What Is This Thing Called Love?

[Bernard]

See...this is what I mean by romantic. That is a very romantic gesture...but is it real true love? I suppose most men would die for the ones they "loved" at least at the time. That does not mean that they would die for that person forever. It's a shallow love because it's an easy love. It's very easy to love when things are going well and everything is perfect, it is harder to love when life has taken it's toll.

Its not romantic at all. No one feels romantic when death is there in full force, immanent. I mean fully it when I say you honestly make death the witness. I'm not imagining Tom Hanks saying "I'd die for you honey". That's useless lip service. I mean actually , fully committing oneself to the utmost, writing a blank check out to someone.

I don't buy the whole "I will die for you" routine. I think it is a romantic gesture that fools us and keeps us away from truth. I mean how many men would have died for Hitler? Were they justified in their love for Hitler? Are they thinking clearly? How many men will die for their country? Are they thinking clearly to love a piece of land over another piece of land or another human being? Not to mention women don't usually exhibit the same "die for you" routine when it comes to the men they love. Does that mean they love less? No.

Of course not. Women have enough on their plate already - they may die giving birth. For women things are less easy to project because so much is about what is directly in front of them. But don't make the mistake of cynicism and undervalue the male ability to hold true to a sober decision and to project that through years and decades with integrity.

Just because society has made it "popular" to die for something you supposedly love doesn't mean that love is true or real. Let's see someone still die for a love who has become ugly with age. Let's see the person who will still die for the woman who has forgotten about him in lieu of the children they have brought into the world. Let's see a person die for the one who has fallen in love with another. All these things make me believe that dying for a love is not proof of true love.

You see, you've turned what I have said about being willing to die for another into a normative syntax that I was as far from as anything. I said it sounded like a cliche, but I was not expressing it as such.

There is only myself alone in the end, and death: there are no social cues or norms that can be of any use to me in the moment of death. They are all useless. All I have left to do is to love myself and then I'm happy in the face of death. Do you see what I mean?


I

mean, How easy is it to love beauty....no challenge there. Everyone loves beauty. How easy is it to love wealth, health and youth? No challenge there...everyone would love those things. But what about when you lose those things? There is the challenge. I say it is more of a sacrifice to love in spite of hardships life brings us than it is give up our lives for the one we love.

You can lose beauty, wealth, youth and health if you're stuck in the way you define these things for yourself. We are only here for beauty. Did you know that? Its a fact. Everything else is secondary.

You have strange reasoning if you don't consider giving up one's life to be the greatest of hardships. Think about your last sentence in terms of how a mother feels for her children. She would much rather the hardships that come of being a mother and be with her children, than to do and not be with her children at all.

Anyway, a bit of light and relevant entertainment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Yf ... q=medium#t

[artisticsolution]

B: I mean actually , fully committing oneself to the utmost, writing a blank check out to someone.

AS: I mean it's romantic in the sense, when is it ever going to realistically happen? It would be a rare thing for a couple to come across a situation where the man lays down his life for her. And you would never know if he was true to his word unless it actually happened. No, it's just not enough. Let me see the man who lays down his life for her when she has become too old to desire sex. Let's see the man who lays down his life for her when she is fucking his best friend.

I am talking about a deeper love here. I am talking about a love that doesn't talk itself out of love or doesn't rationalize.

You talk about a mother loving her kids. Yes, a mother would lay down her life for her kids...well most would. But here is the thing...they would lay down their lives for their kids regardless of any stipulations. But then again loving kids and loving lovers are 2 separate things.

I don't think that dying for a lover sounds cliche...I think it sounds nice. But women want so much deeper love. Yes, by all means die for us....but also give up your cherished land, give up your crown, forsake all others and do this forever and a lifetime. Unreasonable? Sure. But this is how most women want to be loved.

And another thing...what good is it for us if your dead? How fucking retarded to get killed! Can't you save our lives without killing your fool selves?


B: All I have left to do is to love myself and then I'm happy in the face of death. Do you see what I mean?

AS: Yes, I see what you mean. Your happiness is more important than your lovers. This is the male mentality and it is shallow. At least more shallow than womans.


B: We are only here for beauty. Did you know that? Its a fact. Everything else is secondary.


AS: Yes, we are only here for beauty. But what men don't get is that beauty is not all about appearance. Women understand fully that our beauty has a shelf life but that our love doesn't. Aesthetics are shallow at there core. They are good for a light shallow meaningless fun. But there are other less conspicuous things that are just as beautiful. That may be more interesting. It is like the difference between the aesthetics compared to all of philosophy. Just talking about aesthetics is nice but after a while you want more. But as soon as you experience "more" you see that "more" can be aesthetically pleasing too. This is the thing with beauty...there is another beautiful thing around the corner at all times. But that doesn't necessarily mean it is "love."

What I am saying is all beauty is interchangeable. So you die for beauty....you might as well die for a rose ....because a rose is a rose is a rose. It's meaningless to die for beauty. Women know this and it is why we constantly want proof that we are not just another rose. Women want something deeper from love. We want our love to be set apart from beauty. We want it to be more important than just aesthetics.

