love and hate : a ship or a glitch?

[cacian]

Is love a feeling or a marriage of two minds?
I am not sure.
However I think there is a link between hatred and love because they are the two extremes of feelings.
Humans are capable of experiencing love of something or someone and then after a while hating that very same thing they called love. Intense feelings can get overboard. I think reading love story books do not help because in reality love is a struggle and not an easy ride for all of us. I one to admit it. When I was much younger I thought I could just fall in love and surf the world happily ever after. Few years down the line and I realised I read too many fairy tales and watched too many love movies.

Existence is dictated by feelings and so we are to work towards eradicating hatred to hold on to the good feeling factors. Many give up on love because they find the person dealing with intricate. A friend of mine admitted that she never loved or loves any of her past and present partners. She said she did not know how to.

Relying on the myth that we function between bad and good, binary is the word, is perhaps an underview of what humans are capable of.

[papayahed]

I like peas but hate pea soup. Like that?

[cacian]

I like peas but hate pea soup. Like that?

LOL no like this:
I like please but I hate to say it.:biggrin5:
Or I love to grow peas in my garden but I hate to think I would eat them.
Which means you start off as you mean to go on but then you kind of decide you do not want it anymore.
A reaction and a dereaction kind of thing.

[Volya]

As though you go on a journey to try and achieve something, but when you get what you're looking for, you find out that it's not what you really wanted?

[Delta40]

You mean the qualities that often attract you to a person can end up being the very things you hate about them.

[cacian]

As though you go on a journey to try and achieve something, but when you get what you're looking for, you find out that it's not what you really wanted?
Yes something like that. I usually do not know what I am looking for exactly and so when I find something I try it without worrying too much about it. I experiment because one never knows with a person. We are different all the time. We change with time and so we cannot rely on being the same all the time.

You mean the qualities that often attract you to a person can end up being the very things you hate about them.
Qualities are a long shot for me. I personally have not experienced hatred on the ground of qualities being the reason.
It is difficult to qualify a person because people change all the time.

[Buh4Bee]

This doesn't make any sense. It would be helpful if you'd either clearly explain what you mean or don't post. It's EXTREMELY frustrating to click on a link and have this strand of sarcasm so often.

[papayahed]

LOL no like this:
I like please but I hate to say it.:biggrin5:
Or I love to grow peas in my garden but I hate to think I would eat them.
Which means you start off as you mean to go on but then you kind of decide you do not want it anymore.
A reaction and a dereaction kind of thing.

dereaction? I'm not sure what that means.

[Maximilianus]

dereaction? I'm not sure what that means.
I would humbly say a dereaction (a word that doesn't appear to exist) is the already stated above:


Which means you start off as you mean to go on but then you kind of decide you do not want it anymore.

Then rephrased as:


As though you go on a journey to try and achieve something, but when you get what you're looking for, you find out that it's not what you really wanted?


And if I'm not mistaken, I'd rather speak of action and reaction, considering that a reaction appears to be the natural response to a previous action, in my humble view. Speaking of actions and reactions seems clearer to me.

[cacian]

This doesn't make any sense. It would be helpful if you'd either clearly explain what you mean or don't post. It's EXTREMELY frustrating to click on a link and have this strand of sarcasm so often.

Buh4Bee I do apologise humbly if my post did not make any sense.
I shall rephrase it as much as I can.


dereaction? I'm not sure what that means.

A dereaction could be the opposite of action. Active and Inactive, Action Unaction? Unaction does not sound right.
Evolution and Devolution for example.


I would humbly say a dereaction (a word that doesn't appear to exist) is the already stated above:



Then rephrased as:




And if I'm not mistaken, I'd rather speak of action and reaction, considering that a reaction appears to be the natural response to a previous action, in my humble view. Speaking of actions and reactions seems clearer to me.

Hi Maximilianus.
Do you mean to say that an action is not deactivated that it is always reactionary?

