On the Nature of Love

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 13 Apr 2003, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Kiama	13 Apr 2003
I was discussing Love with a friend today, and was relieved to find that she understood where I was coming from on this one. Anyway, I thought I'd post something about it, as it might be interesting to you all. For me, it is a misconception that we only have one true love in our lives. As I grew up, it was drummed into me through films, romantic novels, and tradition, that there is only one person we love, and that person we love forever. I soon learned that this was wrong. (Incorrect, not morally wrong!) I found that as I became closer to people, I couldn't help but find myself falling in love with some of them... One man I met a couple of years ago at Oxford Uni. We were doing a week's Arch. and Anth. course there, and the moment we met each other we just clicked. We got about 8 hour sleep total in the whole week, because we spent every single night together just talking... About Life, the Universe, and Everything. It was as though our hearts were entwined as one, and we understood each other completely, respected and accepted one another, and loved each other. At one point about a year later there was some action taken upon the sexual attraction we felt to each other aswell, but just the once, and after that, I realised what Love really was like. You see, at the same time, I had a boyfriend, who I am still with to this day, and who I love to bits. I was deeply disturbed that I could feel love for the other bloke aswell as feel it for my boyfriend, and I went through Hell in my head about it. But then I realised that Love is such a huge, immense thing, and it cannot be held down, nor can it be measured... I realised that I have more love than I could possibly give to just one person, and so I HAVE to give it to many others... But Love does not dictate what we are to each other. It is (If my friend from the earlier conversation would mind me taking a cue from what she said?) how we connect with each other that dictates this. We can love somebody, but this doesn't mean we connect on ALL levels: Spiritually, emotionally, mentally, physically... There are so many levels in which we connect, and sometimes we find somebody who we connect on all levels with, these people more likely than not becoming our 'true loves', the people we marry, settle down with, etc. (Provided there are no external circumstances preventing this from happening) Sometimes though, we love somebody deeply, ie- Our hearts are connected- but physically we are not connected. These people usually stay 'just good friends', who we love to bits, respect, and accept, but would never consider 'getting physical' with them! Some people we have just a spiritual connection with, or just a mental connection with, and it is these people that we love and respect, gaining new insights into life through sharing each other's knowledge and wisdom. It is the scholar-to-scholar relationship, the mystic-to-mystic relationship. So, whilst it is clear that we love many people in thecourse of a lifetime, and thus, we love many people at the same time, it is not always a ''boyfriend-girlfriend/boyfriend-boyfriend/girlfriend-girlfriend" relationship, and sometimes no matter how much we love one another, we stay 'just good friends'. Love is too immense to give it all to one person, and one person only. If we tried to do that we'd just explode or implode, one or the two... Just some thoughts. Kiama PS- My deepest thanks to that friend who I spoke with about this. You're a wonderful person, and you deserve The Love you want so badly... *Hugs*

Ravenswing	13 Apr 2003
Kiama-- Thank's for that one. Just the kind of verification I need at the moment. My first wife put it rather simply: "Most people look at their love as a pie that they slice up and share with the ones they love. They've got it ALL WRONG. When you meet a new love, you bake another pie." fly well bake often Raven

firemaiden	13 Apr 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Kiama Sometimes we find somebody who we connect on all levels with [...] these people become our 'true loves' ... It think that is when it is THE ONE

jmd	13 Apr 2003
Love may certainly flow for numerous others. Is there not a difference, however, between the state of 'falling in love' one is in for numerous people we may come to love for a whole life, and the full opening of one's whole being, and the intimate closeness (even with the tyranny of physical distance) which occurs with a particular individual? This latter may at times, I suspect, be confused with the former - until, that is, the latter is engaged! Love, towards so many, may flow to quite incredible depths... but the equivalent heights of the Love flow for an individual just doesn't occur towards the many one may also genuinely fall in love with... The Fire of love is only accentuated by the Water of life.

Demonesse	13 Apr 2003
Kiama, You are a more generous soul than I am, then :) If I met another person (when in a loving relationship) whom I knew 'twould be possible for me to love as I did my current partner, I would stay away from the person like the plague, simply because I would demand the same of my partner (if I had one). My love does flow towards many friends, in numerous ways and it reaches numerous levels - but there is always an extent, a plateau, because what loyalty and energy, physical or mental, I might have given them is already directed towards another. This thread might be of interest: http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12007

