What is the source of love?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

It is correct to call love an action and as actions go it is a powerful force, but that action is not an emotion. Emotions are base and subsets to forces like love. I have not equated lust with love but have deigned to differentiate between the two. We do not stay with a mate for 40, 50, or 60 years out of lust but do so, many times, out of love. When we love our mate even long after the lust has gone we will do what we can to make that mate happy, even if it means duplicating the lust we no longer feel.

I agree. Certain emotions are how are bodies convey love. By your reasoning, love forces lust to accommodate a partner to which it is linked.



We have control of both our emotions and our states of mind, but when our state of mind is in a place we call LOVE, we are much better suited to control our actions than when we are not in that state of mind. We can be in the state of mind of love and still feel such rage that we may want to hurt that person but because we are in the state of love, we do not hurt them but instead reign in our emotional state to better align it with our state of mind, that being love.


Yes. Love is very powerful. It keeps you from anger if you use love tempered with patience.

Feelings are fickle and come and go as easily as a breeze will wane on warm summers day. We can feel joy for as long as we feel it but long after it is gone we can remain happy and we do so by choice. We can feel sad and long after that sadness is gone we can remain depressed and we do so by choice. Conversely, we can feel joy even when we have chosen to be depressed and feel sadness even when we have chosen to be happy. Being happy is not predicated on a feeling but is a state of mind we have chosen to live our lives in. The same goes with love. We can love a person and still feel genuine disgust for that person based on their actions.

Choosing love over hate is not always easy. It wasn't meant to be easy or it would be easy. I can only speak for myself but I can feel love. It is a feeling for me. Just as I have felt hate. The former was by far the best feeling.

We postulate love and act on that postulate but it is rare that one of us actually makes the postulate to be disgusted with someone. We don't decide to be disgusted we react to a certain action in the same way we react to a foul odor that would give rise to the same sort of disgust. Disgust is not a state of mind but is a reaction. Love is not reactive but is proactive. As you have said it is a force and a very powerful one well worth utilizing throughout our lives. The choice of love tends to go hand in hand with the choice of happiness.

Sometimes it goes with happiness. But it can also hurt when someone denies your love. You still love them and you are sad.


Very good analytical thinking. I like that.

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


You seem to be giving very good imput so far. Thx and see ya tomorrow.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Thank you. I like what you have said so far. You definitely make me think. Thanks.

One quick thought before I depart -

I believe love to be an adaptive social trait. Love isn't something that is learned, rather it is gained. Love demands sacrifice. You can give without loving, but you can never love without giving. Love requires that we give parts of ourselves to our significant counterpart - give our hearts, minds, souls, strength, wisdom, encouragement. Love compels us to give in order to alleviate the suffering of others.

Love is demonstrated through our actions. It is caused by the "feeling". Love is the "cause" in a social "cause and effect" scenario which strives towards the advancement and prosperity of humanity.

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


Couldn't agree more.

I'm Brian ....... and so is my wife !!!!!

line 2

reply to post by Conclusion


Love does not force lust and indeed, lust often comes easy with or without the love, but lust is just a feeling and can wane in time, but if it does and we are with our mate who desires sexual oneness, to deny that simply because we are not feeling lust would not at all be an act of love but would be a much more self involved type of mindset. A disregard for the second dynamic in favor of the first dynamic, if you will, and as such, it is out ethics. All dynamics must be in play at all times in order to truly be ethical. It is ethical then to duplicate lust, even when not feeling it spontaneously, in order to accommodate that second dynamic.

For the sake of clarification, I am referring to first two dynamics held to be a necessary part of a whole philosophy of the Scientology mentioned by an earlier poster. In Scientology, a religion I don't know enough about, but know enough to understand that, there are eight dynamics that each person operates or fails to operate on. When we as beings, (or Thetans) operate on all eight dynamics simultaneously we are operating with a complete philosophy and our ethics are in. When one or more of those dynamics fall out, we run the risk of acting unethically or our ethics are out. To embrace love as a postulate for all eight dynamics seems to be a wise decision.

