BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Love

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Captain Zoom
01:52 / 12.02.02
Not a Valentine's thread!
Not an "i love that person" thread!

An honest discussion of this mysterious emotion. Everyone's got an opinion. Everyone's had an experience. It's the great common denominator. What is it? What are it's limits? What are it's boundaries? Genetic imperative or spiritual awakening? Are you in love? How do you know?

I've been thinking about love a lot lately, and I figured you wise ones would have some excellent opinions about it. Why do we do it? Do we have any control over it? What are the benefits? (Last one may seem obvious, but think about it for a second)

I have some thoughts, but it's too late right now to marshall them. So, have at you Barbelith! What do you think about love?

Zoom.
 
 
the Fool
02:16 / 12.02.02
I was in love once. I didn't realise this at the time of course, and didn't admit it to myself until quite a while after its demise.

It allowed me to be hurt in a way I have never been hurt by anyone before or since. I trusted and loved someone who almost destroyed me as he attempted to destroy himself.

I really do wonder if I'll ever care about someone like that again. Honestly, I'm scared to. I don't think I can go through what I went through last time again.

It still hurts and I still miss him, even though he was a bastard smack addict who ripped me off $2000 and told me to never speak to him again due to my 'unrelenting fakeness'. That single conversation was the worst conversation I have ever had. I still hurt from it.

In my life Love=pain.

[ 12-02-2002: Message edited by: the Fool ]
 
 
SMS
03:01 / 12.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Captain Zoom:
What is it? What are it's limits? What are it's boundaries? Genetic imperative or spiritual awakening? Are you in love? How do you know?

Why do we do it? Do we have any control over it? What are the benefits? (Last one may seem obvious, but think about it for a second)


A great spirit descended and promised to grant one wish each to three people.

The first of these asked for great riches and power (The set S : S = Riches U Power)

The second and wiser of these three asked to be a generally happy and joyful person.

The third and wisest of all asked that he may learn to love all of mankind and every creature in the universe.

---------
"Why love?" is a difficult question, because, for me, it's the answer.

"Why do you work hard?"
"So that I may learn to love more."

"Why do you sacrifice so much?"
"So that I may learn to love more."

"Why do you wish to love more?"
"..."

---
I've been having more and more difficulty distinguishing between the two kinds of love that everyone seems to talk about. I cannot say that I love one woman "like a sister" because I have never loved any two women in the same way. No more can I say that I love a man "like a brother," because I have had three brothers and I do not love two of them in the same way. If I try to instate "desire to sleep with" as a rule for distunguishing, I run into even more trouble.

I do think that we have some control over love. But this is sort of tricky, because once we have love, that love is part of us. Are we to say we are a slave to ourselves?

But I think we can affect how we will feel in the future by what we do today. If I try to help you now, my mind will try to justify that by saying it must care about you. Unless of course you're running resentful thoughts through your head over again.
 
 
bitchiekittie
11:36 / 12.02.02
love makes us foolish and impulsive. which is not always a bad thing. there are boundaries and rules, written long before we were born, that you have to either choose to rail against or simply accept. I usually lean toward the latter (simplifies a terrifyingly complex and confusing emotion and all its symptoms, too) but often trudge into the mire of the former

[edited, too damn personal]

Ive been in love, and I know it for the undeniable effect it has on me when it has come - the pull on my stomach long after the novelty has worn off. it goes very reluctantly, and tinges my heart with its mark long after

we do it because most of us have the longing for the intimacy - emotional, physical, mental - that comes along with it. for someone to understand, appreciate, desire, and really know us. we can control it to an extent - walk away, indulge, distance. but its there whether we like it or not.

[ 12-02-2002: Message edited by: bitchiekittie ]
 
 
Ganesh
11:39 / 12.02.02
I can only really define it for me, not for other people.
 
 
Persephone
11:54 / 12.02.02
My favorite definition of love came to me from Iris Murdoch, and I think it goes something like Love is when you finally recognize the separateness of another person.

I guess that's sort of clinical, but keep in mind this is coming from a person whose husband occasionally refers to "that black place in your chest where your heart's supposed to be."

And who has also been known to drop such gems as, "Seriously. Unconditional love is bullshit, right?"
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
11:56 / 12.02.02
This so belongs in the Conversation. Moderator...
 