P.S. Thanks for the link. It didn't work but I was able to get there anyway. The dog and the dolphin...right? Cute dog! Scruffy! LOL

[duszek]

But I would not like to live if the love of my life died. I would die of a broken heart right away.
Look what happened to Romeo and Juliet.

[artisticsolution]

Right duszek. I think most men think of love as something that happens to them and not so much about the woman as a individual human who may have similar needs. It's more like the woman is an object of admiration for the man's love....sort of like an accessory in their lives.

I get the same feeling when it comes to men who think that women should be the soul caregiver to children. They claim that we are better at it.... without even asking us our opinion! They just state it and so it must be true. Never once does it enter their minds that we need a break too...that we may need to have fun in our lives too...away from the children.

That is the biggest problem I see with some men...they have no concept of thinking beyond their desire, wants and needs.

Even my own husband started out this way. But all it takes to prove it's not true (that women are better a tending to the kids) is to do it wrong! LOL My husband had to take up the slack...because I didn't know wtf I was doing regarding raising kids. Which proves to me...that if men HAVE to....they make pretty good damn women. I don't buy the male ego/he-man/hunter bull any more. You can keep that guy, give me a man who cooks, cleans and is good in bed any day of the week!

[Bernard]

But what men don't get is that beauty is not all about appearance.

If men don't get it neither do women, but I wouldn't agree.

Being willing to die is not about proving anything by getting run over by a truck. Death is of many forms. One may be to die to patterns of behaviour that are toxic to others and oneself.

[artisticsolution]

Being willing to die is not about proving anything by getting run over by a truck. Death is of many forms. One may be to die to patterns of behaviour that are toxic to others and oneself.

Yes, women love to hear that a man will become a better man for knowing her. It is very flattering. In one of my fav movies the man says to the woman..."You make me want to be a better man."

Now that is good for the man for sure....but what is good for the woman? What does she get out of the love? What I am asking is....is there a conscious thought for a man to ask..."what can I do to please you, my dear?" Because there is this conscience thought usually for a woman.

It seems men devote themselves to another in the way that THEY want ...not in a way that the woman would want necessarily.

When I was younger, I dated a few men who rented apartments. I was big into home ownership at the time. I talked each of my boyfriends into buying a house...which they did...supposedly for me. So I helped them save up equity and have a hefty sum of money later in life because of it. Not once in all the time I dated those men did they worry about my future. Not ever did one say, thank you for helping me be successful...I want to help you in return. Never. And why? Because by the time they sold the property we were not in "love" anymore. So for all I know...that love...that they said they would die for...was all lip service.

My love did wonders for them. Their love did nothing for me. Now don't get me wrong...I don't think this was their intention...I believe there intention was to love me forever....but since it didn't work out that way...then I would say in a way my love lasted forever as I helped them be better men (at least financially) for a lifetime, but there was no conscious effort on their part to help me be a better woman in the future.

So again...I think with true love you care what happens to the person you love in the future if you break up or when you die...

I challenge you to love someone this way. That is take care or her in the future without thinking about her as yours. I challenge you to love her when she is not yours anymore. See how hard that unconditional love is...I think it is way more important to lives and love than just dying for the person.

It is a challenge to love another more than you love yourself.

[Bernard]

I don't see that as a challenge. Its about power; either putting power under or over another. Love for another can't be greater than love for yourself. Love is limitless, so there is no such thing as better or lesser love, whether for oneself or another. There are times in a relationship when one person is more open to love than another.

The tragedy, if it is one, is that men and women interpret their perceptions very differently, which more often than not leads to ghastly misinterpretations of actions and feelings.

The best resolve I find is to use the assumption that one is unloved as a starting point - I don't mean self-pity: I mean assuming that one's expressions of love, however demonstrative, are not received, understood or effective. This saves delusion and disillusionment. One keeps loving nevertheless, trusting that something is seeping through somehow as your loving becomes more refined, intelligent and evolved.

[artisticsolution]

B:I don't see that as a challenge. Its about power; either putting power under or over another.

AS:It is a challenge because it is hard to do. It takes sacrifice, patience and perseverance, as do most worthwhile things. I also don't see it as a power play...as you are surrendering your power to another when you love whether or not you realize it. It is more like the absence of power. You can't control how another person loves you, you can only control how you love another. The only logical way to ever be loved unconditionally is to love unconditionally. The more people who strive for this ideal the more people who are apt to find it as it's a numbers game. The reason life long love is hard to find is because most people don't love like this....and those who do are off the lover's market as when they find their love they stick.

This current trend of individualism is short sighted if you ask me. It loses the big picture of humanities selfish desires. Human beings have a selfish desire for love. This is not compatible with the selfish desire to be individuals. You can't be both. So you have a world full of people trying to get their needs met in a "individualistic" way but not being successful because their partners are doing the exact same thing. They is no way this can be successful....you can't get the love you want without giving the love someone else needs...it's impossible. If everyone's taking who is there to give? Do you see what I am getting at? Love is a "WE' thing...it has nothing to do with individuality.

