To many, a defintion of love is daft, as they believe "love" is but a chemical construct of the mind. Of course, I couldn't possibly fall into consorting ideals with these folk. At least not all the time. No, that would be far too painful. Mistaken love? To "them," it is all mistaken love. Your opinion and views on love intrigue me though, along with the rest of the worlds'. Most popular subject ever. By the way, hello again.
it's an ongoing theme with me right now. love. well moreso that, emotions are bound to definition. in text, to descibe what we feel, is to use words. therefore the defintions they fall into. falling in love, hell, even anger. one love isnt the same as another love.
let's get personal. the way you love Melissa is different than the way i love Sarah, for whatever reason. but for one (and probably/hopefully more than one) reason or another, we are bound to the definition of "i love you too". The constructs of emotion cannot be dicated by definition, let alone timeframe, into which society has forced upon those who love by way of love.
is it society? or even just plain evolution that's forced these definitions upon us? what you're sayign makes total sense... but think back, before the word love existed. before words themselves existed.... there were probably actions and looks and.... whatever else to convey the meaning of love. And no doubt there were certain things that were recognized as love... one hugging, snuggling, touching another... was understood as the same concept, even if at that point it had no label. And we, in an effort to explain ourselve, had to put a word on those things.
Love... to some people will always mean just plain love, but to those of us who put more though into it will realize that there are our own definitions, our own interpertations.... that love can be many, many things. That doesn't necessarily make it bad for it to have a label (in most cases). I'm not sure what my point is.
I was merely saying that love's definition varies from person to person, and that there are those on both ends of the spectrum. Those that "cannot love" and those that "love too much," as well as those that don't even believe in it. It is just like one's individual spirituality. This is why I believe spiritual people tend to connect the two (Spirituality and Love).
Indeed. Most.... words, or things even have many definitions and interpretations though too, it's not just love. For example, I remember in cognitive psychology studying "operational definitions", and the teacher (one of my favorite) had us try and define something as simple as a bowl. And once we had come to a consensus he put up about 100 pictures of what could be construed as bowls... and yet some might also be cups, mixing bowls, teacups, and many others, but they all fit our definition of bowl. I think it's just the nature of language (and also experience) that things can be interpretted so many different ways from person to person.
Comments 8
bye.
Reply
let's get personal. the way you love Melissa is different than the way i love Sarah, for whatever reason. but for one (and probably/hopefully more than one) reason or another, we are bound to the definition of "i love you too". The constructs of emotion cannot be dicated by definition, let alone timeframe, into which society has forced upon those who love by way of love.
Reply
but think back, before the word love existed. before words themselves existed.... there were probably actions and looks and.... whatever else to convey the meaning of love. And no doubt there were certain things that were recognized as love... one hugging, snuggling, touching another... was understood as the same concept, even if at that point it had no label. And we, in an effort to explain ourselve, had to put a word on those things.
Love... to some people will always mean just plain love, but to those of us who put more though into it will realize that there are our own definitions, our own interpertations.... that love can be many, many things. That doesn't necessarily make it bad for it to have a label (in most cases). I'm not sure what my point is.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
For example, I remember in cognitive psychology studying "operational definitions", and the teacher (one of my favorite) had us try and define something as simple as a bowl. And once we had come to a consensus he put up about 100 pictures of what could be construed as bowls... and yet some might also be cups, mixing bowls, teacups, and many others, but they all fit our definition of bowl.
I think it's just the nature of language (and also experience) that things can be interpretted so many different ways from person to person.
Reply
Leave a comment