love (again)

ok… i already wrote an entry a whiles ago about love, but the issue appears to have surfaced again….

In alex’s info:
“To be happy with a woman, you must love her a lot and not try to understand her at all” But i’m not allowed to love. so where does that leave me?

In carlini’s info:
Ok, if anyone could actually explain to me what the heck this “love” thing is it would be helpful, cuz frankly i’m at a loss.  Oh and i tried the dictionary, it really wasn’t much help.

then there’s ren quizzing me:
Ren: i’m askin you
me: askin me what?
Ren: what dale can’t explain
Ren: levels of love?

so first… the answer to ren’s question, as i gave it to her (even though some of the conversations i’ve had tonight have caused me to rethink some of it)

there are various levels of love, all the way from childish platonic love to deep romantic love… there are many variations in between, but there are a few basic levels
the first is innocent love… this is the love that you have for silly things, like stuffed toys and animals..
the next level is familial love–that’s love for your parents, brothers, sisters, etc
the next level is platonic love; thats the love you have for your friends, teachers, other non-related persons… but not romantic at all
then there’s puppy love–that’s the type of love usually found in middle school and some high school relationships… its often characterized moreso by lust… but there is usually a level of love there as well
then there’s comfortable love… there’s less lust involved, but its still not the deep love… thats most long-term relationships later in high school, but moreso afterwards
i think there might be more levels in between here, but as i have never personally experienced them, i cannot attempt to describe them…after that there’s true love… the love that makes you realize that this is the person that you would die for them .. or without them… they complete you… that’s the highest level

now it should also be noted that the levels here do not indicate *more* or *less* love attributed to them, but a different *type* of love… however the necessity for the word love is that saying you simply “like” someone or something implies less emotional attatchments… unfortunately, the word “love” has acquired implications of only referring to the true, deep, romantic love… which is *much* too strong a word for most  everyday uses… but people tend to disregard the lower levels of implication when they hear the word… mostly because you really do need separate words to describe the different types of love. in spanish they have (at least) two different words for love that differenciate between platonic and romantic love, but because our english language doesn’t have a differenciation, i’m still not positive of which to use when… mostly, i try to vary the spelling depending on who i’m talking about… i “lub” my doggies, and my teddy bear… i “luv” my friends and my family… i’d like to think that i “love” my boyfriend… but i’m not sure if i want to go there… because again, this spelling variation still only offers three different definitions… and do i love him on the puppy love level? or the comfortable level? or somewhere between there and true love? earlier tonight my mom referred to him as “the love of my life” (after i had just referred to him as a “loser”[which is a term of endearment, btw] )and my heart kind of jumped… but was it a good jump or a bad jump?

but i could just be imagining all this anyway… as JM said earlier–
JM: “love” isn’t such a big word…weird ppl
me: there are so many implications with the word love
JM: as a matter of fact, it is a 4-letter-word, and there are other 4-letter-words. there are only implications if u put them there
me: *sigh*  if only we all could see things so simply
JM: that’s what happens when ur an observer 😛

she then offered her definition/ answer to carlini’s prompt, which carlin posted on her website:
*”love” is like “like” but stronger b/c “love” is when u enjoy being around said person on all levels, and u are comfortable w/ said person and u’d rather be around them then by urself, whether it’s w/ them in a group or alone. u have good conversations, punctuated w/ plenty of humor when necessary, serious when humor is not necessary. u and said person do things that interest the both of u, and said person does things that interest and surprise you, and vice versa. u like learning new things about them, and u do it every day. u wish u could look into their mind and see what they’re thinking and wish they could look into urs. But mostly, I think it’s when u’d rather spend time w/ said person than be by urself.*

i think it’s a very insightful definition, but i think it may be slightly too simplified… to put it bluntly, JM’s not speaking from experience–she said herself that she was an “observer”… you like to think things are that simple and then *bam* you’re in the middle of a relationship and you don’t know which way is up… but its especially simplified with regards to platonic and familial relationships… because i love my sisters both and my parents as well… but there are times (most of the time, actually) when i’d much rather be alone than with them…

and then of course there’s my previous dissertation on love, where i characterized emotion as more of a state of mind than an actual feeling… which i still think could be partially true…

grrr… and before y’all went and messed me up, i thought i had it all figured out… i hate all y’all… then again i’m of the opinion that you have to love someone before you can hate them, so i’m back to square one anyways…

luv y’all
peace
~Jen