To Keira with love

[dave]

Originally Posted by BrunoJA Today, 02:47 AM

Is holding a minority opinion not speaking English? I don't see why your "definition" is any more valid than mine.

OK. It's all just interpretation. Then I don't want to hear anyone saying "that's not love" or anything like it to someone they don't know. The only people qualified to tell another person how he or she feels are maybe close friends or family.

I was never trying to make a point other than there are no relationship checkpoints required for love. It can come unexpectedly, for no apparent reason. Most people here seem to disagree. That's fine. But there's no logical basis for your opinion that a person is unable to love someone without meeting.

The attitude you are describing is a very common form of Mental Illness.
1) Words mean what I say they mean.
2) In my world Love is what I have for x.
3) No matter what x does, I love her, and nobody can say different.
4) Even if the entire world is against me, I Love. Even if it is only in my head, I Love.
5) Nothing the outside world does can change what is inside me.
6) I never have to prove my Love to anyone, because it is pure and internal only to me.

Originally Posted by BrunoJA Today, 02:47 AM

Why is perfect love in quotation marks? You certainly aren't quoting me!

There, no quotes, do you like that better? (a set of quote marks is often used to denote "emphasis" in writing.)

Originally Posted by BrunoJA Today, 02:47 AM

Unrequited love is probably the most imperfect kind.

And what do you mean, "the woman doesn't have to know"? This makes absolutely no sense to me.

If you Love someone or something, it is either reciprocal or it is not.
1) If love is reciprocal there is some type of interaction.
(a) a Person. This is what we actually call Love when we write about it.
(b) an object (i.e. The Mona Lisa) The Mona Lisa cannot love.
2) If Love is one sided, (not reciprocal,) then it is only one way.
(a) a Person. This is not Love, though it can be Lust, or Idolatry. People sometimes believe internally that there is Love here because They, Themselves, go through all the motions and emotions they believe they would go through if they were in Love. But, this is a mental illness. The person acting on these thoughts is aberrant according to modern Psychology. Often people will somehow pretend that the object of their love is an object, and not a person so they can somehow pretend to have some type of love with another person.
(b) an object (i.e. The Mona Lisa) This is the type of Love that you can have for Music, Art, Architecture, Trains & stuff.
That should just about cover all possible Loves.

Originally Posted by BrunoJA Today, 02:47 AM

Is it the right of someone to know what someone else thinks about that person?

When you claim to Love someone, there are two things that you are saying. You are claiming that there is a reciprocity in the relationship; or you are pretending that there is one.

We've clearly demonstrated that in Modern English, It takes two to Love, unless one is a house plant. You can truthfully say that you "admire," "wish to know," "Lust after;" all of those things are proper in English. But She doesn't Love you, therefore there is not enough Love there for you to claim it is.

Originally Posted by BrunoJA Today, 02:47 AM

<snip>maybe you should make clearer your own points a little.

I know the difference very well, thank you. Perhaps you can educate me, instead, though? I'd be very interested to hear what you have to say.

Actually, no I wouldn't. You'd just say love is what you get after you share X, give Y, and pass week Z, and fail to mention the actual emotions involved, which are what are important. (Lust, of course, is everything else, by the way.)

Yes, you definitely misunderstood me. Just because a relationship is not possible with either doesn't make them equivalent. What do you think me, a sociopath? Of course I don't see any woman as I would a painting. They aren't comparable, of course.

I don't see how being unable to form a relationship with someone results in not seeing that someone as a person. Haven't you ever heard of loving from afar?

Believe me when I say this. That is not love.

Were I your editor, you would not get paid until you changed that word and said what you really mean. It is cheating to say something and force us to add the meaning that you couldn't write.

[BrunoJA]

You're a rather grumpy old man, aren't you? Where do you get off calling me mentally ill because I have great affection for someone? What the fuck do you even care? You seem more interesting in making me look like a fiend than actually enlightening this poor fool (and ill at that, apparently!). At worst I am just some confused kid, right? So wherefore the vitriol, oldtimer? You have some nerve. If anyone's mouth needs a washing, it's yours.

Originally Posted by dave

The attitude you are describing is a very common form of Mental Illness.

Why is mental illness capitalized? It seems I'm not the only crazy one here. You write like the unabomber. Thank goodness you aren't my editor.

