The Whole Soul

[Mole]

If you can fall in love, are you whole?

Or if you can't fall in love, are you damaged?

 

[SillySapienne]

If you can fall in love, are you whole?

Um, yes.

Or if you can't fall in love, are you damaged?

Interesting question, I'm not sure, perhaps.

 

[Mole]

If you can fall in love, are you whole?

Um, yes.

Or if you can't fall in love, are you damaged?

Interesting question, I'm not sure, perhaps.

I wasn't sure whether to ask the question in this thread, then I thought, "Psyche does mean soul in Ancient Greek", so I knew this was the right thread.

But have you given the right answer?

And if you are right that you are whole if you can fall in love, how odd it is. Because falling in love means losing yourself in another person. I mean on the face of it, it almost seems psychotic whereas in reality it seems to be the fulfillment of our psyche, the fulfillment of our soul.

And you are not sure whether not being able to fall in love is the sign of a damaged soul.

And I am not sure either. But being locked out of love seems to be a terrible punishment. And being unable to love is like not being able to breathe. And we suffocate, not only ourselves, but those around us.

So perhaps those who can't love are damaged and damaging.

And those who can fall in love are wholesome.

And let's face it - the whole world loves a lover.

And the whole world loves whole people.

The whole world loves the wholesome.

 

[LizMusica]

I dont think people are incapable of falling in love. I'm sure people can be cold hearted and less able to fall in love like others. Maybe those people need someone to come along and melt their hard hearts.

truth is we are all damaged even when we fall inlove with that special someone. It's like we keep filling a void with all these addictions but its never enough

hmmm good question

 

[Giggly]

Darn good question.

I think most people are capable of falling in love but a few are not capable of it. I think they don't want to though either.

 

[LizMusica]

lol I didnt relize I called you

 

[Giggly]

lol I didnt relize I called you

Me?

 

[Mole]

truth is we are all damaged

The problem is, if we are all damaged, then none are damaged.

This will stop us from listening to the particular damaged feelings of a hurt person.

And if we don't listen to the feelings, then they are likely to be acted out and damage another vulnerable person.

After all, the emotionally damaged are emotionally damaging.

We really do need to stop the emotional damage being handed on to the vulnerable, particularly children.

This is the over-riding reason we need to discern who is wholesome and who is emotionally damaged.

 

[6.4]

I don't believe in love, gods or souls. What you mean become whole? As in you become a god or something if you fall in love?

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

I wasn't sure whether to ask the question in this thread, then I thought, "Psyche does mean soul in Ancient Greek", so I knew this was the right thread.

But have you given the right answer?

And if you are right that you are whole if you can fall in love, how odd it is. Because falling in love means losing yourself in another person. I mean on the face of it, it almost seems psychotic whereas in reality it seems to be the fulfillment of our psyche, the fulfillment of our soul.

And you are not sure whether not being able to fall in love is the sign of a damaged soul.

And I am not sure either. But being locked out of love seems to be a terrible punishment. And being unable to love is like not being able to breathe. And we suffocate, not only ourselves, but those around us.

So perhaps those who can't love are damaged and damaging.

And those who can fall in love are wholesome.

And let's face it - the whole world loves a lover.

And the whole world loves whole people.

The whole world loves the wholesome.

First, let's deal with the initial statements...

"If you can fall in love, does that mean you have a fully-functioning brain?"
"If you can fall in love, does that mean you're "whole"?"

"If you can't fall in love, does that mean you're brain-damaged?" <--

I'm obviously paraphrasing these... why? Just because psychology denotatively means "study of the psyche [soul]" doesn't mean the people who coined the word had proof that such a thing as a soul even exists for the sake of study. Many neuroscientists and philosophers would say that "soul" is merely a rough and fuzzy way of describing the personality as it derives from biochemical brain activity. So... maybe we're trying to measure the mass of a perfect vacuum?

Moreover, the two pronouncements by OP are begging too many questions... it's sort of like asking... "if you can ride a bicycle, is your body fully-functioning/unimpaired?" I might be able to ride a bicycle, have well-formed and non-diseased limbs, no inner ear infections to interfere with balance... and yet be color-blind... so my body is deficient... Likewise, even if we accept point blank the analytical robustness of a concept like wholeness of personality or soul and don't quibble about what love is... the statement assumes an invalid argument... I may be able to love, but I could be lacking wholeness nonetheless (perhaps I can fall in love but have no sense of reason; i.e. I am a madman who does mad things and, when loving, only falls madly in love...)

The second statement hinges on the first... but could be evaluated independently... just to counter it... maybe, provisionally accepting all the assumptions inherent in your questions... I am whole and am perfectly capable of falling in love, but I've never found the right person... maybe love is contingent on being in the right situation... so I satisfy the condition of being whole, 'being capable/able of falling in love', but the potentiality of being-in-love has never been actualized into actually-being-in-love... does wholeness require realization of all potential, or is mere potentiality enough to guarantee wholeness?

