Start this off with a bang.
Is there such a thing as an ultimate expression of love?
There, chew on that one.
(I'm going to be rambling here, not overly coherent at the moment... I'm at work don't you know)
Can something express with finality the depths of love? Or can love only be truly indicated with installments?
I'm sure the romantic in me says that there is an ideal love, a true love.
However, because of the contradiction in perfection being seen as stagnant and non-changing, it would have to exist in an active state. Which in a non-perfect condition could result in the change to a less than ideal love.
Proof being, it happens.
What does this mean? Well, it's only part of what I'm asking. I'm not asking about ultimate love, I'm asking about the expression of it, the indication of it, the showing of it. From PDA (not the electronic one) to flowers, to a few words...
No single event, situation, presentation can indicate suitably ones love for another. Does that make the alternative true? Must it be indicated day by day, in the little things?
I'd like to think so. Like a rollercoaster of love if you will, with its dips and twists, scares and thrills, it's loops and ... more loops!
Love is part of life, and in return life is part of any love.
I'm not sure if washing dishes and taking out garbage are as much a sign of love as flowers...
But I do know that living with Munin, is in every way, from grumbling and trying to catch that last little bit of sleep, to rinsing dishes and folding laundry, an indication of my love for her.
Posted by hugin at Noviembre 21, 2003 03:13 PMlove you too beloved, so very, very much.
Posted by: munin on Noviembre 21, 2003 07:15 PMfour words: love is a verb.
looks to me like you've got it down.
when we were kids we all thought that love was that elevator-with-the-cables-cut feeling, that it was the desire, the fire and confusion of jimi hendrix songs, and it is those things, for a while. but just as having children is more than just the initial blood, hair, bodily fluids and screaming [although arguably it is in the course of a lifetime largely that], but is in fact also taking in pleasure watching someone else grow...yes, that's it, that's it i reckon. taking pleasure in watching someone else grow. that's pretty close to what i'd call love.
Posted by: r@d@r on Noviembre 21, 2003 07:25 PMHomeostatic system.
Give and take, a balance from both parties.
BTW - a couple of those statements were positively mystical. As is love.
Love is a gift. The most divine expression I know.
All encompassing. "Love is a verb" I like that. It's an action, it's a motion, a flowing and continuing.
And yes, watching them grow, and if lucky, helping them to do so as much as they do the same for you.
"Give and take" yup. I'm a little cautious about the concept of balance though. It can be taken too far, it can become about `needing' to be equal, `requiring' it. Maybe equilibrium might be better. Balance implies a level equality to me, which isn't going to be the case. There might be balance overall, but it will as you say, "give and take" as required.
Love is giving, without fear of imbalance.
Posted by: Hugin on Noviembre 22, 2003 04:26 PMI like that "Love is giving, without fear of imbalance". I believe that.
Personally, I think washing the dishes and taking out the garbage are more a sign for love than flowers :). I'm a pratical sort though.
And I wouldn't scoff at flowers either! ;)
Posted by: Amber on Noviembre 23, 2003 08:14 PM