The Neocrats » Blog Archive » The greatest thing you’ll ever learn?

by Mogogo - July 1st, 2006

( 1 votes, average: 4 / 5 )

Loading ...

“There was a boy, a very strange enchanted boy…” - so begins Nature Boy, an oft covered jazz standard by written by beatnik eden ahbez. Incidently, ahbez refsed to capitalise the first letters of his name - good man. Anyway, Nature Boy concludes with the line:

“The greatest thing you’ll ever learn

Is to love and be loved in return”

which is indeed an important lesson. But the transactional nature of that lesson - the deal of love and love in return - is a little troubling. So it was interesting to read today that ahbez too felt that the song should really be sung:

“The greatest thing you’ll ever learn

Is to love and be loved”

This is a vast improvement, taking it from an expression of immature love - i’ll love you if you’ll love me - to an expression of a higher, selfless love. And along the way, suggesting that we sometimes not only need to learn how to love, but also to learn to be loved too.

The greatest thing you’ll ever learn? Perhaps not, but certainly greater than the earlier version.

Bookmark:

This entry was posted on Saturday, July 1st, 2006 at 1:24 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

39 Responses to “The greatest thing you’ll ever learn?”

Humble Owl says:
July 1st, 2006 at 10:33 pm

Yeah, but that doesn’t rhyme.
Saleem says:
July 2nd, 2006 at 9:47 pm

Owl beat me to it, although it was a tepid rhyme to begin with.
Original Sin says:
July 3rd, 2006 at 8:42 am

As tempting as it is to break open a selfless-love v no-such-thing debate, I didn’t have much of a breakfast this morning, and I don’t know if I can stomache the rebutals.

Hell, here goes…

Who do we love selflessly? The only way to really answer that is to think of those we love, from whom we receive nothing in return, or better yet, from whom we are scorned for our love.

Wife? No. Parents? No. God? Forget about it. Our friends? Same deal. Kids? Close, but not cigar.

Can’t think of anybody? Didn’t think you would.

Discuss.
Saleem says:
July 3rd, 2006 at 8:58 am

I knew it! I always knew it. I knew you were already qualified to talk about what it’s like to have kids.
Mogogo says:
July 3rd, 2006 at 9:03 am

Humanity - i love humanity as a whole, and expect nothing in return. In fact, its impossible to get any love back from humanity as a whole. And what love does a baby or a petulant teenager to a hardbitten parent?

As for unrequited love, that happens in a romantic framework too - cf Losing My Religion and a whole host of other ‘love’ songs. And sometimes, just sometimes, we love someone because they are are beautiful, because they have qualities which we admire and we want to be associated with that person, not necessarily to be loved in return. If they love us back, so much the better, but if not, i think they still fulfil the higher human instinct in us to love the loveable.

So yes, it would be nice to be loved in return. But that is something over which we dont have any control, ultimately, so all we can expect is to love.

And what about celebrity? I love Edward Norton but i’m not getting any love back from him…
Sanisha says:
July 3rd, 2006 at 10:17 am

i think you can if you can love , romantically or otherwise then its a part of your own mind /psyche that you are in love with …we love on others what we love about ourselves & similar with hate feelings and things we deplore in others

The scorn for those we love perhaps comes from the love-hate we have with ourselves, and infatuation too is somthing we have constructed in ourselves.no one can live up to the goddess or maestro that we are in fact capable of concocting in our own minds and hearts. so what

i have some to believe is that most of the love we feel does not really exist outside of our own fantasies and wishes.
Would you all still try be all you can be , or learn more or do more if it were not for what anyone else would think of you ?

