A poster in an existing thread posed the question of whether "perhaps we could debate if all those so called warm, fuzzy feelings called "love” are actually based on self interest!"

I myself have often wondered if there are not many people who go throughout their entire lives thinking they know what love is, but mistaking it for possessiveness, or fascination, or even darker feelings.

I am almost certain that many people who say they are looking for love are instead looking for something completely different - they want instead to feel needed. They want someone to depend upon them; they want to be the most important being in someone else’s universe; they want to feel as if they have a purpose. All of which, of course, is quite definitely based on self interest. It fulfills a need within themselves.

And is love a warm fuzzy anyway? Doesn't the very nature of love mean it is actually quite a painful emotion: if you truly wish for the best for someone this often means encouraging them NOT to depend upon you; or setting them free; or acknowledging that someone else is better fitted to give them happiness.

Is love possible without self-interest? Is it merely a quid pro quo? Is it selfish to want love? And what is its nature? A chemical or biological reaction? That which makes the world go round. Moonlight and roses?

Whaddya reckon, gang?

One of the craziest things about 'love' is its many and varied guises.

I have repeatedly mistaken lust for love - too much into the visual I guess. I'm in much better control these days.

But true love?

Last year my Aunt died, I am grateful her passing was painless and that her family were by her side, loving her and holding her to the very end. For love is all that is left at the end of life.

I faced the above scenario when my mother met with the Reaper and incredibly turned it away. The past two years have meant that we (all my family) have been telling each other how much love each other, because any of us could just disappear suddenly and all too easily.

A good long term relationship with one's partner/spouse requires the deep seated feelings of the above mixed in with genuine attraction for each other. Lust fades as quickly as a cheap red dress.

Love survives anger, disagreement, illness and many hardships. It does not survive disrespect, manipulation, lack of empathy or abuse. People who remain in those relationships are seeking something other than love, even though they may not be aware of it.

I enjoy my independence and do not feel lonely, because I know there are people who really love me. I have only discovered this relatively recently and I am so grateful.

Dear Romany,

There are many kinds of love - the love you have
for your parents or your pet, differs from the
'romantic love,' that our culture encourages us to
look for - to find the 'one and only.'

Many of us look for the 'noble ideal' of romantic
love that involves - physical symptoms, such as
pounding of the heart, sexual desire, and finding each
other personally and physically attractive. Some of us
look for the "ideal" partner to share our lives,
have children with,
and "live happily ever after."

This kind of love - is portrayed and endorsed throughout
our popular culture, by books, magazines, comics, c/d's
popular songs, movies and television.

Romantic love - is however a cultural product -
and in different societies - you may never fall in love,
nor would you expect to.

The heady joys of romantic love are usually short-lived,
and the excitement of the earlier relationship is often lost
in the daily routines of work, housework, mortgages,
and bills. It doesn't mean that the partners no longer
love one another, only that their love becomes different.
It can mature, and become deeply fulfilling, or not.
Some people may lose faith in their marriages and may start
looking for romance elsewhere - especially if they married
very young, or after only a short acquaintance, or if their
family and friends disapproved of the marriage.

So I suppose - to each his own. What is this crazy thing called
love? It depends on what you're looking for in a
relationship - and what your expectations are. And also
most importantly - how much you're willing to contribute
to making the relationship work. Being pro-active will get
better results long term, (then only caring about your own
self-interest).

Well yeah, I would guess that most of us on this forum are old enough to know that the ideal of romantic love is mainly a construct. The sweaty palms etc. are usually a physical manifestation of lust - a chemical and biological process designed to ensure the continuation of the species.

But if love has many aspects then what are they? Take away the lust and how does the love of our spouse, children and fellow human differ?

I once disagreed with BD about the translation of the bible which had changed the original word "charity" to "love" i.e. "The greatest of all these is Charity" etc. etc., saying that the two words greatly differ in meaning. He, as was his wont, did not respond.

To have charity - which has nothing to do with Vinnies or giving to the poor - towards my fellow humans I can understand. But to "love" them?

As to the self-interest aspect. If people really love their children why do they claim to want 'someone to carry on My name/family"? That reeks of self-interest surely? And why steer them away from being, for example, a rock-star towards being a lawyer? Isn't that rather what WE want?

Sure love needs respect, and encompasses admiration, care for well-being, ...one can have all of those feelings for, e.g. a boss. But one doesn't love him/her.