B:Love for another can't be greater than love for yourself.

AS:How do you know this? Loving another is not much different than any other discipline, sometimes you have to work at getting better at it.

B:Love is limitless, so there is no such thing as better or lesser love, whether for oneself or another. There are times in a relationship when one person is more open to love than another.

AS: Do these 2 sentences contradict each other? Yes there are times when love wanes, this is when you begin to understand the challenge. If you are willing to die for your partner why on earth would you also not be willing to give up your power in other ways to them? This is why I don't buy the whole, "I will die for you" routine. Dying is a romantic ideal. Let's see a person surrender their power instead of their life...now THAT would be something.

B:The tragedy, if it is one, is that men and women interpret their perceptions very differently, which more often than not leads to ghastly misinterpretations of actions and feelings.

AS: That's what I have been saying. Most men do not understand love...they understand romance better.

B:The best resolve I find is to use the assumption that one is unloved as a starting point - I don't mean self-pity: I mean assuming that one's expressions of love, however demonstrative, are not received, understood or effective. This saves delusion and disillusionment. One keeps loving nevertheless, trusting that something is seeping through somehow as your loving becomes more refined, intelligent and evolved.

AS: Or one can love without expecting anything in return. It is the rare human that can do this for sure as I believe most humans play the love "con" game. They hold love ransom for the same or better love in return. But is it really love when you can stop loving and possibly even begin hating when it doesn't suit your needs?

[Bernard]

I think we are in agreement despite appearances.

[Bernard]

I think we share basic agreements, despite appearances.

Personality cult is the big failure of modern times, not the encourgment of individuality, but that gets skewed as well I guess.

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A ... =-AQDMomLf

One could argue effectively that war is about men dying for women. The guys didn't write love letters from the trenches to country or government.

Women surrender their power to men too easily and too often. I don't like it. I'd rather see a women who is aloof yet engaged, rather than forever at service and demanding because of that.

Love is a mystery that can be we or I. We are trained to be part of the crowd 24/7 with no time for solitude. Our stories are forever about others; "She did this", "He did that". Its constant comparison and ricochet from this person to that other person. There are too many people who have understudied themselves. Nietzsche would have been way more popular had he simply denied himself his solitude and ran with the herd, and to be sure he would have been sorely tempted in that direction many times.

Only solitude allows love to claim our depths, and only in solitude can we claim its heights. Certainly, the purpose then is to share the depths and heights of ones own loving discoveries with others, and those depths and heights are then increased through sharing.

[artisticsolution]

Women surrender their power to men too easily and too often. I don't like it. I'd rather see a women who is aloof yet engaged, rather than forever at service and demanding because of that.

I think if a woman is acting aloof with a man it is because she is not that into him..yet (if ever). Oh sure she likes him okay...and if there is no one better around she will bask in his admiration of her...but I think most women want to be want to be head over heels and show it.

Tell me, when you are aloof yet engaged with a woman, are you really into her? Isn't it easier to be aloof yet engaged when you could care less if she liked you or not?

It's just been my experience that it's really hard to be aloof when you are in sexually excited electrified love with someone.

[Bernard]

I think if a woman is acting aloof with a man it is because she is not that into him..yet (if ever). Oh sure she likes him okay...and if there is no one better around she will bask in his admiration of her...but I think most women want to be want to be head over heels and show it.

Tell me, when you are aloof yet engaged with a woman, are you really into her? Isn't it easier to be aloof yet engaged when you could care less if she liked you or not?

It's just been my experience that it's really hard to be aloof when you are in sexually excited electrified love with someone.

Being aloof yet engaged is just flirting in common parlance. Successful and convincing flirting requires an absence of passion and, as you point out, an impersonal attitude toward the other person. Being head over heels with another is a very volatile and potentially energy-sucking state to be in. I think we tend to avoid it unless we're very sure, or desperate. I feel I learn and grow most in regard to the other gender through quiet, detached observation, rather than through active engagement; although the latter can bring much greater yields than the former if the control is there alongside the passion. Perhaps I'm just showing my age though.

[Bernard]

One of my favourite poems to do with love:

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks05/0500561h.html

Love triumphs.
The white and green of love beside a lake,
And the proud majesty of love in tower or balcony;
Love in a garden or in the desert untrodden,
Love is our lord and master.
It is not a wanton decay of the flesh,
Nor the crumbling of desire
When desire and self are wrestling;
Nor is it flesh that takes arms against the spirit.
Love rebels not.
It only leaves the trodden way of ancient destinies for the sacred grove,
To sing and dance its secret to eternity.
Love is youth with chains broken,
Manhood made free from the sod,
And womanhood warmed by the flame
And shining with the light of heaven deeper than our heaven.
Love is a distant laughter in the spirit.
It is a wild assault that hushes you to your awakening.
It is a new dawn unto the earth,
A day not yet achieved in your eyes or mine,
But already achieved in its own greater heart. [quote][/quote]