Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: What is 'Love' but, lack of 'Fear'...

  1. #1

    Default What is 'Love' but, lack of 'Fear'...

    A charming, Artsy - Intellect, friend of mine; posed this question for contemplation:

    Love is a very often used word. It can depict an emotional response to something. It can also describe a strong feeling for someone. But what is it?
    Yes - what is it?

    I noodled around in my own mind... thinking anything from witty-clever responses to; the drudgery that seemed inevitable from drafting-up and, then refining... some prose of intellectual masturbatory stimulation with the intended climax of self-satisfaction... Oh! how I love to stroke those long, hard words... their textures and colors and the way they vibrate and tingle - I love to take them deep inside of me...

    So, failing that likely, due to insufficient intake of caffeine, for the hour; I queried the Oracle of the 'interwebs' (of course!)...

    Interestingly enough... I didn't get presented with all the superficial, smarmy, condescending, kind of crap - that I fully anticipated...

    Through a feeble yet, not entirely devoid of answer for contemplation; I instead, found a few words together... arranged in a way that was far more succinct than, the choppy signal and aptly produced message, from my own built-in resources...

    "If it's not love, it's fear"
    Oh!

    I mean, not as a sarcastic "Yeah-Right!?" Yet, like a "Right-On!" Yeah-right!

    Right?

    This might sound or seem perverse to some of you - I don't mean kinky-perversion (that's not where I'm going with this) - Yet, I know that I love my dog... major heart-strings, spiritual, comfort, connection, nurturing, companionship *I do hug my living plushie and, I even give her a peck on the forehead, on occasion*

    ...and, there's similarities and differences with that and, how I love others - of the human species, too. Though, it's more likely, that I harbor persistent fears with our species... which, seems to present a bit of a conundrum for the thoroughness, frequency and, "genuinicity" of this particular arrangement of love...

    I can see too - that one may be able to love another even though, not particularly loving themselves... Put into this What is 'Love' but, lack of 'Fear'... context; they simply fear for and/or of, themselves more... they may even, not fear another...

    One might still consider though... as long as there is fear in the equation; love, will probably remain, at arm's reach... And, as we so often seem to see (and experience)... fear for and/or of one's self, is like a cancer that metastasizes... and those around will eventually begin to fear more than love (hate?)... How that often finishes out, is quite self-explanatory...


    And, isn't love - freedom too?

    So, freedom, is lack of fear or, the persistence, in-spite of the fear... Freedom, is love...


    Love, doesn't/cannot, conquer anything... that is yet in bondage to fear... and, where shall one's freedom be then?

    A.) As an illusion/delusion, at best...

    Interestingly enough though... what is fear but, the illusion or delusion of life altering impediment?

    So, along those lines

    Courage is not the absence of fear but the judgment that something else is more important than fear. The brave may not live forever but the cautious do not live at all. For now you are traveling the road between who you think you are and who you can be.
    By "cautious"... it's likely not intended to be interpreted as reckless abandon or utter carelessness...

    The adage of "No-one gets out of this life, alive"...

    ... conjures considerations for... Just what are we saving ourselves from or, for?

    One of the possible, great injustices, of the After-Life notions and connotations... Might be, that we live this life, of the importance of making good-grades by, staying in-line and, being polite or, rigorously surviving, in a cult-survival encampment, buried deep within a mountain of religious reich... Only or, primarily... for, the next life...

    Where is our freedom without, love?
    Where is our life without, freedom?
    Where is our love without, life?



    I'll leave you to each interpret this, as you may... consider, comment (or not), at your choosing...

    For now,
    -Marka

  2. #2

    Default

    Couldn't help myself but thinking of that:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOV1Q6B4OUA

    More serious: Love is to put yourself second because you wouldn't want it any other way.

  3. #3

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by pampersguy View Post
    Couldn't help myself but thinking of that:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOV1Q6B4OUA

    More serious: Love is to put yourself second because you wouldn't want it any other way.


    This video contains content from NBC Universal, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.
    Anyway, I don't agree with the context I interpret about... putting yourself "second"... If, you devalue yourself... what credibility do you have to properly value, anyone else?

    Putting yourself "first" - doesn't mean more or better or, instead-of... it means... sequentially first... which really makes sense when, you consider that you would start first... at the source. Why, wouldn't you want it this way?