And what, exactly, defines the different "kinds" of love? Surely love, like lust - or flatulance - can be deconstructed and identified?

Be very careful, Romany.

You could find yourself treading on a lot of people's cherished sensibilities by pursuing this topic.

The problem is that you are completely and absolutely right.

This is how you can tell. If you examine what you mean when you use the word love, and then ask what the person next to you in the bus queue what they mean, the responses will be as different as what you and they had for breakfast.

Love resists definition, being purely an emotion. And because it cannot be defined using commonly recognized words or symbols, nor can it be measured, compared, contrasted or dissected.

Most mature adults recognize that love - that is, one's own, personal and deadly secret version - is actually as essential to a happy and fulfilled life as parmesan is to gnocchi. You can actually survive without it, but life is a richer and more enjoyable place when it's around.

It's my guess that even in the longest-lasting and most "loving" relationship - or even the he short, sharp, the-whole-world's-on-fire version - each partner's requirements will differ. But in order to benefit from that delicious cheesy topping, we all subscribe to a rose-tinted abstract view that contains a sufficiently tolerable baseline. A pinch of romance, a dusting of starry-eyes, and a double-helping of unselfishness and trust.

Using that merely as a common language allows us to ignore the deep reality and seriousness of your question, whose illumination of love's purely selfish roots is, for many people, an uncomfortable concept to face.

Dear Pericles,

Beautifully expressed!

Dear Romany,

I did a quick scrawl on the web and most of the sites
seem to agree that "love takes many forms."
The description that I liked best was the one that
described love as a, "sliding scale with infinite levels."

The emotion varies with each of us and our capacity to give
and receive it. And, whether its on a deeper level (between
two lovers), between a parent and child, or between friends,
our lives would be poorer without it.

There are many types of love - love for a partner, a child, a pet, a family member or a friend.

There is no doubt that love is a complex emotion and does stem from a selfish need. We all want love, want affection, want respect and validation. Want being the operative word. But with that want is also giving, nuturing, loving and sacrifice.

If the source of our need for love is selfish the outcomes are positive for the most part, even if sometimes the negative emotions like possessiveness and jealousy are aroused.

Children will not thrive without love or the right type of love (non-possessive).

Overall we are better with love than not even if the root of that need is selfish. On a scientific level it makes sense from a survival point of view. Humans do better in groups where we work collectively for the good of all individuals. Love is part of that paradigm.

Pericles,

When you said "Love resists definition, being purely an emotion." did you mean that, because it is an emotion it resists definition? Yet other emotions - hate, jealousy, anxiety etc. - are quite able to be defined, aren't they?

It seems to me that the fact that it is an emotion doesn't in itself preclude it from definition: rather that it is the nature of this particular emotion that renders it resistant to definition.

People have said that it manifests itself in different ways; that its complexity or depth is a variant which depends upon personal characteristics; that it is not lust; and that we are the poorer for its lack.

But so far I see no way in which the noun 'love' is distinguishable from the noun 'need'.

Pelican, you even stated that this "need" is selfish in origin. I understand what you are saying...but also feel that that this would tend to argue that the two words, as stated above, are really synonyms. In which case, could it not be argued - purely as Devil's Advocate - that if humans function better with this validation, respect etc. that what we term 'love' is actually just the need for those things?

In which case are trees and flowers, which trials have proved also function better in a controlled environment where respect and care are lavished upon them, also capable of love?

Romany these are difficult questions for such a simple girl. :)

It certainly makes you think.

I am not sure that 'love' and 'need' are always synonomous, because love can also be unselfish and love can lead us to deny our own needs over the sake of another. The selfish aspect of love is not necessarily a bad thing. It is a bit like giving to charity. It makes us feel good to help others but that does not mean the act is any less worthy or does not have the same beneficial outcomes. For example, we have empathy for the people affected by the bushfires and we give money to help them put their lives back together. It makes us feel good to help them because we know what it would be like in their shoes. This is what gives us our humanity.

This mechanics of love and need would change in different realtionships such as the love between a parent and child than two adults. As a mother I give my love unconditionally to my children in a different way than the love to a partner or even to a parent or friend. We would not put up for long a lack of care or disrespect from a friend that we might from our own child.

I cannot comment on the nature of plants to display love even though they may thrive on care to make them grow. A plant would not, I believe, interpret that care as respect or validation unless we truly believe that plants function at the same level or the same higher order intellect as humans. The plant merely grows well because the human carer is providing the care that experience shows produces lavish flowers, fruit or veg.

