define love

[M.Clifford]

No: HPFGUIDX 110646

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" 
<quigonginger at y...> wrote:

> I have to wonder, though, are we defining love the same? 

Hi Ginger...
This is a really good question and I'd like to attempt a *little 
bit* of an answer before I try the exercise.
I define Love as a power, as opposed to an emotion, Love has power 
over almost any emotion you can name, Love can turn it on; turn it 
up; turn it down; or turn it off. Love has it's finger on the volume 
control the on/off switch and if you're a bit spiritually minded 
you'll also understand that Loves finger is on the feedback button 
too.

Love will never be as simple as the emotions symptomatic of it. But 
it has a simplicity all of its own. In history many pictures of Love 
have been drawn in an attempt to convey the thousand word essay 
required to define it. And *that* is loves' true simplicity. That it 
can be encompassed in an act, in a visual likeness, in a story. 

Its a wordless invisible sea of dancing stars that we float in both 
terrible and beautiful at the same time. Because it is tangible and 
equally intangible it is our one true proof in life of miracles. 

Nowhere near a closed definition but I have tried.. *blush*


Ginger:
Are we defining it correctly?

Valky: 
I don't know. To me its indefinable. But how am I doing so far?

Ginger:
I went back and reread the original question  which was "Has 
Voldemort or Tom Riddle ever cared for or loved anyone?"
> Now if I replaced LV/TR with my name, I could honestly answer "no, 
I haven't."  Or I could say "Well, yeah, some."  Or I could 
say "Yes, many, many people".  All with the same degree of honesty.  
>


Valky:
Replace LV/TR with my name and I would answer Yes and No.
Yes because I believe in my heart that I have cared about and Loved 
many people. 
And No because I don't really know that *I* did it. The incredible 
surge of *everything* that I felt when I held my children for the 
first time and the powerful *unexplainable* that I have to feel 
*everything at once* for my husband I think is certainly Love but I 
have no ownership of it. I choose to allow it to surge thats about 
all of what I do.

Ginger:  
> Would anyone care to join me in an exercise?  
> 
> Think of 5 people that you love that you met when neither you nor 
> they were an infant.  Got them?
> 

Valky: Yes

Ginger:
> Now ask yourself at what point you started loving them.  I bet it 
> wasn't instant.  I would bet that there was cordiality, 
> acquaintanceship, friendship, and then love.  Your experiences may 
> vary, of course, but if it was a relationship with someone you had 
> not met as a baby, how could you love them right off the bat?
> 

Valky:
Very true and moreover there are people in this list that I have 
travelled through more stages than this with. In fact they are the 
ones I really feel Love for more than others. I find a link to 
*trust* in that which I guess supports what you are saying below.

Ginger:
> The way I understood the question and answer was that Tom had 
never gotten to the point of love.  He may have been cordial, and 
possibly even friends, but not to a great degree.  Similar to a 
relationship one may have with someone at work, but with whom one 
doesn't socialize outside of the workplace.  Comfortable, but not 
loving. 
> Where I see Tom's choice in the matter is to not allow it to 
continue to a deeper level.  
> 

Valky:
I concur, and I see that this equates more than not to his ability 
and courage to trust. Not that I define love as trust in any way. I 
would say that love is truth but not trust. Trust however is a 
choice. Maybe this is a very important step to come in Harry's story 
he needs to lay down his absolute vulnerability to someone who would 
love him and throw caution to the wind on the consequences. ie make 
the choice essentially to allow Love. Something that it is becoming 
rather apparent that LV could never do.

Ginger:
> Back to your 5 people.  If one is a spouse/significant other, then 
> you have loved in a way I have not.  (as my first answer).  

Valky:
Its no mean feat to give Love this much of your quarter either, 
Ginger. But when your faith is rewarded it is rewarded better than 
one can imagine. I have Love in my quarter this way, it was a highly 
dubious notion to me at first, though. I argued with my heart for 
years that such a penitence is just inconceivable. But its done now 
and I would not like it undone.

Ginger:
If some of the others are best friends, then I can relate to that 
(my second).  
>

Valky:
I understand what you mean. Love for my best friends calls to mind a 
subset barrel of emotions. This and your number one are very 
reciprocal forms of love so the develop a closure for us, in being a 
definition of Love.
So saying that because we are interacting with our spouse and our 
best friends within the context of Love a definition develops.
Two definitions in fact, and two *is* a subset (or a part of) one.
In terms of Harry and LV neither have the number one in their lives 
though the opportunity it does seem does and will exist for both, 
and as for number two Harry recalls a nice little cluster of 
emotions for his best friends whereas LV......
By this preposition, according to JkR, LV doesn't recall a set of 
emotions for people close to him, he doesn't preoccupy with those 
emotions he *might* feel. I see it as possibly given by the scene 
where he flees Harry's body when Harry recalls the cluster of 
emotions for Sirius, that LV does this very same thing with any 
cluster of emotion recalled to him, he casts it aside and flees for 
fear of his vulnerability. 

Ginger:
> Remember the days of Storge'?  Did I even spell that right?  We 
went  on about the different types of love for days!  It would be my 
guess that "cared for or loved" would mean a deep love, like with a  
spouse/SO, OR a very deep friendship, or possibly both.  I don't  
think it means that he never had positive feelings towards anyone on 
a basic level.  
> 

Valky:
I disagree, not with what you are saying but with what you are 
implying.
I believe that LV has felt positive emotions toward his fellow man. 
He has probably been reached out by someone in a way so profound 
that he had never felt so much emotion in his life. 
I think, you imply that he was OK with these emotions. I defy that. 
I think he was not. He banished them. He hated them because they 
held themselves better than his anger and bitterness. He defied them 
because they offered alternative to his choice to cling to his rage.

Ginger: 
> My reasoning is that those base feelings are far more easily 
turned off, especially as he reached the tumult of teenhood, than a 
deeper love.  He may have told himself he was illogical or, as 
others have suggested, weak.  A deeper love would have been much 
harder to nullify.  It fits in with JKR's "choices".  Had he never 
been capable of feeling even basic positive feelings towards anyone, 
he would have had no choice.  Del has pointed this out admirably.
> 

Valky:
I guess I don't disagree with your implication then. Not entirely. 
He does fight the deeper Love, I think. He does defy it and reject 
it while it is present inside him. He recognised it in Harry. I am 
sure that is an indication that he knows it personally.


Ginger:
> So, in summary, I think that the type of love in question is a 
deep love, the type that takes time to cultivate. A lesser love can 
be halted mid-growth should the relationship sour. I don't think she 
means this sort of love.  Tom, of course, would never have known 
> familial love.
> 

Valky:
I see that you are right and I hope that my post has been of some 
interest to you and /not/ preachy. *blush*



> As to my last answer above (yes, many), it is a part of my 
religious beliefs (and those of many other religions) to love all 
people.  This is not nearly the love I have for my friends and 
family, but I wish no harm and only the best for everyone.  Tom 
never had this either, that we know of.  I don't think he could have 
become what he did if he had.
> 
> Any thoughts on this?  
> 
> Ginger, who usually doesn't announce to over 11000 people that she 
> loves them (blush)

Loving all people is very hard to define its not reciprocal or 
developed. I too believe that the Love in me is all the world's... 
for want of a better way to put it darn! I guess I will have to say 
that I love all people. 

Valky, not leaving Ginger all alone with her big heart.