    My appreciation for your response to this thread - Do, come again! *hugs*

    -Marka

  4. #4

    Default

    Well, the Beatles wrote that "happiness is a warm gun" so I guess that answers that.

    In their defense, they wrote this too:

    There are places I remember all my life
    Though some have changed
    Some forever, not for better
    Some have gone and some remain

    All these places have their moments
    Of lovers and friends I still can recall
    Some are dead and some are living
    In my life I loved them all

    And with all these friends and lovers
    There is no one compares with you
    And these mem'ries lose their meaning
    When I think of love as something new

    And I know I'll never lose affection
    For people and things that went before
    I know I'll often stop and think about them
    In my life I loved you more

    So, in my lifetime, all the ones whom I've loved, I would have given my life so that they might live. They would make a small list but even today, I could name every one of them. At present are my wife, our kids and grandchildren. Oh yes, and my dog.

  5. #5

    Default

    Marka,

    I may be able to clarify some things for you here, and I apologize if my thoughts seem scattered...

    I've been in what I term "real love" before -- there was someone I met in college I would have literally given my life for. What I felt for her was automatic, and unconditional -- and I still feel it to this day. She is like my own flesh and blood, and I am unable to see her any other way.

    At the same time, the relationship I had with her might have made me seem superficially "secondary"... she knew me as her "pet". And yes, I had a collar. But there was never any difficulty between her and I about the understanding that I submit to her voluntarily. That wasn't the downfall of our relationship. She... evidently didn't feel she needed me as much as I felt I needed her, despite her professions.

  6. #6

    Default

    Putting others first, well that doesn't have to do with devaluing yourself when it comes to love. Loving means caring, giving without the usual need to get something in return. The term "unconditional" was used. Of course, there are limits to this. And in a day to day life I wouldn't think about putting everyone I love first. Sometimes you need to be first in order to take the best care for everyone.
    But if there wasn't enough food on the table I'd let my family eat first. My daughter, my partner.

  7. #7

    Default

    I'm more partial to the stastistical definitions myself. Such as wiki, which seems to be one of the most in depth.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love

  8. #8

    Default

    Seems like for most people love is a feeling; an emotion. If that's the case then love is nothing more than a genetically evolved, bio-chemical response to certain triggers in your environment. I'm not knocking it. This kind of love is one of the most powerful and wonderful feelings anyone can experience. It can override other strong, emotional desires such as self preservation or orgasm. There are downsides to this kind of love, of course. Losing the object of your love, or not having that love returned to you, can be very painful.

    Wikipedia does a good job of piling on enough words to cover all the bases. As for me, I'm still stuck with my air-headed belief that love is somehow beyond words and feelings.

  9. #9

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Drifter View Post
    Seems like for most people love is a feeling; an emotion. If that's the case then love is nothing more than a genetically evolved, bio-chemical response to certain triggers in your environment. I'm not knocking it. This kind of love is one of the most powerful and wonderful feelings anyone can experience. It can override other strong, emotional desires such as self preservation or orgasm. There are downsides to this kind of love, of course. Losing the object of your love, or not having that love returned to you, can be very painful.

    Wikipedia does a good job of piling on enough words to cover all the bases. As for me, I'm still stuck with my air-headed belief that love is somehow beyond words and feelings.
    With our young taking so long to develop to survivability.... evolution had to play some dirty tricks on us.

    Love is a seriously overused and often mis-applied word and concept.

    After a couple of beers, we 'love' lots of things. In the morning's harsh light, we'd just as soon chew our arm off to escape rather than waking 'it'.

    Love, lust, endorphin-induced euphoria... Often confused for each other. The Romans had two words for it, eros, and agape. Perhaps a little better than our single work 'love', but still not well defined, or measurable. Color me skeptical. I think the nearest substitute in the thesaurus should be romantic self-delusion.

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Marka View Post
    What is 'Love'...?
    Argh! I had to write an essay on that very subject as a Philosophy undergraduate. It drove me nuts! We had to compare the writings of various philosophers on the subject, but few of them had anything interesting to say.

    At the time, I found the question absurd. Love is an abstract concept without any real meaning, I thought. More importantly, it was an emotion... which I'd spent my life thus far trying to completely ignore. I studied philosophy to understand abstract logical arguments; not figure out the non-scientific nonsense of emotional states!