However, funny you should say "mental illness" (take a guess--were those just for emphasis? ). Love and mental illness are very similar, both biologically and symptomatically. Your precious modern psychology should have told ya.

Originally Posted by dave

1) Words mean what I say they mean.

Puzzling, when did I redefine words? Tell me which words confused you. I will gladly point you to a dictionary or encyclopedia.

Strange also that you use words that mean what you say they mean. Like your narrowed definition of love.

Originally Posted by dave

2) In my world Love is what I have for x.
3) No matter what x does, I love her, and nobody can say different.

I never said that, "no matter what." And by all means, say different. But give me a reason other than a different definition of the word "love" because then there's nothing to argue about.

Originally Posted by dave

Even if the entire world is against me, I Love.

This is a rather noble trait, methinks. You gotta do what you gotta do, right? I mean, why should I trust any of you when it comes to this? (And just so you know, you and some others are not the whole world.)

Originally Posted by dave

Even if it is only in my head, I Love.

This is a good one. Where else would it be? Love is abstract. Abstract things have one home: the brain.

Originally Posted by dave

Nothing the outside world does can change what is inside me.

Oh, I wouldn't say nothing. I'm not the T-1000. But I don't see why I should swallow what some people say without trusting what I know and experience a bit first. No one's given me a good reason yet why you can't love someone you've never met. Mostly because they are using narrow and irrelevant definitions of the word.

Originally Posted by dave

I never have to prove my Love to anyone, because it is pure and internal only to me.

Prove it? You want me to prove it? What would you like, for me to drink paint or something? Bump off Knightley's acting competition? What is this supposed to mean? Talk about throwing vague language around...

Originally Posted by dave

2) If Love is one sided, (not reciprocal,) then it is only one way.
(a) a Person. This is not Love, though it can be Lust, or Idolatry. People sometimes believe internally that there is Love here because They, Themselves, go through all the motions and emotions they believe they would go through if they were in Love. But, this is a mental illness. The person acting on these thoughts is aberrant according to modern Psychology. Often people will somehow pretend that the object of their love is an object, and not a person so they can somehow pretend to have some type of love with another person.
That should just about cover all possible Loves.

Ah, but you are forgetting this is called "unrequited love"...which is what I've been talking about the whole damn time.

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the adjective "unrequited" simply modify the word "love"? Yes, I believe it does...in fact, they're called qualifiers! Yeah, that's it: qualifiers. Wow! So, it's like taking "love"...and just qualifying it. Describing the type of love, one could say. Amazing!

Have we learned something?

What you wrote here is simply your opinion and I am sorry to say, not backed by any reasoning. You've failed to show how I've been treating anyone like an object. You are trying to speak with authority when you have none.

Originally Posted by dave

We've clearly demonstrated that in Modern English, It takes two to Love

I think it's time for a good definition of what exactly you mean by "love," because this could go nowhere forever. I can say this and that fall under what love really is, but it doesn't matter unless were using the same vocabulary (and truly commicating). You can dismiss the whole idea of unrequited love, but you better have a reason to scrap it. Just throwing the word "objectification" around in somewhat vague and incoherent ramblings doesn't count. Neither does stating "you are aberrant according to modern Psychology"...

[dave]

Originally Posted by BrunoJA Today, 07:42 AM

You're a rather grumpy old man, aren't you?

No.

Originally Posted by BrunoJA Today, 07:42 AM

Where do you get off calling me mentally ill because I have great affection for someone? What the fuck do you even care?

Sorry about that. I was just commenting on the particular argument you used and what it meant to me. It was not logical. It did not follow from any of the definitions given previously, and it only applied to you, and your internal definition of the word Love. It really didn't apply, but it cut off any reasoned response.

Originally Posted by BrunoJA Today, 07:42 AM

You seem more interesting in making me look like a fiend than actually enlightening this poor fool <snip>.

I read what you said, and repeated it back with the emphasis on what you said.

Originally Posted by BrunoJA Today, 07:42 AM

At worst I am just some confused kid, right? So wherefore the vitriol, oldtimer? You have some nerve. If anyone's mouth needs a washing, it's yours.

If you say so.

Originally Posted by BrunoJA Today, 07:42 AM

Why is mental illness capitalized? It seems I'm not the only crazy one here. You write like the unabomber.