Experiments that show plants do better when spoken to or played music may not mean 'love' as we know it. Perhaps it is a cosmic energy thing

Its been interesting to read what other posters have to say on the
topic. My conclusion was that since love is based on how somebody
makes YOU feel, clearly it is based on self interest, for we prefer
to feel good then bad and we are selective as to whom we love, for
various reasons.

Our emotional side seemingly prefers to see love as "magic",
but I do think that the various forms can be analysed and understood,
as much as that spoils the party for some.

I disagree that romantic love is just cultural, for in that case
there would have been no surge in confusing brain chemistry, when
people are infatuated. That can and has been measured. I think
its all part of "pairbonding" in humans, which evolved for good
evolutionary reasons. I have actually analysed myself whilst going
through the very painfull withdrawel symptoms and its chemical
alright, no matter how much we reason.

Motherly love is different again. If we look at mothers who can't
have their own kids and want them, clearly there is an evolutionary
yearning there to have and love their children. So do they have
them for the benefit of the child, or to satisfy their own
genetically induced yearnings? I suggest the latter. Once again,
self interest is the driver.

I generally try not to post lots of links, but for those interested
in the subject, here are a few:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4669104.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3261309.stm

http://www.abc.net.au/science/lovedrug/

There is such a thing as self-less love, well if you're a divine being that is (ha!). It is called Agape. Unfortunately we are all human and all self-centred by nature. Human love is called Eros. Every feeling that we have is created by ourselves on a biological level. We may link these feelings to an external source, such as a friend or lover, but it is our own thoughts that generate the feelings. Our experience of love is internal. The same as any feeling of happiness. We don't actually need any external source to create happiness within ourselves. It is a matter of changing our focus and thought patterns. Anthony Robbins has some interesting discussions on feelings and love in his Power Talk series.

Hmm...

... Hmm...

I once heard someone say that love was selflessness and sacrifice, but that's merely one aspect. Indeed, I suspect such sacrifice is done in the hope that it will be recognised and returned.

But in some rare cases people do it with the knowledge it won't be known or returned. To me, this is the most quantifiable definition of love - giving without any expectation of it being returned.

This tends more toward the love of a parent for a child - I suppose some can argue that they hope their children will care for them when they get old, but I think it's simply hardwired in to us to continue our genetic line.

From a human point of view it's still selflessness. From a scientific one, perhaps it's selfish.

Things get murkier between the love of couples. As Yabby has intimated, it can be like a drug with all-too painful withdrawal symptoms. I know that I, (and I suspect a few others here) have sworn to go cold turkey for a while, but soon enough we're lining up for our next hit.

No matter how wise or jaded people may be, if they do get that 'sweaty palms' kind of moment, there are few who would resist, unless they have good reason to.

Which means it's not something that's subject to our usual rational responses. That's the hell of it. We can be totally objective, outspoken, brilliant people in all other respects, all of these can become inverted when under the influence, or sometimes, our qualities can be boosted.

As with any other drug, it affects people a little differently.

I dunno.

Maybe we should make a drug-like name for it and prescribe different doses at different times... I'm only half kidding.

Pelican – “Experiments that show plants do better when spoken to or played music may not mean 'love' as we know it. Perhaps it is a cosmic energy thing “. Sure it may not mean love – but as we can’t seem to be able to define actually what love is, it could well be that it is. Maybe you’re right that it is a cosmic energy thing in which case it would have an external, not an internal source. Which, in turn, would mean that that “warm fuzzy” feeling was part of its physical manifestation: just as some forms of energy manifest physically.

If this was true all those crazy, tree hugging, off-with-the-fairies people who come in for so much scorn could actually be the only ones who have actually understood the nature of love! This could also, it follows, explain why humans throughout history have always believed in gods or supernatural beings: perhaps these beliefs are merely a way of explaining love?

Yabby, you said that “My conclusion was that since love is based on how somebody makes YOU feel, clearly it is based on self interest…” Hmmm. But I don’t think loved is based on that actually. As I said initially, love can be a very painful experience indeed – and no-one in their right mind would choose to love someone who didn’t love them back. Yet this is not uncommon.

