Etymology of "love":

jupiviv · Post by **jupiviv** » Tue Jan 19, 2010 7:47 pm

I was searching up the etymology of the word "love", and found that it's most probably derived from the Indo-European word "leubh" which means "to desire." In Sanskrit, a similar word "lobh", means "greed." And indeed, that is what love is - a desire to have more than one's own logical self, a kind of cowardice.

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 1:08 am

Scared of a scrambled egg sandwich!

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 1:54 am

Nuts to the nimnulls who stole my box!

______________
Downtown Local

IJesusChrist · Post by **IJesusChrist** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 1:54 am

Love can also be the ultimate giving.

Pye · Post by **Pye** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:43 am

dejavu: You neglect to mention that love for others can also be a kind of courage when proceeding from the love of oneself. An overflowing, a generosity.

. . . . But where are the lovers who love their own self more than any other, who upon meeting, are then held in perpetual discovery of this other who is somehow...the same! The lover, the beloved, self same...self!

Good artists borrow; great artists steal, as the saying goes, so let us both prove our art as we thieve from each other --- that all love is a meeting of the self in every case.

A lack of self-abundance will move a person toward love of others as easily as it will move the generous toward the same. In every case, it is the self coming to meet itself, no matter the object of its affections. Persons who feel themselves empty without love from others will come to meet themselves in this condition. And people who find in love their insecurities, their greediness, their possessiveness, their half-wholeness will come to meet this, too.

And people who will choose not other people, but gods, totality, reason, spirit, or nature to love shall also then meet themselves in and as this larger field of effect. It matters not what one is drawn toward but that one is always drawn toward this of themselves. One can be discovered very large in it, just as one can be found to be very small. In every case, it is the self one meets.

This "other," then, will always be the self-same, and what you perhaps posit as exception is the rule. No need to call out for the person who loves themselves more than any other, as though such height shall be rare. Height or depth, it is always the self-same one discovers in love. It is always one's abundance or one's paucity that one will find. It is the unavoidable projection into and mergence with the world of a self upon self-discovery. No self can exist in a vacuum - it exists by virtue of that which it is not. When in love, it seeks to merge with that which it is not, and thus it is expanded accordingly, becomes accordingly. Perhaps cruelly to the misguided romantic, it has the least to do with its object of affections because it has only the self which it meets. We shall love those things other-than ourselves only because they are no longer other-than. They have become ours; become us. Until we cease to love them or it.

This is why love will never be securely defined as good, bad, evil, or great. The only thing love can never be defined as is indifference. This view can only be held by a person indifferent towards themselves. I have yet to meet such a person; and such a person would have yet to meet themselves.

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:10 am

Oh, I'll answer that last one:

Shaman at the source!

Kunga · Post by **Kunga** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:26 am

love to me now means compassion
lust is passion
if all is ONE then to love one is to love all (Ultimately)
if you are truely integrated/emersed in this...you are a yogi
if you are a Fully Enlightened yogi...you can manipulate energy and walk through walls, walk on water, etc.

IJesusChrist · Post by **IJesusChrist** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:46 am

Kunga wrote:love to me now means compassion
lust is passion
if all is ONE then to love one is to love all (Ultimately)
if you are truely integrated/emersed in this...you are a yogi
if you are a Fully Enlightened yogi...you can manipulate energy and walk through walls, walk on water, etc.

ehhh... Can I fly too?!

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:01 am

Proof that Yogis Fly

Pye · Post by **Pye** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:10 am

Kunga: love to me now means compassion

. . . that, then, is what a compassionate person would think :)

IJesusChrist · Post by **IJesusChrist** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:54 am

Cory Duchesne wrote:Proof that Yogis Fly

Oh wow, my sarcasm has been nullified.

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 9:27 am

A caffe latte, anyone?

-

mensa-maniac · Post by **mensa-maniac** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 9:36 am

Pye wrote:
dejavu: You neglect to mention that love for others can also be a kind of courage when proceeding from the love of oneself. An overflowing, a generosity.

. . . . But where are the lovers who love their own self more than any other, who upon meeting, are then held in perpetual discovery of this other who is somehow...the same! The lover, the beloved, self same...self!
Good artists borrow; great artists steal, as the saying goes, so let us both prove our art as we thieve from each other --- that all love is a meeting of the self in every case.