I wouldn't know about the unabomber. What I do know is that you shouldn't try to win a debate by insulting me.

Originally Posted by BrunoJA Today, 07:42 AM

Thank goodness you aren't my editor.

Yes, Thank goodness. I wouldn't last long. The bond between a writer and his/her editor should be a strong one, based on trust.

Originally Posted by BrunoJA Today, 07:42 AM

<snip>Love and mental illness are very similar, both biologically and symptomatically. Your precious modern psychology should have told ya.

Shakespeare? I suspect that Shakespeare was more of a Carny than a Philosopher.

Originally Posted by BrunoJA Today, 07:42 AM

Puzzling, when did I redefine words? Tell me which words confused you. I will gladly point you to a dictionary or encyclopedia.

Love. You attempted to redefine Love to mean something that only you understand. And we already had a dictionary definition in message #161.

Originally Posted by BrunoJA Today, 07:42 AM

Strange also that you use words that mean what you say they mean. Like your narrowed definition of love.

I put the Wikipedia definition of love in message #161. Did you disagree with that one? How about this one:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia entry for Triangular Theory of Love

Answers.com The Triangular Theory of LoveThe triangular theory of love characterizes love in an interpersonal relationship on three different scales: intimacy, passion and commitment. It was developed by Robert Sternberg. Different stages and types of love can be explained as different combinations of the three elements, intimacy, passion and commitment. Sternberg states that a relationship based on a single element is less likely to survive than one based on two or more.

The relative emphasis of each component changes over time as an adult romantic relationship develops.

1. Liking includes only one of the love components - intimacy. In this case, liking is not used in a trivial sense. Sternberg says that this intimate liking characterizes true friendships, in which a person feels a bondedness, a warmth, and a closeness with another but not intense passion or long-term commitment.
2. Infatuated love consists solely of passion and is often what is felt as "love at first sight." But without the intimacy and the commitment components of love, infatuated love may disappear suddenly.
3. Empty love consists of the commitment component without intimacy or passion. Sometimes, a stronger love deteriorates into empty love, in which the commitment remains, but the intimacy and passion have died. In cultures in which arranged marriages are common, relationships often begin as empty love.
4. Romantic love is a combination of intimacy and passion. Romantic lovers are bonded emotionally (as in liking) and physically through passionate arousal.
5. Companionate love consists of intimacy and commitment. This type of love is often found in marriages in which the passion has gone out of the relationship, but a deep affection and commitment remain.
6. Fatuous love has the passion and the commitment components but not the intimacy component. This type of love can be exemplified by a whirlwind courtship and marriage in which a commitment is motivated largely by passion, without the stabilizing influence of intimacy.
7. Consummate love is the only type of love that includes all three components--intimacy, passion and commitment. Consummate love is the most complete form of love, and it represents the ideal love relationship for which many people strive but which apparently few achieve. Sternberg cautions that maintaining a consummate love may be even harder than achieving it. He stresses the importance of translating the components of love into action. "Without expression," he warns, "even the greatest of loves can die" (1987, p.341).

Reference
* Sternberg, R. J. (1986) A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119-135.
* Sternberg, R. J. (1988) The Triangle of Love: Intimacy, Passion, Commitment, Basic Books (ISBN 0465087469)...

<snip>

Originally Posted by BrunoJA Today, 07:42 AM

Ah, but you are forgetting this is called "unrequited love"...which is what I've been talking about the whole damn time.

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the adjective "unrequited" simply modify the word "love"? Yes, I believe it does...in fact, they're called qualifiers! Yeah, that's it: qualifiers. Wow! So, it's like taking "love"...and just qualifying it. Describing the type of love, one could say. Amazing!

Have we learned something?

Until you began your sarcasm I was with you. At that point it became clear that you were not talking about love. You were talking about objectified love which you can Limit, Color, Measure, differentiate by saying unrequited; but not Love. You cannot limit Love by putting words around it.

Originally Posted by BrunoJA Today, 07:42 AM

<snip> You've failed to show how I've been treating anyone like an object.

Go back and read it again. I did, and several times.

