To Keira with love

[dave]

Originally Posted by Silverwolf

Let us just say, it depends from person to person what he thinks or feels is important to him/her. There is no general definition on the word love, so everybody gives his/her own meaning to the word.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Love
Love has several different meanings in the English language, from something that gives a little pleasure ("I loved that meal") to something for which one would die (patriotism, pair-bonding). It can describe an intense feeling of affection, an emotion or an emotional state. In ordinary use, it usually refers to interpersonal love. Dictionaries tend to define love as deep affection or fondness. In colloquial use, according to polled opinion, the most favored definitions of love include the words:
life - someone or something for which you would give your life.
care - someone or something about which you care more than yourself.
friendship - favored interpersonal associations or relationships.
union - a synergistic connection, as in the perfect union of two souls.
family - people related via common ancestry, religion, or race, etc.

The concept of love, however, is subject to debate. Some deny the existence of love, calling it a recently invented abstraction. Moreover, approximately 13 percent of cultures reportedly have no word for love. Others maintain that love exists but is undefinable; being a quantity which is spiritual, metaphysical, or philosophical in nature, etc. Perhaps due to its emotional primacy, love is one of the most common themes in art.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lust
Lust is any intense desire or craving, usually sexual although it is also common usage to talk of a "lust for life" or a "lust for power" or other goals.

As a sexual term, lust implies a sexual desire in and of itself, an erotic arousal and wish, or intense physical or sexual attraction or craving. In this sense, it is considered a vice by Christianity, and is listed as one of the seven deadly sins of Catholicism and its related denominations.

Some people see lust as the purest form of love. This viewpoint argues that being a pure emotional wish, based upon physical attraction, frees lust from the constraints of emotional baggage (or negative inner conceptual responses), and respects it for what it is, the direct emotional inner instinct and desire of one person, to carnally know and be intimate with another.

On the other hand, many people acknowledge that feelings of lust do not always imply feelings of love, and they make a strong distinction between the terms lust and love. Love in its pure form is said to be concerned with the well-being of the other, whereas lust in the average person is often more a product of their own libidinal urge than it is a product of a desire for the well-being of the objects of lust, although the two can certainly co-exist. Others, notably some asexuals, consider lust ultimately incompatible with, or unrelated to, love.

The aspect of lust as an inappropriate desire has led to its metaphorical extended use in other forms of desire to signify overwhelming desire or craving, such as a lust for power, success, or recognition. It has also been used in the sense of intense eagerness or enthusiasm, such as a lust for life.

So, we agree that you can dedicate your life to wishing that Keira has a perfect life, and gets everything out of her life that she could ever want. However, there are two things I think you should consider.
1) She seems to be doing quite well on her own.
2) If, as the poets pine, we only get one "true" love, what a waste of yours.

[BrunoJA]

No one said a given person is good to fall in love with.

Rationality only goes so far in this game...the heart can often overpower the head.

As a side note: since you bring up Keira Knightley specifically, being rich and successful doesn't mean there's no need for romance.

[vazel]

Originally Posted by dave

This has got to be a compliment to our marvelous webmaster, and evidence of his power over impressionable youth! Perhaps we should ask for a macro that doesn't permit people to log onto KKW until they've visited somewhere else? Or prove they are old enough to actually "love."

I'm 22 years old. I was a Keira fan ever since i saw her in Pirates of the Caribbean.

You people are trying to rationalize love too much. Where would sayings like 'head over heels' and stories like the one where a guard opened a gate in the wall of china for a beautiful woman and letting all the barbarians in be if love was logical.

[Swordsman]

the last few posts have....confused me

[mehrdad368]

why do you wasting your time on this?
you must be sure that you never can reach her.have you heard this proverb:
bird with bird..parakeet with parakeet.

[DragonRat]

If you would know me, you would think I'd be the most hopelessly romantic fellow you've ever met. It's not that I don't think one cannot love someone without knowing everything about the other; rather, it's important to know that both of you know enough about each other to know that what you two feel is well...love. Otherwise, unrequited love is what it'll be - the bread and butter of Byron and Clare. And is that real love? I don't think so. It just hurts...is all.

