Comments | zerozero: Love Zero Zero

zerozero

Love Zero Zero

Oct 31, 2002 16:13

You remove a young animal from its parent and it keens in fear and loss. Threaten an alpha males pack and it will fight to the death. Remove an ape or a meercat from its family or mate and it will lapse into despair ( Read more... )

Comments 14

chiller October 31 2002, 09:28:50 UTC

Why is something which relates to the body automatically not "divine or esoteric and certainly not aesthetic"?

Since when is biology not divine? Yours may not be, but mine is. ;)

Despair or joy are no less real because they are expressed via chemical means. The love of a meercat is no less and no more than a human's. The body is a symptom of us, not the other way around.

zerozero November 3 2002, 14:20:32 UTC

"automatically not"

I don't mean to suggest that everything related to the body is by proxy not divine, just this one outmoded thing.

I'm not even trying to say that i think love is merely chemical, tho most people seem to think that's what i meant so my bad.

chiller November 4 2002, 01:32:15 UTC

I'm not sure our notions of love are entirely outmoded, though I do have issues with the way society chooses to express them. People differ. For instance, for some people, sex is something easily shared. For others it is not, and in those people it is not a sign of maturity to pretend otherwise.

If we have made any mistakes with regard to love in this society it is that we enact legislation about it. And not just a little bit - all of society is based on the one man/one woman marriage model. I don't think "should" applies to love.

bohofaery October 31 2002, 10:03:46 UTC

It makes so much sense, but you can't just stop there. Say it's a biological function and that's all there is to it, as if everything we experience wasn't originally routed in chemicals and electrical pulses, as if just because we know where it's coming from we can't allow it any meaning.

Taking the biological and experiencing it as something more profound is what being human is about. Finding deeper levels of meaning, seeing something beyond ourselves. The DNA is the tool, but you wouldn't say that just because a concerto is played on wood and gut it isn't transcendant. You can't place such artificial limits on yourself just to make things make sense, you know. Sometimes things are beautiful because you can't define them.

zerozero November 3 2002, 14:24:37 UTC

Sometimes I know I’m going to take a kicking for a post and relish it. Sometimes I think I might take a kicking and worry about it. Sometimes I know I’m going to be misinterpreted and don’t mind what’s said and sometimes I’m curious to see if anyone says anything that will change my point of view.

"you wouldn't say that just because a concerto is played on wood and gut it isn't transcendent."

You, as always, blow me away.

letra October 31 2002, 12:10:49 UTC

yes, I liked that entry. x

maybe sex is more special than a guilty secret. something so good that the smug gits who are getting it think aha, I'm not sharing, no, I'm not fucking elaborating. who knows? I don't personally see it as a guilty secret, but I guess that's beside the point.

zerozero November 3 2002, 14:25:11 UTC

Call this pseudo Intellectual? crypx October 31 2002, 19:40:29 UTC

I've had sex. I've made love. I've shared love. The love of sex. The love of companionship.
I'm only ashamed of one of the above.

Re: Call this pseudo Intellectual? zerozero November 3 2002, 14:25:46 UTC

give me a clue which one?

Re: Call this pseudo Intellectual? crypx November 4 2002, 02:57:23 UTC

Don't make me poke you.

kixie October 31 2002, 19:57:43 UTC

Um, love isn't something we can prove wrong by dissecting a body.

We know that the feelings of affection are sparks in the medulla, we know that when they say people have 'chemistry' it's kinda literal, but we don't know what exactly draws people to that certain person they have chemistry with, and why you can fuck someone senseless for ages and never love them, just be fond of them or something, but for some reason people actually do tend to fall in love.

Also, peoples ideas of love vary so much that it's kind of hard for people to just 'grow out of it'.

Religions have changed and mutated and have been started but for some reason one of the only constant things that have been written about, sung about, etc. for as long as human history can dictate is love. I hardly think that's worth little or is a matter of conditioning or other such ideas.

zerozero November 3 2002, 14:27:55 UTC

You make my point for me. Religion has changed, our notion of spirituality is more complex than it was. The earth is no longer flat, one day the way we think of "love" will make they way we are about it now seem like a caveman clubbing his mate on the head and dragging her off to the long grass.

Re: kixie November 4 2002, 05:21:35 UTC

Um, clubbing cavement worked on the biological imperative only - girl attractive, procreate cause I'm horny, ooga oom! type thing...love isn't...well, it's more difficult ( ... )