You also suggest that the yearning of childless mothers is an evolutionary manifestation of the desire to “have and love” their own children. I am not sure I agree with this. I think these yearnings are far more complex and are also societally constructed rather than genetically implanted. If this is so then these yearnings may indeed by assuaged by the birth of a child but do not necessarily equate with love.

Nature Lover: The Greek word agape refers to spiritual love of any kind: some believe it is the purest form of love of which humans are capable. It is not confined only to godhead.

Ah Romany, what a LOVEly topic. I always start off warm and fuzzy, then I start thinking, then I get confused. After that it only takes my relationship with my wife and kids to bring me back to warm and fuzzy, I’m very lucky.

All I can offer is some research I did on related humanity subjects that may provide some context for you post. My comments may cause offence to creationists, for that I apologize in advance; it is not my intention, I offer just one of the possible answers.

About 1.8 million years ago we started to develop“awareness”, rudimentary intelligence. We began to socialize and to try to explain our environment, of which we were starting to become aware. Nature was revered because it sustained us with rain, sun and seasons, providing the opportunity to hunt and gather. Our needs were at the top of Maslow’s Hierarchy, food, water and shelter. Emotions were fight or flight plus the instinctive drive to propagate.

The development of our cognitive skills has resulted in ever increasing interpretations of our environment and our basic desires of Fame, Love, Affluence and Power. Over the millennia, our societies have also developed “rules” by which we can attempt to maintain social, political, economic, religious and ecological order. We can measure our IQ, the key enabler to academic development. We can measure our EQ, emotional and social intelligence (just Google emotional intelligence) and we can understand our own personality types (Helen Palmer, Director, Centre for Enneagram Studies, “Enneagram in Love and Work” Harper Collins, www.harpercollins.org).

The Ennegram defines three personality types with three sub-types making nine in all. Enneagram is Greek for “nine profiles”. Each of us has one of the basic personality types. Heart, Head or Body. Once we understand our personality type, we can each examine and interrogate our motives for love and the interaction we need from it. Basically, the Enneagram defines nine motives for everything we humans do, including love.

To learn our own motivation and expectations in love, we need first to know who we are.

Yes, Romany, that's what I meant.

>>When you said "Love resists definition, being purely an emotion." did you mean that, because it is an emotion it resists definition?<<

But I disagree with your corollary.

>>Yet other emotions - hate, jealousy, anxiety etc. - are quite able to be defined, aren't they?<<

I would suggest that while these emotions may exhibit external signals that we can recognize, they are equally difficult to quantify.

Hate is an emotion that some possess and display easily and frequently, while to others it is a completely alien concept. It is quite possible that hate - and possibly jealousy - is an evolutionary-based response, that we "learned" in order to justify actions that were otherwise outside our normal behaviour pattern.

It might for example have been necessary to develop a hate response to neighbouring tribes, in order to justify belting them over the head with a club whenever they came near our women.

There was a fascinating Economist article that touched upon this peripherally in its analysis of "why music".

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12795510

"[Darwin's] 'The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex' suggested that the need to find a mate being the pressing requirement that it is, a lot of the features of any given animal have come about not to aid its survival, but to aid its courtship. The most famous example is the tail of the peacock. But Darwin suggested human features, too, might be sexually selected in this way—and one of those he lit on was music."

Love may well fall into this category - a learned response that assists with our basic need to reproduce.

Think of it this way. The average person meets some thousands of people during a lifetime, and falls in love with one, or a small subset, of those thousands.

But there are another six billion that he or she never met...

In order to justify the selection of "the one" ("the few"?!) over the remaining six billion, it might have been necessary to invent the concept of love.

Hence - yes, by definition it is entirely selfish.

*Hmmm. But I don’t think loved is based on that actually. As I said initially, love can be a very painful experience indeed *

Two points on that one Romany. First, it depends on what kind of love
and situation. You might have friends that you love and don't just
like. Clearly they make you feel good to be around.

Second point, when it comes to attraction. There is a reason, even
if not concious or logical. We know from experiments for instance,
that women can tell you which males they are attracted to, by
smelling a whole lot of sweaty t-shirts. It turns out that differing
dna is involved. Those olifactory bulbs are busy, if we are aware
of it or not. So you love that person as you are attracted to that
person and highly likely want to bonk them :)

*I think these yearnings are far more complex and are also societally constructed rather than genetically implanted*

Yet in mammals, mothers bond with their babies when oodles of
oxytocin are released. Mothers do refer to loving their babies
and clearly that huge dose of hormones plays a role. So genes
are involved, not just learning.

