, especially other 5s, try to explain away love by making it some kind of delusion. If certain 5s had their way love would be some kind of psychological disorder. My own definition of romantic love basically involves some aspect of identity sharing and giving of yourself so that two people aren't just two separate entities anymore but become closer to one person. Romantic love can exist without sex as well. Two people can be in love who shouldn't be in love because their personalities clash. Everyone else from outside the relationship sees it... nevertheless, they are still, in fact, in love. I consider such experiences not bad experiences, but learning experiences... making one understand love much better and to not make the same mistakes in the future. But if you're never in love you never have these learning experiences... so you're most likely going to try to explain the concept away in your head altogether. Love is about using the feeling center inside you... and if you're weak in the feeling area to begin with love is going to be difficult for you. So I suggest that you don't try to make generalizations about love which apply to you but not everyone else. I consider the presence of God the same way... Others claim to experience the presence of divinity... I do not. But I don't try to tell others that God doesn't exist just because I don't feel like he's around watching over me.

Ryan

: : : >>> I don't understand why we need that word either... but people seem to need to put definitions and boundaries on things and stutter their natural flow.

: : Like trying to define and bound personality types? Love is love, whether you use the word or not. A five is a five whether you call them a "wombat" or a "five".

: : 1+1=2 no matter where you are. You can put a different symbol in between there, but when you take one thing and put it next to another thing, you have two things sitting next to each other.

: : So, in essence, you're afraid (or whatever word you want to use to describe your view) of the word "love" but not the concept of "love"? Interesting...

: This isn't a mere issue of semantics. The trouble comes from the misuse of the concept, the "unrealistic expectations". In essence, what is being said is that we are disappointed (for lack of a better word) in the way that the concept of love has been cheapened by romance novels, etc. Angry at the impossible ideal that can cause so much heartache and sorrow. Angry in a way that parallels the anger felt by many towards the images of the perfect but unattainable physical status the leads many people into poor body image and eating disorders. My point is that the overuse of the term "love" and all the unattainable ideals is at least as harmful as the concept of the perfect body. It would seem that love is an abstract concept and being so, there are many different interpretations.

: Jeff

Follow Ups:

• Re: Definitions and boundaries Primer Gray 12:26:04 09/22/01 (3)
  • Re: Definitions and boundaries Emily 14:33:33 09/22/01 (2)
    • Fair enough... Primer Gray 22:02:31 09/22/01 (1)
      • It's true, I do. All my love, Primer. Emily [nt] 00:21:42 09/23/01 (0)

Post a Followup