»What is 'love'«

tozy wrote:

But when your love is returned, when you connect with another person in love,... who and what you are, and your perception of the world, are changed,... not actively and consciously by you, but by the experience -> you are no longer a separate entity, you are a unity. The Wachowskis give quite a powerful expression of this phenomenon in The Matrix, with Trinity's "I love you"/kiss (the connection made),... and Neo's resurrection (change of perception) as The One (change of who and what he is). After that, what has already been adumbrated before, becomes manifest in their relationship: Neo and Trinity are a unity,... in that they act and grow as one, complementing each other on several levels.

Well said Tozy. There is something magical that occurs when love is returned. That is when there is a greater connection. We must be careful to not define love as needing to be returned, though (not that you are doing this).

It is important to note something that I have not mentioned before. It may shed some light on this discussion. I do believe that there is something innate in all of us that longs and desires to love. I believe that we were created to love and be loved. But this innate potential is snuffed out by sin (or selfishness, distorted thoughts, experiences, etc.).

I would add to this that we all have a longing for connection and community. This is because we were created to love and have this innate potential. When we discover or tap into this part of us that has an innate ability to love it is as if we partner with love inside of us.

1 John 4:12 (NIV) states, "No one has ever seen God, but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us."

1 John 4:16 also states "... God is love."

According to the Bible we were made in God's image. We are like a mirror that is supposed to reflect God. It makes sense that if God is love that we can manifest his love as well.

When we have a connection with God we can manifest love to its fullest. The greatest commandment is to love God with all our heart, soul and mind. This involves a decision. It involves deciding to live for God and hand over our lives to him.

Charles Finney states, "The law of God requires volitional love or good will. This love consists in choice or intention. It is choosing the highest well being of God and the universe of conscious or rational beings as an ultimate purpose."

If we make this decision we will partner with God and be able to manifest love in a most remarkable way.

When this happens, love (defined as God is love) is working on its own in us. When this occurs LOVE can be said to be motivating the way we will choose to conduct ourselves. All of this stemming from our connection to God. But we are still capable of choosing to not act in love.

And there is still a big choice involved in this description of love I have given. It is to choose the "highest well being of God and the universe" or simply put to do God's will. When we do this love will become something that we do naturally in time and feel like the "balls to bones" analogy you gave. We will also be able to feel a strong attachment and affection for others that is a part of love.

tozy wrote:

But lets get back to our own reality: Imagine a frozen lake, and several kids broken through the ice at different places, screaming desperately for help. As a non-parent, your loving attitude towards mankind would most likely prompt you to try and help these kids. As a parent, your actions would most likely be determined by your love for your own kid, thus you would try to save your own kid first and then.... help the others. -> it is the connection that makes the difference.

Building on what I have stated in this post I would say that by being connected to God's desire and will, a parent would be able to act in perfect love and if needed save the other children and sacrifice his own. This is what God did with Jesus on the cross. He chose to allow him to die in order to be able to offer salvation to the world.

I will give an example in the form of a story.

There was a man with the job of raising and lowering a drawbridge so passenger trains could cross a deep canyon. This man had one child, a son, whom he loved very much. One day the little boy wandered toward the bridge without his father noticing.

Soon the father heard a train whistle. As he started to pull the lever to lower the bridge, he looked out the window and saw that his son had crawled down into the big heavy gears. If he pulled the lever his son would be crushed!

There were only seconds to decide. Hundreds of people would die if he didn't lower the bridge--all sons and daughters loved by someone. He took a deep breath and, his heart screaming with pain, pulled the lever.

The bereaved father stood helplessly at the window, beating on it with both fists and screaming out in anguish, as the train zipped quickly over the bridge. The passengers saw him and thought he was waving so they waved happily back without realizing the price that father had just paid for them.

tozy wrote:

CaptPostMod wrote: And it is Neo's ability to love/connect with Smith, his own dark half, that truely sets him free. Temet Nosce Hm,... I wouldn't call it "love/connect". Rather I'd call it understand -> accept -> neutralize as One -> (-1) + (+1) = 0 (-> nothing)

What do you see as the difference? (-1) + (+1) = 0. That "+" is a connection. Isn't it?

Neo himself does not give the reason that he continues to fight to be love for Trin. Smith guesses it might be, but Neo doesn't say it is-

Revolutions wrote:

Do you believe you're fighting for something, for more than your survival? Can you tell me what it is, do you even know? Is it freedom or truth, perhaps peace - could it be for love?... Why, Mr. Anderson, why, why do you persist? Neo: Because I choose to.

