Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    
    	I believe one must negotiate the rim of "co-dependant chasm"
    - without falling in - to get "there". Those who leap...well, we'll
    just skip saying where they end up, for the most part. It feels
    like awareness and realization over a long period of time, as opposed
    to hypnotic enchantment and blissful ignorance over a much shorter one.
                
    	Joe Jas

.0> any landmarks to the territory to tell you which you're closer to?

    If you feel comfortable and at home with the person, I'd say you're much
    closer to love.  That is, if the affection/infatuation is there.  I know
    I'm in love if I can stand to be away from the person for long periods
    of time and still feel the warmth of our closeness.

    Infatuation ("like"?) to me is the butterflies and the giddy feelings and
    the "wanting to spend all your time together" feeling.  
    	
.0> Is it crossed in a momentary leap or over a long period of time?  

    I think its possible to become infatuated with someone instantaneously.
    But I don't believe it's possible to fall in love with them instantly.
    Love is such a learning process, learning about each other.  To me,
    there are many varying degrees of love (which I've learned that I need
    to define when I use to word, "Love").

    To me, love has NOTHING to do with chemistry, nor physical attraction, nor
    physical need.




	IMHO, of course.


	kath

    	I don't know that there is a name for this middle ground; I can't
    seem to think of one right now anyway.  I think it's simply degrees of
    like and degrees of love.  To me, it's an ongoing process:  I start out
    liking someone.  As I get to know them better, I like them more and
    more (hypothetical situation here), to greater and greater degrees.  At
    some point -- and who *knows* when -- you pass over into love.  And
    from there, I begin to love them more and more.


    	I know it sounds like I'm saying it happens quickly, but I'm really
    not.  It happens over time, and with different people the time factor
    will also (probably) be different.  Landmarks?  That's a tough one.
    Perhaps one way is to ask yourself, "If <person> were taken away from
    me for some reason, how would I feel?".  For some reason, asking the
    inverse question here reveals more to me than most direct questions
    (such as "How much do I like <person>?").


    Brian

For those who see shades in Life, there is a whole spectrum between Like
& Love.  For those who see only black & white, there is only Like & Love.

I think Love comes when the other person becomes more/most important in your
life.  When you trust them implicitly.  When just the sight/smell of them
evokes memories and they are deeply ingrained in your synapse's.

It can happen in an instant, or over years, depending on how niave/trusting
you are.

Jim.

    The middle ground between love and like is the same as the middle
    ground between red and Mozart. There ain't one. They're not the same
    thing. You can dislike someone you love. You can like someone and not
    love them. They're independent.
    
    	Jon

   .1> Some abstract landmarks like the inability to concentrate, 
    butterflies in my stomach, and a general mushiness/mellowness
    that takes over me, are mine.
    
    That's a good definition of infatuation - the "in love" feeling,
    but that's not necessarily love - and love does not necessarily
    require that feeling.
    
    .0> Is it crossed in a momentary leap or over a long period of time?  
    
    .1>I think going "in to love" can happen in an instant, but going
    "out of love" takes much longer.
    
    I think it takes some amount of time to actually love someone, and
    that time can vary depending on the situation and how trusting you
    are.  To fall in love can happen in a heartbeat.
    
    To me, love is that you really do *care* about the other person
    - that you will make room in your life for them, do things that
    are best for that person, as well as things that they want.  For
    the love to be healthy, this must be reciprocated.  Otherwise, it's
    arguable whether it's love or codependancy.  Notice, that you can
    love any number of people, and show it in any number of ways.
    
    In love is mostly chemistry and need, but can be the starting ground
    for genuine love.

    Elizabeth

    
    Jon, (.6)
    
    I really liked that. And I agree totally.
    
    I often do not love my husband for periods of time, but I 
    always like him. And there are people that I do not like very
    much really, but love them just the same.
    
    Well put! I'm glad you said it.
    
    Melinda

    I don't understand why would you love someone that you dislike?
    Dislike seems rather harsh, you might not always have a feeling
    of "being in love" but you still like the person. I can't think
    of a condition that I would love someone I disliked.
    