[papayahed]

A dereaction could be the opposite of action. Active and Inactive, Action Unaction? Unaction does not sound right.
Evolution and Devolution for example.



OK, Here's the problem:

The opposite of "action" is "no action".
"dereaction" is not a word.

Previously you had mentioned that you like to use your definition of words. Can you see how confusing it is to the rest of the posters, it's like we are speaking different languages. If the point is to learn and have meaningful discussions then it wouldn't be a good idea to use the accepted definitions and get to the heart of the matter instead of getting lost in the unimportant minutiae of nonwords.

[cacian]

OK, Here's the problem:

The opposite of "action" is "no action".
"dereaction" is not a word.

Previously you had mentioned that you like to use your definition of words. Can you see how confusing it is to the rest of the posters, it's like we are speaking different languages. If the point is to learn and have meaningful discussions then it wouldn't be a good idea to use the accepted definitions and get to the heart of the matter instead of getting lost in the unimportant minutiae of nonwords.

I see what you mean sometimes but there is a way to everything even words.
I spend sometime wondering why some words have their opposites like evolution/devolution important/unimportant/ and yet action has not got one and so I make them up in the hope one would see what I mean. Surely we are not all immune to guessing or understanding new words.
It does not harm if we some time can stretch the imagination and try to understand what a word mean even when it is not in the dictionary.
We are quite happy to adopt insignificant words such as blogs/blovel but when it comes to a word such as dereaction you seem to overact over it.
Act and React. Act and Deactivate
Action Deactivation actually dereaction is not that far out and so one can guess what it means more or less.
So the point of any conversation is to be openminded about new suggestions and words.
After all this a literary forums where creativity of new language should be encouraged.

[papayahed]

So the point of any conversation is to be openminded about new suggestions and words.
After all this a literary forums where creativity of new language should be encouraged.

This is a forum to communicate with others, making up definitions that others don't know hinders that process. Wouldn't you rather discuss the actual topic you brought up rather then have every thread you open devolve into a debate about the meaning of words.

[cacian]

This is a forum to communicate with others, making up definitions that others don't know hinders that process. Wouldn't you rather discuss the actual topic you brought up rather then have every thread you open devolve into a debate about the meaning of words.

papayahed I don't know I think I'd like to think there is more to a conversation then sticking rigidly to the topic.
I like to think that extra new things/stuff that come out in conversation are little bonuses that we would not have spoken or thought about them had it not been for a specific subject to start with. I Suppose one has to start somewhere so a prompt has to be specified and the rest should amplify for the better or the worse haha but I take my chances.
The idea is to move from the specifics to the unspecific so that all of us have something to contribute.
Some would not have had a chance to get involved in a conversation otherwise because specifics only target the few not the majority.
So the more varied the conversation thread the more involvement from all sides and the more different opinions.
This is I see conversation and so I do not mind not sticking entirely to the topic per say.

[tonywalt]

This is like Stoner conversation topics. We really need a "Stuff you say when you are stoned" thread.

[papayahed]

papayahed I don't know I think I'd like to think there is more to a conversation then sticking rigidly to the topic.
I like to think that extra new things/stuff that come out in conversation are little bonuses that we would not have spoken or thought about them had it not been for a specific subject to start with. I Suppose one has to start somewhere so a prompt has to be specified and the rest should amplify for the better or the worse haha but I take my chances.
The idea is to move from the specifics to the unspecific so that all of us have something to contribute.
Some would not have had a chance to get involved in a conversation otherwise because specifics only target the few not the majority.
So the more varied the conversation thread the more involvement from all sides and the more different opinions.
This is I see conversation and so I do not mind not sticking entirely to the topic per say.

That's not what I'm talking about. The idea is to have a conversation that is meaningful. If 5 people believe the definition of reaction is the physical/mental response to external stimuli and one person believes the the definition of reaction is non-action then the conversation is cannot be meaningful because the the participant are not talking about the same thing. There is nothing to gain if everybody isn't clear about what is being discussed.

