Open Challenge

agape love-

noun
selfless love of one person for another without sexual implications


It's called a dictionary.
The definition is simple and can be agreed upon without adding how it's 'sensual' or 'aesthetic' or that it's too complicated to explain or for another to comprehend.

phonesex wrote:

If you get down to the engines, you can call it the thing you can feel but not explain, but that is in some way related to the survival of your clan.

You can call it that...it actually just means selfless love without sexual implication..
I'm sure it can be both felt and explained just fine and is not always related to the survival of a clan.

Quote :

Some thing that may appear altruistic, but it is not so in a strict sense, as it favors you as a part of a group.

The important part is that it is not sexual, sex & procreation being both a selfish and selfless act (caring for a parasite). So it is not entirely either because it cannot be as selfish as non-agape love, and it carries both because self is involved in all things self experiences and so cannot communicate any other kind of love than self.

Quote :

I have less interest in this low level view of sensations than you do.

That was low.

Quote :

I'd like to ask a favor. Who started to talk about emotions? Can we stop? It is sensations we are concerned with here. Adding emotions makes the conversation ambiguous.

Again, you separate.
What makes emotion & sensation unrelated?

Satyr wrote:

What we need is more emoting...a conjuring up of mystical powers.
Love just happens...out of the nothing something....like beauty it is in the eye....nothing rational about it.

It makes sense only if you stop thinking about it.

Let us indulge in some word-association and simply feel our way to the truth.

Love, eros agape, what's the difference, it's all sooo magically delightful.

Better yet let's define them with fruity talk, and argue over who's the authority on the bullshit being spewed.

People like us write all those incredibly static words in dictionaries, bonitinha
And every book of hard law.
And ever absolute word ever written.

Welcome to being on your own.

You are never on your own, sweets...there's always someone who loves you about.
He does so simply because.
Don't ask questions, just abandon yourself to the sensation.

Wow she's dumb.

Poison IV wrote:

Wow she's dumb.

No shit?


More, she's that special kind of dumb....the kind that thinks it is not so.
Her depth is that she refuses to go deeper than she has to.
Too much yapping makes her tummy ache...more so when it's about someone nasty and evil and someone daddy told her to not take candy from. .

I meant low level as in engineering lingo. As in under the hood.
(fact: I'm an engineer on my non free time )

As to emotions vs sensations, they are diffent entirely. Why don't you look it up in the dictionary

Satyr wrote:

Poison IV wrote:

Wow she's dumb.

No shit?


More, she's that special kind of dumb....the kind that thinks it is not so.
Her depth is that she refuses to go deeper than she has to.
Too much yapping makes her tummy ache...more so when it's about someone nasty and evil and someone daddy told her to not take candy from. .

You see, IV, satyr and I are different in the sense that I keep my nonsense short, while he likes to drop his by the loads and loads.

phoneutria wrote:

I meant low level as in engineering lingo. As in under the hood.

Once more your spirit cannot be adequately followed.

phoneutria wrote:

(fact: I'm an engineer on my non free time )

Impressive....do you play a musical instrument as well?
The flute....the trombone?

phoneutria wrote:

As to emotions vs sensations, they are diffent entirely. Why don't you look it up in the dictionary

I shall...in fact the dictionary is what I base all my opinions on.

For instance I was of the opinion that acting and existing were one and the same...but a quick look in the dictionary and I was soon made to feel embarrassed for this mistake.

------------------

phoneutria wrote:

You see, IV, satyr and I are different in the
sense that I keep my nonsense short, while he likes to drop his by the
loads and loads.

We are, in fact, so alike that talking about it further would be insane.
I move to the conclusion that she beats me because she is aware of her stupidity whereas I have yet to accept it.

The meek shall inherit the earth.

phoneutria wrote:

As to emotions vs sensations, they are diffent entirely. Why don't you look it up in the dictionary

I'm not equating them as one, only giving a chance of connection that renders your proposal of escaping emotion through sensation ....incorrect.

I play classic guitar, but I suck.
I also play a flute, but I really, really suck.

Poison IV wrote:

phoneutria wrote:

As to emotions vs sensations, they are diffent entirely. Why don't you look it up in the dictionary

I'm not equating them as one, only giving a chance of connection that renders your proposal of escaping emotion through sensation ....incorrect.