 
Sax
12:02 / 12.02.02
Dorothy Parker said it best:

Life is a glorious cycle of song,
A medley of extemporanea.
And love is a thing that will never go wrong
And I am Marie of Roumania

That was from memory, by the way, so no-one pick me up on it.

However, it should be pointed out that I am getting married in three months, am ecstatically and stupidly in love, and probably shouldn't go around quoting Dorothy Parker.
 
 
lentil
12:12 / 12.02.02
quote:Originally posted by bitchiekittie:



we do it because most of us have the longing for the intimacy - emotional, physical, mental - that comes along with it. for someone to understand, appreciate, desire, and really know us. we can control it to an extent - walk away, indulge, distance. but its there whether we like it or not.

[ 12-02-2002: Message edited by: bitchiekittie ]


mmmm, that strikes a chord.

I genuinely believe that love is the fundamental force in the multiverse, it's the closest thing i have to an idea of divinity. i'm not just talking about the love between two people, in a couple (which I'm lucky enough to have at the moment), which can seem smug to those not involved (being part of a large social group consisting of about half couples half single i can see this, and of course have felt it from the other side of the fence), but the universal LOVE which dictates that we put others before ourselves. actually, 'dictates' is too strong, i'm not talking about something external which issues edicts, rather a feeling that makes you act like that because it just makes sense. It's an ideal. anyone who feels like that for more than 30 seconds a week is a far greater man than i, gunga din.

"Hand in glove/ the sun shines out of our behinds" - Morrissey

"wyndham earl: what is your greatest fear, major?
major briggs (under the influence of sodium pentathol): the possibility that love is not enough." - twin peaks
 
 
lentil
12:14 / 12.02.02
haus is right, btw
 
 
Captain Zoom
12:19 / 12.02.02
Haus, i put it here specifically to have a proper discussion rather than a fluff thread.

Ganesh - sort of what I'm getting at. Is love completely personal? BK said that there were rules that were written long before we were born. If so, and, barring revolutions in gender and sexuality, we follow those rules, how can it only be defined personally. Dunno if I'm clear here.

I wonder if it's viable, or indeed proper, to push it's boundaries?

Just scanned down and now see that Machine Lentil wants this moved too. Why? Can't we talk rationally and intelligently about love? Isn't that what the Head Shop's for? I don't think love's so abstract a concept we can't talk about it here. Fuck.

Let's start easy. Opinions. Genetic imperative or spiritual awakening? Or some amalgam of both?

Zoom.
 
 
bitchiekittie
12:25 / 12.02.02
I think it can be both, everything, if you allow it to be. trouble is, we all put up our defensives, based on experience, baggage, whats generally viewed as "acceptable" - whatever your barrier is. sometimes we have boundaries based on simple inability (or unwillingness) to communicate or open ourselves to another person or people. oftentimes we restrict ourselves based on our worries about other peoples perceptions, our families, friends, whomever
 
 
bitchiekittie
12:28 / 12.02.02
...and everyone here likes to tout their open-mindedness, their ability for compassion. but everyone hates to have anything to do with discussions of emotions - this key element that we all have in common, love

gah, frustration!
 
 
Ganesh
12:35 / 12.02.02
I'm not evading the discussion, and I'm not defensive about "emotion" at all. I just don't think the love I experience is like anyone else's - and I'd speculate that that goes for pretty much everyone else. I can certainly trade cliches and be 'cute' about it but I do feel that, after a certain degree of 'striving for commonality', discussion collapses into either Oprah-esque mush or dodgy pseudoscientific bullshit.

And I don't think we do all experience love...
 
 
Persephone
12:38 / 12.02.02
<hopefully>

Would it be possible to have something of a socratic dialogue on this subject? I read about this in one of my cheesy self-help books, and I have been wanting to try it.

"Socrates' theory of knowledge, as reported by Plato, is that we all have it, innately. Asked a stumper like 'What is justice?' you probably wouldn't be able to provide a clear definition off the bat, but you would most likely be able to come up with some examples of justice from your own experience.... This is the basis of Nelson's Socratic Dialogue: a reliable process that guides you to define explicitly what you already know implicitly."

Anyone interested? There are some steps that follow; I can type them out, if there's interest.
 
 
Captain Zoom
12:40 / 12.02.02
Is falling in love a tool? If you're in love, does it mean that you're less likely to get hurt by this thing that can be the most hurtful thing? Is that part of the genetic imperative? There is obviously (deep breath, open's can of worms) the reproductive aspect, but is safety a factor as well?