Rather than list all eight dynamics here, let's just stay with the first four which are 1.) The Self; 2.) Sex; or the family; 3.) The Group; and 4.) The Species or humanity. If I am not duplicating Scientology's language correctly, apologies but I am listing them as I remember them. I remember them as such because I believe they serve as an excellent construct in which to balance ones life and better gauge how one is and should be living. The self is of little use without the other three dynamics and each dynamic is of little use without the others. It stands to reason that in order to create a family the self is a given as is sex, but in order to maintain that family the group and indeed, the species as a whole are paramount as well. We rely upon the group to help us as individuals and help our families flourish and prosper. We rely upon humanity in the same way on a grander scale.

To love humanity or the species unconditionally is a good idea, even when we find ourselves at odds with certain groups or individuals that are a part of the species. To maintain an unconditional love for that fourth dynamic is to hold compassion for humanity. The same is true for the group, which can often times be a real pain and annoyance and seemingly at odds with our own individual and even familial needs. Too often it is the group that asks of individuals to think less of themselves and more of the group. Sometimes such an action, to act on behalf of the group even if it means acting less on behalf of oneself is necessary and sometimes it becomes necessary to stand up to the group and make clear that they are intruding where no one has the right to intrude. It is far easier to handle such complexities when one is acting out of love then when they are acting in fear based ways.

Fear is a reaction to the environment and people around us, if not a reaction to our own demons and emotional scars. When we are reacting we are being the effect of something rather than being the cause, but when we love we are being cause, BE CAUSE, as the original poster has so eloquently put it, LOVE is a force that we can choose to wield and use its power to help us CREATE the effect we want. The best effect to cause, it would seem, is that effect that is caused by agreement and I know better force than love to affect such agreement.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


It is hard for me to except the self as 1st. To deny self's want for love to cause happiness in others is the greatest showing of the selflessness of love.

What is the best source to use love to create your desired results? As we feel the silhouette of time slip into the shadows, patience has allowed us to see it.

Selflessness is an oxymoron and selfishness has tragically been turned into a pejorative. The self is always first because it is who we are, I am my self at all times and you are yourself at all times. There is nothing wrong with this and there is nothing wrong with acting selfishly. Selfishness is often defined as: "A chief concern for ones own interest, especially with disregard for others." But such a definition is truly illogical because we who are not hermits or misanthropic understand instinctively that we are bound to each other and need each other to maximize our survival. Thus, in order to hold a chief concern for ones own interest, it is in that best interest to hold high regard for others.

When viewed in this context then the idea of loving another in order to cause happiness means you are as equally interested in causing their happiness as you are in causing your own. Though truly, it is your own happiness in which you are best suited to be cause over and if that be true then the ones happiness in which you hope to cause, is best caused by their own choice. If another persons happiness is reliant upon yours or my cause then their happiness is nothing more than the effect of our cause and as such is not happiness at all but merely a reaction to our own efforts. Happiness is not a reactive emotion it is a causative action accomplished by the determined choices of the ones who seek happiness.

To love another means understanding that they are entitled to make their own choices as they see fit and to understand that they are as aware as they have chosen to be and in or about the emotional levels that they choose to be. If they are woefully unaware, tragically emotionally unstable and constantly choosing emotions that are anti-survival the love we must show them is indeed rooted in patience but much more than this we must show them compassion while just as clearly understanding that regardless of how much we love them, if they don't at some point make the choices necessary to act in pro survival ways there is very little we can do to stop them from going down the road of destruction. It would not be an act of love to destroy ourselves along with them, but an act of foolishness. Love would be in the assurance that we will be there for them when they are ready to choose survival.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Yes. All that is true, but without patience you could never have compassion for the one's that you love.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


As for love as selfishless, it means letting them go their way, despite the hurt you will feel. Or giving up to your life for the one's that you love. That is love being selfishless at it's highest.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by Conclusion]

Without compassion we will never show others the patience they require. Patience only comes when we have mastered compassion. Whether it be compassion for ourselves and in allowing that compassion to exist we can better embrace the patience required to accomplish the targets and goals we have chosen to be cause over, or compassion for others and allowing that compassion to exist we can better embrace the patience required to share our journey with others. Without compassion their is no need for patience and with out that need, it is rare that we actually show such patience.