I think if one can imgaine doing what you do and being who you are when no one is watching , gettin nothin in return then i think you can truly say you love what you do, what you learn and who you are and can truly love back. I think Ed Norton, the actor, does in fact love you Mo’.
Saleem says:
July 3rd, 2006 at 11:47 am

Sanisha, I didn’t realise you were a solipsist. Disturbing.
Sanisha says:
July 3rd, 2006 at 12:00 pm

well, Saleem you old lexicon of the underworld you,
i did not know i was a solipsist either !!!

i am actually just a very very big romantic who has reformed and is trying to rehabillitate in THE REAL world. thats all.
Saleem says:
July 3rd, 2006 at 1:17 pm

So Mogogo was right…
Original Sin says:
July 3rd, 2006 at 1:29 pm

Sal, you love your kids more than others, because hey, they’re yours. A piece of information that does not require 9 months of labour, 3.2 metric tons of poop and a wife/risque casual encounter.

Mog, unrequited love is the most selfish love there is. You are in love with an image in your own head, you love your own fantasy. And Ed Norton, doesn’t he crack you up? Doesn’t he wish you bought KY Jelly instead of Durex? How can you say you don’t get anything back from him?

It’s not just about the return of love, it’s the return of anything of value, even if the value is intrinsic to yourself, thus reducing your actions to a mere trade.

Sanisha , , , , , I try to read what you write, but it just doesn’t make any sense:

“i have some to believe is that most of the love we feel does not really exist outside of our own fantasies”, what are you trying to say?!
Sanisha says:
July 3rd, 2006 at 1:59 pm

i meant what you say so clearly

unrequited love is the most selfish love there is. You are in love with an image in your own head, you love your own fantasy.

and that unrequited love is not love.

what you say about Ed Norton onwards does not make sense…plus they probably do not even sell ky jelly in the UK.
Sanisha says:
July 3rd, 2006 at 2:22 pm

and I know what I said sounds like a contradiction,sorry

but I am working on this idea >
I still think that true love is when you expect nothing in return ( therefore unrequited ?)

but that it still only really exists in your own reality.

jeez, i told you i was depressed, but now i am just mush.
And, i did not mean to corner OS into saying that he has or has not looked for ky jelly at his local all purpose store.
Mogogo says:
July 3rd, 2006 at 2:49 pm

Sanisha, i love art because its beautfiul. Not because its a mirror. I love nature and scenery for the same reasons. Perhaps they reflect elements of the divine, perhaps they are just purely aesthetically pleasing. But so it is with people- i love people for their qualities - some of which i have, some of which i aspire to and some which i find challenging but just make up the picture of that person.

In other news: I can confirm that KY Jelly is widely available for sale in the UK.
Original Sin says:
July 3rd, 2006 at 11:16 pm

KY is sold in the following markets:

USA
New Zealand
Australia
Norway
Canada
Thailand
Hungary
UK
Finland
Argentina

Today’s useless factum of the day is brought to you by k-y.com
Saleem says:
July 3rd, 2006 at 11:27 pm

The one that’s not like the others? Thailand.
Humid Owl says:
July 4th, 2006 at 12:59 am

The point is not that love gives you nothing in return.

It’s that through love itself you experience fulfillment, regardless of extra details ie: does he/she love me back?, What does this do for my image?, How much money do I get?

Simply loving is enough. And I believe Mogogo was attempting to make clear the distinction between the western imposed idea of love….’i need you baby’, ‘you owe me love’ B.S ( see Dawson’s Creek, James Blunt and other brands of self conscious, soul poison) and the love that exists on a higher plain altogether devoid of expecation and ego (see Corinthians 13).

Unfortunately the latter type is a concept alien to far too many people.

I have nothing to say about KY jelly.
Sanisha says:
July 4th, 2006 at 6:53 am

guys, my 4th of July declaration was to become independant of the blogosphere and to stop make useless uninformed comments but before I do that I want to ask you this :

if you showed some aesthetically pleasing art to a pygmy from the Amazon , who does know anything but the rainforest, do you think he or she would love it ?

if you showed kindness and courtesy to an uneducated child who has never experienced ‘love’ , do you think he or she would immediately feel that love feeling, warm and fuzzy ?

