From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: TADA!  A NEW THREAD...
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 18:04:59 GMT

In article <1960.1787.uupcb@spacebbs.com> mike.mcaulay@spacebbs.com (Mike Mcaulay)  writes:
>
>Okay, here's one for you:  What the hell IS love?  What does the word
>mean?  I submit the the word 'love' has been worn smooth and featureless
>like a coin left too long in circulation.  Think of it:  a husband loves
>his wife, a mother loves her child, a redneck loves his country, a
>coprophage loves to eat shit.  I can even imagine Arnie saying "I chust
>*luff* to kill pipple."  The word can connote almost anything depending
>on context; hence, its denotative value is null.

But then the word "is" can mean almost anything depending on context--
"the sky is blue," "she is Sylvia Derwood," "what time is it?"  It
would be nice if we broke it up into a few words with distinct 
meanings, but for the time being, "is" is still usable.  

Part of the problem is that "love," at least in my opinion, isn't a
single easilly nailed-down emotion, but rather a whole suite of 
feelings, not all of which need even be present for them to be called
"love."  I don't think it's a surprise that "love" covers such a wide
range and variety of emotions, since love, like any other human 
emotion, is difficult to box up in a single word. 

>This gives rise to no end of mischief.  The most obvious example occurs
>when person A asks "do you love me?" and person B replies "of course I
>love you," but they *mean different things*.  I overheard a conversation
>very similar to this recently in which person A's definition of "love"
>was "cherish and value me above all others eternally" and person B's was
>"really want you to feel comfortable where you are and not make waves
>because I'm quite content to continue fucking you and taking advantage
>of you." (how do I know this?  Well, I don't for *sure* but I do know
>both parties pretty well and base my interpretation on things I've
>observed and heard over several months)

Fotunately, by the time two people are in a position where they are
likely to be hurt too terribly by a misunderstanding of this sort,
they ought to have grown to know each other well enough that such
misunderstandings won't occur.  (Not that no misunderstandings will
occur, but those that do should be of a much lesser magnitude.)

>Here's my opinion -- I sincerely believe it to be true, but I'm also
>aware that it is at odds with the way most people look at things:  Love
>is not a *thing*.  It is a feeling or an experience that arises directly
>out of perception and emotion.  Hence, its defining characteristic is
>evanescence, not permanence.  If you change, or that which you love
>changes, love will change too in the same instant, and often will die.
>The "eternal love" to which our culture is so fond of paying homage is
>therefore a myth, a convenient fiction concocted, most likely, by horny
>minstrels in an effort to bed their ladyes.

I agree with you insofar as that love is not a "thing," but I disagree
that evanescence is its defining characteristic.  Since I believe that
love is a whole suite of emotions (to which both associations and
imprinting contribute), it seems unlikely that any single change will
erase all of these feelings at once and, indeed, those that still
remain as part of love may well be quite sufficient to hold you
together more than long enough for new feelings to arise and add to
your love.

There are many people who feel the need to kill their love when it
changes, who can't deal with the loss or change in their feelings
for a loved one and instead have to make those feelings die.
(Such people often are the sorts who despise all their past loves.)
This, however, reflects their emotional quirks and not any intrinsic
quality of love--indeed, I know people who, once their love is given,
it is never taken back, no matter how many changes it must survive
to fit the growth and changing circumstances of those involved. 

>Far from being within easy reach of any touchdown scoring, pom-pom
>waving, rant-posting cretin, sustained love is IMO *extremely* rare,
>*extremely* precious, and not to be had by anyone who tolerates
>impurities and half-assedness in hir soul.

Precious, yes, but I don't believe it's nearly so rare.

>Or kill me.

Hmmmm...where did I put that manual entry on the "extreme prejudice"
option for "kill"?

Trygve

--
Rumor has it that mail is once again functional and that I can be
reached at tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu.  (Do not send mail to tlode@nyx.UUCP or
tlode@isis.cs.du.edu.)  If you've tried to send me anything in the last
few weeks, feel free to resend it--or, since I'm still not convinced
that mail is entirely bug-free, simply show up on my doorstep with a
printout (3270 Cherryridge Road, Englewood, CO  80110).

Newsgroups: soc.singles