And as far as a spiritual awakening, does this put love on a level above all else. People find it easy to hate, but a lot harder to love. If humankind are really just animals who care about territory and property, hate comes easily to us. But why does love happen? Is there any conclusive evidence of animals falilng in love? Loyalty perhaps, but love? Or is love just magnified loyalty?

Sorry. Lots of questions. Hands up if you think this thread is doomed to not come up with any answers.

On the subject of baggage, I've yet another question. Why does previous experience colour one's perceptions of potential lovers? This is a completely separate individual. Why do the actions of one person automatically make us assume that the next person will act in a similar manner? I don't think I've ever done this.

(Still fucked off about the desire to move this to Conversation. Barbelith: Revolution without emotion)

Zoom.
 
 
bitchiekittie
12:41 / 12.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Ganesh v4.2:
I'm not evading the discussion, and I'm not defensive about "emotion" at all

And I don't think we do all experience love...


ah, wasnt referring to you, ganesh

and as for the latter, I think we all do, to some degree or extent or another. not necessarily as love for another person, or romantic love, but love nonetheless
 
 
Ganesh
12:48 / 12.02.02
quote:Originally posted by bitchiekittie:
I think we all do, to some degree or extent or another. not necessarily as love for another person, or romantic love, but love nonetheless


Well, okay, if you're gonna widen the definition to encompass objects, places and situations then yes, we do.
 
 
Captain Zoom
12:49 / 12.02.02
No, okay, I like this direction. People who don't experience love. Are they looked upon as somehow disfunctional? Why? Why is love so integral a part of our culture that people who don't feel it are pitied? If they choose not to feel it, why shouldn't that choice be respected? Can they choose not to feel it? I fucking couldn't. I fall in love every day. The lack of love could be seen as a step forward or a step back. Definitely a step closer to animalistic behaviour, but erase love and I think hate would go with it. As one is so often the product of the other.

I like Persephone's idea for a dialogue. What're the rules? I'm a HUGE fan of that kind of learning/discussion. Let's do it.

Let's fall in love.



Zoom.
 
 
Sax
12:53 / 12.02.02
I've started a post for this thread two or three times, and what I've written always looks trite, cheesy or embarrassing. I truly cannot find the words to express what the emotion "love" means to me. Which is probably a good indication that I shouldn't pack in work and become a poet.

It's a big thing, this love. It's a mixture of a willingness to lay down your life and getting pissed off about whose turn it is to wash the pots, and all points in between, all tangled up like a big ball of fluffy wool that's been played with by a little cute kitten.
 
 
Persephone
13:02 / 12.02.02
Well okay, here's what he says:

"The first step in a Socratic Dialogue is to decide on the question to be answered. Usually that is done beforehand, yet even that part of the process can be an extended educational undertaking. The best questions take on the form of "What is X?" with X being liberty, integrity, happiness... love, or any other major but ineffable idea..."

"Step two is for each participant to think of an example from his or her own life experience that embodies X. It should be a simple example that is no longer ongoing and not too emotional to relate objectively and--if need be--in great detail. Everyone briefly presents his or her example to the group."

"Next, the group chooses, by consensus, one example to consider in depth. This will be the primary vehicle for arriving at a definition.... The selected scenario is then retold in much more detail, and the group poses any clarifying questions they have. No hypothetical questions are allowed. At this stage, and for most of the whole process, it's strictly 'Just the facts, Ma'am.' "

"Together the group then breaks down the whole story into its smallest component parts.... The whole idea is that if you can capture the actual experience of a thing, you can identify the thing itself."

"Next the group formulates a definition--usually one sentence-- that fits the example at hand.... Once you are satisfied, you go back to the other personal experiences and see if they fit the definition you've derived, and modify accordingly."

"The final stage is to try to refute the definition with counterexamples outside of those already presented. This is the only point in the Socratic Dialogue where hypothetical situations are allowed. If you contradict the definition, you refine it accordingly."

<I have to go do laundry now; but I'm in, if others want to play.>
 
 
lentil
13:05 / 12.02.02
Ok, Captain, you do have a point. i guess because it's a topic about an emotion (or you could say that part of the point of the thread is to discuss whether or not that's a useful definition) it necessarily draws experiential/ personal reactions. but extrapolating from the particulars is central to good debate. i'm willing to try.........