I don’t know if they would…but i don’t think so…my point was that the love we feel and the things we favour are the result of what we ourselves are capable of being & doing and also by what we are conditioned to appreciate.
Saleem says:
July 4th, 2006 at 8:33 am

SOLIPSIST!

Love, beauty, Shreddies - these things do not exist just in our own constructs, our own impressions of the world. They are universal, they are built into the human soul and it is a natural human ability to recognise them, respond to them. They exist beyond ourselves, and while love is not a barter agreements - “I’ll love you if you love me” - humans are nourished by the feelings of love that are demonstrated from other people. Crucially, also, it’s very difficult to transmit feelings of love just by loving someone: love exists in actions; let actions, not words, be our adorning. Similarly Shreddies: their morning delight cannot be experienced if they just sit in the box: I need to drizzle them in honey, immerse them in sweetened soy milk, and then eat them!

Now: pygmy people have been encountered only in central Africa, and to a lesser extent south-east Asia. Pygmies in the Amazon doesn’t cut it; not to mention that you underestimate the complexity of life in the Amazon. All those species, all those plants, all those variables? It sounds more complex than picking the right kind of club on a Saturday night.

Your final point - about capacity and conditioned behaviour - is almost correct, except that an appreciation of love comes with you when you’re conceived. It’s a human ability, like thought.

Let me venture a guess as to why you’ve retreated into this nonsense about love being constrained to one’s own experience and conditioning. You’ve loved someone recently and were spurned; you are the classic unrequited lover, and now to explain this failure to win the object of your devotion you are, understandably, retreating into almost eugenic notions that love must be bred into the human, and if it is not, than the human cannot love. So your idea is that the person who has spurned you is incapable of love.

But this is rubbish. He is capable of love, everyone is; he simply does not love you. That’s a harsh analysis, quite possibly incorrect and, if correct, stated with cruel matter-of-factness, but it’s important to confront facts - not devise solipsistic theories to explain them away - and live life within the bounds of facts, accept them, and move on.
Mogogo says:
July 4th, 2006 at 8:39 am

And another thing: attraction is a fundamental law of the universe - look at the atom and you see that its very existence is based on the powers of attraction between sub-atmoic particles. Look at the planetary dance and the same rule applies. James Brown was right: we are all love machines.
Sanisha says:
July 4th, 2006 at 9:00 am

yes I agree my use of the word pygmy was not wise.

Saleem, i agree to your analysis of the above too, it makes perfect sense if i were the typical spurned lover turned banshee , and i would love to furnish you with the details because you do have that agony aunty thing going on …I hope I am not a classical case of what you just said (i am not in denial :)

But, I am not speaking just from my own experience here …

eg.) why do so many people supposedly in love , get married then divorced…? that love capability although we are each born with a cup or a jug or a dam sized potential ..it is just that > in actual fact, unless we convert that to action it remains just a capability , which is molded and shaped by what we see…how can the love we feel and give each other or feel for material things be absolute ? its not!
if it were we would be in love all the time surely ?! and if it were we would not get bored by somthing we adored 2 days ago.I know there is that everlasting love that does exist and which i am not synical about because i feel like i have felt that before, i think I have felt that before.
anyway, this topic is way too complicated !!!

yet there are only 4 types of love, according to the explanations of the Bahai Writings.

ps: its nice to hear that it does not take much to make Sal happy…some Shreddies ?!! they don’t sell those in SA.
Original Sin says:
July 4th, 2006 at 9:46 am

I would protest the tainting of the music of Mr Blunt by the fowl, but given his acoustic preferences, I fear it will fall on deaf ears.

To our punctuationaly challenged friend, what on earth is this “.)”?

And finally, looking back at Nature boy, he tells us of not one, but two great truths, “to love” and “to be loved” are two great feelings, indeed they are the two greatest feelings, (as mentioned by HO, see Corinthians 13:13), but we’re not discussing the ability to, or the strength or existence of love, merely it’s motive.

Mog sites atomic physics, I throw into the mix the Hidden Words #5 (Arabic):

Love Me, that I may love thee. If thou lovest Me not, My love can in no wise reach thee. Know this, O servant.

Unconditional love?

Discuss.
Sanisha says:
July 4th, 2006 at 10:32 am

if it were a smiley then “.) ” would be a dimpled right butt cheek, or a spotted face, maybe. FYI friends, I am not punctuation challenged …I challenge punctuation!!

blah, Original Sin, do you knit ? if not, you should ! …as a supplement your already hi tech job , i think you would make beautiful garments , with your keen attention to detail , not a stitch out of place…just imagine !!

You made a good summation about the rants here OS but I think we should end this discussion, it could (and it probably will ) continue for eternity.
Saleem says:
July 4th, 2006 at 11:18 am

Sina knitting: a powerful, classic thought. Sina knits, Sina knits!
Original Sin says:
July 4th, 2006 at 12:08 pm

/doesn’t get it

Also, I tried to knit, but got frustrated, because machines can do the job so much faster/better than humans, so there is no point really.
Saleem says:
July 4th, 2006 at 12:09 pm

It’s a craft. A hundred thousand monkeys could write a novel, but we don’t let them do it, do we?
Humid Owl says:
July 5th, 2006 at 6:23 am

Mogogo Says:
July 4th, 2006 at 8:39 am

….James Brown was right: we are all love machines.

————————————————————————————–

When on earth did James Brown say ‘we are all love machines’?

He said ‘Like a sex machine’ but that’s a very different statement.

Perhaps you should stick to REM references.
Mogogo says:
July 5th, 2006 at 7:54 am

He did say, in that same piece: “Stay on the scene, like a lovin’ machine”.
&ra says:
July 5th, 2006 at 3:54 pm

original sin is brilliant!
Saleem says:
July 5th, 2006 at 4:00 pm

Er.
Humane Owl says:
July 6th, 2006 at 12:53 am

I truly hope that was a joke.
Original Sin says:
July 6th, 2006 at 10:09 am

Sal and HO, screw you both. &ra, thank you for the vote of confidence, you will assuredly be remembered as one with insights.
Saleem says:
July 6th, 2006 at 2:24 pm

OS, you’re an ass! AN ASS A MALVOLIAN ASS I CANNOT BEAR IT ANY LONGER.
Original Sin says:
July 6th, 2006 at 2:48 pm

Funny, how Malvolio is accused of loosing it and going mad during Twelfth night. Funny how he thinks he is so much better then everybody else.
Human Owl says:
July 6th, 2006 at 3:42 pm

haha… insights… Yes that’s what OS is known for.
nemoDreamer says:
February 24th, 2007 at 9:21 pm

The post started out about LOVE, and ends in a catfight…
I know this post is old, but I can’t help but see this as a general trend?! Should we just dump the comments altogether, for the sake of undiluted quality of content?
Or will you boys and girls behave and build a better, friendlier Neocrats 2.0…?
Saleem says:
February 24th, 2007 at 11:27 pm

We’ll behave. Sorry!
mogogo says:
February 26th, 2007 at 10:04 am

Consider our knuckles rapped.
Sanisha says:
November 29th, 2007 at 3:10 pm

A friend was reading this today, and she asked me if I believed in unconditional love so initially I said yes and then I read what I said here, and it made no sense so I would like to retract and go back to first principles.Lets look at love without the baggage of the UNconditional part.

These are the things that I am sure about:

1.There are 4 types of love

2.love is a verb and a noun

3.love is like gravity, its a law that governs everything whether or not we believe in it.

Anyone else had insights since last year?
Original Sin says:
December 4th, 2007 at 4:52 pm

I just think the whole thread is classic Neocrat.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

The greatest thing you’ll ever learn?

39 Responses to “The greatest thing you’ll ever learn?”

Leave a Reply

Search:

Recent activity

Highest rated

Most rated

Most commented

Archives

Meta