So another question arises. Is grieving based on self interest?

Yabby asks:

>>So another question arises. Is grieving based on self interest?<<

I would go further, and suggest that all human emotions are based upon some form of evolved self-interest.

Grieving would seem to be a classic example, since the object of the grief clearly cannot possibly benefit from it.

It would therefore seem reasonable to suggest that grieving is either an essential component of personal healing, or an important external display to ensure social inclusion. The first is much favoured by psychologists, while the second is simply a defence mechanism against potential rejection by one's peer group.

Either way, the individual is the only beneficiary of their own emotions.

The problem with these evolution-based theories is that they run counter to the views of folk who insist that we have some kind of "soul", that is entirely independent of our bodies and brains, and that exerts a level of influence over the way we love, hate, grieve etc.

While this is a nice warm and mushy concept, in my view it sits in exactly the same basket of self-serving emotions as the rest. As human beings, we really try very hard to convince ourselves that we are not simply an advanced product of evolution, but possess some extra spark that cannot be explained by these natural processes.

This, too, is a manifestation of our eternal self-absorption, our determination to invent stuff that makes us feel important.

Great post Pericles, your wisdom is appreciated!

I think and read about this kind of stuff, but it is
not something that can be discussed in the bar of
a country pub :)

Luckily OLO has some great thinkers, such as yourself.

Goleman in his book "Emotional Intelligence" defines
emotions as "In essence, impulses to act, the instant plans
for handling life, that evolution has instilled in us".

What first got me interested was the realisation that
I could feel one thing, yet think exactly the opposite.
So the conflict between the emotional and rational centres
of the mind became clear.

I figured that to understand how an engine works, we need
to understand each of the components and how they interact.
So why not the same thing with the human mind?

There is actually a great little website called "Neuroscience
for kids", which is a great place to start, for those who
are interested in humans and what makes them tick.

After all, the mind is what the brain does.

Dear Romany,

What an interesting thread.

It's made me think about so many
things and of course I don't have all the
answers. I'm still on my own journey.
We all go through transitions and transformations.
The important thing is that we learn from them.

For most of us, most of the time, our experience of
life and its potential for joy is limited by the
constriction of our own hearts.

So many people have helped
shape me into the person I have become (and still
hope to be).

Love is very much a part of my life -
it's a deep and enduring emotional regard whether
its for my husband, my children, my family, my siblings,
my friends. It's part of my nature - and I nurture it
and watch it grow and the light within me salutes the
light I see in others. Because I believe that we are
all a part of each other. The love within us is
meant to extend outward.

Foxy,

Yes, well I enjoy exploring things in the abstract (it’s the thing I miss most living in a non-English-speaking country!). I think that leads to misunderstanding on threads here at times: the minute one posts understanding of a concept or puts forward another aspect, people assume one is being subjective.

I took this question of love into a classroom discussion where one student described love as "the only truly pure emotion" which led us into all sorts of different areas - most in direct contravention of the "selfish" aspect.

But still the actual term "love" has defied definition.

I think my own view is that love is the name given to positive energy forces. Though not a believer, I often go into empty churches just to absorb this positivism.

Therefore it would have to transcend selfishness which would bring negativism to it. This also allows me to understand why some people label this force "god" as I touched on earlier.

I too believe that just as certain rocks, minerals etc. have been proved to contain such properties as radiation, it is not at all off-the-wall to posit that this love/positive energy/gods/God - whatever label various people attach to it, is not simply a human construct, but could, one day, be proved to exist empirically, just as radiation was.

However, I also firmly believe that many people go through their entire lives without ever actually experiencing this emotion/force. That’s where the human construct comes in; we have learned to equate lust, companionship, propinquity, functional chemical processes etc. with love. Therein lays the selfishness which can attach to any of those things.

So, as usual, I conclude that being my usual wimpy self, I can't really come down on any definitive side - even though I was the one who introduced the topic

I'm not sure what love is. I would love it if a quantifiable answer was one day presented but, until then, I'll probably be as unable to make up my own mind about it as I am about why the queue I join is ALWAYS the slowest one.

Dear Romany,

We live in a world of tremenduous polarization.

For some people life is either black or white,
right or wrong, good or bad.

I was pleased to read that you're not one of
those people.
Who of us is the "expert" that we want to be?
Most of us, quite simply, are all learning.

