If I may Abra, in my limited diction, try to convey what Love is...


*********************************************************************
Front brain thinking/feeling..(what I call thought stuff...how we figure stuff out)...

Love is actions, words, feelings, emotions, responses..'if I feel this, then it must be that..' 'if he she does this is must be that'.




*********************************************************************

Total Awareness Knowing... in my very indescribable essence...


Love....is space, it's vastness is so beyond words... but I will try.

travel to the furtherest point of your imaginings of the universe...to the very outer limits...then realise, that this is perhaps only the centre....that by your very own limits of imaginings.... you may only be in the centre... that ALL around you is MORE.

The wonderment of that moment is what Love is...for me...

The emotion I experience THROUGH this knowing is not Love... it is WONDERMENT.


Love in my essence, is the unknowable...in this futile, puny, human experience.... however, every now and again I catch it's scent...and am connected to it...and remember.

If I was Being A I would leave Being B alone and let it choose how it wants to live and follow along because life was pretty boring before Being B came along.

Hmmm?

For someone who refuses to label things you sure are picky about which labels you use to label things with.

I personally feel that WONDERMENT is still an emotion of sorts. So all you're doing is re-labeling the emotion.



It's funny you should mention this as I had just done this a few moments ago. I'm not joking either.

I just took a guided meditation to furthest reaches of existence to embrace the very essence of being. And yes, it was an experience of the very outer limits of being centered on the totality of existence.

You may find this book and guided meditation CD of interest. It's called "The Faery Teachings" by Orion Foxwood. Not to imply that you would need it, but rather that you might simply enjoy it.



And yes, I would definitely say that the emotions instilled by these shamanic journeys are indeed feelings of love and wonderment. I'm not sure if I would even attempt to separate those emotions. To me they are inseparable. The labels are different, but the emotions are the same.

But then again, we all associate different emotions with different labels.

But if wonderment is not emotion, then what is it?

Perhaps we have different subjective feelings about what the label 'love' means. Because to me, love and wonderment are two labels that truly express the same emotion in many ways. So it's hard to tell whether we're talking about the labels or the emotions. We may not connect the same labels to the same emotions? In that event we just disagree on the semantics, but in truth we may actually be in agreement on the emotions involved.

Words can be so useless when it comes to things like love.

That's a good point.

It doesn't make much sense to create a free sentient being and then demand that it behave in certain ways. If the goal was to create something that behaves precisely as wanted then why not just create preprogammed robots that do precisely as they are programmed to do?

If being A wants being B to do the will of being A, then being A should have just programmed biological robots to do the will of A.

Why give them free will at all if the goal is to have them do the will of A?

You're right. If free will is the goal, then why not let B be B?

As I explained... I am so limited in having to use words, for what it is... and the word I chose that you may understand was wonderment... it is not Love, but was the 'feeling' it evoked.... as the observor of this... this knowing.....this experience of a glimpse of what Love is.


Vastness, immeasurable vastness is the closest I can get.

A made B, so each thing B "feel", is envoked by A, but A does not tell B this, nor tell B how to define what A make B feel, and allow B to do what it wish, with what A make B feel, and B think, and scratch it's B head, as it see many B's, doing what B heard some one A think is bad, so for a while B define many things it see other B's doing as horrible, until one day, B suddenly realizes A is making B feel all it feel, and say's HEY, what up A, why did you just make me feel like that A, about that other B???

so then A answer back B, and give B a full run down of what A did, and why all A's did it, and explain how all B's are an A, but only a B for a while, and A and B have long emotional sex, and A teach B many things B cannot believe, and how to see past B sight, and use A's vision instead, and then A teach B how to use A powers instead, and to use A's infinite body, and after some time, B is totally comfortable in A's limitless infinity plane, that of course B had never seen or been to before, being not yet in A, and the A and B become as one, and B now become as A, and a 0 is born, which is neither A nor B, but free, because it is 0.

Love is a state of mind...

If the human body is cut...it bleeds... even for a person in a coma?

No conscious thought, or state of mind, attached to the cutting of the body or the subsequent bleeding for the person in the coma?

Is that a yes? Or a maybe?

And if the body sends signals to the brain... the brain reacts? yes? By flooding with white cells, and the little stick thingos, to help bind the wound? The brain also ACKNOWLEDGES pain through conscious thought, or 'state of mind'?

But the pain, is not the cut? Yes?

From the pain may come the EMOTION of fear? Yes?

So pain and fear are the emotion, the 'state of mind'?

But not the cut?

Love is the cut...wonderment is the 'state of mind'....for me.


I know, weird explanation, but thankyou Michael, you helped.

That is an interesting way of putting things...

I am unsure exactly how to describe the totality of my thoughts without sounding disconnected to concern, but I will try.

I would agree that wonderment is a state of mind. I would not agree that love is an emotion. It most certainly invokes emotion - all of them, quite possibly.