    Quote Originally Posted by Marka View Post
    I noodled around in my own mind... thinking anything from witty-clever responses to; the drudgery that seemed inevitable from drafting-up and, then refining... some prose of intellectual masturbatory stimulation with the intended climax of self-satisfaction... Oh! how I love to stroke those long, hard words... their textures and colors and the way they vibrate and tingle - I love to take them deep inside of me...
    Ha ha! Once again... you absolutely crease me up, Marka!

    I have to say, though, there's nothing wrong with having a synaesthesic linguaphilia fetish! Or should I say lexophilia?! Oooh, saucy!



    Quote Originally Posted by Marka View Post
    This might sound or seem perverse to some of you - I don't mean kinky-perversion (that's not where I'm going with this) - Yet, I know that I love my dog... major heart-strings, spiritual, comfort, connection, nurturing, companionship *I do hug my living plushie and, I even give her a peck on the forehead, on occasion*

    ...and, there's similarities and differences with that and, how I love others - of the human species, too. Though, it's more likely, that I harbor persistent fears with our species... which, seems to present a bit of a conundrum for the thoroughness, frequency and, "genuinicity" of this particular arrangement of love...
    The first thing I learned whilst studying philosophy (although almost all philosophers seem blindly ignorant to this), is that virtually every problem of philosophy (including "paradoxes") is actually a problem of meaning. Words do not correlate neatly to reality.

    Knowledge, of course, is another big problem, but it somehow seems more tangible and easier for philosophy to deal with than the problem of linguistic meaning. Especially since, the only way we can talk about philosophy is to use the language that we are saying is problematic regarding philosophy.



    [L]ove may be an ejection of emotions that defy rational examination; on the other hand, some languages, such as Papuan, do not even admit the concept, which negates the possibility of a philosophical examination. In English, the word "love," which is derived from Germanic forms of the Sanskrit lubh (desire), is broadly defined and hence imprecise, which generates first order problems of definition and meaning
    http://www.iep.utm.edu/love/

    Anyway, "What is love?" is an age-old question:


    Philosophically, the nature of love has, since the time of the Ancient Greeks, been a mainstay in philosophy, producing theories that range from the materialistic conception of love as purely a physical phenomenon -- an animalistic or genetic urge that dictates our behavior -- to theories of love as an intensely spiritual affair that in its highest permits us to touch divinity.

    Historically, in the Western tradition, Plato’s Symposium presents the initiating text, for it provides us with an enormously influential and attractive notion that love is characterized by a series of elevations, in which animalistic desire or base lust is superseded by a more intellectual conception of love which also is surpassed by what may be construed by a theological vision of love that transcends sensual attraction and mutuality.

    Since then there have been detractors and supporters of Platonic love as well as a host of alternative theories—including that of Plato’s student, Aristotle and his more secular theory of true love reflecting what he described as ‘two bodies and one soul.’
    http://www.iep.utm.edu/love/

    Those clever Greeks decided that the word "love" encompassed too many different things (like loving your dog, loving your wife, loving your best mate, etc.). So they decided that there are different types of love. For example:

    • Agápe -- charitable love
    • Éros -- sexually intimate love
    • Philia -- affectionate regard ("brotherly love")
    • Storge -- bonded/patriotic love

    (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love)

    Aristotle also considers the nature of "friendship" in Nichomachean Ethics (isn't friendship a kind of love?), and concludes that there are three different kinds:

    • Utility
    • Pleasure
    • Goodness



    Quote Originally Posted by Aristotle
    What is a friend? A single soul dwelling in two bodies.
    https://aquileana.wordpress.com/2014...-and-goodness/

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



    Quote Originally Posted by Marka View Post
    I can see too - that one may be able to love another even though, not particularly loving themselves... Put into this What is 'Love' but, lack of 'Fear'... context; they simply fear for and/or of, themselves more... they may even, not fear another...

    One might still consider though... as long as there is fear in the equation; love, will probably remain, at arm's reach... And, as we so often seem to see (and experience)... fear for and/or of one's self, is like a cancer that metastasizes... and those around will eventually begin to fear more than love (hate?)... How that often finishes out, is quite self-explanatory...
    Now that's some deep shit! And not of the doggie doo variety.