Originally Posted by BrunoJA Today, 07:42 AM

I think it's time for a good definition of what exactly you mean by "love," because this could go nowhere forever. I can say this and that fall under what love really is, but it doesn't matter unless we're using the same vocabulary (and truly communicating). You can dismiss the whole idea of unrequited love, but you better have a reason to scrap it. Just throwing the word "objectification" around in somewhat vague and incoherent ramblings doesn't count. Neither does stating "you are aberrant according to modern Psychology"...

I agree, How about using the one I posted a week or so ago in Message #161? If you don't like that, use the one above. Or why don't you actually put one down in writing and we will debate about that. But you should be aware that a one-sided, unrequited, Love will not be acceptable to most of us as it doesn't fit in either of the above referenced definitions, or any of the fifteen or so other postings by other people on this list.

[Leonie]

I've tried to read your last couple of posts, and tried to skip the bits where you just insult each other.

Question: why is unrequited love not love? Just because it's not reciprocated does not mean someone can't love another with every fibre of their being, does it?

[kingdumbass]

I think it is possible....
However, it's not as strong as the love you can feel for someone with whom you've had an actual relationship. That doesn't go away quite as easily.

[dave]

Originally Posted by Leonie

<snip>
Question: why is unrequited love not love? Just because it's not reciprocated does not mean someone can't love another with every fibre of their being, does it?

My point has been that in order to have "unrequited love" you have to have a conversation in which one person turns the other down. When you limit love by qualifying it as this, or that; you are no longer talking about love. You may be talking about being a fan, of admiring, of lust, something other than love. Love knows no bounds. Love is unlimited. Love is a pure thing, and when you try to color it by limiting it, you no longer are talking about love.

Imagine that we are trying to agree on what is red. How do we agree if I cannot talk to you? If we never discuss it, how can we see the same color as being red? Schopenhauer went even further, he said that I cannot prove that you exist. Concomitantly, you and I cannot agree that what you see as red is the same color as what I see as red.

And again, add in the complexity that you seem to think that a one-sided love affair is somehow love. If your world does not include me, how can love cross the boundary between our two worlds?

Since the only type of love that is not between two people (inhabiting the same world) is the love of an object, you would have to think of your "beloved" as an object to be able to say you loved them. Objectifying a woman is, of itself, wrong.

See Joelogon's Foolproof Guide to Making Any Woman Your Platonic Friend

Originally Posted by wikipedia, again. searched for "unrequited love"

Unrequited love is love that is not reciprocated, even though reciprocation is desired. This can lead to feelings such as depression, anxiety, and mood swings such as swift changes between depression and euphoria.
Overview

Unrequited love can result in obsessive behavior such as stalking and even transform into hostility toward the object of desire if the love is rejected. These sorts of behavior can lead the afflicted person to be seen as "perverted" or to a lesser extent, simply "creepy". Conversely, unrequited love has also been the inspiration for and topic of many great works of art. Such works have brought hope and inspiration to the lovelorn and romantically-inclined for centuries. Whether a particular case of unrequited love is interpreted by an observer (or by the love's object) as being sweet or creepy is a complex and subjective issue.

Being in unrequited love can be torturous, but it can simultaneously be a source of great joy, sometimes providing the lover a sense of fulfillment for having somebody to love, even though that love is not returned. The lover may feel this satisfaction is "worth" the emotional duress they must suffer. They may prefer to stay in love rather than move on.

Although unrequited love can last a very long time—many years, or even decades—the lover's feelings usually reach a breaking point as they continue to deepen. The love typically ends either when the lover receives reciprocation from the loved, the feelings subside, the lover acknowledges that their feelings will never be returned, or the lover channels their devotion towards another, more reciprocative object.

The Site (Relationships, etc.)
I'm in love with a famous actor and am thinking about dropping my boyfriend
Famous infatuation
Question

I'm in love with a famous actor and have been thinking about dumping my long-term boyfriend so I have more time to pursue the man of my dreams. What should I do?
Answer

It sounds as if your feelings for this particular actor are deep and far-reaching, especially if you are considering dumping your boyfriend for him. But there is also the possibility that there is more going on here than simple infatuation with a well-known celebrity.

Being in love with someone from afar, especially a famous and unattainable person, can sometimes serves to fill a void in a person's life. Perhaps the relationship with your boyfriend has lost some of its spark and zing, and lusting after this actor adds some excitement and spice to your life. Or maybe you feel as if you have outgrown your guy and are now setting your sights elsewhere. Maybe fantasising about the actor feels comfortable, or safe. Whatever the reason, unless you are willing to take an honest look at what's going on, you might not feel fulfilled or satisfied, in this relationship or in any other.