________________________________________________________________

"falling in love means losing yourself in another person." I disagree. I believe that love in 'real life' doesn't fit one description... more importantly, I believe strongly that a good sense of self is important to the survival of a relationship between two people, especially when love is involved... I love my mother, but I don't forget myself because of her. And when I was in a deep relationship with a girl in high school, the love I felt I had partly stripped me of self-identity, insofar as I began to define more of who I was and what I wanted to do according to her, and yet I never lost myself... does that mean I wasn't in love? I don't accept that....

________________________________________________________________

The whole world loves a lover... agreed... if it's an ideal lover.

BUT...in general, more needs to be done to define the terms in usage.

 

[Mole]

First, let's deal with the initial statements...

"If you can fall in love, does that mean you have a fully-functioning brain?"
"If you can fall in love, does that mean you're "whole"?"

"If you can't fall in love, does that mean you're brain-damaged?" <--

I'm obviously paraphrasing these... why? Just because psychology denotatively means "study of the psyche [soul]" doesn't mean the people who coined the word had proof that such a thing as a soul even exists for the sake of study. Many neuroscientists and philosophers would say that "soul" is merely a rough and fuzzy way of describing the personality as it derives from biochemical brain activity. So... maybe we're trying to measure the mass of a perfect vacuum?

Moreover, the two pronouncements by OP are begging too many questions... it's sort of like asking... "if you can ride a bicycle, is your body fully-functioning/unimpaired?" I might be able to ride a bicycle, have well-formed and non-diseased limbs, no inner ear infections to interfere with balance... and yet be color-blind... so my body is deficient... Likewise, even if we accept point blank the analytical robustness of a concept like wholeness of personality or soul and don't quibble about what love is... the statement assumes an invalid argument... I may be able to love, but I could be lacking wholeness nonetheless (perhaps I can fall in love but have no sense of reason; i.e. I am a madman who does mad things and, when loving, only falls madly in love...)

The second statement hinges on the first... but could be evaluated independently... just to counter it... maybe, provisionally accepting all the assumptions inherent in your questions... I am whole and am perfectly capable of falling in love, but I've never found the right person... maybe love is contingent on being in the right situation... so I satisfy the condition of being whole, 'being capable/able of falling in love', but the potentiality of being-in-love has never been actualized into actually-being-in-love... does wholeness require realization of all potential, or is mere potentiality enough to guarantee wholeness?

________________________________________________________________

"falling in love means losing yourself in another person." I disagree. I believe that love in 'real life' doesn't fit one description... more importantly, I believe strongly that a good sense of self is important to the survival of a relationship between two people, especially when love is involved... I love my mother, but I don't forget myself because of her. And when I was in a deep relationship with a girl in high school, the love I felt I had partly stripped me of self-identity, insofar as I began to define more of who I was and what I wanted to do according to her, and yet I never lost myself... does that mean I wasn't in love? I don't accept that....

________________________________________________________________

The whole world loves a lover... agreed... if it's an ideal lover.

BUT...in general, more needs to be done to define the terms in usage.

This is a very nice analysis and critique. It seems to me to be unavoidable. Perhaps I should fold my tent and be on my way. And although I can see you are right, all of a sudden I can't breathe - I'm suffocating.

 

[Mole]

I don't believe in love, gods or souls. What you mean become whole? As in you become a god or something if you fall in love?

And why should you believe in any of them? After all, they are metaphors.

Metaphors don't exist because metaphors are comparisons of relationships.

A metaphor may take the form of -

As A is to B, so C is to D.

So this metaphor says that the relationship between A and B is the same as the relationship between C and D.

Of course you probably notice we often shorten the metaphor for literary reasons down to say, "You are rose".

And you also see a metaphor doesn't exist - it is not even a relationship, but a comparison of relationships.

But if you are literal minded or the relationship between the concrete and the general eludes you, you might believe in love and the soul.

Otherwise, you can only feel them - you can only breathe them.

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

And why should you believe in any of them? After all, they are metaphors.

Metaphors don't exist because metaphors are comparisons of relationships.

A metaphor may take the form of -

As A is to B, so C is to D.

So this metaphor says that the relationship between A and B is the same as the relationship between C and D.

Of course you probably notice we often shorten the metaphor for literary reasons down to say, "You are rose".

And you also see a metaphor doesn't exist - it is not even a relationship, but a comparison of relationships.

But if you are literal minded or the relationship between the concrete and the general eludes you, you might believe in love and the soul.

Otherwise, you can only feel them - you can only breath them.

So my response to your general 'questioning' elicits a feeling of asphyxiation (minor, I hope)... and yet, you find your breath in the world of metaphor...

