Ok - back to work rabbit on this doctrine of love.



I must ask you - please define what love is. If you are to make a credible doctine, there must first be a clear definition by which to continue.

For example, is love a verb, noun, adjective. Can one love a cat the love chocolate, love thier child, love a life-partner or love a new tattoo and in every instance mean exactly the same thing? Is love learned, can it be preceived, can it be taught or is it inherent? Does love have a counter word, such as ambivalence, or hate? Is there any crime or sin related to the word - and so on.

I would greatly "love" to hear how this word fits into your doctrine, by definition.

I’ll take a shot at these. These are merely my personal perceptions, your mileage may vary.




For me love is a verb. Love is in actions, or inaction, depending on the situation. But love always refers to an act. There may be emotions felt as a result of an act of love, or as the motivation for an act of love, but those emotions are not the love itself.



One most certainly can love any living being and in some cases even inanimate objects. However, the ability of an inanimate object to experience emotion associated with an act of love is a philosophical question I cannot answer. I sometimes feel that they do. Or perhaps this is just a reflection of my own emotions associated with the inanimate object reflecting back on me.



No. One can only enjoy chocolate. Enjoying things is not loving them. However, is one is preparing chocolate in special ways one can put love into that preparation. (Recall that love is an act) This may also apply to the art of devouring chocolate. However, the ecstasy associated with that act of love, is not the love itself, but rather an experience created by the act of love.




Of course. And this love is in the act of how the child is cared for and mentored. However, this does not mean that all acts that are performed in the name of love are necessarily full of love. For example, forcing a child to study algebra when the child’s real calling is to become a violinist is not an act of love. Many parents confuse irrational rote discipline with love when, in fact, it is not born of love at all. In this sense love can be complicated and sometimes may actually require wisdom and intelligence on the part of the parent.



We can only hope.



Again, this is something that can be enjoyed, but it would be difficult to show a tattoo love. However, I have seen genuine love shown to tattoos. A cousin of mind lost his 15 year old son to an auto accident. The boy had been somewhat of an artist and had drawn many pieces of abstract artwork in an art tablet. My cousin chose a serpentine pattern that his son had drawn and took it to a tattoo shop to have it tattooed around his biceps so that his son would also be with him. He loves that tattoo.



Of course not. Love is a many-splendored thing. Not only can love be different for different subjects of affection, but it can even be different for a single subject at different times.




Great questions. Difficult answers.

Is it learned? I think love can be learned from example. And being loved can cause a person to love more than when they are not loved. Love is dynamic.

Can it be perceieved. Of course. Love is a verb, it’s an action, if it’s not being perceived then it has no existence.

Can it be taught or inherited. I think some people have a more natural innate desire to love than others. So an ability to love is definitely innate and may be more pronounced in some people than in others. I think it can definitely be taught, but only by example. I believe that love is contagious.



Sure. If love is in the act, then acts that cause damage or ill-will would be the other end of that rainbow.



No sin or crime associated with love. However, some people may confuse the idea of forcing acts of love onto others that they might associate with love without first obtaining the other person’s consent and permission. Acts of love are necessarily consensual, and because of this love is an intimate thing that requires all persons or beings involved to be on the same ‘wavelength’ so-to-speak. As I mentioned earlier, forcing a child to study algebra when their real life’s mission is to become a violinist is not an act of love, even though some parents may have foolhardily convinced themselves that it is.



The word “love” is grossly overused and misused. You would greatly “enjoy” hearing how this word fits into a doctrine. You may even feel a sense of satisfaction and possibly an ecstatic fervor having felt the penetrating power of the verb’s fulfilling potency. However, these emotions are not love. They are merely the quivering sensations that often accompany an act of love. Love is an act of affection.

I Love that answer







Just one small addition the opposite of Love is No Love

And such is the problem with "Doctrines", IMO.

Today I am praying: " "

Abra, what you have written is a beautiful beginning to a very worthy doctrine.

Now, in many of the most current religious threads there is much ambivalence when discussing another's doctrinal beliefs, so part of this whole 'created/adopt a doctrine' it to respectfully and open mindedly explore and question the doctrine of others.

To that end, I do have a possible disagreement, or perhaps it just requires further thinging or clarification.