Consider compassion outside the paradigm of love and instead consider it within the construct of war. A good general will know patience if he is to be victorious but without compassion that general will readily sacrifice the lives of his own soldiers in order to win the battles before him. In embracing compassion and understanding the profound tragedy that war brings, then patience becomes virtue rather than vice. A general, on the other hand, who practices patience merely for the sake of virtue but lacks compassion will find, in the end, that it is not patience that he was embracing but instead it was indecision and reticence. Indecision and reticence in war time is lethal and self destructive and as true as it is in all life, it is certainly true in times of war, that fortune favors the bold. Yet, when being bold, it is best to temper such boldness with compassion and then that general will better understand when to be patient and when not to be.

The same then, applies to love. There are times when it is best to be patient and times when it is best not to be patient, and it is compassion that instructs us in knowing the difference.

For me, true love is something that goes beyond the physical realm. It is not limited to humans 'loving' one another (in my opinion this is just a very minute part of true love, if it's even related at all)

I feel love most intensely when I connect myself to The Source. The Universal consciousness from which everything originates. Often I 'awake' out of deep meditation in tears... completely stunned by the beauty of existence. Tears of joy and sadness... totally overwhelmed with emotions of every conceivable kind combined. The ones which are normally seen as unpleasant are just as much a part of it as the pleasant ones. Experiencing them all is the only way for me to truely value Being. No words can describe it really.

I have a partner and I 'love' her deeply but to be honest, no love I have ever experienced in the 'waking' life comes close to the eternal love that is the universal consciousness. Tapping in to the Source helps me remember what it's all about. We don't have to commit to it. We don't have to sacrifice anything for it. There is no trade off.

Love is total acceptance of all that is. Being at peace with all that is. It surrounds us always and is readily available at any time for us to experience. It is much greater than us. It doesn't pass judgment on us. One person is not more suited for love than any other. There's more than enough for us all!!

I saw someone earlier on in this thread mention that love is a state of mind. To me this is very far from the truth. My mind is currently the only obstacle preventing me from experiencing love all the time. Rational thoughts dominate the mind. Too many judgments... Too many doubts... Love isn't rational at all. Amongst other things it's an experience, and rationalising it only becomes possible after the experience has 'weakened' enough for thought to intrude upon it and start analysing it. Only after experiencing true love was I able to see that there is just as much beauty in sadness as there is in happiness. All our emotions share an equal role in the whole. Blocking out some of them serves no purpose but to take away aspects that allow us access to the complete experience. I embrace them all, preferably all at once.

Too difficult to explain it actually, no words I can think of that would do it justice.

reply to post by Mokoman


Love is indeed rational. It is perhaps the most rational decision any person can make. In your own words you have stated that; "love is total acceptance of all there is. Being at peace with all there is." These are profoundly rational decisions, to accept all there is and be at peace with that. You have equated judgments and doubt with rational thought but what is so rational about doubt? A condition of doubt is a precarious place to be and one does not find themselves in precarious conditions by acting rationally. There is nothing wrong with making judgments in and of themselves, but when we become judgmental over others we are no longer being rational but are instead being controlling and suppressive and as such hardly acting rationally.

There are emotions that if we do not learn how to control them they will control us and when they do this is when we see a person strike another out of "blind rage" or control another because they are "green with jealousy" or rob and cheat another because of their "unchecked ambition". It is good and rational to make judgments about such emotions and to decide that these emotions are best controlled and not allowed to function on their own accord. In other words, it is better to control rage, jealousy or ambition rather than let those emotions control you and in order to come to such a decision one must be willing to make the judgment that this must be done. When making rational judgments about such emotions it does not ever at any point preclude love. We need not abandon love in order to check our ambition or let our jealousy pale or allow our rage to see. Indeed, it is when we act out of love that our rage will see and our jealousy will pale and our ambition will be checked.