[BrunoJA]

Originally Posted by DragonRat

If you would know me, you would think I'd be the most hopelessly romantic fellow you've ever met. It's not that I don't think one cannot love someone without knowing everything about the other; rather, it's important to know that both of you know enough about each other to know that what you two feel is well...love. Otherwise, unrequited love is what it'll be - the bread and butter of Byron and Clare. And is that real love? I don't think so. It just hurts...is all.

Mutual love is of course ideal. But it can't always be. It'd be nice if we only loved those capable of and willing to return affection. But that's life.

And I'm not sure what you mean, "is that real love?"...

But yeah, it hurts and doesn't do a damn thing for you.

[DragonRat]

Well, that's the question, isn't it? Unrequited love - with what Marquez deals in Love in the Time of Cholera, Fitzgerald in The Great Gatsby and various apostles in the New Testament, the subject of numerous poems by the greats (and countless ones by the not-so-greats) - should be real. But how can love - a palpable, substantial love - be solipsistic? Surely life is a lonely occupation: but to what we work and strive in the end, I presume to think it best shared with someone (or something).

[BrunoJA]

Originally Posted by DragonRat

Well, that's the question, isn't it? Unrequited love - with what Marquez deals in Love in the Time of Cholera, Fitzgerald in The Great Gatsby and various apostles in the New Testament, the subject of numerous poems by the greats (and countless ones by the not-so-greats) - should be real. But how can love - a palpable, substantial love - be solipsistic? Surely life is a lonely occupation: but to what we work and strive in the end, I presume to think it best shared with someone (or something).

lol Of course it's best with another person. That's why unrequited love hurts so much. Love is rarely a choice.

When you say unrequited love "should be real", what do you mean by "real"? That it should be a valid form of love (something that should be called "love") or that it should exist in reality, that it's a real phenomenon?

Why can't love be solipsistic?

[DragonRat]

I don't say that a solipsistic love isn't real, but that it isn't substantial. "Love" as an emotion is certainly real, but it is the most difficult to explain, the most difficult to pin down. So many variations. Too easy to corrupt for the worse. A philosopher would tear out whatever hair was left of him, if he were to approach a philosophy of emotion; what other words could a philosopher use to describe "love"? Too many. A neurobiologist would probably reduce "love" to its neurological pathways and mechanisms - utilizing pheromones, serotonin, dopamine, etc. to produce that good old-fashioned romantic love.

And certainly much literature has come out of unrequited love. But, regardless of words and such, most people associate a shared love as real - at least, more real, more important, more significant - than a one-sided love. Besides, as social animals, we were not born to love just one person.

[BrunoJA]

What is love but an emotion, really? There can material displays of it, but obviously the whole matter is ultimately abstract.

Agreed--shared love is certainly more satisfying and worthwhile than anything unrequited. Only a fool would choose to an unrequited love if given a choice. However, that doesn't make it any less real...or difficult. It's just as serious.

[ArchSeeker]

I just logged into this forum,... it seems that this is by most any acceptable standard THE forum for those curious about this fantastic woman.

Unfortunately however, I just read this thread...
The question I would have, as an ice breaker might be... why do any of you say you "LOVE" a woman who you have no idea if you can please, or make happy....
I been told, and eventually I learned to understand, that love is an action, a selfless action, and in the pretense of a relationship, a perpetual state of being.

If any of you would say you LOVE Ms. Knightley, then I would ask my second question.
What forum are YOU reading?
I can't find the part of this forum where people get to ask Keira questions and find out about her tastes and from time to time tease her sense of humor.

I really would like to find out about Kiera, and I think she's a very beautiful display of what a young woman CAN, SHOULD, and WANTS to be....
but then,.. to find out which of those motivate her.. and perhaps.. to find out if there is something else, that is a mystery we all would be happier knowing I sappose ... >

Michael

[vazel]

I made a thread about this at another forum and got some good responses especially this one.

Originally Posted by MasterGoa

Edit: Teh Typoz

OK.

The problem I have with this situation is that you have never met
Keira in person. This means that you are only aware of her public persona
which is way, way off her actual self.

What this means is that the image Keira projects reflects your ideal
in a woman. For you to love her would mean that she reflect your ideal
as a spouse also.

Though I find nothing wrong with this per say, it will make you lose a LOT of time.

