New Civilization News: Love is a Quest - Modified from my post in Academici    
 Love is a Quest - Modified from my post in Academici16 comments
8 Mar 2006 @ 13:42, by N Marion Hage

Love is something we intuit on the deepest level, because it is both a hunger and a homing device. We thirst for it, and desire it from the moment we break free from the womb. And also, there is a voice within that tells us this is not only a means, but an ends, and we want to find "Love".

We know it by its fruit, and yet, we live in a fallen world, where people are self-absorbed, wounded, often incapable of expressing love. And over time, that belief in love fades, and we wonder what true love looks like. The more used and abused and betrayed we are, the more likely we become skeptical. We wonder if love is obtainable; and yet, we have countless examples of those who lost themselves in love for others. "The Mother Theresas of the world." Still, we want to see proof for ourselves, to taste and touch love, and to come to that place where we can express it for others to taste and touch.

I once believed- disbelieved in love. It was not that I lost that compass telling me it was there somewhere. However, I didn't see it demonstrated. It seemed only there as an ideal, not a reality.

Jaded, I looked at the world and said, "People don't really love. They are too selfish. They simply mutually use and abuse each other so long as they get something out of the deal, sex, companionship, exchange of feigned compliments.

Yet that compass was still drawing me, telling me love is right, seek love, express love. But emotional starvation made me crave, and I did not know how to give it. I fell short, and wondered if the best I could do is offer selfish-seconds. I wanted it, but couldn't give it, and at the same time, knew love existed on some etherial island I couldn't get to.

I am no longer jaded, and believe in love, express love, and I am loved.

However, the next step is to define "what love" we aspire to give, and recieve- sacrificial other centered-love, or selfish, you-make-me-feel-good love? And there are shades of love in between. Most people are satisfied for a reciprical giving, in fact elated, and are not interested in giving a selfless love. Yet, within us, that homing device is saying, "It is there if you are but willing to pay the price. Come!"

I want that kind of love, to give it, get it, and bask in it. It hurts. It forgives. It overlooks offenses. Yet, it wants fellowship, to become more than friends, one with others, to know and be known.

Identifying that love exists and that we want the highest love is only the beginning of a journey. The next step is identifying not only what we want, but who we are, who this other person is? So, love becomes a quest, and not simply a definition of what to do and not to do. There are roadblocks, difficult people, and our own difficult attitudes and desires. We put up walls and run into walls, and know that walls have to come down to reach the highest love.

We, all of us, are like a spirit encased in a ton of barnacles. We exist beneath all sorts of junk that attaches itself to us throughout life. I am more than news, weather and sports, but what am I? Am I changing? Can someone love a moving target?

We should be moving targets, because if we are staying the same, we aren't growing, and growth is essential to finally becoming a human being, and not a wooden puppet.

I want to be a real boy. I want to be loved for who I am, and not the barnacles, not the trophies, not the looks-which fade with years. And so, the search for love is a pilgrimage of the soul to discover who we are at the core, and who everyone else is at their core, undefiled. And frankly, the end result is falling into each other, not sexually, but in the sense of drinking purely from another's spirit, and have them drink from ours, and we are refreshed there.


[< Back] [New Civilization News]



8 Mar 2006 @ 16:17 by swanny : stevie
"Mirror in the sky...
What is love?
Can the child within my heart
rise above"
Stevie Nick 1970s  

8 Mar 2006 @ 17:18 by poetsong : Stevie Nicks, we're asking similar...
...questions. Wonder what answers Stevie has found by now?

Isn't it amazing how many people in the world are asking this question? Imagine what it is like to have been raised knowing what love feels like. Then again, those who were raised in a world without problems, having all the nurture in the world, sometimes have the opposite problem, and that is being unable to relate to hurting people, a judgmental and callous attitude.

Perhaps its good to have experiences that cause us to feel alone, or rejected, at least enough to empathise with others.  

9 Mar 2006 @ 04:07 by judih : love
yes, i have been loved. My parents loved me and love me still. Yes, i know what it is to be apart from my peers for many reasons. (i was a stranger in a strange land for most of my life)

Yet, now my job is to offer 'loving' support to students who have often been left for lost in their past. My job is to offer what they need from a point in me that gives without ego. It can never be about me, but must always centre on what will reach them.