Logiatrix	13 Apr 2003
kiama, this is a keen observation you have made. however, i believe it is only the proverbial tip of the iceberg. there are indeed many kinds of love. this experience you had with the gentleman at the university may have have opened you up to intimate love. that is not to say you don't have intimacy with your current boyfriend; it has probably developed in you. you are a different girl at different times in your life, and you receive this kind of love differently at each experience. i believe intimacy to be a type of love that can be enjoyed far beyond the physical. my most intimate relationship was with a man (also at university) with whom i had no sexual contact at all. we cuddled and held each other, but our primary contact that kept us awake all night was talking and sharing our deepest thoughts (actually i wasn't so deep at eighteen, just full of a lot of angst). but who doesn't feel loved, when someone says "i hear you." :) how about maternal love, a source of nurturing within both men and women. there is a certain moment in every parent's life when that love rushes. a friend of mine has had a very difficult upbringing, and difficult relationships in his adulthood. for three years, he has been raising his little son as a single dad. he has told me several different times that he didn't know love at all until he became a father to this boy. in my own experience, i was laying in bed in the dark, as my foster daughter slept peacefully in her own room down the hall. suddenly, it was just me floating in the universe with the sole purpose of keeping this child alive, well and happy. i wasn't frightened by that realization, because of love. this love was the most powerful kind i have ever experienced. :) who was it that said "love is like an onion"? well, nevermind... ;)

HudsonGray	13 Apr 2003
As Metaz says, there are MANY types of love. Love for your pet, your friends, your baby, your kids, your mate, your parents, etc. Each has different depths and intensities, and these do change. But the fact is, it's all love. There's truth in the phrase "Use it or lose it".

Alex	14 Apr 2003
I use to call "love" something a bit different. Love as enchantment with another, love as sex drive towards another, love as communication with another... all these are but different aspects of an experience many call "falling in love". Yet one must fall "out of love" in order to really find "love". Yes, we may be able to love more than one person at a time, but there is a constrain towards exclusivity that is hard to escape from. Because commitment is part of love and it is difficult to commit to more than just one person. But you are right, we can fall in love with more than one... but it may be a good idea to constrain this experience in order to save or redeem a more complete experience of loving, which requires patience and perseverance. Alex.

Umbrae	14 Apr 2003
Love…and we attempt to classify it and make it fit into little conceptual boxes. I took one look at this woman who walked into the door and knew she was the one. Been with her ever since…over eighteen years. Now between you and I? Have there been other women? None that have shared my bed. Have some captured a piece of my heart? Of course. And so have a few men (and I am a flagrant practicing heterosexual). Sure I love men also. A few, I have loved very deeply in a way that my wife of 18 years will never know. And visa versa. There are folks on this forum whom I love deeply and would sacrafice damn near everything for – if they but asked. And I have never met them in the flesh… What is love? It cannot be classified. Is there true love? You bet. I can even show it to you…

Kiama	15 Apr 2003
Alex makes a good point about commitment... But is commitment really a part of love? I think maybe it is a value attached to love by many people, but not actually a part of love... It could be seen as a show of how much you loe somebody, in the 'look, I love you so much I'm gonna forswear my comitment to others' kinda way... But notice that we can still love more than one person, and still remain committed to both at the same time. It's all about what that commitment entails. I love my boyfriend, and I love my best friend, and I love my parents. (To name only a few people in my life who I love) I love them all equally, and that will never change, but my commitment to them is different... To my boyfriend, the commitment entails sexual exclusivity (Sleeping only with him), living with him, being his 'true love', etc etc, basically a traditional married couple kinda thing. To my best friend, the commitment entails being there fore each other no matter what, supporting each other, sharing joy with each other, and being titally open and honest with each other. To my parents, the commitment entails respect, honesty, equality, and family values... I love all the people just mentioned the same amount, albeit with different kinds of love, and the commitment entails different things. So personally I feel that commitment can be had with more than one person, as long as it entails different things! Having a commitment of the same kind to two different men would possibly be disastrous to most relationships. (And I say most because there are exceptions.) Thankyou for raising such an interesting point Alex! Kiama

Kiama	15 Apr 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Umbrae Is there true love? You bet. I can even show it to you… Now this sounds like an interesting challenge to himself! Go on then. :D }) Kiama

Ravenswing	15 Apr 2003
Wow-- Great thoughts all. Angles I've never thought of, opinions I don't share. But all powerful... Here's another one: We find on many levels of reality, structures-- structure as the inter-relationship of four forces. Close packed **reality** finds optimum **union** to be expressed as twelve surrounding one. On one metaphysical level, "L" is that 12. And from the "L" we form a structure: Light-- the primary energy Love-- the force that binds Life-- the need to grow Lust-- the drive Just a few thoughts.... fly well love long Raven