Not "Because I love Trin." Neo's motivations and inspirations run much deeper than his love for Trinity.

Smith is the exact opposite end of the equation. Not -2 to Neo's +1 but another 1, a negative 1 to Neo's positive 1. They are equal, but opposite. And while Trinity is definitely important to Neo's transcendence, it is ultimately Neo's relationship to his antithesis that is important. Otherwise it would be a romance movie called "Neo and Trin- The New Adventures of the Übermensch."

If the Wachowski's meant for Neo's relationship with Trinity to be the most important aspect of the trilogy why did the films not end with Reloaded? Neo and Trin kiss, their love is brought to fruition, the end. And why was Neo already on the path to becoming the One before he met her? When Morpheus finds him, Neo still thinks Trin is another man There's no arguing that Neo's love for Trin didn't transform him, but ultimately it is just a stepping stone to his final union with Smith.

To bring in another outside source- in the new Star Wars trilogy, look at where love leads a messiah. Anakin forsakes his humanity in order to protect his love. And his dark half (Vader), Anakin's own Smith, consumes him.

I'll repeat those lines from Adaptation (because I love them)- "I loved Sarah, Charles. It was mine, that love. I owned it. Even Sarah didn't have the right to take it away. I can love whoever I want. [Not loving me back] was her business, not mine. You are what you love, not what loves you. That's what I decided a long time ago."

If you are looking for someone else to complete you either as lover or enemy, you will always be left empty. But if you complete yourself, then love can be something very interesting indeed.

M1 wrote:

Agent Smith: You're empty. Neo: So are you.

CaptPostMod wrote:

What do you see as the difference? (-1) + (+1) = 0. That "+" is a connection. Isn't it?

I take the Oracle's “He is you. Your opposite, your negative…” literally (and, intell,.... think about why Bane is in a coma, when Neo is...), in that I believe that Neo and Smith are two opposing forces within the same identity: Neo is the force striving for the true nature -> selflessness -> The ONE; Smith (the former agent of the Matrix -> Maya -> the world of the self) is the force striving for fulfilment in the ego -> selfishness -> me, me, me.

As long as Neo fights his ego, he acknowledges his ego and thus gives existence to it -> the (+1) and the (-1) exist as separate forces within one identity.
But when he stops fighting Smith, he stops thinking -> his ego looses its existence and is dissolved by ONE-realisation (-> the light) entering, and taking over, Neo's consciousness.

Thus, the (+1) + (-1) is not a connection made, but understanding reached (-> know thyself), and the "0" is the result of this true understanding of "thyself" -> nothing -> enlightenment.

CaptPostMod wrote:

Neo himself does not give the reason that he continues to fight to be love for Trin. Smith guesses it might be, but Neo doesn't say it is - Revolutions wrote: Do you believe you're fighting for something, for more than your survival? Can you tell me what it is, do you even know? Is it freedom or truth, perhaps peace - could it be for love?... Why, Mr. Anderson, why, why do you persist? Neo: Because I choose to. Not "Because I love Trin." Neo's motivations and inspirations run much deeper than his love for Trinity.

Did I say that Trin is Neo's motivation to keep on fighting? This must be a misunderstanding, because I don't think so...

CaptPostMod wrote:

And why was Neo already on the path to becoming the One before he met her?

Because...
Trinity: "The Oracle told me that I would fall in love, and that man, the man who I loved would be the One."

Capt, just because I emphazise Trinity's importance to Neo's path, doesn't mean that I believe her to be the most important aspect of the trilogy.
She is a means to the end,.... but a very important means....

Trinity breaks open Neo's existence as a separate entity(!) -> she gives him a feeling of Oneness in their unity.
She makes Neo the One, with the result that Smith is unplugged from the system. She makes Neo transcend the architect room, enabling Smith to grow to his full potential,.... to be finally understood by Neo.

tozy wrote:

Trinity breaks open Neo's existence as a separate entity(!) -> she gives him a feeling of Oneness in their unity. She makes Neo the One, with the result that Smith is unplugged from the system. She makes Neo transcend the architect room, enabling Smith to grow to his full potential,.... to be finally understood by Neo.