The question you might want to ask yourself is: how will having more free time actually allow you to have a genuine relationship with this actor? Perhaps you're thinking that you'll have more time to track him down, or maybe you're even planning to visit him in person. The question you might want to ask yourself, then, is: how realistic is your game plan? It's one thing to set goals in life, but if the goal is not realistic the result could be extremely disappointing for you.

It's also possible that you are setting an unreachable goal because, deep down, you know that the man of your dreams is just that - someone to dream about; a fantasy. The chances of you actually hooking up with him are extremely slim, if not impossible. Maybe pursuing him without any hope of actually getting him is enough for you. Or maybe you do think there is a very real possibility that you will get together with this man one day.

You are an adult and can pursue whomever you choose, whether he is famous or not. It might be a helpful, though, for you to examine your relationship with your boyfriend before you make a move, one way or another. If you and your boyfriend were to reconnect in some meaningful way, the actor might look less appealing. Relate offers counselling for couples and individuals and can be reached on 0845 130 4010. Perhaps a few sessions with a relationship counsellor might shed some light on this issue, and help you to get a handle on your feelings.

Alternatively, you might want to talk to a trained counsellor individually about what's going on. Youth Access can provide you with details of counselling services in your area. You can call the information line on 020 8772 9900. The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP), which provides information and advice on all matters related to counselling, can also send a list of accredited counsellors in your area. You can get hold of BACP on 0870 443 5252. Another excellent resource is SupportLine, a telephone helpline providing emotional support to any person on any issue. The helpline is 020 8554 9004.

Note that the answer is a very gentle push towards a counselor. The expert believes that the person might be in trouble and might need a little help.

[BrunoJA]

Originally Posted by dave

It was not logical. It did not follow from any of the definitions given previously

Show me where what I said was inconsistent with that Wikipedia article or any normal definition of love.

Originally Posted by dave

What I do know is that you shouldn't try to win a debate by insulting me.

I agree. Please take your own advice. You gave me no respect.

Originally Posted by dave

Shakespeare? I suspect that Shakespeare was more of a Carny than a Philosopher.

No, actually. I wasn't thinking of Shakespeare at all.

Originally Posted by dave

Love. You attempted to redefine Love to mean something that only you understand. And we already had a dictionary definition in message #161.

Where did I contradict that encyclodpedia article?

Originally Posted by dave

I put the Wikipedia definition of love in message #161. Did you disagree with that one?

No, why? Did I make it seem like I disagreed?

The "Triangular Theory of Love" article you posted does nothing to help your case. In fact, it undoubtedly strengthens mine. I count three types of love on that list that don't include intimacy.

In truth, I don't know what you were trying to show with that article.

Originally Posted by dave

At that point it became clear that you were not talking about love. You were talking about objectified love which you can Limit, Color, Measure, differentiate by saying unrequited; but not Love. You cannot limit Love by putting words around it.

I'm sorry, but...what? You're saying unrequited love doesn't exist?

You can't limit love? It seems like that Triangular Theory of Love stuff did just that. Some forms are stronger than others, for instance.

Originally Posted by dave

Go back and read it again. I did, and several times.

No, you didn't. You said because I have no hope or expectation of a relationship that I am treating her like an object. This makes no sense.

Originally Posted by dave

How about using the one I posted a week or so ago in Message #161? If you don't like that, use the one above.

Sounds fine to me. They both seem pretty good. But, of course, love is probably one of the hardest things to define, so it's not like they include everything.

But sure, those definitions are just fine. So, where did I contradict them? Let's see, you seemed to highlight this little bit of the article: "Love in its pure form is said to be concerned with the well-being of the other." This makes sense. Why did you emphasize it?

Originally Posted by dave

But you should be aware that a one-sided, unrequited, Love will not be acceptable to most of us as it doesn't fit in either of the above referenced definitions

How does it not fit in? You have done nothing to show this.

And I'm pretty sure most people would say unrequited love exists.

Originally Posted by kingdumbass

However, it's not as strong as the love you can feel for someone with whom you've had an actual relationship. That doesn't go away quite as easily.