Mensa says: Good artists borrow; great artists borrow, contributes and uses quotations, and think about stealing, but never does, but would like to! Great artists borrow from other great artists. But, great artists never steal, and neither do good artists!

Mensa says: Your etymology of "love" is presented magnificently Pye!

A lack of self-abundance will move a person toward love of others as easily as it will move the generous toward the same. In every case, it is the self coming to meet itself, no matter the object of its affections. Persons who feel themselves empty without love from others will come to meet themselves in this condition. And people who find in love their insecurities, their greediness, their possessiveness, their half-wholeness will come to meet this, too.

And people who will choose not other people, but gods, totality, reason, spirit, or nature to love shall also then meet themselves in and as this larger field of effect. It matters not what one is drawn toward but that one is always drawn toward this of themselves. One can be discovered very large in it, just as one can be found to be very small. In every case, it is the self one meets.

This "other," then, will always be the self-same, and what you perhaps posit as exception is the rule. No need to call out for the person who loves themselves more than any other, as though such height shall be rare. Height or depth, it is always the self-same one discovers in love. It is always one's abundance or one's paucity that one will find. It is the unavoidable projection into and mergence with the world of a self upon self-discovery. No self can exist in a vacuum - it exists by virtue of that which it is not. When in love, it seeks to merge with that which it is not, and thus it is expanded accordingly, becomes accordingly. Perhaps cruelly to the misguided romantic, it has the least to do with its object of affections because it has only the self which it meets. We shall love those things other-than ourselves only because they are no longer other-than. They have become ours; become us. Until we cease to love them or it.

This is why love will never be securely defined as good, bad, evil, or great. The only thing love can never be defined as is indifference. This view can only be held by a person indifferent towards themselves. I have yet to meet such a person; and such a person would have yet to meet themselves.

mensa-maniac · Post by **mensa-maniac** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 9:47 am

David Quinn wrote:A caffe latte, anyone?

-

If I ever become rich I'll travel to Queenstown Australia and we'll have 2 caffe latte, maybe 3!

Pye · Post by **Pye** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 9:54 am

Mensa says: Good artists borrow; great artists borrow, contributes and uses quotations, and think about stealing, but never does, but would like to! Great artists borrow from other great artists. But, great artists never steal, and neither do good artists!

Yes, I should never borrow a quote for which pithiness is its only virtue. :)

dejavu: Oh, no exception, but how may the feeling of finding naught but ones self in all else be made to last indefinitely?

It lasts as long as one's own life does. Unlike your usual abundant self, you seem to express with this a perpetual lacking . . . ?

David: A caffe latte, anyone?

I should think that a lover of truth would be the thirstiest of all . . . .

So, ching-ching, mate.

mensa-maniac · Post by **mensa-maniac** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:00 am

Pye wrote:
Mensa says: Good artists borrow; great artists borrow, contributes and uses quotations, and think about stealing, but never does, but would like to! Great artists borrow from other great artists. But, great artists never steal, and neither do good artists!
Yes, I should never borrow a quote for which pithiness is its only virtue. :)

dejavu: Oh, no exception, but how may the feeling of finding naught but ones self in all else be made to last indefinitely?
It lasts as long as one's own life does. Unlike your usual abundant self, you seem to express with this a perpetual lacking . . . ?

David: A caffe latte, anyone?
I should think that a lover of truth would be the thirstiest of all . . . .

So, ching-ching, mate.

Mensa says: A lover of truth is the thirtiest of all, they thirst and drink in the truths they acknowledge with, not the truth of others, unless it is a truth!

Gurrb · Post by **Gurrb** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 1:51 pm

"we hate most in others what we hate most in ourselves."

coinciding with the instinct to find another being who we can fully relate to and love as we love ourselves. i believe we love others because they cause us to relate this person to ourselves, and it's sort of like a vicarious love of oneself through another person.
contradictory to the initial statement.

jupiviv · Post by **jupiviv** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 2:26 pm

This is one of the profoundest segments of Nietzsche's "Zarathustra", and it relates to what I tried to say here:

Thou grape-vine! Why dost thou praise me? Have I not cut thee! I am cruel, thou bleedest--: what meaneth thy praise of my drunken cruelty?

