Love.

  • Thread starter milefile
  • 48 comments
  • 1,240 views
I wonder if being dead is a good enough reason to cancel love. I think people love the dead, like dead wives, dead parents, etc. But they are gone. How can they be loved? It would seem to be something similar to loving a person who used to be different, loveable. It is all about memory. I think love, for those whom one regularly sees and expresses their affections too, is also very dependent on memory.
 
Originally posted by danoff
What's the difference?


People are more than just what a twisted or sick mind can conjure up. Think about what Milefile was saying about his son. His sons mind is nearly a blank page. When he was first born it had even less on it than it does now. If he is anything like me then he probably felt love for him from the moment he laid eyes on him. He doesn't love him because of his mind of what it thinks. Would a parent stop loving their child because they find out their child is mentaly retarded? Would they love them less?
 
If he is anything like me then he probably felt love for him from the moment he laid eyes on him. He doesn't love him because of his mind of what it thinks.

The easiest way for me to describe it is with the following.

CTL = gamma * LDI + alpha * LDR

Where gamma and alpha are coefficients that vary from person to person.
CTL = Current total love
LDI = Love due to instinct
LDR = Love due to reason


This would mean that even if LDR= 0, LDI can be greater than zero, which is what happens with a newborn child. If LDR, however, is highly negative, the CTL equation can be dominated by the LDR term. This results an a low or even negative CTL – the LDR term effectively nullifying the LDI term.

Would a parent stop loving their child because they find out their child is mentally retarded?

No, if the child were mentally retarded the parent will likely not stop loving them - LDR would still probably be slightly positive and LDI would remain high.

Would they love them less?

Yes, a mentally retarded child has less CTL potential than a normal one because LDR will stay relatively low. So a parent will likely love them less. I know it’s not P.C. to say that, but I think it’s true.

An interesting note here is that the maximum possible CTL would be with a young child (like age 2-6) or a new romantic interest due to simultaneously high LDI and LDR components.

In the case of the child, before the child is 5, LDI is high, but LDR would likely remain low. However, once the child starts getting older LDR will increase. Eventually LDI will begin to drop off creating a maximum.

In the case of the new romance, the potential for LDI and LDR are also both very high.
 
Originally posted by milefile
I wonder if being dead is a good enough reason to cancel love. I think people love the dead, like dead wives, dead parents, etc. But they are gone. How can they be loved? It would seem to be something similar to loving a person who used to be different, loveable. It is all about memory. I think love, for those whom one regularly sees and expresses their affections too, is also very dependent on memory.

That milefile is a good point.

I agree with you that it's hard to love somebody the same way you would love them if they were infront of you. My dog died, obviously his memories will never be forgetten, but the affection and love of having him right there, is gone. It's all memories, and cannot be replaced.
 
Originally posted by milefile
A lifelong love, like a tree, has roots and may call the same place home, but it's current state barely resembles it's fragile birth.

lemme guess, I know this one.....SHELLEY.....no wait, WORDSWORTH!
 
Originally posted by danoff
The easiest way for me to describe it is with the following.

CTL = gamma * LDI + alpha * LDR

Where gamma and alpha are coefficients that vary from person to person.
CTL = Current total love
LDI = Love due to instinct
LDR = Love due to reason


This would mean that even if LDR= 0, LDI can be greater than zero, which is what happens with a newborn child. If LDR, however, is highly negative, the CTL equation can be dominated by the LDR term. This results an a low or even negative CTL – the LDR term effectively nullifying the LDI term.



No, if the child were mentally retarded the parent will likely not stop loving them - LDR would still probably be slightly positive and LDI would remain high.



Yes, a mentally retarded child has less CTL potential than a normal one because LDR will stay relatively low. So a parent will likely love them less. I know it’s not P.C. to say that, but I think it’s true.

An interesting note here is that the maximum possible CTL would be with a young child (like age 2-6) or a new romantic interest due to simultaneously high LDI and LDR components.

In the case of the child, before the child is 5, LDI is high, but LDR would likely remain low. However, once the child starts getting older LDR will increase. Eventually LDI will begin to drop off creating a maximum.

In the case of the new romance, the potential for LDI and LDR are also both very high.

You are examining love mathmatiaclly? Wouldn't that imply that love is always logical and can always be calculated?. Things don't always fit neatly into an algebraic formula.
 
Is this wierd or what? I am really in love with this girl at my school and as soon as i tell her that this thread shows up. Am I meant to take this as a sign?
 
Originally posted by DRIFT4EVA
Is this wierd or what? I am really in love with this girl at my school and as soon as i tell her that this thread shows up. Am I meant to take this as a sign?

yes, looks like you are on a dead cert....
 
You are examining love mathmatiaclly?

LOL yes! I see the irony, but I couldn't resist and I agree with what I wrote.

Wouldn't that imply that love is always logical and can always be calculated?.

No. Did you read my variable definitions?
 
Wouldn't that imply that love is always logical and can always be calculated?.

My variable definitions included love due to reason and love due to instinct. I did not assert that either of those thigs are logical or can even be calculated. I was simply trying to point out the relationship between the total end emotional result and the components of that result.

You were saying that milefile loves his son, even though his son's mind is basically blank. I was essentially saying that instinct is enough to cause love despite a lack of "reason" for love. The only other thing I was pointing out was the negative "reason" can overcome instinct.

I thought that the clearest way to show that was by putting a + sign in between them. Then I went on and made a technical paper out of it to have fun with the idea. I think my conclusions are valid, but the whole idea was simply to show that reason and instinct add or subtract from your overall feeling. I'm sorry if that was confusing, I thought I was making it more clear. I even had my wife proofread and help me make sure that I was explicit.
 
I'm convinced that love can, indeed, be uncondditional and totally selfless. Going back to my son again, and borrowing from what DGB said, I would, without question, die for him if necessity dictated it in order that he not die. I have no expectation of any reward after death, and believe that death is the end of everything. So where is my self interest? What do I gain? Can one "gain" death? Since it is the ultimate loss, I don't think so. This can't be said of all kinds of love, though. Either that, or many instances of the "love" being used to describe a feeling or attachment are inaccurate not really love at all.
 
So where is my self interest? What do I gain?

Nothing. There are people that I would die for also, but I don't consider my love for them unconditional. They could change who they were and act in such a negative way, that I would no longer be willing to die for them.

I could see a case where a child's actions were so bad that a parent who earlier would have died for that child might actually be forced to kill that child in self defense... hmmm... might make a good movie plot.
 
Perhaps "unconditional" does not automatically implicate "permanent".

What condition is it that you might reach that makes it temporary?

If it truely has no conditions, then it must last forever. If it does not last forever, there was some condition that was broken.
 
What condition is it that you might reach that makes it temporary?
I don't know.

If it truely has no conditions, then it must last forever. If it does not last forever, there was some condition that was broken.
I am reminded of some Lyrics by the band Luna, which I referenced in my sig not too long ago: "This feeling's eternal for as long as it lasts.
 

Latest Posts

Back