I like this alot!

tozy wrote:

Capt, just because I emphazise Trinity's importance to Neo's path, doesn't mean that I believe her to be the most important aspect of the trilogy. She is a means to the end,.... but a very important means....

That's always the trouble with forum discussions. Various threads of discussion polerize to place people in positions they don't necessarily hold.

I de-emphasized her importance in response to the idea both Mobil and Eddy have written on (Mobil directly, Eddy more indirectly) that love is the ultimate message of the films and religion.

Love is a word, emotion, motivation. All vagueries of perception. It is the connection these words, emotions, motivations point to that is important. The word love exists only in the illusion of language. The emotion love exists only in the illusion of neuro-chemical reactions. The choice love exists only in the illusion of purpose. But the connection love is a point where all those illusions (and more) meet. The understanding of the connection of these illusions transcends language, emotion, motivation...

Quote:

I take the Oracle's “He is you. Your opposite, your negative…” literally (and, intell,.... think about why Bane is in a coma, when Neo is...),

I take it as metaphorically speaking. Of course Smith is not Neo in a literal sense. So in what sense is her comment to be understood? You could look at all the times the question, "what do(es) you/he want(s)" is posed and the answers given it.

Smith has obviously been around for at least a cycle. He dislikes the cycle and wants it to end.

Neo is here for this cycle and wants it to end.

All the actions of both parties are working toward that same goal. The difference? Well..you know what that is.

Eddyrocket,

That last parable you gave is a sad one, but I know where you are going with it. Good work!

intell wrote:

Of course Smith is not Neo in a literal sense.

Why "of course?"

Neo is the liberator, the messiah figure.
Smith is THE gatekeeper. (to borrow Morpheus' words as he borrowed from Kafka)

Reloaded wrote:

SMITH Our connection. I don't fully understand how it happened. Perhaps some part of you imprinted onto me, something overwritten or copied.

CaptPostMod wrote:

Reloaded wrote: SMITH Our connection. I don't fully understand how it happened. Perhaps some part of you imprinted onto me, something overwritten or copied.

That's after the fact, the destruction of "Agent" Smith. The rest of 'Purpose by Smith' clarifies what he is talking about. "Agent" Smith never spoke of an imprinting, overwriting, or copying. And there was no connection until it was proposed by the game.

"Agent" Smith was just a corrupt public official and Thomas Anderson was just a rebel/hacker, not a Christ/Satan showdown. This correlates to how everyday struggles are given some higher significance by the participants in them.

Capt. you mentioned Zion being "programmed" in a nearby thread so surely you know that this, too is part of the programming, right?

tozy wrote:

That doesn't mean that I disregard the importance of choice, commitment and conduct in regard to love; quite the contrary! I just wouldn’t qualify these as the description of love. Rather I would understand them as a means to have (and hold on to),... and a result of... the experience love.

Tozy,

Thanks for sharing this and all your posts. I think they have really got many of us thinking about something that is very important. It is good to know that we agree that choice, commitment and conduct are important. And I agree that these are the glue of love and allow us to hold on to the experience of love. Possibly even "the means," as you say.

I feel that experience or connection are also important and play a big part in love. Experience is a bit vague for me, though. I mean I can have a experience where I kiss someone and think I am in love and later find it was infatuation. Maybe this is why I shy away from defining love as an experience. But I do know what you mean and wanted to validate your opinion.

I can relate to having an experience with God and that causing me to demonstrate universal love for mankind. That experience would ignite love in me and a desire to carry it out. But still I choose to get closer to God (maybe).

Maybe we can also say that a miracle (birth of a child) is a manifestation of God and this (love) would prompt me to love in accordance with what love is.

So, maybe I would say that experience with real love (whether inside us or outside us) can produce love and for us to desire to act according to love. Then of course we would still choose to do this. I think it should be noted that I still think love can be discovered by choice and then manifested (the other way around-I think you hinted toward this a couple posts back with your friend adopting a child).

I do think it should be added that a description of something is usually how we derive a definition. I think that we have somehow got caught up in which ingredient of love comes first. I would say, to be more descriptive and complete, we can say that love is an experience, a connection, a choice, a commitment, a commandment, a conduct, univeral, a strong feeling, intelligent, impartial, forgiving, disinterested, humble, patient, etc. I can live with saying that these are all descriptions of love and part of its definition. A definition is a statement of the meaning (full description) of something or in dictionary terms ... a word. Love is so much more than just as word. This is a difficult task. In order to do this I think we must describe love fully as best we can.