This seems true. It's easier to fall out of love with someone you can't have. You have to, eventually, for your own sake.

Originally Posted by dave

My point has been that in order to have "unrequited love" you have to have a conversation in which one person turns the other down.

That wasn't the point you were making. You were saying unrequited love is a false love; that it is not love; seemingly, that it doesn't even exist.

Well, now that you seem to have modified your argument, it still doesn't make sense to me. Not only does it seem arbitrary to say a person must be rejected (that one has to attempt a relationship), it says nothing about it in the Wikipedia article you posted. In fact, it implies otherwise: "Unrequited love can result in obsessive behavior such as stalking and even transform into hostility toward the object of desire if the love is rejected."

Being realistic enough to know that a relationship isn't possible doesn't spell objectification.

Originally Posted by dave

When you limit love by qualifying it as this, or that; you are no longer talking about love.

That's not limiting, that's describing. It's more complex than you're saying. There are different kinds of love. That's why the love a person has for a friend, spouse, child, and parent aren't the same.

Originally Posted by dave

Since the only type of love that is not between two people (inhabiting the same world) is the love of an object, you would have to think of your "beloved" as an object to be able to say you loved them

Again, this doesn't make sense. Love is something one person feels/experiences/has and it's directed at another person. The love you talk about (the normal, common, ideal kind) is just when two people direct love towards each other. Then it's between two people, but it still exists for each person. It's a 1+1 = 2 type thing. A half love is imperfect, to be sure, but it's still love. It isn't necessary to look to the other to validate a person's feelings.

Originally Posted by dave

Note that the answer is a very gentle push towards a counselor. The expert believes that the person might be in trouble and might need a little help.

Yes, because a woman (I assume) is considering leaving a long-term boyfriend for something that cannot be. This is delusional (another common symptom of love, by the way) and she risks losing a real relationship. Of course she's in trouble. That doesn't mean she's not in love (I'm not saying she is, though).

But hey, I never said I myself was content. It's an unfortunate position to be in.

Anyway most people with love troubles could probably benefit from counseling. That recommendation is certainly not surprising.

Originally Posted by The Site

Being in love with someone from afar, especially a famous and unattainable person, can sometimes serves to fill a void in a person's life.

I knew this would come up.

Of course I've thought of this before. While it may be a common cause, it's not the case for me. I've never cared about a celebrity before. I was relatively happy. I'm in college, for goodness sake. They are a thousand great things to do at any time. So, no cigar...

Anyway, weren't we talking about if it's love, not the cause of it? What I'm really interested in is the discussion of unrequited love, but specifically, the possibility of love without meeting.

[Silverwolf]

Originally Posted by BrunoJA

Anyway, weren't we talking about if it's love, not the cause of it? What I'm really interested in is the discussion of unrequited love, but specifically, the possibility of love without meeting.

Yeah, I think is posible, but, in my oppinion, you will allways love somebody for the aspects you know about that person which is in this case, an actress, is incomplete. This love isn't incorrect but it also not totally right, this love isn't complete. I believe, jou can develop feelings for that person, but these felings will be based on incomplete and/or incorrect information jou have on that person.

For me It wouldn't be enough, for me it would be enoug to want to meet her and have a simple chat so I can meet the real person behind the actress.

But that is just my oppinion, I can be wrong.

[DragonRat]

Even for me, the possibility of loving someone without meeting them seems rather ludicrous. I may have felt somehow attached to celebrities, whenever they inspired me to write, and it may have been some infatuatory "love" I felt (but nothing more). Did I know them as a person? No. Did they know me as a person? No. So what connection presented itself? If anything, unrequited love should have some impenetrable possibility of hope. What hope is there for someone on this forum to one day meet and converse with Keira? (Little, but one may still hope, no?) In the least, when one feels unrequited love for someone they have seen, met, spoken to, at least that glimmer of hope for a greater connection exists. To love someone without a meaningful connection, is like taking a crap in a cardboard box: just because it looks like a toilet, doesn't mean it is. (And on top of that, the damn thing won't flush.)
Unrequited love with someone in one of your lectures or classes is more feasible than a simple infatuation with a celebrity. It also messes you up more, especially if that person you see five days a week. :P

[wonderguy_Huahua]

She was just that girl!!LOVE ,MY FIRST SIGHT!

[ArchSeeker]

Good Morning Dave.