I see that the key word of your question is "unrelated".
Pardon my sloppy reading, schnuckiputzi.

I cannot say that they are unrelated.
I do think that in a discusion of senses, emotions add a lot of clutter. So my plead was to delimit the scope of the conversation.

I hope that that is to your satisfaction.
Cheers.

phoneutria wrote:

I play classic guitar, but I suck.
I also play a flute, but I really, really suck.

I thought you had to blow to play the flute...my mistake.

But, I bet you blow real well.

Now you've ruined the subtlety of it.

I'm the myth breaker, my Queen.

I shatter idols and idol-worshipers.
I am vulgar and direct.

Will you play me a tune?
Something where I can watch your finger play.

To be fair, it was already blatant. You made it obnoxious.

There's an old video of me doing some fingerpicking.
It has got a nice body, but such poor finish.

You sound like too much trouble to bother with...oooooor I'm an insecure man who can't deal with a "strong", "liberated", free-spirited female.

Either way...who cares?

Poison IV wrote:

phoneutria wrote:

As to emotions vs sensations, they are diffent entirely. Why don't you look it up in the dictionary

I'm not equating them as one, only giving a chance of connection that renders your proposal of escaping emotion through sensation ....incorrect.

Quote :

I see that the key word of your question is "unrelated".
Pardon my sloppy reading, schnuckiputzi.

What key word? What question? Did I forget my proper punctuation? (Never)

Quote :

I cannot say that they are unrelated.

No, and so in order for the conversation to drift away from emotion into sensation they must absolutely be unrelated.

Quote :

I do think that in a discusion of senses, emotions add a lot of clutter. So my plead was to delimit the scope of the conversation.

Senses are sensations now? Yeesh.

Well, your plead turned out to be more than what you bargained for.

Quote :

I hope that that is to your satisfaction.
Cheers.

I may stamp it with an A, maybe an A-.

I begin with the premise that sensations preceded emotions, just as consciousness preceded self-consciousness.

From this sensation of otherness emerges this automatic Response to sensation, or to sensual stimuli.
This is the beginning of emotion.

I've stated that for me fear must be the first emotion; the mother of all emotions.
All other emotions are degrees of it or reactions to it or combinations of both.

In this sense I understand love as being a much later development, one necessitated by the demands and mechanics of heterosexual reproduction and the alter developing, from it, social behavior.
It is how fear and all emotions that had evolved form it that far could be overcome.

This is why love is held in such high regards...it is firstly a survival tool and secondly a way of tolerating (bonding) with others on a more efficient level.

I would say love begins with eros, a primal form of it, related to the coitus and directly linked to lust.
Lust is, itself, a sophistication of the hunger drive.

For this reason I place agape above all other forms of this emotional overcoming of fear.
Agape is love made conscious...reaching the level of rational love or comradeship founded on common interests.
Eros is primitive, and so very feminine,a s the female is the representation of nature, that which is earthly; she is sex personified, as Weininger might have said it.

That was very good.
I'll come back in the evening with my inane comments.

Satyr wrote:

the female is the representation of nature, that which is earthly; she is sex personified, as Weininger might have said it.

That's what my dentist Dr. Weiner said when he saw my legs.

Poison IV wrote:

What key word? What question? Did I forget my proper punctuation? (Never)

The question was " What makes emotion & sensation unrelated?"
I misinterpreted it as implying that emotion and sensations are the same. I have corrected my mistake and replied by saying that they are not unrelated.
Are you with me now?

Quote :

No, and so in order for the conversation to drift away from emotion into sensation they must absolutely be unrelated.

I disagree. I can have an extensive conversation about clouds without ever mentioning rain
Scope, love, scope.

Quote :

Senses are sensations now? Yeesh.

What can you possibly gain by acting obtuse? You are not obtuse, Iv.

phoneutria wrote:

The question was " What makes emotion & sensation unrelated?"
I misinterpreted it as implying that emotion and sensations are the same. I have corrected my mistake and replied by saying that they are not unrelated.
Are you with me now?

No, you are, and always will be, above me
... like an Aphrodite.

Quote :

I disagree. I can have an extensive conversation about clouds without ever mentioning rain
Scope, love, scope.

Chances, love, chances and chances come from relation. The chance that you will run into talking about rain in a conversation about clouds is pretty high, dontcha think?

