Support NeoGAF

[jayhawker]

I still can't help but hear "lady" instead of "baby" in that song.

 

[Amon37]

I swear we had this thread already a couple of months ago with the same 5 first responses.


Still funny.

m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=491771&highlight=love

 

[Az987]

Nonsensical, meaningless ramblings. But I'm not surprised since Frankl was an existential psychologist.

I see a lot of meaning in it. Have you ever been in love?

 

[Lord Ghirahim]

Your parents are probably the closest thing you'll ever get to unconditional love.

I guess I should just kill myself then.

 

[Trent Strong]

Not really, not the compulsive kind anyway. You don't need an ego to keep yourself fed, or to keep from setting yourself on fire, etc. We still have pain, and discomfort, etc. All that would be missing is the compulsive or desperate need to respond to these cues in a way that makes them go away, so we'd basically just have an option where at present we don't.

But isn't it the desperate need to make these cues go away that helps us survive and stay healthy? If we put our hand on a hot stove we need a compulsive and desperate need to take our hand off it immediately or we'll burn it. If we don't judge anything as good or bad, or grasp good things and reject bad things, if we don't have some anxiety about the future that sort of takes over our minds fully, and isn't something that we just watch objectively, then there is really no reason or motivating force for us to preserve ourselves or our health and future. (I don't pretend to know as much about Buddhims and meditation, etc. as you do, but the guys I read and listen to about this stuff will tell you that you shouldn't try to kill the ego, but just make it more quiet, or something along those lines.)

 

[aj1467]

baby don't hurt me.

Don't hurt me, no more.

You guys just destroyed me.

 

[Solo]

good on you fellas.

NHL GAF represent!

 

[umop_3pisdn]

But isn't it the desperate need to make these cues go away that helps us survive and stay healthy? If we put our hand on a hot stove we need a compulsive and desperate need to take our hand off it immediately or we'll burn it. If we don't judge anything as good or bad, or grasp good things and reject bad things, if we don't have some anxiety about the future that sort of takes over our minds fully, and isn't something that we just watch objectively, then there is really no reason or motivating force for us to preserve ourselves or our health and future. (I don't pretend to know as much about Buddhims and meditation, etc. as you do, but the guys I read and listen to about this stuff will tell you that you shouldn't try to kill the ego, but just make it more quiet, or something along those lines.)

You're right, it would be more accurate to say it's "seeing past" the ego. You don't eliminate it, exactly, but you put it into perspective in the same way that once you realize something it can't ever be 'unrealized'. Having seen it for what it is you can't go back to your old perspective anymore of being at its mercy. Now you have the option of engaging the ego, or not.

The hot stove example is a bit ambiguous, removing your hand from a hot stove might be a reflexive action in which case volition doesn't really enter into it. This would really only apply to willed actions (even if we're so deluded that we're not aware of our will). But the point I was trying to communicate which I did not communicate very clearly, is that as a survival mechanism it's pretty overgrown and badly adapted to many things that are in our best interest, and is not as essential as we're inclined to think since our perspective and values are colored by our attachment to it. It was mostly just an attempt to anticipate the likely objection people would have of: "but if we love everyone unconditionally, how do we maintain a concern for our safety/not be taken advantage of/etc." If we have an objective understanding of the greater good, and 'no ego', there's no reason we wouldn't step out of the way of a speeding bus, because there's no good in us being hit and dying. But then if we can't get out of the way, we don't sweat it.

 

[PaulExcellent]

baby don't hurt me.

Came in expecting this.
Thank you, GAF.

 

[Fenderputty]

That's quite a leap. Not everyone reproduces or can.

Doesn't mean we haven't evolved a certain way over time.

 

[nimbus]

go ask my bitch ex

 

[Log4Girlz]

go ask my bitch ex

I did, she said "Arf, Arf, Woof". What does it mean?

 

[Cooter]

True love is the souls' recognition of its' counterpoint- Wedding Crashers

 

[Dom Brunt]

 

[oneils]

I don't think there is an objective definition. It is pretty subjective.

I love some of my family. I tolerate the rest. I can't really say I love the ones that I tolerate. However, if something were ever to happen to them or if someone were to hurt them I would be pretty upset. The familial bond I have with them from growing up around them would kind of take over.

I guess that is instinct, more than anything else.

As for my friends, I love them. But in a different way. Its more abstract. I rarely think of them unless they are around or if they are in distress. When they are in distress, I try my best to help - but there are limits. I do have about 4 friends were the limits are higher. I would probably help them out more than the others.

As for girlfriends. Well, this is complicated. I love them when I am with them. When we breakup I tend to feel different levels of obligation to them. Its never consistent. I love my last girlfriend as a friend, and I feel an obligation to help her out whenever I can. I can't explain it more than that. I just know that she counts on me, and that she really has no one else.

I think that helps me prioritize my "love." I prioritise those that have less folks to count on than the others. I know that they have a greater need.

 

[KuroNeeko]

Your parents are probably the closest thing you'll ever get to unconditional love. But should the way a person, whether they be a lover, parent, friend or sibling, treats you be a determining factor for whether or not you love them?

Let's say your brother is a fool who drives you up the wall, who doesn't care about you and hurts the people you care about. But you love him because he is your brother, because you remember when you were brothers, and because of that you will do anything you can to help and support him regardless of what he does or says. Is that love?