Here is why:

Since you never met Keira, she has never met you either. Because you are not
a public figure for her to see and evaluate as a freind or relation,
the feeling you have for her are not felt by her. She has no idea
you exist because she is not exposed to you or your beleifs
in anyway shape or form. Unlike you to her since she is an actress
and in the public eye.

Because you are expending a lot of emotionnal attachement towards her,
you're effectively blocking out any and all attemps to engage in a relashionship
with a woman for whom you actually have contact with. Sure you can love her
on your own, but your love will just fall down a bottomless well because
she cannot respond to it and build a relationship around it.
Versa the girl you actually interact with.

Now I am going to throw another curve at you.

You are not "In Love" with her, you are infatuated with her.
Because she posses all you want in a woman, your attraction
is automatically turned on. But this is not love for love grows
through experience and common goals and interests. Commonalities,
similar interests, similar life goals, tastes in music, food, etc, are
all aspects of a relashionship that makes it grow because you
share and interact on all aspects of life. But the most important
IMHO is perspective. You have to both see things from the
same angle, the same frame of mind. This way, the most important aspect
of a relashionship, communication, is easy and in ample quantity.

Having little words end up in immense understanding is the ultimate
relashionship builder. Again, IMHO.

So, since you have none of those aspects with Keira, infatuation cannot
take off and grow into love.

As strange as this, I have fallen in love with girls I was not really attracted to in
the first place. It can work in reverse. Love CAN bring attraction.
But attraction cannot bring love by itself.

Anyone feel free to add/remove/explain/discuss.

http://rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33851655

[BrunoJA]

Originally Posted by ArchSeeker

why do any of you say you "LOVE" a woman who you have no idea if you can please, or make happy...

First of all, you have understand that love is not a thing that can ultimately be governed by good judgement. It's not something you can turn on or off, or say, "Gee, I'm not sure I could please this person...therefore, I do not love her." That's one reason why there are so many screwed up relationships.

So, how can I say it? Well, I can because it's honest. Love is not dependent on the knowledge that your love will bring another happiness. And I have no pretense of thinking Keira Knightley will/would/could be attracted to me. Probably not. There's no real reason to think so, as you have said, we've never met.

This does not matter anyway, for I naturally have no expectation or hope of meeting (much less having a relationship of any kind!) with her. Circumstances do not permit it. So, it doesn't matter that I might not make her happy. It's irrelevant unless one is trying to build a relationship.

The point is this: I cannot tell you why. That is a mystery to me. It doesn't add up. All I can do is defend what I see as love by showing that there is nothing to prevent its existence, that there's no reason to say "that's not love."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, on to vazel's post...

Originally Posted by MasterGoa

The problem I have with this situation is that you have never met Keira in person. This means that you are only aware of her public persona which is way, way off her actual self.

There is no way she could "really" be different enough to change anything. Unless she secretly murders babies to appease her god, that is. In one's public persona there are, of course, always aspects of the "true" person. So, while she is an actress, one cannot act every minute a camera is pointed one's direction, which for Keira Knightley seems like most of the time.

Furthermore, how genuine are people in everyday life? At the office? Anywhere?

Originally Posted by MasterGoa

What this means is that the image Keira projects reflects your ideal in a woman.

No, I don't think so. I don't fill in the parts I don't know about her with an ideal.

However, this brings me back to one of my essential questions: How much do you have to know about a person to feel love? My experience, intuition, and reason tell me any amount is sufficient. As Zhivago knows, "it's all a mystery." Love truly has no identifiable source. Why love at all? Again, there is no answer. It just happens.

Thus, there is no reason love should come at one point and not another. To create such a checklist or timeline is arbitrary.

Originally Posted by MasterGoa

Since you never met Keira, she has never met you either. Because you are not a public figure for her to see and evaluate as a freind or relation, the feeling you have for her are not felt by her. She has no idea you exist because she is not exposed to you or your beleifs in anyway shape or form. Unlike you to her since she is an actress and in the public eye.

Because you are expending a lot of emotionnal attachement towards her, you're effectively blocking out any and all attemps to engage in a relashionship with a woman for whom you actually have contact with. Sure you can love her on your own, but your love will just fall down a bottomless well because she cannot respond to it and build a relationship around it.
Versa the girl you actually interact with.