"Whatever hath become perfect, everything mature--wanteth to die!" so sayest thou. Blessed, blessed be the vintner's knife! But everything immature wanteth to live: alas!

Woe saith: "Hence! Go! Away, thou woe!" But everything that suffereth wanteth to live, that it may become mature and lively and longing,

--Longing for the further, the higher, the brighter. "I want heirs," so saith everything that suffereth, "I want children, I do not want MYSELF,"--

Joy, however, doth not want heirs, it doth not want children,--joy wanteth itself, it wanteth eternity, it wanteth recurrence, it wanteth everything eternally-like-itself.

Pye · Post by **Pye** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:13 am

jupiviv, the Nietsche Channel is under reconstruction, so I'm pasting here from my own electronic files an aphorism that speaks closer to your opening post, and in my estimation, far more effectively than Nietzsche's willeth and wanteth role-playing in Zarathustra.

The things people call love.-- Avarice and love: what different feelings the two terms evoke! Nevertheless it could be the same instinct that has two names--once deprecated by those who have, in whom the instinct has calmed down to some extent, and who are afraid for their "possessions," and the other time seen from the point of view of those who are not satisfied but still thirsty and who therefore glorify the instinct as "good." Our love of our neighbor--is it not lust for new possessions? And likewise our love of knowledge, of truth, and altogether any lust for what is new? Gradually we become tired of the old, of what we safely possess, and we stretch out our hands again. Even the most beautiful scenery is no longer assured of our love after we have lived in it for three months, and some more distant coast attracts our avarice: possessions are generally diminished by possession.

Our pleasure in ourselves tries to maintain itself by again and again changing something new into ourselves; that is what possession means. To become tired of some possession means tiring of ourselves. (One can also suffer of an excess--the lust to throw away or to distribute can also assume the honorary name of "love.") When we see somebody suffer, we like to exploit this opportunity to take possession of him; those who become his benefactors and pity him, for example, do this and call the lust for a new possession that he awakens in them "love"; and the pleasure they feel is comparable to that aroused by the prospect of a new conquest.

Sexual love betrays itself most clearly as a lust for possession: the lover desires unconditional and sole possession of the person for whom he longs; he desires equally unconditional power over the soul and over the body of the beloved; he alone wants to be loved and desires to live and rule in the other soul as supreme and supremely desirable. If one considers that this means nothing less than excluding the whole world from a precious good, from happiness and enjoyment; if one considers that the lover aims at the impoverishment and deprivation of all competitors and would like to become the dragon guarding his golden hoard as the most inconsiderate and selfish of all "conquerors" and exploiters; if one considers, finally, that to the lover himself the whole rest of the world appears indifferent, pale, worthless, and he is prepared to make any sacrifice, to disturb any order, to subordinate all other interests--then one comes to feel genuine amazement that this wild avarice and injustice of sexual love has been glorified and deified so much in all ages--indeed that this love has furnished the concept of love as the opposite of egoism while it actually may be the most ingenuous expression of egoism.

At this point linguistic usage has evidently been formed by those who did not possess but desired. Probably, there have always been too many of these. Those to whom much possession and satiety were granted in this area have occasionally made some remark about "the raging demon," as that most gracious and beloved of all Athenians, Sophocles, did; but Eros has always laughed at such blasphemers; they were invariably his greatest favorites.

Here and there on earth we may encounter a kind of continuation of love in which the possessive craving of two people for each other gives way to a new desire and lust for possession--a shared higher thirst for an ideal above them. But who knows such love? Who has experienced it? Its right name is friendship.

--Nietzsche (Trans. Kaufmann) Gay Science 14

Gurrb · Post by **Gurrb** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 12:47 pm

my body is a cage
that keeps me from dancing with the one i love
but my mind holds the key.
...

i'm living in an age
that calls darkness light
though my language is dead
still the shapes fill my head.

jupiviv · Post by **jupiviv** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 4:49 pm

Pye wrote:jupiviv, the Nietsche Channel is under reconstruction, so I'm pasting here from my own electronic files an aphorism that speaks closer to your opening post, and in my estimation, far more effectively than Nietzsche's willeth and wanteth role-playing in Zarathustra.