While I acknowledge your other definitions and examples and can accept most of them, this one seems contradictory.

For example, 'tough love', I would think, must also be inclusive of such a doctrine. A person experiencing schizophrenia for the first time, will almost always require act of love, that seem forceful and totally non-consensual. But it is necessary for the protection and health of the person afflicted.

There are a great many cases in which love can be extended and actually have wonderous effects, without any conscious or consensual acts of those who benefit from the good will of its origin.

So the quote here, in my opinion, can not stand as given.

One other question,
Do you think it is possible that love, might be a requirement, of an open mind?

Consider those who are depressed and hate the world and are miserable with their lives. Or those who tend to proclaim the greatest love of all, but can not come to terms with the idea of tolerance or anything of relavence that could unbalance their idea of what that great love is or where it comes from.

I clearly see your point Dianna.

I was thinking solely in terms of a healthy world.

Not to imply that I’m naïve, but rather I was thinking in terms of the perfect hypothetical.

You’re right there is such a thing as “tough love”. I’ve saved many wild animals from disaster by making them stay in cages until they healed well enough to be released again. I’m sure that during their incarceration they did not imagine that I loved them. But it was an act that was done for their own good.

This is clearly a delicate line we’re walking here.

To help someone with a mental disorder, or a drug addition, or to even get bone-headed people to face themselves in the mirror can often be acts of love that are not perceived as love by the recipient.

These kinds of things almost need to be taken on a case-by-case basis, and many will not agree on when such actions are love, and when they are misplaced persuasions.

The clearest example I can think of is, dogma pushers who claim that they are out to save souls. So they go around disrespecting the beliefs of others in the lame claim that they are doing this for the sake of love. Sometimes the notion of love can indeed be misguided.

Other such examples might be someone’s causal use of a drug, say marijuana for example. They use the drug, but don’t see it as a ‘problem’ and in fact for them it’s not a problem. They aren’t obsessed by it, nor are they financially, socially, or productively hampered by it. To constantly harass them about it is not an act of love but rather an act of disrespect for the considered choices they have made.

The act of attempting to save someone from themselves can indeed be questionable. When is it truly an act of love? And when is it an act of ignorance and disrespect? Choosing where that line is, is not an easy task, and we are all capable of making wrong choices in this area.

So you’re right. Love doesn’t always need to be consensual. But non-consensual love can be a dangerous tightrope to walk. Walking it for the wrong reasons, or using it as an excuse for abuse is clearly a danger.

I don’t think any philosophy will have clear-cut answers to every possible situation. As with all doctrines a measure of wisdom is required by the followers.



A closed mind is never a good thing IMHO.

We come to love not by finding a perfect person,
but by learning to see an imperfect person perfectly.

~ Unknown ~

Love: No offense Red, but at times, the need of humanity to define and box-up or pigeon hole the description of something only serves the purpose of lessening that something.

Go back in time, remember when you had the feeling of all is well and nothing is impossible?

Remember the feeling of absolute acceptance for exactly who you are at any given moment?

Remember the feeling of being with no justification necessary?

Welcome to love, no definition necessary.

Love apparently is an all encompassing emotion. Upon further contemplation, there is the teaching aspect of love, which could be seen as a harshness, rather than the down the road, shwew good thing I learned that safety feature kind of thing. What am I rambling about? The woman who shelled the nuts for her pet squirrel rather than making him do the work of being what he was meant to be and surviving as he was meant to. In the end, the unused teeth of same squirrel were not filed down by his natural nutcracking ability, grew out of normal proportion, and impaled the poor beast and he bled to death. Harsh lessons doth love also have, I'm thinkin............

abra:


Thank-you for responding and for the great references. I think I can say, I'm in total agreement with your definition of love.

DKW:


"All is well & nothing is impossible" Actually, no, I've never felt that all is well and nothing is impossible (at the same time). I would like to believe that nothing is impossible, but that's the PeterPan in me. The optimist, I like that part of me,because it saves me from becoming bitter and cynical.