    Gail

re.10  love comes in many ways and forms.                       
    
    to me like and love seems to be the chemistry in a relationship. 

      Everyone seems to be taking the tack that once you've reached the
      "middle ground" things must move on to love. There may be many
      reasons why escalating the relationship is not possible. I believe
      some relationships can stay at the middle ground and still be
      satisfying for the people involved. liesl

    RE.10
    
    I love my brother with all my heart, but I don't like him.  He has done
    some things over the years that I haven't liked, but I truly do love
    him.

    re .9:
    
    Thank you, Mel.
    
    re .10:
    
    There's nothing to understand about loving someone you dislike; you
    just do. It makes absolutely no sense at all.
    
    I had a cousin like that. He wasn't a very nice person, I didn't like
    being around him any more than I had to, as he didn't bring out the
    best in me, either. But he was in his own way an interesting fellow,
    and I loved him dearly.
    
    The repertoire of songs is also full of this theme: "If I Didn't Love
    you, I'd Hate You" and "I Love You but I Don't Like You" spring to mind
    immediately.
    
    In general you don't end up loving someone you dislike, though that
    does happen. It's far more likely that you'll learn to dislike someone
    you love.
    
    	Jon

    
    	Listen...
    
    	If you find yourself "in love" with someone you actually do
    not like "as a person" or whatever, consider that what you're thinking
    is "love" is actually a disease called co-dependancy. Co-dependancy
    is what enables *addicts* and allows things like "wife beating" to
    occur periodically and repeatedly. Co-dependancy can get you killed.
    
    	My proof is in the puddin' - these songs that people have mentioned.
    Song are written to make money. Money is made proportionally to a
    song's popularity. A song's popularity is dependant on promotion,
    but moreso to it's identify_ability with the target audience popultion.
    These songs exist and are known because they give a good return
    in $ when played, and that is because most people readily identify
    with what is being said; "It's sad to belong to someone else, when
    the "right one" comes along".
    
    	I wonder how many people have been abused, beaten, or even killed
    - in one context or another - because "the right one came along" or 
    whatever? They should change the lyrics to; "It's sad to be a
    co-dependant, cause the "right one" never comes". It's kinda like
    "someday"
    
    	But, alas, *that* wouldnt sell.
    
    	Joe Jas 
    

    I think that the English language needs more descriptive words than
    "like" or "love."  Aren't there different types of "love", as in love
    for fellow (wo)man, relative, friend etc.?  And then there's romantic
    love, which I've always felt to be a much more intense emotion.

    At any rate, I don't think that there is a real middle ground since that
    would mean that there are two endpoints.  Which term you chose to use
    depends on what your goals are ... one might have different long-term
    objectives if you are "in love" than if you are "in like."

    re disliking a loved one
    
    It sounds as if people say they love someone out of an obligation
    to say that. The examples given are of relatives, do you feel obligated
    to love a relative, you are *expected* to love your brother/sister
    etc.
    
    I do not love people I dislike. Some of these people include people 
    I am "supposed" to love. Well, supposed to isn't a good enough reason
    to love someone.
    
    Gail

    It's easy to say that. It's much harder to stop loving someone simply
    because you don't particularly like them. I brought up the example of a
    relative because relatives you love but don't like are pretty common; I
    meant it as an example of how it *could* happen.
    
    	Jon

    
    I do not love my brother out of obligation, I love him deep in the core
    of my soul.  I love him in that I would give my life for him if
    necessary, I love him and when I see him, I feel the need to give him a
    big hug and kiss. I still don't like him.

         Hmmm...I guess I will defend my position by defining
         my terms. I think I am arguing about apples and oranges
         again...
         
         Loving that which I dislike.
         
         I have to disagree with the replies that infer that
         I have #1) *necessarily* a choice about whom I love, 
         #2) *necessarily* a co-dependence with a love I dislike.
         
         Choices...
         
