What are your thoughts on this?

[ZenMasterFlex]

I don't know how this could turn into a big arguement, but save the childish posturing for another thread. I am not interested whatsoever in the philosophy of Socrates, Homer, Marcus arelias, Pascal, or anyone besides you. That said.

What are your thoughts on love? This is not Christain vs. other. It is just a question. As it pertains to nothing.
Why do you think it exists? Are you capable of love? What would you do if you came home and caught your wife getting balled by someone else? Does love make us better than animals? What would you sacrifice for love?

[Beantown]

Evolutionary psychology.......

[ZenMasterFlex]

So it's just a chemical in the brain to keep families together for the better survival of the race?

[Andrew Karpinski]

Yes, it's a chemical in your brain and it is only around because people / towns / states / countries that love do better than those that don't.

[Scotch78]

I am going to use the terms "nirvana" and "samsara" merely as a launching point, so please keep in mind that what I intend when I use these two words is different from the traditional Buddhist usage. By "nirvana", I mean indefinite unity, and by "samsara", I mean finite fragmentation. Like a Buddhist, I believe that nirvana and samsara are identical, yet in opposition to each other. To put it simply, love is the difference between samsara and nirvana, but in order to give a more detailed answer, I need to discuss a little physics.

A wave never truly dies down to zero, so it lacks the traditional boundaries of a particle. Also, waves exhibit the property of superposition. If we assume that all waves are three-dimensional, then from these two properties, it logically follows that all waves exist everywhere, in unison.

Our senses present us with a material universe dominated by particles, so it is understandable that our interpretation of the immaterial would subscribe to a particle theory. However, as modern physics has shown us, particles can present themselves as waves under certain circumstances, so it would seem that the particle and wave theories are ways in which we experience the universe rather than inherent properties of that universe. Love then becomes an experience of the immaterial as a wave.

That is all that I feel like explaining for now, but hopefully it will be enough. For anyone who seeks further thought on this, here are two additional, unexplained statements about love.

I do not believe in the dualistic assumptions that underlie the separation into material and immaterial.

I do believe that love and philosophy are identical, yet in opposition to each other.

Scott

[pilliwinks]

Wow. Sounds like you guys need a hug.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I am going to use the terms "nirvana" and "samsara" merely as a launching point, so please keep in mind that what I intend when I use these two words is different from the traditional Buddhist usage. By "nirvana", I mean indefinite unity, and by "samsara", I mean finite fragmentation. Like a Buddhist, I believe that nirvana and samsara are identical, yet in opposition to each other. To put it simply, love is the difference between samsara and nirvana, but in order to give a more detailed answer, I need to discuss a little physics.

A wave never truly dies down to zero, so it lacks the traditional boundaries of a particle. Also, waves exhibit the property of superposition. If we assume that all waves are three-dimensional, then from these two properties, it logically follows that all waves exist everywhere, in unison.

Our senses present us with a material universe dominated by particles, so it is understandable that our interpretation of the immaterial would subscribe to a particle theory. However, as modern physics has shown us, particles can present themselves as waves under certain circumstances, so it would seem that the particle and wave theories are ways in which we experience the universe rather than inherent properties of that universe. Love then becomes an experience of the immaterial as a wave.

That is all that I feel like explaining for now, but hopefully it will be enough. For anyone who seeks further thought on this, here are two additional, unexplained statements about love.

I do not believe in the dualistic assumptions that underlie the separation into material and immaterial.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

You sound like a Michael Talbot acolyte.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, it's a chemical in your brain and it is only around because people / towns / states / countries that love do better than those that don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[Godfather80]

[ QUOTE ]

What are your thoughts on love? This is not Christain vs. other. It is just a question. As it pertains to nothing.

[/ QUOTE ] It exists in as much as anyone says it exists. It is certainly not the same for me as it is for you or anybody else for that matter.

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you think it exists?

[/ QUOTE ] It makes people feel better.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you capable of love?

[/ QUOTE ] I guess it depends who is judging my capability. I know I am because I do love, but you might not agree with me.

[ QUOTE ]
What would you do if you came home and caught your wife getting balled by someone else?

[/ QUOTE ] WTF does this have to do with anything? I would probably leave and get drunk, then make some phone calls to figure out what to do with my life. Love doesn't protect you from getting hurt like some magic talisman.

[ QUOTE ]
Does love make us better than animals?

[/ QUOTE ] Not really, but I'm not sure what you are getting at.

[ QUOTE ]
What would you sacrifice for love?

[/ QUOTE ] This question is pure cheese. Any example here is pointless because love and sacrifice are personal.