To say love is just a choice may not do Love justice. To say that it is just an experience may not do it justice.

And I should add that I think that your posts have helped me to see love in a more encompassing way and to define it more properly. For that I thank you. I look forward to reading your future posts on various topics for this reason as well.

Peace

I just want to say thank you to:
EddyRocket
Tozy
CaptPostMod

for discussions like these. I really enjoy your posts and hope to read more of your insight as well.

And PsikeyHackr for his statements about what EddyRocket just said. Psikey said that 'we think our words define reality, but reality doesn't need them.

Eddy quoted from 1 Corinthians 13, a whole chapter set aside to define love, most of which, interestingly speaks of what it is not.

It also mentions 'tongues' or 'languages' of angels. Hmm. Maybe they have a def. that nails it.

PS..Shocked? Yeah I know I pick at some of you, sometimes but that is just to serve a purpose.

Quote:

# a strong positive emotion of regard and affection; "his love for his work"; "children need a lot of love" # any object of warm affection or devotion; "the theater was her first love"; "he has a passion for cock fighting"; # have a great affection or liking for; "I love French food"; "She loves her boss and works hard for him" # beloved: a beloved person; used as terms of endearment # a deep feeling of sexual desire and attraction; "their love left them indifferent to their surroundings"; "she was his first love" # get pleasure from; "I love cooking" # a score of zero in tennis or squash; "it was 40 love" # be enamored or in love with; "She loves her husband deeply" # roll in the hay: have sexual intercourse with; "This student sleeps with everyone in her dorm"; "Adam knew Eve"; "Were you ever intimate with this man?" # sexual love: sexual activities (often including sexual intercourse) between two people; "his lovemaking disgusted her"; "he hadn't had any love in months"; "he has a very complicated love life"

I think that love is the bind that keeps humanity together, if it was not for love, then the entire world would be one big blood bath,

but insaying that love is alos the grounds for war. an example of this is paris and helen of troy. this was a woman that started a war because she fell in love with another man.

love to me is like a drug, once you are hooked, all you want is more. i does and will make you do crazy and stupid things. i can honestly say that i would die for the woman that i love. even though my love for this woman is like ghost love for trinity.

To sum up, we need love as humans other wise we will be nothing more than the machines and robots that enslave us, heartless, cold, feelingless machines that walk the earth.

Neo1 wrote:

but insaying that love is alos the grounds for war. an example of this is paris and helen of troy. this was a woman that started a war because she fell in love with another man.

I don't think love was the ground for this war.
Let's stick to the version that Paris and Helena really fell in love and she followed him to Troy.
-> What started the war, I believe, was not their love, but Menelauses feeling of being betrayed (it was an arranged marriage; is love between Helena and Menelaus ever mentioned?).
How would the story have gone if Menelaus had reacted like Ghost?

eddyrocket wrote:

According to the Bible we were made in God's image. We are like a mirror that is supposed to reflect God. It makes sense that if God is love that we can manifest his love as well.

Hm,... if I look at mankind... for example the current conflict about the Mohammed caricatures (hate, violence, even deaths...), I can't escape the feeling that Satan had stood right behind God, when he created mankind in his own image.
Well,... maybe I just don't know enough about the Christian believe to understand this... (maybe I should start a thread: explain Christianity to me )

Anyway... congrats, eddyrocket, for letting this discussion come to a close in such an elegant way! Peace?.... Always!
And my thanks goes back to you all for this interesting discussion!

BTW,.... I think Smith is not really at home in this thread. But I also think we are not yet done with him... -> matrix-explained.com...

There's a real danger in taking Smith out of this thread. Love does start wars. Whether it be (broken record plays again) the star crossed love that lead to violent feuding in Romeo and Juliet, or the fanatic love for country that led to the Nazi regime. This is not to say that love is inherintly bad. Just that, like hate, love is neither good nor evil in itself. It is understanding the connection in love that brings redemption.

Have any of you read The Dark Knight Returns? It's widely considered to be the best superhero comicbook ever written. One of the major themes in it is an exploration of the relationship between Batman and his villains. The connection Batman shares with his villians is just as close to love as it is to hate. Our villians are quite often mirrors of ourselves. Our hatred is quite often a form of twisted love. Because when we hate, we allow that person to define us. Just like when we love.