[cacian]

That's not what I'm talking about. The idea is to have a conversation that is meaningful. If 5 people believe the definition of reaction is the physical/mental response to external stimuli and one person believes the the definition of reaction is non-action then the conversation is cannot be meaningful because the the participant are not talking about the same thing. There is nothing to gain if everybody isn't clear about what is being discussed.

Ok let's have a go at this again.
I think if 5 people had a prior agreement that the definition of 'action' is a response to a prior reaction then there is nothing to talk about because they have agreed on it to be the same and so the conversation would actually end before it has even began.
If then one comes in and says that it is actually has a different meaning and that he or she has come up with new word 'dereaction' because he or she could not find the opposite of the word 'action' then I think the five people present would react to this act . The interesting bit here is not that one had believed the word to be different it is the fact that it would generate various different reactions from all five including the sixth person i which means the conversation can go on for a bit longer and there is much more to talk.
In other words there is no point in me starting a conversation if you are going to agree with me all along.
The differences in opinions is makes for many conversations including the ones we do not agree with.

[papayahed]

Ok let's have a go at this again.
I think if 5 people had a prior agreement that the definition of 'action' is a response to a prior reaction then there is nothing to talk about because they have agreed on it to be the same and so the conversation would actually end before it has even began.
If then one comes in and says that it is actually has a different meaning and that he or she has come up with new word d'ereaction'because he or she could not find the opposite of the word 'action' then I think the five people present would react to this act . The interesting bit here is not that one had believed the word to be different it is the fact that it will generate various different reactions from all five and the sixth person included which means the conversation can go on for a bit longer.

Yes, let's try again. If you want my opinion about liking something vs hating something why would you intentionally cloud that question with a discussion about the meaning of the word "reaction". The definition of reaction is not up for debate, it has an accepted common definition that everybody understands and that is the basis of effective communication.

[Volya]

....this thread is not about the vocabulary that some people choose to use, it was about love/hate (or something about that). So I ask that you keep the discussion on topic.

EDIT: Yeah, what papaya said

[cacian]

Yes, let's try again. If you want my opinion about liking something vs hating something why would you intentionally cloud that question with a discussion about the meaning of the word "reaction". The definition of reaction is not up for debate, it has an accepted common definition that everybody understands and that is the basis of effective communication.


I am not wanting to cloud anything the debate is open for anyone to come in and add something if they wanted to.
I can juggle many conversations at once that is what the internet is about. It allows me to do many things at once or one after the other hence speed time technology.
It would very different in real life because it is a face to face situation and it would be called rude to interrupt.
About the word 'action' 'reaction'. There has to be a way to say that a reaction to an action has been triggered wrong and that a reaction that has started off as a result of an action has been deactivated by something.
So a action should have three outcomes :
One: is a reaction which means it worked in accordance to the action itself and so agrees with it.
Two :a 'dereaction' which means it has under or overreacted to the act and therefore doe not agree with it.
Three: No reaction whatsoever and that means either passive nothing happens. There is no word for it either.
So really two words are missing here. One I made up and called it dereaction and the third could be unreaction meaning unreactive.

[tonywalt]

I read the above and downed two Valiums. I would say that is a Reaction

[Paulclem]

I read the above and downed two Valiums. I would say that is a Reaction

:lol:

I don't have a word for it - perhaps this one I just made up cacophonetics, or maybe it is just babelous.

[papayahed]

I don't have a word for it - perhaps this one I just made up cacophonetics, or maybe it is just babelous.

I think Paul just called us Babes!!!:ladysman:

[Paulclem]

I think Paul just called us Babes!!!:ladysman:

I'll go with that - I'm all for freakdom of speak. :biggrin5:

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

After reading all of this, I think the only emoticon to adequately describe my frame of mind would be one blowing its brains out.

[Charles Darnay]

:beatdeadhorse5: - I think this one sums it all up.

[cacian]

After reading all this instinctive reaction tells me that whilst the cat was away the mice come out to play haha.