I often wonder why we separate LOVE from our Self when we think/discuss what it actually IS. We seem to consider it something created from within then projected onto (or towards) the objects (living or not) of our affection.

Or vise versa - as something received.

It struck me when contemplating this point, maybe we have such a hard time agreeing and thoroughly defining what love IS, because many of us fail to truly generate and express love for our Self throughout our lives.

How can we claim to understand or accurately define a certain 'thing' when many of us spend our entire existence expressing (or receiving) what we may consider to be LOVE towards (or from) others, when we have failed to truly know love in the first place - from within ?

If Love is being generous to others - do we show that same generosity to our Self. If we are to be patient and considerate to others - do we treat our Self to the same graces ??

Hmmm .... Food for thought ?

.

JosGar
now there you have a concept which I personally find simply impossible. The feeling or emotion that I associate with love is just not capable of being directed inward.

Besides, there were all those formative years with red-faced nuns lecturing us on the sins of pride and conceit.

Yeah, sure, I've read all the books about fronting up to a mirror and gazing deep into my own bloodshot eyes and murmuring "I love you" to the image reflected there...I shriek with laughter at the thought, I'm afraid.

Nah, the best I've ever got is telling myself that at least I'm not as bad as some other people. Probably. Maybe. ...and then again even serial killers might have their good side. Which might be a whole lot better than my whole side. So maybe.....ah, the hellwith it..which is when I give myself a shamefaced grin and sidle off.

I was fortunate enough to not have experienced the spiritual bullying some people feel they need to inflict on others for self righteous reasons. So, my feelings in regard to the invisible elements of my Self are not tainted by those poisonous thoughts and harsh conditioning. I feel eternally grateful I don't have to put time and energy into 'unlearning' such thoughts.

My point put simply was: If one can conjure up certain emotions for something external - why can one not conjure it for themselves. Not in a selfish, egotistical or self-centered way. But in a realistic, genuine and matter of fact way.

There may be less insecure (or) needy (or) spiteful (or) empty individuals around the world if we all took sometime to 'check ourselves before we wreck ourselves'.

And in saying that - if we did manage that kind of 'mind-set change' then maybe we would all find LOVE easier to define.

That's all I meant.

Yes! I know .... I'm dreamin'
But it was just a thought.
:-)

*The feeling or emotion that I associate with love is just not capable of being directed inward.*

Ah Romany, the nuns are responsible for much brainwashing! If you
can't love yourself, then you could easily develop a self esteem
problem and all that this entails.

The question arises about how the brain works and its perhaps not
possible for us to answer all questions.

For instance, if you see a little old lady and help her across
the street, did you do it because you are kind and loving, or
because it makes you feel good? Feeling good involves brain
chemicals being released, which are linked to the pleasure/reward
centres of the mind.

Most people will tell you that they enjoy doing good turns, it
gives them joy. Fair enough. Would they still do it if it made
them feel bad? I doubt it.

So it is in your self interest to help little old ladies across
the street, as your brain chemistry rewards your altruism!

Yabby, maybe it is just as well there is self-interest in love or charity.

Otherwise who would be there to help little old ladies. :)

You can't beat biology really - it all makes sense. Even religion is 'of biology' - dare I go there - yes I did.

The need for humans to have explanations or meaning is all self- interest in my opinion, but I don't think this is a negative, it makes perfect sense.

Whatever it is that makes us give love cannot be a bad thing from a species perspective and collectively it will be what makes us survive.

Dear Pelican,

I agree. Giving love is not a bad thing and
choosing to love each other is the only choice for
our survival.

The antidote to what is fundamentally wrong
(wars, gangs, violence, drugs etc), is the
cultivation of what is fundamentally right.

"In this life we cannot do great things,
we can only do small things with great love,"
---- Mother Theresa.

*and I'll repeat, the greatest threat to peace in the world was the tendency of women to resort to abortion and to contraception.*

Foxy, that was another quote from Mother Theresa. Now I know
that she was the Catholic pinup girl, but it seems not all was
as people thought, once they looked behind the scenes.

http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/stories/s266592.htm

.

Dear Yabby,

The problem with giving an incorrect "partial
quote" is that it tends to give people the
wrong impression.

If you're really interested in what Mother
Theresa had to say on abortion you could
google "Mother Theresa on abortion," or
try:

http://www.gargaro.com.mother_teresa/quotes.html

To understand her meaning - you have to read what
she had say in its entirety. Also, to the best
of my knowledge - Mother Theresa did not accumulate
material wealth for herself. And, I wonder how much
better off without her - would those poor have been
to whom she did extend a helping hand?