         First, I have a lot of control over whom I choose
         to *like*. It is an action that I decide to do or
         not do. I base those decisions on a person's actions,
         his/her attitudes, who knows...how long his inseam
         is!
         
         But love..there are two reasons that I cannot control
         love...
         
         Sometimes, it has a tendancy to appear unrequested and 
         illogically. Haven't you ever just felt an immediate
         kinship with someone....and I do not mean lust here,
         but an innate understanding about what makes a person
         tick....how he/she feels....? I once loved a little
         old lady that taught music in the grade school where
         I attended classes. She made music live, and made
         children sing and have fun doing it. I didn't like
         her....I still don't. She came into our small New
         England town married a man to attain status, and
         was your basic bitch. BUT, she did make music magic
         for kids. And we all loved her....for her special
         gift....we disregarded her basic personality...and
         just listened to her music.
         
         And, perhaps more importantly, LOVE is something you 
         *give* away. It is not something that you barter or tender for
         payment. I do not *love* only where it is appreciated
         or returned. I love with no strings, no expectations,
         no prerequisite and post tests. I can love someone
         and walk away. If I "like" them, I feel a need to
         contribute somehow to their lives....love is a
         non-recursive function....[grin]. People should be
         loved for what they are...period. It is appropriate to
         "like" only those that meet standards. There would
         be fewer "damaged" people in this world if we loved
         people just for themselves instead of for what we
         wish them to be.
         
         There was a man who used to write music for me ages ago,
         it seems. I loved him...his "sight", his lyrics,
         his songs, he was witty, shy, eloquent, tender...
         [sigh]. How could you not *love* a person with such
         talent and gifts when you saw from whence he came?
         Child of an alcoholic mother and a long-gone father,
         he had his share of problems...but he created magic
         and beauty in his music. And he was the most obnoxious bastard when
         threatened I have ever met...when he would transform
         into petty, cunning, devious, nasty, verbally abusive,
         etc...
         
         I don't really *like* him much, but I do love him
         for the beauty of his creations and the pain I see
         in him. 
         
         Co-dependancy...
         
         Although I buy into the definition of
         co-dependence as stated, I do not think it is
         all-encompassing. In either of the above situations, 
         I was not co-dependent upon these people. I neither
         helped nor hindered their situations by my actions,
         and I did not remain in the realtionships out of
         a desire to help or fix, nor was *I* abused in any way. 
         
         "In Love" is another situaton all together...I merely
         "loved" these folks...I was not "in" love with them.
         
         Melinda
                   

      I read once that one of the physical things that tends to make one
      person "love" another could be that the person reminds you of
      someone else you love. The man who has your father's kind eye may
      attract you and then you transfer some of the love feelings you
      have for your father to that man. The same thing can happen with
      similar gestures or the sound of a voice. First impressions can be
      very lasting and though you may decide later that you don't like
      that person you can't turn off the love because it has been
      imprinted.

      Remember psych (or was it biology) where you learned about
      ducklings that hatched and saw a person rather than an adult duck.
      They imprinted to the person and followed them rather than the
      mother duck. Perhaps love can work in a simialr fashion. liesl

        For me the difference between love and like is a matter of
    degrees.  When I like or love someone I want to spend time with
    them, I care to some degree about their well-being, I am willing
    to make sacrifices or compromises for them and I am willing to
    open up and make myself vulnerable.  With someone I love I'm
    willing to give much more of myself than I am with a someone I
    like.  For me then the middle ground becomes the area between
    like a lot and love a little.  
    
        I agree with those people who believe that there are different
    types of live.  I think that there is romantic love which involves
    some degree of lust, Platonic love where you have no romantic feelings
    for the other person and situational love where you love someone
    because of a situation has caused you to be exposed to a significant
    amount of time to develop a love for them.
    
        I think that romantic and Platonic love are things that we choose
    to enter into.  Situational love is that love that develops between
    people who are somehow forced together.  In some cases the people
    would never have had any kind of relationship if they'd had a choice.
    I'd say that the kind of people who develope situational love are
    family members, people who work together for a long time and people
    who are forced to face a crisis or disaster together.  I'd also say
    that some romantic and Platonic loves eventually turn into situational
    loves.
    