    Don't forget that love "metastasises" too. I have often been snapped out of my unthinking gloom, just because a stranger smiled at me in the street. And laughter is the best medicine.

    In my darkest hours, I've been comforted by the fact that I can (possibly) give love and laughter and make the world a better place than if I were absent. Love really does make the world go round. I don't know what love is... and that used to make me deny its existence (subconsciously, if not fully consciously).

    I'm a rationalist, an atheist, and a realist. But love (and other emotions) are real whether I like it or not. I used to think that emotional and logical thoughts/ideas/feelings existed on separate planes... The truth is that we are all beings with both animalistic/instinctive/emotional traits, and abstract/rational/logical ones. These two sides are just different sides of the same coin; they can't be separated and considered in isolation.

    In our model of "who we are", we often split our identity into "rational" and "emotional" characters. The "rational" is the one who worked overtime to pay off the mortgage early. The "emotional" is the one who ate a whole packet of biscuits even though they're trying to diet. But we are both people at once, all the time. We can't escape either our feelings or our rationality.

    Emotions and feelings may appear irrational to us, but they have evolved over millions of years to give us the best chance of survival in a changing world (although, perhaps, not one changing so rapidly as it is now).

    But love has to "mean" something. It should neither be ignored nor over-intellectualised... I reckon.



    Quote Originally Posted by Marka View Post
    And, isn't love - freedom too?

    So, freedom, is lack of fear or, the persistence, in-spite of the fear... Freedom, is love...
    Mmmm... Yes... That's jolly profound! One of the lessons from Orwell's Nighteen Eighty-Four, perhaps?

    I think that the concept of "love" is one of the ways (perhaps the best, or only way) in which we can escape the boring, nihilistic problems of determinism.

    I believe in compatibilist determinism, which is (I think) honest, but depressingly nihilistic. However, I have realised that the abstract rational understanding of reality in terms of determinism completely ignores the phenomenological experience of what it's like to be a human being. Logic and rational thought are great for analysing the perceived facts concerning the reality of existence. But they ignore the experience.

    So... in a way... love is the very manifestation of existential freedom! It makes no sense, yet we do it anyway! It just is! It's great, and we should spend our time in this morbid existence cultivating it and letting it flourish. The funny thing about love is... the more you give, the more you receive. Love isn't a "mean to an end"; it's an end in itself.

    We have "transcended" the cold, hard, determinism of the universe by loving irrationally and "consciously choosing" our partners, and whether or not to be faithful. Except that that's exactly what evolution had in mind for us! So we're free to fall irrationally in love with people, but only if we have evolved to have such a mind... (This is why the compatibilist theory of determinism is the only one that make sense to me.)



    Quote Originally Posted by Marka View Post
    Love, doesn't/cannot, conquer anything... that is yet in bondage to fear... and, where shall one's freedom be then?
    Can love not conquer fear...?

    I have seen abused animals taken in to loving homes and... their personality is transformed by love. The disorder of debilitating fear has been conquered by love alone.



    Quote Originally Posted by Marka View Post
    A.) As an illusion/delusion, at best...

    Interestingly enough though... what is fear but, the illusion or delusion of life altering impediment?
    Indeed. This is what's happening at the coal-face. Both love and fear are abstract delusions we invent in order to confabulate an explanation as to who we are and just what the damned hell is going on.



    Quote Originally Posted by Marka View Post
    One of the possible, great injustices, of the After-Life notions and connotations... Might be, that we live this life, of the importance of making good-grades by, staying in-line and, being polite or, rigorously surviving, in a cult-survival encampment, buried deep within a mountain of religious reich... Only or, primarily... for, the next life...
    And that is the absurdity of so many religions! The idea that this life isn't important because the next one is where it's at! I call shenanigans!

    Anyway, I hope I haven't bored you.

    Lots of love,
    Tiny

Similar Threads

  1. Lack of Activity
    By Clarity in forum Greetings / Introductions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 23-Sep-2011, 03:46
  2. Lack Of?
    By diaperedteenager in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 26-Oct-2009, 15:02
  3. Lack of interest
    By Suspence in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 29-Jul-2009, 13:53
  4. lack of certain animals.
    By Maxicoon in forum Babyfur / Diaperfur
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 14-Jul-2009, 04:53

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.