But if we can move beyond good and evil, love and hate, then we arrive somewhere new. Neo has to understand what his relationship to Smith is. "We can never see past the choices we don't understand." Neo has to understand his choice to keep fighting. And that understanding is the connection. The connection that Rama Kandra speaks of is very tied to Neo's final act.

You are what you love, not what loves you...

Quote:

Hm,... if I look at mankind... for example the current conflict about the Mohammed caricatures (hate, violence, even deaths...), I can't escape the feeling that Satan had stood right behind God, when he created mankind in his own image.

Well the Bible does speak of humanity as a tarnished mirror that doesn't reflect a clear image at present.

Quote:

Well,... maybe I just don't know enough about the Christian believe to understand this... (maybe I should start a thread: explain Christianity to me )

Nah. Don't do that. Read the book. Listening to other people's interpretation of movies has lead me to understand the problem that resulted when Christendom went pop in the 3rd Century. Many of the groups that have come later have beliefs that don't even resemble the teachings from the text.

Tozy wrote:

BTW,.... I think Smith is not really at home in this thread. But I also think we are not yet done with him... -> matrix-explained.com...

captpostmod wrote:

There's a real danger in taking Smith out of this thread. It is understanding the connection in love that brings redemption.

It has been posted from a spiritual perspective that the Smith is the end result of the hatred built up for mankind, that he manifests even from the first time we see him. This comes from the fact that since the machines being made, no love was ever shown them, as a group. The machine, alienated, made many futile attempts to reconcile. They made better products to serve man but mankind viewed them as competition and ended up nuking them.

Deus Ex Machina has the face of a baby. This could represent that the machine is our child, in a sense. Neo's act was the greatest expression of love that could have been showed to them and the only one of note to that date.

The Smith, on the other hand, could be the result of what the machines had learned from mankind. As vanexel711 appropriately quoted: "Where we are from, it is not allowed."

IS5416

CaptPostMod wrote:

Love does start wars. Whether it be (broken record plays again) the star crossed love that lead to violent feuding in Romeo and Juliet, or the fanatic love for country that led to the Nazi regime. This is not to say that love is inherintly bad...

Which gets us back to the question "what is love" and intell's "There a few words as overused, misused, and confused as the word - LOVE."

I wouldn't define "fanatic love" for a country as love; rather I'd call it dazzlement, caused usually by more or less subtle ways of brainwashing, lack of information, upbringing, frustration etc. You don't need to look as far (back) as the Nazi regime. Look at your own country and you'll see this pattern in a far less distinct, but nonetheless present, form -> it's not love, but acquired thinking.

Also, Romeo and Juliet's love is innocent as to the violent feuding of their families. Rather their love is victim to the feuding of their families -> it is foredoomed due to the unforgiving "eye for an eye"-morality of their society.

And Anakin Skywalker? I have only seen Episode 1, but I've read a short summary of his life over at starwars.com....
From what I've read there, it seems that the darkness had gradually grown inside Anakin throughout his youth, and his love for Padme was not the reason, but the final trigger for his fall. The quality of his love for Padme was the effect (of his life experiences), not the cause. Had it not been for Padme, the darkness would nonetheless have eventually overpowered him.

In mankind, love is not a stand alone thing. Even if we are what we have experienced, love is only a part of the sum of our experiences. And what our past experiences have made us, does have an influence on whether and how we experience love -> whether we can break love free from the countless influences of the self and the outside world.

Also, if we carefully analyze those examples of "loves started conflicts", we may come to the conclusion, that it was not love, but something else disguised as love, such as a persons desire to possess etc.,... or social rules.

CaptPostMod wrote:

Just that, like hate, love is neither good nor evil in itself. It is understanding the connection in love that brings redemption.

But what does "understanding the connection" mean? Is it a matter of the intellect?

CaptPostMod wrote:

Our hatred is quite often a form of twisted love. Because when we hate, we allow that person to define us. Just like when we love.

The most important aspects of love, to me, is tolerance and acceptance. For that reason I would be very careful as to how to understand "you define me". As I said above, I believe that love can change who and what you are. But that doesn't mean that a new definition of who and what you are is being imposed on you. Rather, I believe it is a change from within - a growth - based on the experience love -> the power of love is to break open the self.

Hate, on the other hand, anchors a person in the self, thus it has a very different quality of "you define me".