        I think that there is also like and love of aspects of another
    person.  For example there are actors and actresses who I love because
    of their acting abilities and dislike because of their politics.  When
    I analyze my feelings, I find that it's their acting abilities that
    I love, and their political activities that I dislike.  I only love
    a portion of the person, not the whole person.
    
        When I do love the whole person, that certainly doesn't prevent
    me from disliking some of the things that they do.  And if someone
    that I love persists in doing things that I dislike, I may eventually
    stop loving them, and probably at the same time stop liking them
    too.
    
    ASP

    re .21
    
    Melinda, I read with great interest your attempt to explain how
    one can love someone that they do not like. Like your note and a
    couple previous to yours, I will take your word (read: believe)
    that such a situation can and does exist. I can not, however, 
    understand it.
    
    But after reading .21, I might have a clue as to why I can't understand
    it. I have one person in my life that I am "in love" with. I define
    the relationship as such because it is a romantic relationship, 
    he is a person I would do anything for, I care and worry about him, 
    I trust him, can depend on him and I would feel a great sadness if 
    he were not in my life. These are just a few of what I consider 
    "criteria" for a love relationship.
        
    Excluding the romantic criteria, the other criteria do not collectively
    fit other relationships in my life. I have friends I like and
    care for, I have a sister and parents that, at best, I am concerned
    about. But no one else warrants the same criteria that my SO does.
    These "like" situations may be considered "love" by others but I guess I
    must be placing a different value on the term love. 
    
    I suppose missing out on parental love tends to warp ones values.
    
    Gail

         Gail,
             
>    I will take your word (read: believe)
>    that such a situation can and does exist. I can not, however, 
>    understand it.
         
         You know, I find this very complimentary. Often,
         people who do not *understand* refuse to accept the
         existance of other points of view. Your gracious
         acceptance of one shows a great deal of sincerety
         and sensitivity to other people's feelings.
    
>    I define
>    the relationship as such because it is a romantic relationship, 
                                                      
         This is a very clear-cut determining factor. It makes
         me understand far better where you are coming from.
         Romantic *love* is never a determining factor in
         my definition...see how very far apart we are? [grin]
         
>    he is a person I would do anything for, I care and worry about him, 
>    I trust him, can depend on him and I would feel a great sadness if 
>    he were not in my life. These are just a few of what I consider 
>    "criteria" for a love relationship.
         
         I wouldn't disagree with this. The Romantic love
         of my life fits this kind of definition. Some others
         fit it also....the determining factor that I have
         with an SO...is that I feel a *commitment* to them...
         I have expectations....with others I do not.
        
>    Excluding the romantic criteria, the other criteria do not collectively
>    fit other relationships in my life. I have friends I like and
>    care for, I have a sister and parents that, at best, I am concerned
>    about. But no one else warrants the same criteria that my SO does.
>    These "like" situations may be considered "love" by others but I guess I
>    must be placing a different value on the term love.
         
         I too, accept what you you are saying....[believe
         it]....but lack *understanding* as you do of my views.
         To not have people, besides a single person, that
         I feel this way about would make me feel very alone,
         and terribly dependent....I wouldn't say that I *love*
         a *lot* of people, but there are surely several....they
         are all very special.
         
         Perhaps you are braver than I? If I were to find
         myself without my SO...[God forbid]...there is a
         whole network or people that would hold me up, love
         me, nurture me...until my world righted itself. If
         I had only him....I would live in fear of there *not*
         being him....[did that make sense?]...perhaps I hedge
         my bets...that is all....
    
>    I suppose missing out on parental love tends to warp ones values.
         
         "Warp" is not a word that I would choose to describe
         another's emotional feelings; or my own. Feelings
         are real...they exist...and not many of them could
         be classified as right or wrong, better or worse.
         They just *are*. We each feel the way we do...and
         we should accept that or change it. But I think
         addressing it in a derogatory manner suggests that
         we do not much *love* ourselves....something I think
         any of us must do before we *can* love someone else.
         