In another example, the person you once claimed to have loved is now nothing more than a sorrowful/bitter memory. Is that love?

Evidently there are different examples of love but how do you measure the latter against the former? Widows sometimes refuse to remarry because they still love their dead spouse. Other widows, who expressed similar love, are able to remarry. How could the two have felt similar?

An interesting post that I want to contribute to, but I don't have the time to right now. It's a shame that you're getting so many posts of people just trying to be funny and score internetz.

Will come back and write more later. Good luck, OP.

 

[SolKane]

Whenever I read a Meus Resistance thread about relationships, I think to myself, "this is a man who has no experience in a relationship."

 

[oneils]

Whenever I read a Meus Resistance thread about relationships, I think to myself, "this is a man who has no experience in a relationship."

Do you mean Renaissance?

 

[Choke on the Magic]

NHL GAF represent!

 

[destrudo]

Not really, not the compulsive kind anyway. You don't need an ego to keep yourself fed, or to keep from setting yourself on fire, etc. We still have pain, and discomfort, etc. All that would be missing is the compulsive or desperate need to respond to these cues in a way that makes them go away, so we'd basically just have an option where at present we don't.

Isn't the ego essentially a point of reference we mistake to be our true selves?

Also, the word love is fairly subjective. It means different things to different people. Personally I define love as acceptance and appreciation. That doesn't mean not being critical though, you can accept someone for who they are while also helping them change or better themselves. Likewise you can love someone for everything that they are and also not want anything to do with them if they aren't good for you. I really do think that love is unconditional, but I think we are all lead to believe it's not. Most likely from our parents and our upbringing.

 

[umop_3pisdn]

Isn't the ego essentially a point of reference we mistake to be our true selves?

Yeah, basically a view of fixed or substantial identity, or seeing the self as a 'thing' rather than a conditional and insubstantial 'process'.

For the sake of simplicity you could also consider it a manifestation of the 'three poisons' (Greed, Hatred/Aversion, and Ignorance/Delusion).

Also, the word love is fairly subjective. It means different things to different people. Personally I define love as acceptance and appreciation. That doesn't mean not being critical though, you can accept someone for who they are while also helping them change or better themselves. Likewise you can love someone for everything that they are and also not want anything to do with them if they aren't good for you. I really do think that love is unconditional, but I think we are all lead to believe it's not. Most likely from our parents and our upbringing.

I agree with this. It seems like if it was really conditional it would have to be some kind of infatuation instead.

 

[oneils]

Yeah, basically a view of fixed or substantial identity, or seeing the self as a 'thing' rather than a conditional and insubstantial 'process'.

For the sake of simplicity you could also consider it a manifestation of the 'three poisons' (Greed, Hatred/Aversion, and Ignorance/Delusion).



I agree with this. It seems like if it was really conditional it would have to be some kind of infatuation instead.

Is infatuation the right word? Specifically in regards to "familial" love.

I mean, I love my father despite all his flaws. But there are limits to that love. I am not quite sure what the limits are, but I know that they are there. I do believe that I could stop loving him.

 

[blame space]

love doesn't exist. it's just humans running around dogshit crazy trying to justify not feeling comfortable being alone.

 

[umop_3pisdn]

Is infatuation the right word? Specifically in regards to "familial" love.

I mean, I love my father despite all his flaws. But there are limits to that love. I am not quite sure what the limits are, but I know that they are there. I do believe that I could stop loving him.

This is tough. I think there might be some peculiarities in our perception, like when you experience love in the present moment it is unconditional, yet paradoxically you are not guaranteed to feel it all the time. You can willfully generate feelings of love towards someone you would not normally feel that way towards, but then obviously since it requires effort that is not your norm and you're likely to return to a feeling of indifference or whatever later on. But at the time that the feelings are present, they aren't conditional on any particular thing (for example, you ordinarily liking the person). This may just be a tricky evasion of your question though, I'm not entirely convinced of this answer. I kind of think it would be hard to feel no love for a parent ever again assuming we did before, though it's probably very easy to 'lapse'.

 

[Log4Girlz]

love doesn't exist. it's just humans running around dogshit crazy trying to justify not feeling comfortable being alone.

Wait but that is love.

 

[oneils]

This is tough. I think there might be some peculiarities in our perception, like when you experience love in the present moment it is unconditional, yet paradoxically you are not guaranteed to feel it all the time. You can willfully generate feelings of love towards someone you would not normally feel that way towards, but then obviously since it requires effort that is not your norm and you're likely to return to a feeling of indifference or whatever later on. But at the time that the feelings are present, they aren't conditional on any particular thing (for example, you ordinarily liking the person). This may just be a tricky evasion of your question though, I'm not entirely convinced of this answer. I kind of think it would be hard to feel no love for a parent ever again assuming we did before, though it's probably very easy to 'lapse'.

I don't think you are being evasive at all. I know that it is pretty tough to answer.

I think that I may be confusing loyalty with love. I know for sure that loyalty has its limits. I can disavow my family. But then this poses, to me at least, a very uncomfortable question.

Do I actually love my family? Am I just confusing all of these feelings with love?

 

[triplestation]

love is when u fuck the shit out of something