What constitutes love is defined on a purely individual basis that has been based upon personal experience... our human experience. Therefore, it is subjective to our individual thoughts on the matter, which result from individual exposure to things - things other than us. Love, just as any other conclusion, is based upon what one has learned and inferred from experience. This makes all action which is said to have been based on love, to actually have been based upon what one believes love is, or is supposed to be.

In that sense, love and actions taken for the sake of it, are based upon purely personal grounds, whatever those grounds may be. It is always self-serving, not in the sense that one would only do something that benefitted them self, but self-serving in the sense that one takes action which is attributed to love (in their mind), for the reason of satisfying their own description of what love is.

I hope that came out right...

Creative, I'm going to reorder the sequence of your thoughts in the following quotes becasue it makes it easier to convey my thoughts.



I agree completely. If we care about someone else, it can only be because we care. Would it even be possible to experience love if this were not true? And love most certainly must be based on caring because it would be impossible to love someone we don't care about. Love and caring are intimately related if not merely two different words to convey the same concept actually.



Again, I agree.



It may not be an emotion for you, but based on what you've stated in Point #2 above it would seem to me that you would, at the very least, need to recognize that it may very well be percieved as emotion to others.

In fact, I think Point #2 is indeed true, and this is the reason why we find it so difficult to convey intellectually a concept as deeply personal as love.

Not only is the perception of love different for everyone, but the very perception of emotion in general is different for everyone.

In fact, many philosophers break the entire human experience into three distinct areas, Pathos (emotions), Logos (Logic) and Ethos (Ethics).

They claim that this is the sum totality of the human condition. everything we experience in life, and every motivation we have must fall into one of these three categories, simply because they claim there are no others. (or to put that another way, they seem to be convinced that given any aspect of the human condition they can confidently stick it into one of these three boxes).

I think most eveyone would stick love into the box labeled 'Pathos'.

After all, what left? Logos would imply that love is based on logical decisions. And while many people may actually marry based on what they think is 'reasonable' (logic), those realations are often discovered not to be based on 'love' at all.

So love is not based on logos.

Similarly, Ethos is basically "Ethics". We do things because we feel either social or moral pressure to do them. Again, would love fit into that box? Probably not. If you marry someone out of some feeling of duty to please society or some perception of a God, is that truly love?

So given these three boxes that drive human actions; Pathos, Logos, and Ethos. Love would fall into the box marked Pathos (emotion).

This is almost just a process of elimination.

Of course, a person could disagree with this, but if they were to disagree with it, it seems to me that they would need to present a new system of 'boxes'. Because few people are prepared to agree that either logos or ethos are valid explanation for what the consider to be true 'love'.

I think the reason that a lot of people don't want to beleive that love is an emotion is because they feel like being driving by emotion alone is irresponible, or in some way less meaningful than being driven other factors. But that's often brought on by ethos (the simple fact that we have been taught to feel somehow guilty or selfish if we are allowing are emotions to drive our actions).

So logically, ethics overrides our thinking and we deny that emotion is the driving force for love. We want it to be something 'deeper' and more 'meaningful' for the purpose of justifying what we precieve to be a judgmental ethos of society.

But in truth, there is absolutely nothing wrong at all by being driving by emotion. In fact, if love is the driving emotion we should indeed allow it to drive right over logic and ethics. At least within reason. In fact, if it goes beyond something reasonable then perhaps we should re-exam whether we are talking about love or lust?

We could write books on the topic of love.

For me it's pure emotion. How other's percieve love is their experience. But I percieve love as emotion. "Feelings" toward another. Not "Logic" toward another, nor "Responsiblity" toward another, but "feeligns" toward another. Those feelings are the driving force of love, any logic or ethics that are involved are driven by those "feelings" of love. Caring.

If you stop caring you stop loving, even if you decide to remain responsible and logical. Love is no longer there.

So for me, emotion is the foundation or the driving force of love. All else follows from that. Love arises from Pathos.

Pathos, Logos, Ethos

Just as an added thought, I would go as far as to say that everything is ultimatley driven by Pathos (emotion).

If we do something for a logical reasons, it's usually because we have a passion to achive some goal. So whilst we are using logic to achive the goal, emotion is what is driving us foundationally.

Same thing goes for Ethos. If we are attempting to be 'ethical' it is usually because we are attempting to please our society or some percieved deity. But a desire to please is driven by emotion.

Ulimately our very own morals (separate from society and any deity that we might feel we need to please) are even driven by our emotions as well.

So in a very real sense I personally feel like Pathos is all that really drives us, the other two, (logo and ethos) are actually restraints rather than a driving force. Perhaps they are good restriants, but restrains none the less.

Pathos is the driving force behind human life, and potentially all living things. Animals consdier very little logos, and almost no ethos unless they are social animals, then they most certainly do consider ethos (their behavior is indeed affected by what they percieve to be socially acceptable within their group). We see this in social animals a lot. None the less, pathos is the root of everything that drives us.

Logos and Ethos actually restrict us. Or at least they drive us to reconsider our foundational driving force of pathos.

So pathos is really the fundamental driving force for all our actions. Pathos is emotion. Pathos is feelings.