And the chance that it's going to rain tomorrow is about 30%.

Quote :

What can you possibly gain by acting obtuse? You are not obtuse, Iv.

You're right, I'm acute.

No, you are a cute.

Satyr wrote:

I begin with the premise that sensations preceded emotions, just as consciousness preceded self-consciousness.

From this sensation of otherness emerges this automatic Response to sensation, or to sensual stimuli.
This is the beginning of emotion.

I've stated that for me fear must be the first emotion; the mother of all emotions.
All other emotions are degrees of it or reactions to it or combinations of both.

In this sense I understand love as being a much later development, one necessitated by the demands and mechanics of heterosexual reproduction and the alter developing, from it, social behavior.
It is how fear and all emotions that had evolved form it that far could be overcome.

This is why love is held in such high regards...it is firstly a survival tool and secondly a way of tolerating (bonding) with others on a more efficient level.

I would say love begins with eros, a primal form of it, related to the coitus and directly linked to lust.
Lust is, itself, a sophistication of the hunger drive.

For this reason I place agape above all other forms of this emotional overcoming of fear.
Agape is love made conscious...reaching the level of rational love or comradeship founded on common interests.
Eros is primitive, and so very feminine,a s the female is the representation of nature, that which is earthly; she is sex personified, as Weininger might have said it.

Both fear and love, as well as anger and contentment, are hormone mediated emotions, driven by the reptilian brain. They are by design thoughtless. The reasoning that we apply over them is a separate process.

I am more inclined to relate agape to an entirely instinctive and often counter intuitive emotion. Something like the love of a parent for a child.

I think what you call agape is more apropriately named pragma.

But then, who am I to instruct you in Greek

This is sad.

A reptile feels on love....but you are free to think that it does.
Emotions like love are later developments and they are found only in species that must, as a matter of survival, interact with their own kind or even cooperate with their own kind.
We can, on the other hand, say that a reptile might feel a rudimentary form of fear, or some similar anxiety which is automatic and aids it in the fight/flight mechanism.

Pragma, sweetie, is a thing.

You see, babe, for me life, existence, reality just doesn't spring out of nothing....it is not contingent upon your or my opinion, reversely our existence is contingent upon reality, the world...things, phenomena, just do not happen, they are based on previous phenomena.
For instance, liberal girly, gender is not a human invention, nor is it totally without merit.

I know mommy and daddy might have told you so or the morons you hang out with might be convinced that men invented gender, but this is not so.
Gender, sweets, is an adaptation of sexual roles wihtin a socioeconomic context.
Sexual roles, like sex, were not invented by bad men to control innocent, fragile, simple little girls and their wet and wild pussies.

Sex is a survival tool and sexual roles are specialized forms of it. Gender is how men apply these roles within their particular social structures...this is where the control over the pussies comes in.
Men give them symbols they dictate morals and force upon them behavior but they do not invent what they are founded on.

Men are like dam builders. They do not invent the river or that the river flows downwards, they simply take advantage of this, redirect it, manipulate it.

Oh Satyr darling I am not talking about reptiles.
Do me a kind favor and google reptilian brain or the R complex. A brief reading should clear up the confusion.

Other than that, I cannot find much in your post I disagree with. All of these wonderfully intricate mechanisms deffinitely rose from need, including agape and pragmatism.

As to the example given, I see your attempt to get a rise out of me, and I raise you with I am not a feminist and therefor I don't give a fuck
There is obviously a long discussion to be had on what regards sexual confusion of physical bodies (notice the use of sexual and not gender), and the different but yet related subject of gender confusion, which is a thing of the mind.
As scientific interest, I have read many instances in which it was clinically impossible to determine a person's sex, and other cases, for example, when a baby was born with seemingly male genitalia and was brought up as a boy, only to find out he was a woman when he got his menses.
Unfortunately our bodies were not designed to be perfect by an intelligent designer. They are full of flaws and as a work in progress, there is a lot of variation to account for. When it comes to biology, there is deffinitely a grey area to be explored.

Now the mind portion of it, the gender part, I can do nothing but speculate. I know you love to speculate, yourself. I have a different prefference.

She reads David Icke, Satyr....
David. Icke.

I have reas Icke, but I <3 Carl Sagan forever. If it's good enough for him, it's good enough for me.