![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On the Nature of Love and the Nature of Language
This is post is one-half a reminder to myself to write more on the subjects - both Love and Language - and one-half a kick off in and of itself of discussion. It was originally a response to a post by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
heartssdesire, and like she did in her post, I found the subject intriguing enough - on several levels - to reproduce here for future reference.
Very thought provoking. I almost perfectly agree with you - I would change things ever so slightly, just a shade, such as: "will we be less able to feel deep love" to "will we be less likely to feel deep love" to come up with my own interpretation. Then again, more than one religious group has been frustrated with me over my ability "to see good in everything," which I kind of misunderstood to be the point of those particular groups.
I tend to go on at great length about the simplification of language - although I generally go at the subject not from the point of changing meaning, angling instead at the "dumbing down" of the concepts being discussed and the method of communicating those reduced concepts.
I do feel the words themselves can be more malleable, after all "words can have two meanings," so I'm not altogether against watered down meanings - or, at least, I haven't put specific thought towards that area. While I admit to using some of the simplified meanings, but I also retain an understanding of the deeper - or at least more archaic - meanings. In fact, in my poetry, I often play with that relationship, encouraging multiple interpretations.
Ironically, I've been thinking a lot about the diminishing nature of love - not some of the specifics you mentioned directly, but how it is often used to describe something in the singular, when it can be applied much more broadly and still retain a deep meaning.
heartssdesire, and like she did in her post, I found the subject intriguing enough - on several levels - to reproduce here for future reference.Very thought provoking. I almost perfectly agree with you - I would change things ever so slightly, just a shade, such as: "will we be less able to feel deep love" to "will we be less likely to feel deep love" to come up with my own interpretation. Then again, more than one religious group has been frustrated with me over my ability "to see good in everything," which I kind of misunderstood to be the point of those particular groups.
I tend to go on at great length about the simplification of language - although I generally go at the subject not from the point of changing meaning, angling instead at the "dumbing down" of the concepts being discussed and the method of communicating those reduced concepts.
I do feel the words themselves can be more malleable, after all "words can have two meanings," so I'm not altogether against watered down meanings - or, at least, I haven't put specific thought towards that area. While I admit to using some of the simplified meanings, but I also retain an understanding of the deeper - or at least more archaic - meanings. In fact, in my poetry, I often play with that relationship, encouraging multiple interpretations.
Ironically, I've been thinking a lot about the diminishing nature of love - not some of the specifics you mentioned directly, but how it is often used to describe something in the singular, when it can be applied much more broadly and still retain a deep meaning.