Alex	15 Apr 2003
Kiama I think one possible clear cut between "one kind" of love and "another" is the sexual component. Ever heard the saying that "sex spoils friendships?". I could not understand the reason why for so many years, because purely rationalizing over it, it makes no sense. However, whenever we start actually *making sex* with another, a whole suit of biologically determined feelings and behaviors come into play. The need for sexual exclusivity being one of them. In the 60's and 70's there were many many people who tried to break up with some of these determinations, at the time simply called *traditions*... In my generation there were still adepts of the "free love" ideal but it happens that "free love" where *sex* is a component does not work. Some of the "love" we seem to feel for interesting people has a sexual component. Yet, whenever we choose to act on that component, the relationship shifts towards more traditional ways of relating, or else tends to fade. Love fading away? Giving our traditional views of "love" (even of a purely spiritual nature) the fading away of "love" is a somewhat distressing, isn't it? But it happens more often than not. In a way, "love" is a very volatile sort of feeling, in my opinion. "True" love as I named it, is more simply defined as one that does not fade away in the next corner. The one that outstands illusions and may be change, but not go away. São Tomás the Aquino (I wonder how you call him in English) once said that the nature of love is *youth, that no love love has ever aged enough that it can be called old. He was refering to love as the drive we feel towards the new, movement, change, discovery. The worst thing about "love" is the broad definition of love, or worse, the lack of a definition that narrows down to something. No, I do not want to *constrain* or *restict* LOVE, but I wish there was a way to *constrain* or *restict* the DEFINITION of love. Why? When someone tells me "I love you", I know that it could mean nearly anything, from "I want to sleep with you and then treat you like s@it", to "I would give my own life for you". Many lives have been wrecked because there has been so little effort to define *love* in a way that two people will immediately know they are talkinga bout the same thing when they say "I love the". But please note I am talking mostly about "romantic" love or love where there is potential for such. I understand that others are talking about other kinds of love as well. Alex.

RAVENAL	15 Apr 2003
.......................................***LOVEIS***.........................................

Umbrae	15 Apr 2003
There are those who will state that love, is simply hormones – chemistry running mad in the brain, synapses flaring, receptors working overtime… And that’s the physical, and only the physical…it ignores that there could be a spirit involved…a soul… And perhaps the mad chemistry is a reaction to the soul? Perhaps it is the slave and not the other way around…perhaps it is Spirit – Mind – Body and not the other way around… Oh you want me to show you love manifested? I can do that… Glastonbury, July of 2004…be there, or be square.

Kiama	15 Apr 2003
I knew you'd say that Umbrae! Grrr... There was me hoping you'd take up a much harder challenge... To show us true love whilst here, online. }) Go on, I dare you... ;) Kiama

Diana	15 Apr 2003
He has shown it to us all already. At least a thousand times.

Major Tom	15 Apr 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Diana He has shown it to us all already. At least a thousand times. And this has not gone unnoticed by at least two of us. ;)

firemaiden	15 Apr 2003
make that at least three of us.

HudsonGray	15 Apr 2003
To those who say love is simply hormonal I think they're only thinking about the sexual kind. You don't get hormonal about love for your kids, or your dog who's been with you for 15 years, or your grandmother, or with online friends...the list is endless. Anyone who limits 'love' to the purely physical sex-only kind is missing out on most of life. (But then there are people who insist dogs only act on instinct & not thought for all their lives...and that deer don't feel pain when shot with an arrow...and I can list a whole slew of other things - most of which are people just not thinking through the concept they're trying to impart).

Kiama	15 Apr 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Diana He has shown it to us all already. At least a thousand times. But if some stranger took a look at it, would that stranger know it to be love? Can we show love online, where if a stranger came over and took a look at it, they would be able to say 'Yep, that's love alright'? And indeed, just by looking at a couple in the street, can we tell if they are in love or not? Can we demonstrate love, in a way that could not be called into doubt by strangers and non-strangers alike? Kiama

HudsonGray	15 Apr 2003
Why would we need to? The observer isn't part of the love between two people. What if the observer is emotionally stunted, or socially stunted and completely misses the signs? And culture itself could play a role in disguising the fact that 'love' is there, especially in very restrictive societies.

Diana	15 Apr 2003
Some people wouldn't recognise a brick wall even if they walked into one.

Ravenswing	15 Apr 2003
... and other people wouldn't recognize a brick wall even if they WERE one... "Don't really mind if you sit this one out...." Thank you Umbrae for showing that which those who have eyes can see... fly on love well Raven

Alissa	16 Apr 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Ravenswing "Don't really mind if you sit this one out...." (Alissa sings along, since the lyrics seem appropo, as Raven knows) "My word's but a whisper, your deafness a shout ... I can't make you feel, but I can make you think ..."