         Melinda
    

    
    I've been told that the Greeks have at least fifteen different words
    for "love".
    
    Can anyone enlighten us with the list, and their meanings ?
    
    /Eric

    re:.0
    
    Didn't I answer this somewhere else? =wn=, perhaps?
    
    Anyways, I don't think there *is* a middle ground between "like" and
    "love". I think "love" is the middle ground between "like" and "*in*
    love".
    
    re:.10/.17
    
    Loving a relative may sound like it must be an obligation, but how
    can you tell. My brother and I *never* got along -- always fighting,
    arguing, being nasty to each other. You could say that I disliked
    him, but I always felt this sort of emptiness in my soul because I
    *wanted* to love him. When he died, I grieved as much for him as I
    would for any loved one.
    
    I also have a nephew who is, to put it kindly, a n'er-do-well. And
    it kills me to see him act the way he does, because I do love him.
    I guess maybe in this case, though, it's not so much that I dislike
    *him*, but that I dislike what he does.
    
    Moving away from family... I have an ex-lover who hurt me pretty
    badly (no, make that *very* badly), and I dislike her for that,
    but at the same time, I still love her deep down in my soul.
    
    --- jerry

    eros
    agape
    
    							Ann B.

    Philios

    
    Very good, Eric: the Greeks have the last (or in my opinion at least
    the best) word on the difference between like and love. (This note
    reminds me of the argument between Zeus and Venus about who derives
    more sexual pleasure from sex, men or women. They decided to ask Teresias,
    a wise man who was both man and woman, but I can't remember the
    answer. Does anyone else?)
    
    The Greeks had 5 words: eros, agape, thanatos, caritas, and philos
    (sp?). Eros is obvious; thanatos is love of God; caritas is charitable
    love; philos is the love in friendship; and agape is something like respect
    or admiration.

    
    Eileen

RE: .30

>    (This note
>    reminds me of the argument between Zeus and Venus about who derives
>    more sexual pleasure from sex, men or women.

For no particular reason, this reminded me of the argument as to
whether engaging in sex was work or pleasure. Turns out it's
actually pleasure - had it been work, rich people would employ poor 
people to do it for them.

--------------

Hebrew has two words. 'Love' may be used to pertain to anything: 
relatives, spouse, food, books, whatever. So, if one says one loves 
Cleopatra, it would mean different things, depending on whether Cleo 
is one's SO, mother, or the movie.

When the same root is declined in another case, it means, 'to be IN
love'.

There is no word for 'like'. The other word really means 'to be fond 
of'. It can ONLY be used with reference to a person and implies
great closeness, sans the sexual aspect.

---------------

I do not believe the people who say they are capable of loving more
than one person at a time. Of course, they can define and redefine
the meaning of 'love', spend much time explaining away the various
inconsistencies (they usually do) and eventually maybe convince
themselves, if no one else. 

I wish luck to all those who believe it. 

-- Ron

1:  Correction on the Greek terms:
    
    Philos--love as of friends or brothers, friendship.
    
    Caritas--love as of the poor one helps, charity.
    
    Agape--love of the community, generosity.
    
    Eros--sexual love, desire.
    
    See also C. S. Lewis, _The_Four_Loves_.
    
    Thanatos is "death", not a form of love.
    
2:  Tiresias said that women experienced nine times the pleasure
    that men did from the sexual act.  He was later turned into
    a grasshopper.
    				-John Bishop

    Well...!!!, that should teach Tiresias to keep his opinions to himself.

    Or should that be "...keep her opinions to herself."?
    
    Or "...keep his opinions to herself."?
    
    						Ann B.

    Re -1: His to himself.  
    
    		 Tiresias was a Seer - a blind Seer.
                 He was a major character in Sophocles'
    		 play, _Oedipus Rex_. 
    
    		 (This was in his pre-grasshopper phase.)
    
    					andrew