Does "love" work?

How do you define love?
And how do you feel you apply that definition to your world?

I don't "define".

"Defining" chops things up into recognisable and manipulable "parts" which are not very useful when 'applied' to Life ; Life itself has only a nebulous "definition". It has some usual characteristics, but even those are just tendencies (meaning, we haven't encountered otherwise yet ...).

Definitions restrict. They are useful reductions for being able to talk about things, but that is where their usefulness ends. This is also one of the reasons why such a wildly unreasonable and unpredictable feeling as Love (as well as some of the others, but I'll stay on topic here) is most aptly apologised in poetry and art -- it cannot be talked about with any certain, quantifiable, reducible or exacting logic. It defies rationality ...

As it were, that is also why it gets under our skin so much. It is paradisal ecstasy, it is the most miserable desert of Hell also.

We don't need a "definition" for it ; the media already brain-wash us enough about what it should look like, sound like and feel like -- because that sells stuff so incredibly well. But, it doesn't really do much for us on the existential level.

Here's what you can do :

When you feel that someone else is a little 'more special' than everyone else you know ; when you get just stupid about everything that person says or does or has touched, as though it takes on the sacredness of a relic (which, in a way it has) ... and you are so terrified that from one moment to the next you could be deprived of that person's existence, affinity or humanity ...

... then you're "applying" it. And you just enjoy it and suffer from it for as long as it lasts.

in "the road less traveled" m scott peck defines love thus:

“Love is the will to extend one's self for the purpose of nurturing one's own or another's spiritual growth... Love is as love does. Love is an act of will -- namely, both an intention and an action. Will also implies choice. We do not have to love. We choose to love.”

he says that love is not a feeling but an action, and that the attachment that we all feel to people we desire is not actually love in many cases but rather cathexis

from google: the concentration of mental energy on one particular person, idea, or object (especially to an unhealthy degree).

the gist of what peck says in his book is that genuine love is not predicated upon the other persons feeling exactly the same but rather on the willingness to invest in the other person for THEIR betterment

he says that love can grow from cathexis but that they are definitely not the same

i agree but thats not the same as being able to live up to what i agree with

in my experience, love is hard and it doesnt always love back
letting go is not easy and there is a great amount of truth in the adage about loving oneself before being able to love another

here is an article

https://radicalreadings.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/the-road-less-traveled-love-its-not-a-feeling/

---

EDIT

i would add that i have found, for myself, that in order to love in a healthy way i have to have at least two conditions met - first that i am building my own life and my own world which does not require any particular person to act or feel any particular way, to the extent that i am sufficiently satisfied with the direction of my life as a result of my own efforts

and second that i understand that its not a PERSON i am looking for, its a RELATIONSHIP

the specific individual person is MUCH less important than the way the person and i treat each other

being attached to people has gotten me in trouble

being determined to experience a certain type of relationship

and being set to accept and reject individual people based on the standard of treatment
seems a much more effective formula for my personal happiness and sanity than being "in love" with a particular individual has been

I tend to agree but think its better associated as the living aspect of the Force, where the unifying aspect is more around objective reality IMO.

> Can love really save the world?

From what? I do use compassion as the polar of evil, so yea maybe

I am wondering if very one just focused on the purest or highest, most universal form of "love", what kind of world would be live in?

I think it would take an energetic form, with all things represented as measures of that love. To act in that realm you'd have to define boundaries still I think, as while it might be seen as ideal to be one with and an extension of that 'love' to act within it as an 'agent' you'd likely need to exert different natures and extents of 'love' beyond your agency - otherwise you'd be exerting your own control over all things within a self centred framework. So understanding other manifestations of complex love (animals etc) as different agents then you might end up with a sort of recontextualization of existence - redefining how things exist. It's a bit confronting to face the dissolution of the 'known' to replace it with some other system of perception, but I do think its worthwhile if done cautiously. I find Buddhism to be the most useful, but lots of spiritual/religious path's have great value in doing it I reckon.

> Can I really get to a state of "unconditional", complete, universal love?

Only you can answer that :pinch:

> where have your explorations in the power of love taken you?

Trying to perceive 'love' as a field as a source of information can find attribution to outcomes, but I'm not sure if the association is causal or casual
:laugh:
Finding connections is fun though.

what role does love play in your view of child molesters?

I believe in forgiveness.

have you ever had the "broken heart" experience?

Damn straight. What does that matter?

betrayal by those you loved?

Again yes, but what does it matter?

what of those rare but real few who actually enjoy causing pain and inflicting helplessness on others?

Again, forgiveness. Even when that pain was inflicted on me. I experienced hate, the desire for revenge, etc. But I know these things are not in line with the Force. Like I said, the Force is Love, and Love is Unity. Unity solves everything. There are only two commandments that Christ asked of us:

• Love God with all your being.
• Love others as you love yourself.

i think those are great answers

Streen wrote:

what role does love play in your view of child molesters?

I believe in forgiveness.

have you ever had the "broken heart" experience?

Damn straight. What does that matter?

betrayal by those you loved?

Again yes, but what does it matter?

what of those rare but real few who actually enjoy causing pain and inflicting helplessness on others?

Again, forgiveness. Even when that pain was inflicted on me. I experienced hate, the desire for revenge, etc. But I know these things are not in line with the Force. Like I said, the Force is Love, and Love is Unity. Unity solves everything. There are only two commandments that Christ asked of us:

• Love God with all your being.
• Love others as you love yourself.

Its amusing how selfish you were in this.

Sure, you forgive, or it doesnt matter....except thats not precisely the point.

"The Force is love"

Except hey, there are child molesters, betrayers, etc.

Sure you have found coping mechanisms...

However, the Force is not love.

Simply because there are people who indeed molest children, betray, etc.

Are they, and there actions, and repercussions any less than yours because you have placed yours on a moral and ethical pedestal?

The fact that such individuals exist within the Force, whatever that means, is evidence that the Force is not love, regardless of how you choose to act in regards to those who do not love, but are of and within the Force as well.

They are still there, acting, sending out ripples from those actions, which are in any sense of the word, not loving.

Its not all about You.

OB1Shinobi wrote: love with attachment hurts

And?

and nothing really

i was in a bad mood and i was saying what i felt like saying

i dont feel like saying it today

i think its clear that love and forgiveness and tolerance and flower petals and puppies and long walks on the beach at sunset are all more pleasant and happy ways to live than resentment and revenge and violence

the issues of how a loving person is supposed to cope with the crappiness that exists in the world and still be loving is onethat we all have to work through for ourselves

its easy to say it but its hard to do it

In Jorge Luis Borges' short story The Immortal, a Roman soldier quests for and attains immortality. At first glance, it might seem as though he has received a most precious gift, but he soon finds that because immortality grants one the ability to (eventually) live all possible lives, it eliminates the preciousness of life. Borges argues that our finite nature, that we only have so many years with which to live, is what gives our life such meaning.

I tend to think of love, compassion and kindness in a similar way. We live in a world where instinct often urges us to be brutal, cold and unfeeling in the name of survival. Though I see great beauty in it, our world is often capable of being a very ugly one. And in that context, when the whole world is saying "look out for yourself, do what you must just to survive, at any cost," to love and have great compassion is a remarkable thing - something that I find takes great strength.

Certainly I would like to live in a world where everyone loved one another and did good by one another, but in such a world, our love would be mundane and normal, and not the extraordinary force it can be. So how do *I* cope with the "crappiness that exists in the world"? By loving my fellow living beings and doing my very best to do right by everyone I meet, and recognizing how powerful it is when I encounter that love myself. Because in our world, it really is a precious thing.