And to everyone else, Sorry, I couldnt help myself.
When I post initially, I was hoping to spur the conversation, but I did not intend for 2 people to become ugly towards each other. Please, do something for me and anyone else that reads a forum that either of you post on, and listen to the other person, read them, feel where they are coming from, and you will start seeking out THEIR meaning to the words they use. I, to this day, still enjoy quoting Thomas Jefferson when he began a conversation with an important stranger on a matter of some caliber.
"First things first, lets set our definitions"

Wikipedia, Websters, and every other dictionary known and to be written by man is not without flaw, and to be sure, requires the passage of rhyme and time to fine tune and sometimes revolutionize the written word.

Conversation is should not in most cases be interrupted so that the opinion of a third person, speaking through a dictionary, henders the entertainment or education of the 2 discussing. If you don't know the other persons language... walk away, (be polite about it) or get an interpreter.

Love;
(most specifically, the love of the Mona' Lisa. For those of you that may paint, sculpt, or otherwise craft things with your hands, forgive me for not doing this topic justice in the next 10 minutes I write)
If you approach a person at an art exibit, and they are crying, standing motionless and alone, are they mentally ill? I don't think so.
When a person "objectifies" a thing, they see it as an object of meaning, of substance and value to their soul, their memories, or perhaps their senses. Recall for me as you read this, a thing that made you sad, .. a lose of a loved one, .. it might even be a pet. When you see something beautiful, beautiful as say.. Ms. Knightley, imagine that instead of seeing something sad like that, you're reminded of the most beautiful and caring person you have ever known, .. a grandmother, a daughter, a lover that you've lost or never had. That is the power of a beautiful thing, and the binding of "love" that someone can have with your so profoundly "OBJECTIFIED" object. .... Is the man standing there, crying at the painting on the wall mentally ill. I don't think so, he's in Love with a feeling, a memory.
Is it lust? That's an easy one.... is he willing to kill/steal/ or destroy to keep feeling that way? That's your answer.

Our friend with the Seinfeld icon CAN Love Kiera Knightely, and I don't think he should be ashamed to say that he is likely feeling that same kind of love towards the lady actress. She is refined, beautiful, and in the shadow of ignorance, so many other things that we can only hope to find true one day a lunch, or walking with someone like her.
Love is a beautiful thing fellas, .. in all it's wonderous forms. I would be VERY shy of downsizing it ... if I were you.

Michael

[dave]

I waited a month to see if I wanted to continue this.

Originally Posted by Archseeker 18-04-2006, 04:22 PM

When I posted initially, I was hoping to spur the conversation, but I did not intend for 2 people to become ugly towards each other.

That didn't happen. Neither of us were 'becoming ugly' with the other. We were trying to discuss whether his 'unrequited love' was included in the generally accepted definition of 'love.' I was saying that 'love' is an absolute thing which was not qualifiable. Love cannot be limited by adding other words to make it less than what it is.

When you say 'I love you' it doesn't mean 'I love you on Thursdays.' (That would be a 'Thursday love,' sort of like something that only happened on Thursday. He said that he had an 'unrequited love.' ) I was pointing out that an 'unrequited love' was not 'love.'

He disagreed.

When you are trying to describe a relationship between two people, there is an entire universe of words you can use for those descriptions. When the love is not between two people, is only in one person's mind, there are far fewer words to describe that condition. 'Love' is not appropriate.

You can 'pretend' that you have love, but that very pretense is inappropriate.

However! There is a weakened definition of love that some young people use today which permits people to say they 'love Ms. X'. Everyone is expected to treat that as right. It is not. When you look at 'Ms. X' on a movie screen as she does all those things that your fantasy girl would do; you put yourself into that fantasy world and in that fantasy world you 'love' her. When you exit that fantasy world, she doesn't come with you. For you to bring your love out of that fantasy world when you exit is wrong. It may be pleasant, even helpful, but when you talk about that 'love' to strangers, any stranger has the obligation to either ignore your faux pas; or to challenge it. I challenged his.

I tried to point out that in 'the real world' love is a reciprocal agreement between individuals OR it is a quality of appreciation between an individual and an object. (Forget about my love for my Shelty for a minute, or believe, without proof, that she loved me. She did. She's dead, I still pine.)