Love is a verb, it is a feeling, it is never stationary.
Never fear to give, for in the giving, we expand our soul.
Love is one of the most used yet underused qualities.

Do not believe in adages and jingles - love is an infinite offering with infinite keys to more.  

9 Mar 2006 @ 13:22 by poetsong : Excellent point Judih
Some people might have wished for a simple life, but simple lives make for boring people. Being a stranger in a strange land offers a completely different perspective on the world.

I applaud the fact that you offer love to students left for lost. The world needs many more people who are willing to do that, because teachers who can see the good in students who don't see good in themselves, can kindle life and hope, and set them from a self-destructive course to a fulfilling one. Keep up the good work.  

9 Mar 2006 @ 14:01 by Susie @ : love
Why does love need to be defined. Its not love if there are strings attached. Love simply is. If you love someone, you love them as a whole. You can be angry at someone you love, be upset or hurt by them. You still love them, even when you think you no longer can deal with a person you love, you still love them, you just distance yourself from the pain. Otherwise, it isn't love, its infatuation. A whole different thing. And hey, I love you all the time! So there!  

9 Mar 2006 @ 16:33 by poetsong : I'm glad you love me! Yeah
Makes my day! Why does love need to be defined? I think you might intuit a great deal about love, but others don't. So, when you speak of love, in your mind it all makes sense. You understand love has a sacrificial and forgiving side. In effect, you are defining love in many ways I agree with.

Definitions are necessary for people who question what love looks like. I believe the Greeks had eight words for love. We are most familiar with Agape, Phileo, and Eros. They mean three distinct things, Eros-Sexual attraction and want. Phileo- Brotherly love. Mutual respect. Agape- selfless sacrificial love that things of the other over their own needs.

And so, you are right in saying infatuation isn't love, or at least not higher love, such as Agape. It's chemical love, biological feelings that can go as fast as they come. And you are right, that is a whole different thing.

In general, when I talk about love in these threads, I am talking about higher love, which needs to be distinguished. And there is a purpose to it. If we "humanity" are to grow, we need to define what we aspire to. Is it a society of selfish cretans who endulge their wants, or people who are willing to give for others, even when it costs them.

Obviously, all of society won't buy into selfless love, but if enough do, it inspires others, and the overall impact is a better world, better families, stronger friendships.  

9 Mar 2006 @ 17:07 by Susie @ : Sigh
All my love is the selfless love, I wouldn't say I love SOMEONE if it had strings attached. But I see your point. The thing is, I don't see that people in general, especially in this day and age, understand the concept of selfless love. Too many people want to take without giving. And not just in love.  

9 Mar 2006 @ 17:24 by jerryvest : Yes, love is great and good. I found
a quote from my favorite anthropologist, that I will share, who helps us awaken our consciousness to 'touching' and to love:

"We don't love children adequately, we don't even know what love is. It's a great help to know exactly what the criteria of love are, because these murderers, these violent people, these terribly undisciplined characters are exhibiting the frustration of love. [Love, Montagu says earlier, is the ability to communicate to others your profound involvement in their welfare, is that you will never commit the supreme treason of letting them down whenever they most stand in need of you, and that you will minister to and encourage the growth and development of their potentialities. That's love.]"

Ashley Montague
"Touching - The Human Significance of the Skin"  

9 Mar 2006 @ 19:32 by poetsong : Selfish vs Selfless
I tend to agree that we don't see enough examples of selfless love. I can only speak for the cultures I'm aware of, but I think people disregard the power of marketing and media in defining what "happy" looks like. Happy is having everything you want, when you want, and how you want. Hogwash, as they used to say. Someone who thinks happy is take, take, take, will one day wake up feeling taken. That's a mid-life crises waiting to happen.

That kind of happiness is, again, cotton candy. It is temporal, and like a mist that comes and goes. And so, people see life as a carnival, and you are only winning when you get to ride for free all day long.