Mother Theresa believed in forgiveness, and asked
that we do likewise. Attack is an easier response
than forgiveness - However, the journalist from
the website you gave should remember - attacks on
others are really attacks on ourselves. The article
says more about him, than Mother Theresa. She would
see through the mistakes that someone has made -
to the truth that lies in their heart.

Cheers.

*to the truth that lies in their heart.*

The truth is that the heart pumps blood, Foxy :)

Now either Mother Theresa gave her Nobel speech or
she did not. If she did not elaborate what she really
believed, then she was a bad communicator.

Hitchins made some very valid points. Where did all
the money go? Back to the Vatican bank perhaps?

Why should religion not be accountable for money spent,
as is every other public institution?

Mother Theresa was a Catholic fanatic. Some stuff I've
read suggests that when it came to pain, she offered
empathy, but also thought as the Church does, that suffering
is noble. So pain relief was not a major concern of hers.

Everyone should be open to criticism, even Catholic pinup
girls who raise huge amounts of money, that seem to have
vanished without accountability.

Knock Hitchins all you want for being an informed critic.
Frankly we need more of them. For the public are by
and large, quite gullible

Dear Yabby,

Mother Theresa
gave the speech on abortion, at a breakfast
in Washington D.C. in front of the US
President and the First Lady. You have to take
the speech in its correct context. The
American abortion rate, (which is believed
to be the highest in the Western world) -
was an issue that Mother Theresa addressed.
It was however, only one of the topics about
which she spoke at that function.

Discussing further - the pros and cons of
Mother Theresa - is not something that I'm
interested in doing - now, or at any time,
and certainly not on this thread.

Perhaps you could start your
own thread - on the topic if you're that keen on the
subject?

The only reason that I gave the quote
in my earlier post by Mother Theresa was that the
thought BEHIND the quote appealed to me. I'm actually not
all that interested in her, and I can't understand why
you are, especially on a thread about love.

It seems to me you're stirring deliberately...
Here's another quote for you to mull over:

"If you can, help others;
If you cannot do that,
at least do not harm them."
Dalai Lama.

Perhaps you and that journalist author of yours
can dig up some dirt on the Dalai Lama as well.
Or better still, what about corruption within the
Vatican. There's a topic that would appeal to many.

Happy Easter Yabs!

Foxy, Mother Theresa gave many speeches on contraception and abortion,
including when she picked up her nobel prize.
Now the fact remains that they are not the biggest threat to world
peace, no matter how you look at it.

If you quote somebody, it is usually done because they are held
in high regard.

Fact is, as Hitchins points out, Mother Theresa was a fanatic
and certainly not somebody that I look up to. But I concede,
many people were duped by her. Luckily some journalists have
a questioning mind, we need them for the truth to come out.

Easter, ah yup, time to celebrate the joys of chocolate!
My Easter bunny's ears are long gone :)

Dear Yabby,

You said that if you quote somebody,
it's usually because they're held in
high regard?

Not always. Some of us simply happen
to like the thought behind the quote.
For example, I've used quite a few
quotes in my time by "Anonymous."

As for Christopher Hitchens - well as a
reader observed on one of the websites:
"The first rule of politics is that if
you dig enough, you can find contradictions,
lies, mistakes, betrayals, and enemies aplenty
for anyone."

And another reader stated: "Hitchens articles
don't offer much in the way of sources."

Enjoy your chocolate.

Here is an interesting URL from the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7988169.stm

It seems that even in chimpanzee culture, love is based
on self interest. Ah, the joys of nature!

This also confirms that if a male is
"pro-active," (shares with the female),
and not selfish,
then the relationship is one from which
both of them benefit.

It just goes to show that even apes
can learn.

Well the chimp idea is not so silly after all. Males just kind
of take their ladies "out to dinner". If she turns out to be
the selfish one, they can easily swop to a less selfish
female.

Females cannot misuse their power either, so its a much fairer
system!

Which brings us right back to why pairbonding evolved in the
first place.

Dear Yabby,

I'm going to go and take a hot bath,
and relax a bit, I've done everything
in readiness for the Family's Easter
Sunday Lunch tomorrow.