I'd rather not attempt to define you, or describe you, or interpret you... but I'm impelled... your mode of thinking reminds me a bit of solipsism... but a self-aware, idealistic, non-judgmental solipsism... very Nietzschean (Nietzsche was not a classical Idealist... I say idealistic as an impression... there's a way to 'win'... there's a way to attain joy... even if there is no God, even if there isn't a way to prove the existence of souls, one can still be soulful)...

I think a lot like you, funnily enough... if there is no God, or I can have no proof of it/her/him, I'll create God in the welkin of my own mind... and make it real... very real... God will shine through me and affect everyone around me... and suddenly, God will be more real than if it/she/he had been sitting quietly at the 'edge of the universe'... is that it? is it close? if not, what is it that you're going for?

 

[luminous beam]

If you can fall in love, are you whole?

Or if you can't fall in love, are you damaged?

are you implying that the ability to fall in love is what determines whether a person is whole or that love in itself is what determines a person as whole? in either case i don't think love, or the ability to love makes one whole.

i think that love is a culmination of many emotions, deeming it to have the possible equivalence of a lifetime of experiences. one can become whole through experience which can trigger growth, but even then it would all be dependent on each individual. some could describe love as "completing them" but others not so much. i think that other things aside from love are important for someone to become complete. perhaps a combination of the heart, mind, body and "soul."

as to whether the ability to fall in love is what determines whether or not a person is whole...i'm sure there are some people who can't fall in love, but then again, isn't love a chemical imbalance from a more scientific view anyway? and if these people don't have the capacity to "fall in love" would they even miss it since they didn't have ability to in the first place?

 

[Haphazard]

How does one go about measuring the capacity to fall in love? Isn't love a peculiarity between people? Isn't it possible that someone can fall in love, they just haven't found the right people to fall in love with for them? Then isn't it wrong to assume that there is someone who cannot fall in love?

 

[01011010]

If you can fall in love, are you whole?
I can't comprehend how someone else (external force) can make me (Internal), whole.

Or if you can't fall in love, are you damaged?
It's possible. No types are without feeling. If someone can feel emotions, they should be able to fall in love. Maybe a sociopath can't?

 

[Mole]

relaxed and refreshed

So my response to your general 'questioning' elicits a feeling of asphyxiation (minor, I hope)... and yet, you find your breath in the world of metaphor...

I'd rather not attempt to define you, or describe you, or interpret you... but I'm impelled... your mode of thinking reminds me a bit of solipsism... but a self-aware, idealistic, non-judgmental solipsism... very Nietzschean (Nietzsche was not a classical Idealist... I say idealistic as an impression... there's a way to 'win'... there's a way to attain joy... even if there is no God, even if there isn't a way to prove the existence of souls, one can still be soulful)...

I think a lot like you, funnily enough... if there is no God, or I can have no proof of it/her/him, I'll create God in the welkin of my own mind... and make it real... very real... God will shine through me and affect everyone around me... and suddenly, God will be more real than if it/she/he had been sitting quietly at the 'edge of the universe'... is that it? is it close? if not, what is it that you're going for?

What am I going for?

I am staving off the question.

Of course I feel the impulse to know where I am going and I recognise you would like to know where I am going.

But I hit the question just quietly on the side of the head with my stave, and I just look to see where I am.

And here I am in a translucent pool of now, and as I look, I sink deeper and deeper until I can just see the surface. But then the light changes somewhat, and I can't see the surface any more.

I am inclined to panic at this point but I just keep on sinking and all of a sudden no more fear even though I don't know what is coming next. It's true, I know it is hard to believe, but I have lost my fear of the unknown because now everything is unknown so nothing is unknown.

In fact everything comes as a surprise - it is like being in midst of a big surprise party where everything wants to surprise me - every sight wants to surprise me, every sound wants to surprise me, even each thought surprises me.

I like surprises.

And when I have had my fill, I slowly rise to the surface and take my first breath - relaxed and refreshed.

 

[clueless]

What am I going for?

I am staving off the question.

Of course I feel the impulse to know where I am going and I recognise you would like to know where I am going.

But I hit the question just quietly on the side of the head with my stave, and I just look to see where I am.

And here I am in a translucent pool of now, and as I look, I sink deeper and deeper until I can just see the surface. But then the light changes somewhat, and I can't see the surface any more.

I am inclined to panic at this point but I just keep on sinking and all of a sudden no more fear even though I don't know what is coming next. It's true, I know it is hard to believe, but I have lost my fear of the unknown because now everything is unknown so nothing is unknown.

In fact everything comes as a surprise - it is like being in midst of a big surprise party where everything wants to surprise me - every sight wants to surprise me, every sound wants to surprise me, even each thought surprises me.

I like surprises.

And when I have had my fill, I slowly rise to the surface and take my first breath - relaxed and refreshed.

Careful not to drown, sweetheart.

 

[Mole]

Careful not to drown, sweetheart.

OK Sweetie.

 

[alcea rosea]

If you can fall in love, are you whole?

What a weird question!
I am who I am no matter what "state" I am in.