There is a different, more fulfilling, kind of satisfaction that comes from giving in a meaningful way. Yet, there is a delayed gratification. Our minds are washed in images of people taking, grabbing, and so there is a Beer-Ad version of happiness, where a guy is surrounded by women clinging, watching a game, while slugging a beer. "It doesn't get any better than this!"

Well, we know it has to get better than this or life isn't worth the effort. If life is about drinking in pleasure, then it is such a selfish existence that we might as well be drunk 24/7.

Love is one of those things that we can't know unless we give it. Being loved is nice, far nicer than not being loved; but being the one that loves is a much different thing. Those who've see the darker places of the world where suffering takes place, know what I'm saying is true. There is nothing more beautiful than meaningful giving, especially where it is appreciated.

When you see the wants and needs in parts of the world, you can't imagine the stuff-my-face mentality being marketed. You can't imagine the value of over-indulgence and self-centeredness where children are hungry and people struggle to get through the day.

So, I agree many people don't comprehend true love, but when they see it demonstrated, they can't help be moved by it. They see higher love's value, and want it, and want to give it.


10 Mar 2006 @ 15:36 by rayon : Want to Add
Despite your signing off so to speak, Nate -

There is one more kind of love, known to me only in Europe say amongst loosely close knit societies. Outsider Men may not relate to it easily, it may in a sense diminish themselves in their own eyes, but if they looked again, they would understand the guys already there, over hundreds of years, have developed a self expression pertinant to that society, and within it, they actually make sure to themselves they are operating within that loving system of the society. This could be one independent of material wealth, and other accrutments, where they were validly allowed to feel whole and good just by being in the society and knowing its parameters. Women would relate to this on the assisting/mixing level keeping one's pride and business but also knowing the difficulties of others just by social interaction, rather than social work. Guess, (if anyone is still with me here!! late on Friday) that this is Love of the Community. I am taking up all this space because, possibly this is missing from the immediacy of the internet, where people are accentuated into individualism, and the knowing silences, friendly looks, waves, are left out.

When I think of this, I know it underlies much of my own life, and it seems important.  

10 Mar 2006 @ 19:44 by Susie @ : community love
So, what ever happened to this in American society? There was a time when people knew their neighbors, cared about their neighbors, and were a part of a whole. Now its not so much that people are insular because of the internet, though television and computers has made people less likely to be out and about among other people. They don't need to go to twon meetings and social mixers for entertainment, but more because people have scattered far and wide and there is no more family all over the area. And somehow, people have stopped caring about the guy next door, because hey, he could be an axe murderer for all we know. I think the sad thing is about that, people no longer let strangers into their focus, their lives and their hearts because they're too afraid. There was certainly a time in my life where if I'd done something wrong in MY neighborhood, my parents would surely know about it within the hour because all the parents saw what all the kids were doing and shared, LOL. And that was a GOOD thing. Now the kids are scattered here and yon, their best friend could live in another town let alone another neighborhood, and they seem to have cars before they get their wisdom teeth!  

10 Mar 2006 @ 20:03 by poetsong : We have gone to the four winds
There are lots of factors that contribute to the complex kinds of life in some parts of America. There is a loss of the family farm, that piece of land that holds people to a community. The industrial revolution and prosperity with cars everywhere, made it possible for people to go to the four winds.

But I think a few other thinks contributed to the overall lack of loose bonds. Obviously, I think all the options of entertainment play some part. However, if you look at life since the turn of the century, American men were involved in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam...all overseas wars. In effect, you had generations of men pulled from the homes right when their children were being born. The net effect is that bonding takes place in those first few years; and they never got that. Enough generations of that being the norm, and pretty soon you have a slightly colder and distant society. "Don't bother daddy...he's tired...daddy is gone to the local saloon..."

Bring home somewhat scarred and emotionally disconnected men and throw them back with families they hardly bonded to, and you wound up with a much less European looking family with grandpa, dad, and 4 generations around a table.

Also, they had all these men coming home and after the depression, built countless new tract house communities, which pulled people further apart. America wasn't like Europe, in that we had so much land in the fifties, with the GI bill and education- also pulling people away- people didn't want to go back to the farm, or back to the mines. They took homes wherever Industry was building- spreading people further apart.