CaptPostMod wrote:

But if we can move beyond good and evil, love and hate, then we arrive somewhere new.

I wouldn't equate "love and hate" with "good and evil". "Good" and "evil" are moral values, whereas "love" and "hate" are modes of perception.
I believe, in worldly and spiritual approach, love transcends the other three -> "good", "evil" and "hate" are separating aspects, whereas "love" has the power to unite.

CaptPostMod wrote:

Neo has to understand what his relationship to Smith is.

Well, you know my interpretation of that moment:

As long as there is the thinker and the thought, there must be duality. As long as there is a seeker who is seeking, there must be duality. As long as there is an experiencer and the thing to be experienced, there must be duality. So duality exists when there is the observer and the observed. That is, as long as there is a centre, the censor, the observer, the thinker, the seeker, the experiencer as the centre, there must be the opposite.
buddhanet.net...

CaptPostMod wrote:

"We can never see past the choices we don't understand." Neo has to understand his choice to keep fighting. And that understanding is the connection. The connection that Rama Kandra speaks of is very tied to Neo's final act.

I'd rather say Neo has to understand, that the moment has come to transcend his choice to keep fighting,... to transcend choice at all, because choice is a separating expression of the self.


A good read about love (Neo-Trinity, Sati...):
katinkahesselink.net...

intell wrote:

Well the Bible does speak of humanity as a tarnished mirror that doesn't reflect a clear image at present.

You know,.... my problem with "we were made in God's image" is,.... where does the potential for evil in man come from?

intell wrote:

Read the book.

Well,.... yep.

tozy wrote:

Hate, on the other hand, anchors a person in the self, thus it has a very different quality of "you define me".

But what about the expression, "blinded by love." Love can be just as blinding and self-centering as anything. People will kill for love. "Precious. My precious," croacks Gollem.

tozy wrote:

CaptPostMod wrote: But if we can move beyond good and evil, love and hate, then we arrive somewhere new. I wouldn't equate "love and hate" with "good and evil". "Good" and "evil" are moral values, whereas "love" and "hate" are modes of perception. I believe, in worldly and spiritual approach, love transcends the other three -> "good", "evil" and "hate" are separating aspects, whereas "love" has the power to unite.

Love tears families apart when someone falls out of love with their spouse and in love with an affair. Love can blind people to other people's crimes and sins. Allowing evil to continue in the world because those that could stop it love those that are perpetrating it.

Conversly, hate unites nations, both for good and evil in times of war. This is not to say it is better to hate than love. But merely that hatred can be used to fuel an act of good, just as equally as love can be used to justify an act of evil. I remember when my wife was giving birth I had to teach her to growl on the push. She would just sort of wimper and not really dig into it, because she's always learned to repress anger and hate. So we had to work through getting her to hate that pain. To growl at it and drive through that pain. All in the name of a very good and loving act, but hatred was more powerful than love in those moments of pain.

It is all in understanding that the emotions are not important, what you do with them is.

Quote:

You know,.... my problem with "we were made in God's image" is,.... where does the potential for evil in man come from?

Misuse of free will. Man still needed guidance, just like Neo still needed training. The reason memes permeate human society (something you asked me about earlier) is because humans have no clue as to how they should live their lives. This is why thy constantly look to peers, the media, parental traditions, religious and political leaders, etc. to define for them what is acceptable and what isn't. - Even on a near unconscious level.

Quote:

Well,.... yep.

Quote:

the darkness had gradually grown inside Anakin throughout his youth, and his love for Padme was not the reason, but the final trigger for his fall. The quality of his love for Padme was the effect (of his life experiences), not the cause. Had it not been for Padme, the darkness would nonetheless have eventually overpowered him.

You should really see Clones and Sith because you have a good grasp of what went on with him. If it was love that he was feeling why did he not respond positively when she said:

"You're a good person, Anakin. Don't do this. You're going down a path where I cannot follow. Turn back...I love you."
?

Capt. I'm sorry but reading about the growling is making me laugh so much that I don't know how to respond to you. Don't take that the wrong way but you crack me up sometimes. I'll be back later.

intell wrote:

the darkness had gradually grown inside Anakin throughout his youth, and his love for Padme was not the reason, but the final trigger for his fall. The quality of his love for Padme was the effect (of his life experiences), not the cause. Had it not been for Padme, the darkness would nonetheless have eventually overpowered him.