Does it even make sense to speak of unfeeling love?

But that's the concept that we'd need to consider if we are going to say that love is not driven by pathos (emotion).

At this very moment, although I would like to commend the honesty that seems to have been conveyed in the post and respond a little more in depth regarding my own thoughts, I am short on time. I will leave you with this in the meantime...

I not would agree that love is based purely in emotion, and it most certainly 'fits' into all of those boxes.

B hath many B thoughts, and the definition of B thoughts, determine what B decide B emotions mean, so then what B emotions are used for, and so what B create with it's B emotions, which is all then that B created into B'ing???

B emotions defined by B thru itself, by what they mean to B alone, make all B emotions channel only thru B itself, cut off from interstellar connection to other B's, but, B emotions can be a pulse, not of B itself, but of all thing's B see and meet in the A and B universe, and B emotions then connect to all B's, little B's and big B's, human B's and non human B's, which are really all A's in many B stages of justation, but since B decide, by thoughts defined, other B's are hardly as good as B itself, and that B is practically A all by itself, B even much more perfect than other many other B's, then B feelings are trapped as B feeling's alone, but when B see, that it could of easily been any other B, and that this single B did not make itself with it's current B power, but A first controlled this part for B, then B's total network of B onboard electomagnetic neuro radio compass apparatus, become a B pulse of first two B's, then of some B's, then of ALL B's, that emotions channeled thru ONE B alone, could never have achieved, so B has bigger B life, bigger B emotions, more meaningful and larger B defintions possible, so bigger B definition's of B thoughts, and all things B feel are as a pulse of the very universe herself, intensified with intensifications so large B can feel the very vibrations of the earth, and of ALL B things, and lil first B, see the picture B can see and weep, with sad and joy, nothing thru self B any more, and it be a big A and B picture indeed, much more tasteful and meaningful then single B things be.

I would say at this point it is best to be C right now

oops, sorry for the mis print...

edited, lol...

peace

Love is not an emotion. For the simple human description, that most people can understand I call it a "feeling."

(A feeling is more than an emotion.)

But I find that there is no single word that can encompass what "Love" is, so I will use many words.

Love is a divine light. It dwells in all things.
Love is the creative spark.
Love is energy.
Love is light.
Love is the divine source of all things.
Love is prime source energy.
Love is all.
Love is God.
Love is source energy.
Love is a vibration.
Love is light and sound.
Love is what is.
Love is boundless joy.
Love is bliss.
Love is power.
Love is joy of being.
It encompasses compassion, joy, gratitude, and all life.
Love is purpose for life.
Love is a bond that bonds all things.
Love is a cosmic orgasm. (no kidding)

love is...

anger

kindness

fear

euphoria

passion

anxiety

hate

compassion

want

depression

malice

aggression

any and all labels, of any emotions ever felt, telling B what another feels, and not what itself feel, and seeing and knowing, they are good, and perfect, only then B'ing taken in thru love, which only B emotions telling of other's, and not of single B, neutral, 0 it B, because of no self want most of a B indeed, no self preservation of self it B, so only such things in the day the universe itself so entreat, then any of these emotions which do not feel good, felt by another, a B that feel not of itself, use any and all of the same, a mirror to seperate what does not feel good from any other B,s, but tempered and precise it B, after much channeling of all not thru B itself, and such things that do not feel good indeed, B the great A B mystery, that turn the universe upside down, from A to B and B to A, and the earth from north to south, east to west instead of west to east, a mirror that only neutral, 0, indeed can B.

The things you mention above David are what I call emotions. They are micro expressions of the feeling of love.

Even hate is a micro expression of love. But I call the micro expressions like that "emotions." They are only powered or fueled by the divine source, love, but they are not adequate descriptions of the true meaning of the word love in its purest form.

if you read it again, you will surely see, that what you say here, is containted within the writing indeed.

why do you read it as though this i do not say as well???

an emotion is only what it is defined to be, by interpretation of the thoughts???

if the emotion is felt as though it is of self, then self preseravtion of B self will define thru self???

but, if the want of no self preservation has come upon a B, only in the day it is destined to B, then all emotions are defined by the true believing of what another B say, and what it mean, as what another B say, means exactley what it say, and no longer accessings of all things heard be thru single B, as only having relevance based on self B knowledge, which simply B the knowing that one B has alone???

it is a paradox indeed, never meant to see, until the destiny of days entreat, or man would have loved and lived in peace from the beginning indeed, but if there so, then no good knowing would any B have aquired, as a B only know what it know from all good and bad seen and felt and gathered for itself for a time, which B the great mystery of all sufferage, that none ever wanted, but it could not be any other way, or a B would be but a one sided "coulda shoulda had a V-8", as walking tilted and jilted, which indeed, it just how man has walked, but it was purposed man would walk as this for a spell, but at the end of each spell, all it righted, the peoples and the universe itself at the same time, as man is one with the uninverse, so what the universe is doing is what man itself is doing, in all ways and shapes and forms.