This is all 100% true. I'm not sure what the point attempted is, though...

Originally Posted by MasterGoa

You are not "In Love" with her, you are infatuated with her. Because she posses all you want in a woman, your attraction is automatically turned on. But this is not love for love grows through experience and common goals and interests.

This is a misuse (or rather, incompatible use) of the word "love." The love described here is love that is allowed to develop. It's the love of an intimate relationship. Altogether outside this conversation, I believe.

Originally Posted by MasterGoa

Commonalities, similar interests, similar life goals, tastes in music, food, etc, are all aspects of a relashionship that makes it grow because you share and interact on all aspects of life.

These are the things that are part of a long-term love, such as what a married couple has. Now, certainly others can be in love, too. The geriatrics don't get all the fun. Don't forgot those youngsters Romeo and Juliet, for instance.

Originally Posted by MasterGoa

This way, the most important aspect of a relashionship, communication, is easy and in ample quantity.

Having little words end up in immense understanding is the ultimate relashionship builder. Again, IMHO.

What's all this talk about a relationship? I believe love can exist outside of a relationship. Does the mother separated from her children not love them?

And why describe the qualities of an ideal relationship? Surely some of the most passionate loves often result in poor relationships.

[DragonRat]

"For there is nothing heavier than compassion. Not even one's own pain weighs so heavily as the pain one feels with someone, for someone, a pain intensified by the imagination and prolonged by a hundred echoes." - Milan Kundera (The Unbearable Lightness of Being)

In the novel, Kundera explains the linguistic differences between the word "compassion" in the context of Western European and Eastern European culture. Compassion, the way Kundera sees it, is the same as that of "love", which is different to how Westerners approach "compassion", as some type of pity, where one has some level of condescension toward another. However, love is not meant to be condescending nor is it piteous.

Thomas Mann in Death of Venice puts it perfectly the matter of unrequited love:

"There can be no relation more strange, more critical, than that between two beings who know each other only with their eyes, who meet daily, yes, even hourly, eye each other with a fixed regard, and yet by some whim or freak of convention feel constrained to act like strangers. Uneasiness rules between them, unslaked curiosity, a hysterical desire to give rein to their suppressed impulse to recognize and address each other; even, actually, a sort of restrained but mutual regard. For one human being instinctively feels respect and love for another human being so long as he does not know him well enough to judge him; and that he does not, the craving he feels is evidence.

[BrunoJA]

That sounds pretty different to me...

[dave]

Originally Posted by BrunoJA

What's all this talk about a relationship? I believe love can exist outside of a relationship. Does the mother separated from her children not love them?

And why describe the qualities of an ideal relationship? Surely some of the most passionate loves often result in poor relationships.

Ah! Now I understand! You aren't talking English. You are assigning arbitrary values to ordinary English words and then expecting us to figure out what you just said... Well, You Win!

You Win! When you assign "Your" meanings to words, we can't argue with you.

Do You "Love" the Mona Lisa? I do. And I'll never have a relationship with a painting. Is "That" type of love what you are talking about? It is a debater's trick to use a "real person" as the object of that type of action. IN FACT, it is so frowned upon that an entire feminist world outlook has grown up about that "objectifying" of a woman type of activity.

Not only is that the absolutely most wrong way to treat a woman, you could end up being physically assaulted, and in violation of a whole slew of laws that have been created in order to protect women from people who "objectify" them.

And you are attempting to "slither" out of the definition you started with when you say "Does the mother separated from her children not love them?" Because a "Mother's Love" is absolutely the poster child for "our" definitions of "love" and absolutely the destroyer of the definition you have been espousing.

Show me the mother who doesn't have all of the interaction and communication that we all seem to believe Love requires. Then show us the mother who has never met her kids and prove how much she loves them. Not, merely "want's to Love them", but Loves them.

[BrunoJA]

Wow, man calm down lol I'm not "looking to win"...I thought we were just having a conversation here. Judging by the tone and content of your post, it seems you've greatly misunderstood me.

Originally Posted by dave

Ah! Now I understand! You aren't talking English. You are assigning arbitrary values to ordinary English words and then expecting us to figure out what you just said... Well, You Win!