Major Tom	16 Apr 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Kiama Can we demonstrate love, in a way that could not be called into doubt by strangers and non-strangers alike? Probably not. As many have already said, those that have the eyes to see... You must be able to experience love before you can see it. The first step to experiencing love is to love yourself... A stranger, without love in her/his heart, without self love, would respond with anger and jealousy to signs of love between others. Sound familiar? Haven't we seen these types of reactions on this very board? There've been times I've reacted that way myself... :laugh:

Ravenswing	16 Apr 2003
Please step forward-- I can't remember who's it is but there's a signature here that runs: "To one who doesn't hear the music, the dancer is crazy." Or something like that.... If the foo ****s... (Did I get that one right???:confused: ) fly well Raven

Kiama	16 Apr 2003
Well, these are interesting speculations! (I do love to speculate every once in a while.) Whilst it is very true that Umbrae has shown us love countless times (And I love Umbrae dearly aswell :D) I do have one question to ask, which I feel was raised when people said that sometimes people are blind to love, and that we have to have experienced love before we can notice it... 1) If love cannot open the eyes of the blind person, then everything we have been told about love is false, surely... Love conquers all, love is the strongest thing in the world, etc... Through love from people, 'blind people' finally see what love is. A bit like when people say 'And sudenly my eyes were open: God loves me!' He made lame men walk and blind men see. 2) I would question the assertion that one cannot know love until one has experienced it. Is it possible that the shere lack of something on our lives means we know what it would be like to have it? A poor person after all knows money, don't they? A homeless person knows what wamrth and shelter is. Kiama

Major Tom	16 Apr 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Kiama I would question the assertion that one cannot know love until one has experienced it. This isn't quite what I said. Quote: You must be able to experience love before you can see it. In order to be able to experience love, you must first love yourself. Then the love of others can open you to the experience and vision of love. Naturally, this is just my opinion. Other's experiences and opinions may provide different results. But how many times in our lives do we run into those persons who just obviously don't like themselves very much, let alone love themselves? We can only hope the love we show them will open their love for themselves, and thus to the true experience of love.

Alex	25 Apr 2003
not "love", moves mountains. I guess "faith" in God can be present in the absence of "love" for God? Loving God is like loving an idea one has made true thru faith. Faith comes first, and must be able to strive, in times when love is absent. And love must be absent at least once, for one cannot know true love before one has fallen out of love. Alex. Quote: Originally posted by Kiama A bit like when people say 'And sudenly my eyes were open: God loves me!' He made lame men walk and blind men see.

allibee	25 Apr 2003
allibee's not-so-definative guide to true love: True love is something that adds to you and, in either the giving or receiving of true love, it makes you even more of a person than you were before and your spirit soars. allison

firemaiden	25 Apr 2003
As a corollary argument, we should explore then, what is false love? or... not-quite-true love?

Alex	25 Apr 2003
kind of love (I've learned the expression from Mee Wah, so happy I can use it for once!!!!!). Alex. Quote: Originally posted by firemaiden As a corollary argument, we should explore then, what is false love? or... not-quite-true love?

allibee	26 Apr 2003
Quote: Originally posted by firemaiden As a corollary argument, we should explore then, what is false love? or... not-quite-true love? ..... or perhaps ... Shall I compare thee to a summer's day ? Thou art more lovely and more temperate: Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May, And summer's lease hath all too short a date: Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines, And often is his gold complexion dimmed, And every fair from fair sometime declines, By chance, or nature’s changing course untrimmed; But thy eternal summer shall not fade, Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow'st, Nor shall death brag thou wand'rest in his shade, When in eternal lines to time thou grow'st; So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see, So long lives this, and this gives life to thee. Shakespeare

Alissa	26 Apr 2003
"My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun," sings Alissa, to lyrics that Sting scabbed from Shakespeare ;).

jmd	27 Apr 2003
Can Love be false? or falsity but falsely fasten's love's name! 'not-quite-true' love? is this but quivalent to being but a teeny weeny bit pregnant - but not fully so!?