Tried to steer clear of Star Wars, but I had to point out, it was love for his mother that began this slow simmering of angst in Anakin. He is ripped from his mother at an early age. Yoda keeps warning that Anakin must let her go. But Anakin can not. In Padme he sees his mother reflected, and when Obi Wan shows up, he instantly re-makes the connection with the man who took her away from him. The man who also allowed her to die by taking Anakin's protection of her away just as he knows Padme will die because he feels he can not protect her adequately.

intell wrote:

Capt. I'm sorry but reading about the growling is making me laugh so much that I don't know how to respond to you. Don't take that the wrong way but you crack me up sometimes. I'll be back later.

I'm glad you've finally learned to laugh at me You used to seem to take me so seriously! Incidentally, the growling didn't work (my son was turned all wrong and too big). We finally had to rush her to the hospital proper, drug her up, and rock the C-section. Oh, what a night!

Quote:

I'm glad you've finally learned to laugh at me You used to seem to take me so seriously!

No. You cracked me up before. I use tactics to change the focus. Plus I had more of an effect than is readily seen.

Quote:

Incidentally, the growling didn't work.

I kinda expected you to say that.

Quote:

We finally had to rush her to the hospital proper, drug her up, and rock the C-section. Oh, what a night!

After all that training...

I keep picturing you telling your wife to growl and feeling a twinge of conscience because you feel like you're corrupting her. Or with a Palpatine-like look on your face. ROTFL!

intell wrote:

After all that training...

No training involved, that was the problem (problem for Anakin too, now that I think about it). We didn't finish the natural childbirth classes. She wasn't ready for the whole thing. The growling was just there in that moment. The best way to complete a task. It gave her something to help focus her push. Ever played sports? You know what I'm talking about then.

intell wrote:

I kinda expected you to say that.

Had a baby?

intell wrote:

I keep picturing you telling your wife to growl and feeling a twinge of conscience because you feel like you're corrupting her. Or with a Palpatine-like look on your face. ROTFL!

I never have a twinge of consciousness about corrupting people (though I never corrupted my wife, if anything, she's corrupted me ).

I love Satan the corrupter. He's such a beguiling figure. "Pleased to meet you, hope you guessed my name." But, of course, being a Buddhist I only see the corrupter as an archetype of ourselves. It is a predatory and sophistacted piece of you. A defense mechanism against how utterly out of control we all really are.

intell wrote:

I use tactics to change the focus.

Really? I hadn't noticed. (You are a magnificent troll, intell )

Quote:

The growling was just there in that moment. The best way to complete a task. It gave her something to help focus her push. Ever played sports? You'd know what I'm talking about then.

Yeah I know. "I can feel your anger. It gives you focus!" (Sidious)

Quote:

Had a baby?

Not me. Was one once.

Posters shouldn't be afraid of their trolls. Trolls should...you know.

i think that's what morpheus says to neo when they first speak together, and i think that's what love is--not an attraction to someone/thing, but an innate restlessness that makes you a searcher. morph and his gang may have been watching neo, but neo was actively seeking them. he followed morpheus' actions in the matrix, knowing that to find morph was something he wanted and needed w/out really knowing why.
neo's love for morpheus and what morpheus appeared to stand for can't be underestimated or overlooked.
all neo's actions were motivated & dictated by that splinter in his mind, the restless seeking, from taking the red pill (plucked from the tree of knowledge no doubt) to rescuing trin at the apparent expense of humanity.
people like the merovingian, the twins, most of the other agents, however threatening or interesting they appear to be, were nothing more than diversions--temptation, if you will--representing roads best not taken because they're dead ends. mobil avenue, the merovingian's residence, even zion itself, were distractions and dead ends only to the extent he let them be. that splinter in his mind demanded neo follow a strait and narrow road to the source. smith, w/whom he chose to unite, was his adversary, in the sense that jacob's wrestling angel was an adversary. all that intense and careful preparation for combat, it was neo fighting w/himself, fighting the urge to do what cypher did--return to the safety of the matrix, return to a world where choices are made for us, rather than us having to make choices.
neo's apocalpytic fight w/smith was his wrestling w/the angel . by absorbing all the knowledge attained during his sometimes violent exchanges w/the likes of the oracle, the architect, smith et al, neo was finally able to achieve a unique unity w/all the realities that existed.
and it all started because of that splinter in his mind, the need to reach out and try to embrace the mysteries of the Other.
nin