You Win! When you assign "Your" meanings to words, we can't argue with you.

Yes, I am speaking English. Perhaps you'd like to point me to the places I inserted foreign phrases, or misused a word? I generally try to be pretty careful about that sort of thing.

Originally Posted by dave

Do You "Love" the Mona Lisa? I do. And I'll never have a relationship with a painting.

No, I of course don't love the Mona Lisa like I'd love a person. Those are two completely different kinds of love.

Originally Posted by dave

IN FACT, it is so frowned upon that an entire feminist world outlook has grown up about that "objectifying" of a woman type of activity.

I can't believe I'd be accused of objectifying anyone. Ask anyone who knows me and they'll tell you it's the opposite. And my mother's basically a feminist hippie, so you don't have to tell me. She raised me very well. Peace, brother.

Originally Posted by dave

Not only is that the absolutely most wrong way to treat a woman, you could end up being physically assaulted, and in violation of a whole slew of laws that have been created in order to protect women from people who "objectify" them.

I'm sorry, but where is this rambling diatribe going?

Originally Posted by dave

And you are attempting to "slither" out of the definition you started with when you say "Does the mother separated from her children not love them?"

1) Slither? What am I? Satan?
2) What's with all the quotation marks?

Originally Posted by dave

Show me the mother who doesn't have all of the interaction and communication that we all seem to believe Love requires. Then show us the mother who has never met her kids and prove how much she loves them. Not, merely "want's to Love them", but Loves them.

Well, I don't know, as I am not a mother...however, I think I would love them.

Regardless, that was probably a bad example, as the two types of love are different and it just confuses things. My mistake. The point was just that love does not require contact or a developed relationship.

[dave]

Originally Posted by BrunoJA

<snip>

Yes, I am speaking English. Perhaps you'd like to point me to the places I inserted foreign phrases, or misused a word? I generally try to be pretty careful about that sort of thing.
<snip>
The point was just that love does not require contact or a developed relationship.

The Prime example of YOU not speaking English! Fifteen other people have posted that it does. But, in order to "win" your point, you continue to put up arguments based on "Your interpretation of the meaning of the word 'Love' ."

You should learn to have a conversation where you have to stop and consider what the other person is saying once in awhile. Even when we discuss this using your "Objectification of Women" meaning for Love, you then say "I don't do that!" When you've spent the last two days argueing that the "Woman doesn't have to even know about your 'perfect love' for her." Show this discussion to your "Hippie Mother"; she will retrain you about the differences between Love & Lust (among the "Digger Indians of Nebraska"). (i.e. an old Hippie joke, Judy Henske

Originally Posted by BrunoJA Yesterday, 05:13 PM

So, how can I say it? Well, I can because it's honest. Love is not dependent on the knowledge that your love will bring another happiness. And I have no pretense of thinking Keira Knightley will/would/could be attracted to me. Probably not. There's no real reason to think so, as you have said, we've never met.

This does not matter anyway, for I naturally have no expectation or hope of meeting (much less having a relationship of any kind!) with her. Circumstances do not permit it. So, it doesn't matter that I might not make her happy. It's irrelevant unless one is trying to build a relationship.

That, my friend, is Objectification of a Woman. She is now an "Object" to be adored; not a person. That's precisely the same kind of love as loving the "Mona Lisa". painting. That's where that argument came from.

[BrunoJA]

The Prime example of YOU not speaking English! Fifteen other people have posted that it does.

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

But, in order to "win" your point, you continue to put up arguments based on "Your interpretation of the meaning of the word 'Love' ."

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.

you've spent the last two days argueing that the "Woman doesn't have to even know about my 'perfect love' for her."

Why is perfect love in quotation marks? You certainly aren't quoting me! 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. Is it the right of someone to know what someone else thinks about that person? What do you want me to do, write a nice e-mail to Knightley? Don't be ridiculous. I don't see your point here at all. Instead of attacking what I'm saying, maybe you should make clearer your own points a little.

she will retrain you about the differences between Love & Lust

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.)

That, my friend, is Objectification of a Woman. She is now an "Object" to be adored; not a person. That's precisely the same kind of love as loving the "Mona Lisa". painting.

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?