Malcolm the Bear (malcolmthebear) wrote in furry_thinkers,
Malcolm the Bear
malcolmthebear
furry_thinkers

  • Mood:

Thoughts on the Nature of Love

"Love gives naught but itself and takes naught but from itself. Love possesses not nor would it be possessed; For love is sufficient unto love." - Kahlil Gibran

I just came across this quote doing more cryptograms....and it's a fascinating view of love. It presents love as comparable to a self-sustaining organism. A perfect concept; perfectly balanced, as it needs nothing but itself for both manifestation and sustenance. Yet the quote belies the potential power contained therein. Love appears to be the ideal that not only lies in harmony with anything and everything, but is the creator of that harmony in so many cases.

But the universe proves that everything has a price. I'm trying to figure out the price of love as presented as this distant, vague, and broad--yet almost personified and therefore individualized and highly approachable--concept. Surely, we cannot appreciate love without knowing its antithetical enemies--concepts such as war, hate, and hurt. But once love is manifested--allegedly of its own accord, giving the manifestation itself a price of nothing--what is its price? I have seen those who give love freely continue to give until they are exhausted of it, because they have not received comparable reciprocation. Perhaps this is what Gibran meant in saying that "love is sufficient unto love." But true, unyielding, undying love needs not reciprocation. The giver will continue to give, uncaring of its own drain on other resources, both internal and external, until it withers away, used up to nothingness by its own endless generosity built from love. Perhaps this is the price of what is allegedly the most perfect and most powerful of all emotions and experiences. Love requires reciprocation, or else its bearer becomes drained until it can go no further.

As for me, I want to continue to love, and I am eternally happy and grateful to know those who reciprocate it to me. It is a blessing beyond blessings, and truly, the penultimate reason to be alive each and every day.

Any thoughts?
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic
  • 4 comments
Not sure... but more and more I think about romantic love the better just plain old casual sex sounds. How un-romantic right? Well... it's just... I rather be friends then a "boy-friend" because in my experience those that hope for long term relationships end up disapointed. Worse, at that point they may decide to become "ex's"... hince, not even friends. But friends last longer, and they don't have to require sex or romance to be legitimate. As long as people can be carefull, I don't see why sex can't just be another activity two people can enjoy in common, no more no less.

It sounds horribly cynical, but I choose not to be bothered by it, rather I accepted it. I just personaly value friendship, with or without benefits, to be a more ligitimate kind of love then the romantic couple.

For those that are into monogamy and can pull it off, power to you.
Note that I never specifically mentioned romantic love, but I still appreciate your thoughts and opinions. Romantic love itself is such a unique beast. When I spoke above of seeing people get exhausted from giving love without reciprocation, it was a friendship-based love, not a romantic one.
I've often relished Gibran aphorisms-- e.g., "How shall my heart be unsealed, unless it is broken?"

However. I'm not sure I'm too impressed by elevating love to some supernatural sort of virtue, especially the self-denying, heck, self-annihilating kind.

I don't at all think love is some kind of perpetual motion or cold fusion of human emotion. I think it's self-defeating to want it to be "perfection," and downright dangerous to look for it as a motive that's in harmony with everything. For example, jealousy is not some non-sequitur satan's random mockery of love. Of jealousy, honest love must say: "This thing of darkness, I acknowledge mine." What is jealousy anyway except the urge to see deep relations trump the noisy obscenities and random distractions of everyday life? And jealousy's not the only criticism love needs to own; it's just the most obvious.

I think love, rather, is a hetrogenous mix of the various kinds of energy poured into our psyches out of the inscrutable ground of being (never mind that it's perfectly scrutable and in fact is the mandate to pass on our genes. That way lies an interminable debate over whether I'm saying the meaning of human existence is to pass on our genes-- which I'm not.)

I think it's important to witness that love goes hand in hand with the pedestrian, even grubby, day-to-day work of real life. It has no superpowers anymore than our fathers were infalliable.

But to dip a toe back in the pool of argument I narrowly avoided (evolved instincts vs existential meaning), when it comes to the question of the "price" of love and reciprocity, as you put it, maybe love (in the sense we think we understand it) should itself be treated as a form of raw energy-- it matters more what use you put it to than that it is.

So, what's the ultimate reason to be alive everyday, if the pentultimate is love? (In conventional terms, I live with a paucity of the latter.)
You make some good arguments.

"What is jealousy anyway except the urge to see deep relations trump the noisy obscenities and random distractions of everyday life?"

In simple terms, wouldn't jealousy also entail a state of want for the superficial--to forget, if only temporarily, things one already knew to be of greater, deeper value, in exchange for a want for those "noise obscenities and random distractions of everyday life"? A tangent from the original argument, I know, but I'm confused on your take on the nature of jealousy.

As for your statement on love's alleged "perfection," I'm inferring (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that you speak of the relationship between any two people, and how any relationship worth having will require work and will encounter its own difficulties to overcome. If so, does that truly change the nature of love itself, or merely its application and bemuddlement with the rest of our impure experiences of the world in which we live?

And as for the ultimate reason to be alive--that is always in question. Perhaps it always will be. Perhaps it always should be.