I would be willing to argue that you cannot love the Mona Lisa, (except that certain artists say that they love their work more than they love their wife.) I guess I know a lot of artists who don't really love their wives. In the continuum between hate and love, there are thousands of points you could stop at and think that where you are is 'as good as it gets' until you find something better. I'd have to posit that my debating friend is stopped at one of those points and hasn't yet discovered that there is a better place waiting ahead. Or maybe not. That's what might be the saddest part. He could get so wrapped up in his incomplete version of love that he doesn't take the next step.

Remember, when you say that you have 'unrequited love' it is exactly the same as saying 'I love broccoli.' Doesn't really mean a damn thing. But when you write, say what you mean, because 'The pen is mightier than the sword.' Be especially careful around words like love, perfect, never, forever, always, (which have meanings which are not relative to their context) and even such things as beauty, honor, justice... (which have meanings relative to context. i.e. Love does not change its meaning because it is whispered in Ethiopia, whereas beauty, honor, and justice might.)

Before all this General Semantics stuff

[Hazzle]

Wow you guys really DO have too much time on your hands...

I thought I was the king of the long posts...

I love therefore I love. Wherefore I mustn't love however much love there is to love. What is love? Is love in the l? The way you look at me? O? For the only one I see? V? For Very extraordinary? E? Even more than anyone that you adore? I love, therefore I must love. Which is to say that love is not divisible by love. One says I love. And says this in the present tense and the act signifies the present tense but is it not truly referring to the past tense? Or the past participle of love?

Aristotl defines love as indivisible with justice for all. Therefore I love my country. But do I love the flag? Do I love the land? Down to the pollen and the bugs that traverse the desert sand? Plato says in his text, Love is immeasureable. Therefore, love cannot be multiplied or divided as multiplication and division refer to mathematics which is measurement.

How then do we define what is meant when one says I love you so much. Much defines measurement which love is immeasureable according to Plato therefore the prior is false. How then do we define what is meant when one says Roses are red, Violets are blue.

Not all roses are red. Not all violets are blue. And yet the truth lies in the adage that roses are indeed red and that violets are blue. But there are certain geni of the rose family - for instance the rosus blancus which is a white rose and the rose negri - which is a black rose. Do we do dishonor then to white and black when we declare in poems of love that roses are red? I charge such poets with roses racism. What a slur we place on the family of roses! Nay, not the family alone, but the species!

And this goes without saying that violets are not all blue! Then why does a lover often claim that violets are blue! Violets are far more purple than they are blue! If they are blue then why do we name them violets? For it does not take a wit to note that violets are truly violet, Violet.

Hence, I draw this conclusion. Lovers - and love in general - is a post and I am the cock that gets up on it to crow. For only a foolish lover could proclaim that roses are red and violets are blue when we know that roses are not only red but many colors and that violets are indeed violet. Not to mention this same poetic fool would measure his love when Plato and Aristotle have declared that love is immeasureable and indivisible.

Confusius say in fortune cookies, happy is he that is confused by confusion and confuses the confusers with more confusing confusius sayings.

[KeiraFanForever]

I love Keira, although I'm not "in love inlove" with her (I'm a female) But I love her because of her personality. Not "down-to-earth" or anything, she's just a young star who actually isn't all that formal, has humor, and thinks like a teenager(although she's like 21 now..?). And the fact that she's pretty,lol. But mainly for me is because of her great acting and her personality. I loved Pirates of the Carribean 1 & 2, can't wait for 3! (:

I have to say I feel the same way about her, she's perfect

[brownplayboy310]

this thread has inspired me to write a script about a thirtysomething bus-driver in LA whose family died in a car crash that becomes infatuated with a female celebrity and stalks her. anything along these lines already out there?

[brownplayboy310]

in addition i could throw in some good side characters... his only friends are fellow losers with depressing lives that only feel comfortable communicating via a fan forum on the web.

this is starting to hit a little close to home.

[Hazzle]

Try using the "edit" button next time.

[Mrs. Bale]

I like keira since the hole, I see keira is diferent of the other actresses kinda lindsay lohan( ) jessica alba, you know, this stupid girls that just want "SHOW" YOUR BODY and not have talent, I hate this girls. keira is sweet, talented, beatifull( of anyway). keira rules!

oh sorry for my bad inglish!:icon_redf