I think people simply got used to distance, and not having the kinds of bonds that were needed. You have that in some sub-cultures, but you also have entire communities where people don't know their neighbors.

So, it's a mix of factors- mobility, wealth, the separation of men from their children. We are comparatively a loose culture with less than stellar bonding.  

29 Jan 2015 @ 09:52 by Mhela @ : XScoEJJgSomGIJ
Var inne og leste det ne5 (via hviit), og se5nn fant jeg fram til deg ogse5. Har sittet med et lunt smil be5de da jeg leste msgaainet, og imens jeg bladde meg fra det seneste innlegget til hit. Masse god stemning be5de her og der, se5 jeg kan jo ikke tusle ut igjen uten e5 klikke ff8lg. :)d8nsker deg en super dag fra Huldrelevenet. :)  

29 Jan 2015 @ 14:28 by Tiouna @ : VQgdmkrsRr
Thank you, so sweet. Happy to hear. We have invested some time in this, so now it s time to put our feet up. At least for an hour or two ;)Enjoy your cirtshmas-preparations! I ll send you some snow e thoughts for you to enjoy in the heat. Love, Lena.  

30 Jan 2015 @ 07:37 by Amanda @ : sEPzgzniagi
I was as heartbroken as 健吾 todarws Kay Tse's new album (or precisely the 主打歌).I think a negative review still has its own virtue. The undertone of 健吾's review is the environment under this Kay's latest album was produced; the priority is the consumption or reception rather than technicality. As I read along, Kay's disappointing album was already out of my concern. I start to think about how her case represents in general the Hong Kong pop music industry .以音樂論音樂? I don't think we can expect this in mainstream paper in Hong Kong. I envy New Yorkers. They can enjoy New York Times' wonderful section devoted to quality and in-depth (and very musical) reviews of music, be it classical or pop, theatres, movies, and the like. There are just not enough platforms for pop music criticism in Hong Kong.健吾 positioned himself as an outsider; he relied on word articulations and apparent melodic structures, etc. Say for her Mandarin song, it brings forth the question who the target demographic this particular version is for, given her subpar Mandarin is not a matter in the recording. Have they brought in Taiwanese/Chinese producers to do the song? These small decisions reflect at least some aspects of the attitudes behind making a Mandarin version of the hit that made her a top Hong Kong female artist.Anyway, I wonder if there is really a problem here. From the start the industry has not nurtured good listeners. Who really listen to the key changes or chord changes crafted carefully and beautifully by the writers/arrangers? It was lucky enough to have an artist like Kay who can deliver these to the point.Kay is a happy outcome in this weird Karaoke-driven music scene. She was both an underdog and a warrior before she rose to fame; she questioned and did not compromise. Finally she reached the top but this unique brand of her didn't seem to be registered in her new 主打歌. Yes I meant 主打歌. I know there are songs in her latest album that are so 謝安琪. But 主打歌 is what we wanted from her to strike a complete discord, now that she has assumed a mainstream position.  

29 Apr 2016 @ 10:12 by Bandar Togel @ : brilliant! I would like to share this ar
Togel Online Singapore
Togel Online Hongkong
Bandar Togel Singapore
Bandar Togel
Togel Online Terpercaya
Bandar Togel Online Terpercaya
Togel Online
Agen Togel Online Terpercaya
Agen Togel Online  

Your Name:
Your URL: (or email)
For verification, please type the word you see on the left:

Other entries in
31 Jul 2010 @ 16:29: Innovation Yantra
31 Jul 2010 @ 16:01: Randy Paush - Lessons for Life
30 Jul 2010 @ 16:30: from Baudrillard to Verger: Diversification Vs Global Norms
22 Jul 2010 @ 13:16: Cartographers of No Man's Land
20 Jul 2010 @ 14:24: Getting other people to do stuff
16 Jul 2010 @ 22:57: Considerations on writing
14 Jul 2010 @ 14:53: Therapy Dogs Serve our Wounded Warriors
14 Jul 2010 @ 13:35: Consciousness of Pattern
13 Jul 2010 @ 17:04: What is Consciousness? - My answer on

[< Back] [New Civilization News] [PermaLink]?