Analysis of love does not weaken it and never could, it may weaken the irrational soul who has attempted to analyze love without the proper mental discipline to handle the outcome of such analysis but then the problem doesn't lie in the analysis of love but rather in the weakness of mind of the person who dared analyze such complexity with out first preparing for such an effort. The irony of your own remarks is that you have dismissed rationalization of love as meaningless while attempting to rationalize love. So, in the end, all you could do is plead the case that it was the failure of the lexicon instead of your own failure to describe love.

Love has been the realm of poets for centuries exactly because the lexicon is rich in words that speak to our souls and will send chills up our spines when used to describe the effects of love or even what love is. If this thread thrives it will do so, not because there are no words that would effectively describe love, but just the opposite and that words are more than worthy in their efforts to paint a canvas that tells the tale of love. Even those words that describe unrelenting irrational love will speak to souls in rational ways and for those who truly embrace love as the force it has been described as being in this thread, they will come to know the profound rationality of love and how it frees the mind from doubt and fear.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Analysis of love does not weaken it and never could, it may weaken the irrational soul who has attempted to analyze love without the proper mental discipline to handle the outcome of such analysis but then the problem doesn't lie in the analysis of love but rather in the weakness of mind of the person who dared analyze such complexity with out first preparing for such an effort. The irony of your own remarks is that you have dismissed rationalization of love as meaningless while attempting to rationalize love. So, in the end, all you could do is plead the case that it was the failure of the lexicon instead of your own failure to describe love.

You are very correct. I did mention that I am not capable to accurately describe what love truely means for me, did I not?

As far as I'm concerned there is no rational explanation, I merely gave it an attempt and failed. Thanks for pointing out what I already covered in my post though.

reply to post by Mokoman


I wrote what I did out of profound love for you my brother and was less concerned with any "failures" on your part and much more interested in your profound success. That success being your ability to find words such as "Love is total acceptance of all that is. Being at peace with all that is." Those were brilliant words that effectively and rationally explained love as only a poet could!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Thanks for your kind words, I wasn't offended at all by what you said before (hence the 'wink')

It's a subject that touches us all, yet opinions differ greatly on what it actually is or means to us.

That is why I attempted to share my own view, however difficult it may be. I think about love a lot, yet the only time it makes any sense at all is the moments where it overwhelms me. Thinking about it without experiencing it really takes away most of the magic.

That's just me though, I'm happy that we all experience the glory of life in a different way.

The wink was understood and appreciated. I felt compelled to clarify that it was praise I intended and not ridicule...not so much for your sake as for the sake of love. How utterly hysterical would it be if this thread became some vicious debate over what love truly is? Better, I think, to clarify for all concerned that I embrace your words and do not in any way reject them. Besides, you gave me an opportunity to yammer on some more about love, how cool is that?

Very timely thread for me.

I use to think true love lasted forever. I no longer believe that.

I have been married for 10 years, and I am not the same person that I was 10 years ago. How can I change as a person and assume that it will have no affect on love? I don't know if everyone is just fooling themselves into thinking that love remains constant or if I have disconnected myself from love.

I have admiration for my husband, and I would never want to hurt him. Is that love? I have lost the desire for him, though I will not let him know that because the hurt would be immense for him. Is that love? I wish I knew.

I don't care much for "happiness", since IMO what most people view as happiness is impermanent. It's better to seek wisdom, and happiness true that, because it's more permanent.

Love is the lover. It is the answer. So said John Lennon. And a strain of dudes thousands of years before him. And the message haven't changed.

Many people confuse love with things like sex or just love between two people. It can be (and is) much more than that. The lack of it is the 'cause of so many problems in the world. Maybe the biggest one.

It strange how basically so simple thing can be so hard to see and to know.