Alex	27 Apr 2003
There is something called "false positive", nowadays not so common anymore, but one can test positive for pregnancy in the absence of a viable embryo. There is something called "psychological pregnancy", its victyms ranging from dogs to cows to women... The hormonal concentrations in the body approach those typical of the beginninng of a pregnancy; the female actually "feels" pregnant and behaves accordingly. But see, she is NOT pregnant; soon the pregnancy hormones level off and reality surfaces: am empty womb, a broken heart... Alex. Quote: Originally posted by jmd Can Love be false? or falsity but falsely fasten's love's name! 'not-quite-true' love? is this but quivalent to being but a teeny weeny bit pregnant - but not fully so!?

leriel	27 Apr 2003
it is said that there are many kinds of love. I guess that that's right, but sometimes I have an impression people misuse the word 'love' . When one is eighteen he/she falls in love and keeps on telling 'I love you' to so-called the only one. And when they split or 'the only one' went to bed with someone else, he/she hates the person he loved before. Many people are too immature to feel the love. I don't know wheter there is 'true' and 'false' love. Love exists or doesn't exist beetwen two. And sometimes a couple believe they feel love but for me their reasons are ridiculous. They don't want to feel lonely, they want to have someone to go to the cinema with or simply to have sex with. And I believe that love is a wonderful feeling full of compassion, understanding and it does not fade away after several months or even years. Someone said that when love disappears between people , it means that there was no love ever. I agree. And one more thing- love is something that people have to work for. It is not 'a fire' that appears immediately while two meet. The fire is called infatuation. Just some thoughts :) Leriel

Kiama	27 Apr 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Alex And love must be absent at least once, for one cannot know true love before one has fallen out of love. Alex. Hmmm... Respectfully, I disagree. I think that love is such that you don't need first to have an absence of it to understand it. I also feel that there is an impossibility if love being absent. To me, it's not love if it's not there... IMO it goes against the nature of love. Who was it that said 'God is love?' God is seen as everywhere, all knowing, etc... I see love the same as many see God. Everywhere. An example: An infant does not have to first know suffering in order to know the love of it's mother's breast. It does not have to know neglect before it understands true love. I never knew the absence of love. I never fell out of love. But I certainly know true love when I feel it. I think the absence of something may help us appreciate true love more, but I don't think it necessarily qualifies or disqualifies people from feeling it. Kiama

Alex	27 Apr 2003
come from different "definitions" of "love", I'll beg to differ, just for the sake of it (it is not that you are NOT right, it is that every one here is right in a way) According with Freud's followers who erected the so-called "object relations" school of psychoanalysis, the mother's breast is the object through which the child gets into contact with its most powerfull animal instinct drives. Obviously, the experience of love does that too. I'm talking about a more refined version of love here, for even though the act of being fed elicits great pleasure, it does not signal love from the donor. A bottle coupled with a machine does just as good, and there have been experiemts with baby monkeys in love with their feeding machines. The difference between the "love" an infant experiences wiith one's mother differ from the mature love in that there is no differentiation between the mother and the infant, in the infant's perception of reality. The infant IS the mother and the infant in the same time. It knows not, it's individualized self, what happens only around the age of 6-7 years old. Deep trauma below age of 6 is so pervading because it prevets a healthy individualization process, that ultimately results in a healthy adult with a strong identity. Love as I'm naming it, entails a strong sense of self: loving another is the key here. An interesting piece on the subject matter, not from the psychoanalytic lieterature but poetry, are Reiner Maria Rilke's "letters to a young poet". It is that kind of love I'm talking about. Not that others don't count, but we will never get to talk about the entire universe by discussing different stars. Alex. Quote: Originally posted by Kiama An example: An infant does not have to first know suffering in order to know the love of it's mother's breast. It does not have to know neglect before it understands true love.

RAVENAL	30 Apr 2003
LOVE IS...rich with meaning... overflowing in thought LOVE IS...sharing...a blessing...LOVE IS ...limiting love isn't... limiting love is where all the other emotions associated with love...but are not love...surface.......fear...pain...loss...regret... abandonment...sorrow...hurt...jealousy...anger...revenge... resentment...sadness...misunderstanding...rage...this list is vast... I have only mentioned a few...

azuremariposa	30 Apr 2003
wasn't it in a movie....which movie? "true love is when the needs of someone else become more important than your own" that's all i can offer at the moment...great thread...very interesting indeed! :) many blessings... ~azure

divinerguy	04 May 2003
My Grandmother met, married and was left a widow by three husbands. (She lived in a time and place where quality health care was not accessible). I cannot believe that she didn't love all three of them. I have loved two women at the same time, and as a result, I was the sorriest man alive. However, I loved both women. As such I don't believe in "one true love." However, on a practical basis, I believe in one true love at a time. Anything else is a recipe for disaster.

The On the Nature of Love thread was originally posted on 13 Apr 2003 in the Spirituality board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Spirituality, or read more archived threads.