Genetic imperative or spiritual awakening? Or some amalgam of both?
I'm going to try to argue for them being the same thing. genetic imperative - we must reproduce, must find an evolutionary niche, then we are happy. as felt and practised by each and every living thing. we humans still do it, but due to the relative complexity of us as animals, the things we need to feel happy, that we have found a niche, are many and varied. i, for example, would like modest financial success as an artist, to continue my relationship with my gf. why her and not any other fertile lady? because i love her and not them (at least not in the same way). Her ideas appeal to me, and i think that they would mingle well with mine in the raising of offspring (financial success would also help here, but in another way). i find her physically attractive, which would increase the chances of our offspring being attractive, increasing their chances of mating and continuing my line. When the Dung Beetle, say, "crashes the yoghurt truck" into his chosen mate, and whatever perceptual/mental equipment he has tells him that something good has happened, who's to say that what he feels just then is not happiness, even spiritual revelation? Is it just that we, with our language and art and self-admiration, have to understand this feeling in grand statements? and perhaps, with the human predilection for raising ourselves above 'mere' creatures, we separate it and call it love, rather than allowing that the genetic imperative may itself be love.
backtracking..... this must seem like a very hetero-biased idea. but it's not. going back to the idea of the 'evolutionary niche' - if your species is struggling for survival, it's not a good idea to have many homosexual members. simple maths. Obviously not a problem for us - so maybe the emphasis of our genetic imperative shifts away from the simple business of reproduction and towards the trappings of happiness that come with being in a situation that could facilitate reproduction. To turn this idea into anything more than utterly spurious you'd need reliable data on the percentage of the population engaged in exclusively homosexual relationships over thousands of years, and knowing the percentage of sexual intercourse had for pleasure would help too. that is to say, it can't be done.
going to post this right now before i read it and delete the whole thing in a fit of embarrasment.

[ 12-02-2002: Message edited by: MaChine Lentil ]
 
 
Captain Zoom
13:30 / 12.02.02
Be not embarrassed.

Language has created love?
That's fucking intriguing.
(I am saying fucking a lot today.)
(Also, machine, sorry if that's not what you were getting at, but it really resonated with me when I read your post)

So, okay, we've got the dung beetle. (Hee hee, yogurt truck) He does his crashing, and then buggers off. What is it about the human concept of love that promotes monogamy? It would make far better sense in a propagation of the species way to sow one's seeds everywhere. I think love has developed into what it is in our society out of simple neurosis. The desire to not be alone. This has overidden the natural (?) imperative to make the species as strong as possible.

(Steps back to dodge slings and arrows)

But language creating love. Excellent. Really fits, in a literary and sociological way for me. I wonder who the first person to say "I love you" was? And what did they mean by it? What were they trying to convey? I'm thinking it was probably not "I want to spend the rest of my life with you". How is that possible? (everyone suddenly notices Zoom is married) How can one person, out of billions, ever completely satisfy my every facet and desire? My wife and I have nothing in common. Nothing. But I love her more than life. But how can that be?

Right, I'm off to join the Mormons.

Zoom.
 
 
lentil
14:02 / 12.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Captain Zoom:

(Hee hee, yogurt truck)


I can't take credit for that, i read it in bitchiekittie's 'rude words' thread in Conversation.

quote:What is it about the human concept of love that promotes monogamy? It would make far better sense in a propagation of the species way to sow one's seeds everywhere.

There is a sizeable body of thought in anthropology that suggests that monogamy is a part of the genetic imperative, rather than contrary to it. i wish i could find you some links to back this up, but i leave work in 20 minutes and won't have time to post tonight. Basically, it comes down to the fact that unlike other animals, humans do not go straight from childhood to adulthood, but rather have an extended period of development, and therefore vulnerability. this is a very useful thing as it allows our brains to develop without having to worry so much about 'getting by', but a hassle in that it's longer before you can take care of yourself, so it makes sense to get the dad to stay around. it's in his interest too - continuing the line involves successfully raising, as well as conceiving, children. obviously the man does have the desire to go sow everywhere, which is why women have all sorts of tricks to stop them doing it. i wish i could flesh this out, but for now i'll just say that men falling asleep immediately after orgasm is not just a cliched sitcom joke.

quote:But language creating love. Excellent. Really fits, in a literary and sociological way for me.

i was thinking of it in a more general way, that the relative complexity of our species, however manifested (language being one of, maybe the major manifestation), leads to our 'decorating' of a fundamental part of existence. But your phrasing of it is lovely, and has led me to think this: Love itself, as a pure, innate quality has existed before any linguistic examination of it, but conversely, as a fundamental of existence a great deal of whatever forms of language we have will be taken up with it, and this proliferation of language about love will shape our idea of what it is. I think you could say that language has created love, where 'love' is a signifier for whatever we're trying to talk about here, but can't touch what it signifies.
 