Before I go however - I want to leave you this
poem, I don't know the author - but it sums up
what I feel love is all about:

"I cannot promise you a life of sunshine;
I cannot promise riches, wealth, or gold;
I cannot promise you an easy pathway
That leads away from change or growing old.
But I can promise all my heart's devotion;
A smile to chase away your tears of sorrow;
A love that's ever true and ever growing;
A hand to hold in yours through each tomorrow."

Take care.

Foxy, that is a lovely poem and indeed would reflect what
you are all about.

I know some high oxytocin type females similar to yourself
and they make wonderful mothers and partners. Usually
in the country, they are snapped up at around 18 and
that's it for life.

So you see the world through your eyes, your experiences
and your genetics, but don't make the mistake of thinking
that all women think or feel like you do. There are all
types out there, some very selfish, some very greedy.

That is the point I've been trying to get across at times.
This "blame it all on men" is just a nonsense. I know
some great guys who sadly for them, married real bitches.
I know some lovely women who married real idiots.

So I try to see each person for what they are. IMHO
its more about how the dna falls at conception, most
people are kind of driven and are not about to change
their spots.

I know people who are happy and content most of the time.
I know people who are sad and miserable most of the time.
It seems some just can't help themselves, it is kind of
their genetic destiny. So I think free will is maybe
not so free at all, as we often assume.

Have a great Easter

Foxy

Loved your poem.

Yabby

Seeing a new and welcome side to you.

I hope you both appreciate the following Dilbert cartoon:

http://dilbert.com/dyn_file/str_strip/48089/gif/strip.print/

Dear Yabby,

I'm glad that you liked the poem.

Have a great Easter as well.

Dear Fractelle,

Loved Dilbert!

I guess, though we did not reach a satisfying conclusion, under which one could draw a line and say: "Right,. That's that sorted. Now onto the next question." we did explore a lot of different themes under the heading of love here.

I too am going to offer a poem. It was given to me by someone who understood my confusions on the whole theme of lurve and the word love never enters into it, yet I hold it always inside me as the most perfect (to me) expression of that feeling.

'There is a tear
in my mind's eye,
Where God and Truth and Beauty
stand reflected.
And there you are:
Summer-soft and perfect,
Wrapped in sweet memories.

Others may prefer outright declarations, red roses and moonlight. But being held in someone's mind in the same place where god and truth and beauty are held has always, since then, defined the feeling that I equate with love.

Is it selfish? Maybe. But though the lives of the person who wrote it and I have gone in different directions, its made me a better person for having gone through the rest of my life trying to ensure that I am always worthy of sharing the place in anyone's mind where such values lie.

Ok, this is a definition of love from about 30 years ago,
by Nathaniel Branden, from "The Psychology of Romantic
Love"

Love is, in the most general sense, our emotional response
to that which we value highly. As such, it is the experience
of joy in the existence of the loved object, joy in proximity
and joy in interaction or involvement. To love is to delight
in the being whom one loves, to experience pleasure in that
being's presence, to find fulfillment in contact with that
being. We experience the loved being as a source of fulfillment
for profoundly important needs.

It goes on from there.

I came across something I'd written
quite some time ago. Reading it -
brought back quite a few memories -
and I'm glad that I didn't throw it out
as I've done with quite a few of my
"thoughts on paper," in the past.

Anyway, I'll share it with you as it's
sort of appropriate - so here goes:

"I hold the pen firmly, then pause briefly,
Words don't come easily in the afternoon solitude.
There's a tree outside my window,
The wind is playing with its leaves,
Nature fills my soul with peace, and I continue.

Thoughts are very mixed,
Yet I know, somewhere between the morning's wash,
The planning of the evening meal,
Lies a yearning, a dream as yet unreachable.
One can only try taking one day at a time.

The private moments, the few hours alone, are so precious.
Husband, children, all have their needs, I have mine.
To write, to unconfuse my thoughts.
To live at least on paper, in the fantasy of words.
I reach for the pen again, and as I do, I look up.

Two big brown eyes are staring at me,
A small blonde head hides behind the chair,
A crooked smile appears around the corner, and then,
Another voice calls out from the bedroom,
'Mamma!'

I hear the words echoing in my ears, 'Mamma, Mamma, Mamma!'
And I know my time is up.
There is a greater need
then mine,
For now."

I'll be leaving for Sydney tomorrow for about a week.
It's a mini-holiday - so take care - and Thanks to
you all for this interesting thread.

All The Best.