|
Love?
Oct 8, 2008 1:46:07 GMT
Post by QUEST on Oct 8, 2008 1:46:07 GMT
Does love need an object in order to exist?
|
|
|
Love?
Oct 8, 2008 7:05:56 GMT
Post by leonardo on Oct 8, 2008 7:05:56 GMT
This may depend on how love is defined.
|
|
|
Love?
Oct 15, 2008 23:26:38 GMT
Post by maat on Oct 15, 2008 23:26:38 GMT
Oooh... that has got me thinking... good question!
|
|
|
Love?
Oct 15, 2008 23:54:03 GMT
Post by maat on Oct 15, 2008 23:54:03 GMT
Ever just got up one morning and just felt like a million dollars for no reason whatsoever? I'm thinking that maybe love is like this. It just IS.
But from our place in the scheme of things I think it becomes related to 'empathy' when the One Love restricts itself (becomes polarised) and the 'attraction' factor kicks in.
When we look for love as they say, we are really just looking for the rest of ourselves?
I'll have to think some more on that one.
Maat
|
|
|
Love?
Oct 16, 2008 0:32:37 GMT
Post by QUEST on Oct 16, 2008 0:32:37 GMT
Ever just got up one morning and just felt like a million dollars for no reason whatsoever? I'm thinking that maybe love is like this. It just IS. But from our place in the scheme of things I think it becomes related to 'empathy' when the One Love restricts itself (becomes polarised) and the 'attraction' factor kicks in. When we look for love as they say, we are really just looking for the rest of ourselves? I'll have to think some more on that one. Maat Right, I agree. We cannot love others, without first loving ourselves. I cannot give away something that I do not have. But, that beggs the question; does love need an object? Be it others, ourselves, life, or God.
|
|
|
Love?
Nov 12, 2008 3:48:21 GMT
Post by matt on Nov 12, 2008 3:48:21 GMT
While I agree that we cannot love others without loving our self I don't think that we have to necessarily place self-love at the beginning of some love-spectrum. It has also been considered that placing the object of love above oneself is true love, as if time spent loving self could be better spent loving others. I think both of these are valid, but are veils on the light of love's transcendence. The fullness of love comes only in the making of love, where like mirrors facing each other the notion of giver and receiver evaporate into the infinite depths of their shared reflection.
|
|
|
Love?
Nov 12, 2008 23:06:39 GMT
Post by maat on Nov 12, 2008 23:06:39 GMT
"Love" is transcendent of time and space. Like anything that is such, it does not require an object to be or exist. ;D It is not bound to time and space and hence requires nothing. It merely "is," just like other transcendants like "truth," "G-d," and "annoyance at politics, religion and life in general." Of course, with an object of focus comes an infinite possibility to express it. Hmmnnn.. Love is both a noun and a verb. So love names something that 'is' as you state above and also denotes an affection or enthusiasm for 'something else'. God is not bound by time and space, Love? If God is ALL, then God is Not-Love at the same time so they cancel each other out to our way of thinking. I would argue that it is not possible to make love, only possible to experience it. (Using more coarse language might demonstrate what I am trying to say. Very poetic though ) Maat
|
|