 
Captain Zoom
14:08 / 12.02.02
Is it the same with all emotions, or just love? Can one quantify anger, or hatred, or lust? Is love the fundamental emotion from which all others stem?

"I would love to fuck her."
"I would love to kill her."

Can love be the beginning of hate, lust, anger?

Maybe I should start a thread called "Hate" and see if we can talk about it less abstractly.

quote:where 'love' is a signifier for whatever we're trying to talk about here

Excellent. So the word love is really a place holder, an emotional zero if you will. Why is whatever love signifies so hard to describe? I can tell you why I hate a person, but not why i love a person.

Zoom.
 
 
Mourne Kransky
16:03 / 12.02.02
like Ganesh, I am disinclined to generalise from the particular and, having witnessed and participated in many varieties of "love", I find it hard to see many demonstrable commonalities.

I think the words are sweet but they mean bugger all. you show the world how and whom you love by your deeds, never your words alone.

according to W H Auden (who loved a great deal) in Heavy Date, a wartime poem,
The one sine qua non to diagnose and inspire love is mutual need .

beautiful poem, very wise. I'll go with that.

and, just for the nubile & smitten Sax, there's more Dorothy Parker to demonstrate the folly of thinking of "love" as a
universal constant :

General Review of the Sex Situation

Woman wants monogamy:
man delights in novelty.
Love is woman's moon and sun;
man has other forms of fun.
Woman lives but in her lord;
Count to ten and man is bored.
With this the gist and sum of it,
What earthly good can come of it?
 
 
Sax
17:10 / 12.02.02
So how does that pan out with two men, then?

And I have just returned from a serious bout of swimming and am thus very nubile indeed, today.
 
 
Mourne Kransky
18:09 / 12.02.02
I think I'm the gist and sum and he's the moon and sun.

back to seriosity tho, since I am doing a relatively grown up post on the <genuflects> Headshop(where the big boys hang...)

where do "affairs" fit into the cosily pair-bonded descriptions of love people have contributed, noble, touching and thoroly convincing as they were?

I once had an affair with one chap, infatuated, deeply, bedazzled, utterly, and within the week was living with both him and his long term partner, cheeky wee hamster that he was.

this continued for three years, until long-term partner and I ganged up on the original lust object and the scapegoat was driven off into the wilderness. I think it was love, near enough, most of the time, but bounded by a complicated triangular perimeter.

then I spent another couple of years believing myself "in love" with remaining hamster-boy, both of us having affairs, Iris Murdoch-ly intense, with other people throughout.

I don't know that those indulgences would qualify as "love" - sex, infatuation, fun, excitement... perhaps. felt like "love" for a (short) while tho.

when the two of us finally split (his idea), I was poleaxed and despairing, despite my youthful promiscuity. hurt like hell but maybe that was just breaking a habit rather than the death of love.

I learned my lesson tho and have been a good boy on the monogamy front since, serial tho it has been...

it is tempting, now, to see it all as the Education Sentimentale necessary to prepare me for being the High Priest of the Ganesh Cult. and now we're beyond the power of words to describe... , in fact.
 
 
Captain Zoom
18:30 / 12.02.02
ZoCher, if I may ask.
Would you have said it was love between all three of you, or just between two and two? This is kind of what I was getting at as far as what are the limits/boundaries of love. Were all the needs of a romantic relationship being provided by each person to each person? Can they be?

And if I'm being nosy, tell me to fuck off.

So how about this. Love, love as a signifier for this huge emotion, being in love so to speak, should be a monogamous thing. Or rather, it seems that that's how it all works out. Can the higher feeling, without the label of love or being in love, be shared by more than two individuals? The chances of this kind of relationship coming about between three individuals seems highly remote to me. But is it possible, if not plausible?

(Really off to join the Mormons now. C'mon wife.....)