"acceptance of who I am at any given moment". This is a difficult one for me. Who I was at any given moment, I never really felt was in my control. However, if I could be 'seen' as acceptible and worthy by others, then I was content with who I was (to that person). It has only been the last several years that I have made personal 'self' decisions, without regard to what others expected of me. In view of all this, I can only say, that I have alway accepted who I am, I have not always understood, who that person was though.

I think you, DKW, and several others here, are more rare than you recognise. Most people, that I've known, function better when there pretty, neat, little boxes. Even if those boxes are of their own making. I've spent a life time looking into those boxes for understanding of how I fit in. You don't create boxes, and you brush them aside, naturally because who you are and what you do, to me, always seems to be correct.

That's such rare quality, a good one to sure, but most people, like it or not, define, label and box. I'm not sure exactly why, but it seems to be a need to create a smaller environment that is more easily dealt with.

I did so enjoy your comments though, I can honestly, so see you, being so free.

"The feeling of being with no justification necessary" I'm an atheist, there is no justification required in life. But, knowing will NEVER get the hour that has just past, back again, makes me uneasy. There are things to learn, things to be done, people to meet, a legacy to create. The justification for having existed, having taken up space, depends on how I've spent my time here.


Rabbit - I like that saying. I have seen so many loving long-term couples, and even after decades of togetherness, they still find the 'imperfections' of their partner, adorable, cute, acceptable. That IS love.

Yes, too much love can spoil the roses.

Gotta add a little thorny love to the vine sometimes.

Life is never just one thing, but rather it's everything.

Zippity Doo Dah, Zippity Ay! - My oh my! Mak'in love in the hay!

Zippity Doo Dah, Zippity Ay! - Devour my flower with your trident bouquet!

~~~

T.ake me to places where demons despair
H.ungy to plunder like a ravenous bear
O.pen my soul and take what you want
R.avage my body with your masculine brunt
N.astily pillage my innocent kiss
Y.our total dominion licentiously bliss

L.oquaciously suckling with garrulous verse
O.ffering love till it’s almost perverse
V.irulently thrusting your sensuous curse
E.nveloping all of me, ... , till our spirits immerse




(sorry, I got carried away with a thought )

Abra, Kat once said "see even an old dog can learn new tricks". I gotta tell ya - Poetry can get ya there, but when you're there -there's an art form much less formal to the 'spoken' breathless words, one speaks to the one who is breathlessly listening.

sorry couldn't resist! Cos I'm going out tonight, feeling a bit myschievious - just getting my brain in gear.

I'll leave you to your serious convos, and simply use this space for another prayer, in the spirit of the Doctrine of Love:

Mass, and I lovingly say this - You are a chicken!

And I sooo misread that post.....whoops, chicken retraction in effect.....

I completely don't get it... but I'll sit here and scratch at the earth and make chicken noises, regardless. Where's the webcam?

Web cam not necessary, I've got the visual. wayyy more than I want. I'll be laughing for a couple of hours with that one, so thanks!

Now that I understand just -how- you misread my post, the follow up posts take on all new, and entirely weird, meanings.

Awesome, my work here is done, leave 'em wonderin...

~ peaks in at the secret chicken code


~ pecks at the screen


~ scratches comb


~ struts away

Once again the Doors are open and the sermon is





A couple had two little boys, ages 8 and 10, who were excessively mischievous. They were always getting into trouble and their parents knew that, if any mischief occurred in their town, their sons were probably involved.

They boys' mother heard that a clergyman in town had been successful in disciplining children, so she asked if he would speak with her boys. The clergyman agreed, but asked to see them individually. So the mother sent her 8-year-old first, in the morning, with the older boy to see the clergyman in the afternoon.

The clergyman, a huge man with a booming voice, sat the younger boy down and asked him sternly, "Where is God?".

They boy's mouth dropped open, but he made no response, sitting there with his mouth hanging open, wide-eyed. So the clergyman repeated the question in an even sterner tone, "Where is God!!?" Again the boy made no attempt to answer. So the clergyman raised his voice even more and shook his finger in the boy's face and bellowed, "WHERE IS GOD!?"


The boy screamed and bolted from the room, ran directly home and dove into his closet, slamming the door behind him. When his older brother found him in the closet, he asked, "What happened?"

The younger brother, gasping for breath, replied, "We are in BIG trouble this time, dude. God is missing - and they think WE did it!"