Nietzsche talks about "friendly love" in that aphorism, which is the same as Platonic love, or "agape". That's not what I was talking about. Love itself is illogical, for the reasons I've already shown. It's immoral to reach beyond yourself for eternity, or an ideal. Nietzsche later realised that even his pure love of friendship is flawed, which is what led him to write that quote from Zarathustra. However, he couldn't bear that realisation for long, as we all know.

jupiviv · Post by **jupiviv** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:24 am

dejavu wrote:
jupiviv wrote:It's immoral to reach beyond yourself for eternity, or an ideal.
I think it's healthy.

I don't want health if it comes at the cost of consciousness. First the Kingdom of God!

What do you mean he couldn't bear it for long? What are you talking about? That joy wants eternity is a realization that makes everything else bearable!

The joy that he's talking about is not the same as the joy of other people. The joy of other people would be what he calls "woe." Nietzsche is basically talking about "samsara" here. In an attempt to escape suffering, deluded people bring more suffering into the world. They do not understand that suffering is simply a category, like themselves, and is as eternal as themselves.

jupiviv · Post by **jupiviv** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:09 am

dejavu wrote:Joy wants itself eternally, and that means wanting every last bit of itself! So what if suffering is eternal? The difference is it doesn't want to be.

Suffering is one of the causes of joy, and without suffering there would be no joy. But people seek joy and not suffering, and they end up causing suffering anyways(if not to themselves, then to others.) And after this they wonder why there is suffering in the world. The wise person embraces both joy and suffering, as they are both equally real.

mensa-maniac · Post by **mensa-maniac** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:00 am

Gurrb wrote:"we hate most in others what we hate most in ourselves."

Mensa says: That's so true, and vice versa, we love in others, ourselves.

coinciding with the instinct to find another being who we can fully relate to and love as we love ourselves. i believe we love others because they cause us to relate this person to ourselves, and it's sort of like a vicarious love of oneself through another person.
contradictory to the initial statement.

Mensa says: So true, we love others because we see ourselves in them, and them in us. And the one who wins your heart is the one who is most like you. They say that opposites attract, but I say similarities attract and connect!

mensa-maniac · Post by **mensa-maniac** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:44 am

Love is there before the sexual intimacy begins, if it is not there before sexual intimacy begins, it will flee. Sex is not love, you can love it, but, it is the key ingredient that holds the love together.

Love is two doves who fly together because the love is already there first, the sexual intimacy which follows is the bond which keeps the two doves flying together. Love has to be continuously nurtured, displayed in various loving ways which comes natural for those in love.

Love is aware of it's presence in each other, they play together, grow together, love each other, and stay together because they love each other.

Love changes people for the good, it discovers the real you through the love of your partner. Love isn't always acceptable, it won't just accept a partner doing wrong, therefore love straightens people out.

Love is freedom, it is not by choice you love someone, it is by natural affliction like attraction. If there is no attraction, there is no love. Attraction doesn't mean in appearances only, it means in mind as well. Love is freedom of spirit, love doesn't hold your partner down, it helps him/her to fly. Security in love means "If you love something, set it free, if it comes back it is yours, if it doesn't it never was"

Love is prevalent in the mind always, it is forever a reminder of it's beautiful divine feeling.

GENIUS FORUMS

Etymology of "love":

Etymology of "love":

Re: Etymology of "love":

Re: Etymology of "love":

Re: Etymology of "love":

Re: Etymology of "love":

Re: Etymology of "love":

Re: Etymology of "love":

Re: Etymology of "love":

Re: Etymology of "love":

Re: Etymology of "love":

Re: Etymology of "love":

Re: Etymology of "love":

Re: Etymology of "love":

Re: Etymology of "love":

Re: Etymology of "love":

Re: Etymology of "love":

Re: Etymology of "love":

Re: Etymology of "love":

Re: Etymology of "love":

Re: Etymology of "love":

Re: Etymology of "love":

Re: Etymology of "love":

Re: Etymology of "love":

Re: Etymology of "love":

Re: Etymology of "love":