Zoom.
 
 
grant
19:08 / 12.02.02
A friend of mine over the weekend asked me what I thought "love" was. I thought for a moment and told him I thought it was an interpretive function; an ability to "speak the same language," and to understand what the other was truly saying when confronted with all the good stuff and all the bad stuff one encounters in the world (and in one another).

It was pretty noisy in that bar, though, so it wound up with him writing a note to remind himself to write a poem called "Maggoty Rice" in his Valentine's card.
 
 
Mourne Kransky
19:17 / 12.02.02
ask away, Captain Z, I did post the sordid tale in a public forum...

this was twenty years ago now, mind, and much reconstruction will have overlain the original memories, I'm sure.

B and P and I, for those first three years, would have agreed, I think, that we were pushing the boundaries in some way and taking a big risk emotionally but it genuinely did feel like we were an equal partnership of three - relating sideways, crosswise, even sleeping in the same bed (usually with dog too) every night.

sometimes sex was two of us spontanteously stumbling into physicality, sometimes it was a daisy chain which required good timing and a calculator to ensure equal involvement.

we were three different people and we brought different things to the feast. I was the youngest by five or six years, which seemed a bigger gap then than it would now and I had an energy about me which was useful to the thing, plus the downside of my youthful inexperience and occasional adolescent tantrum.

if there was an inequality in terms of the way the love went round perhaps it was that B & P were older and had been together for a few years before the advent of baby ZoCher, hence had a private history, so their relationship was different with each other.

their take on it (IIRC) was that they were in difficulties until I came along and that the infusion of fresh young blood (and other fluids) had brought on an Indian Summer.

were all the needs of a romantic relationship being provided by each person to each person? they had both been in relationships before and I, tho not a virgin, had not had a "relationship", so maybe it was hard to tell then but, in retrospect, I'd have to say it felt pretty complete and satisfying.

maybe the combination of any two of the three of us wouldn't have cut it. certainly, their relationship was in turmoil before I came along and my relationship with P was troubled after the departure of B.

B (exCanadian Air Force, utterly btw) and I had a sub/dom thing going on which didn't include P. we were wilder and partied a lot. we went to gigs and were both at University still. I was sure I was in love with him, certainly at the point when we met and it was all giddily exciting. and the sex was great.

P was a teacher and a historian, well connected politically and a bit of an egghead. my relationship with him was more filial and he was an influential mentor to me to this day.

I think I loved him tho, and he me, and he has repeated the pattern of having younger partners to this day. took up with a 19 year old when he was 40.

long after the affair was over, I would still see him socially, until he moved to Europe and we lost touch. we continued to have mutual friends for a long time after.

but this was all so long ago, I may be fogging the glass with sentimental reminiscence. the long and the short of it is, I have avoided that degree of complication since and this was wise, I suspect.

wouldn't have the bloody energy now.
 
 
Captain Zoom
19:33 / 12.02.02
Don't sell yourself short.
Thanks, btw. A similar situation has been on my thoughts for a good many years now, and though it's not really anything more than theory (for me anyway), it's still an interesting one.

(Sorry, not calling your life an interesting theory. That's not what I meant.)

Ah, l'amour. I knew we could talk about it rationally if we tried.

Which segues quite nicely into.....

Does it override rationality? Can a person control love, or the emotion formerly known as love?
Let me put it this way. Once you're in love, can you consciously decide to fall out of it? It's another comparison with other emotions. You can stop being angry. You can choose, in some cases, to stop hating.

(Sorry to keep using anger and hate, but I figure if we don't all have a love experience in common, maybe one of the negative emotions)

But no, wait a minute. Joy. Can you stop feeling joy? Consciously?

Ah, I'll leave it at that rather than blur it any more.

Zoom.
 
 
Mourne Kransky
19:58 / 12.02.02
I think you have to be a Vulcan to let reason conquer love.

if reason had that power over it, then I wouldn't call it love in the first place.

by the time you can let your head rule your heart, the love has gone, I suspect. that has been my experience anyway.

getting involved with Ganesh made no sense at all, for a list of reasons (which I've forgotten...) giving up my job and starting over again in big, scary London at my age makes no sense. except that I love him and am miserable without him.

as you said, quote: Ah, l'amour.

isn't it glorious?
 
 
Captain Zoom
20:11 / 12.02.02
Yeah.
It really is.

Zoom.
 
 
w1rebaby
20:19 / 12.02.02
quote:isn't it glorious?

no, not really, horrible thing, causes all sorts of problems

i wish I was a tomato plant
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply