Gog Posted August 27, 2002 Report Share Posted August 27, 2002 Hamo et asasd lava ba vor et ser@ miakoxmania:) ?kam el miasera :lookaround: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hamo Posted August 27, 2002 Report Share Posted August 27, 2002 Hamo et asasd lava ba vor et ser@ miakoxmania:) ?kam el miasera :lookaround:Miaser miayn astvatzn a.Isk miakoghmani... de, es ho meghavor chem ? :xmas: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mona Posted August 28, 2002 Report Share Posted August 28, 2002 Dve protivopolozhnosti, kotorie drug druzhku na dux ne vynosyat, a ob'edenila ix Lyubov`. Tak mne nravitsya bol`she а прежде чем объединить, откуда же Она появляется (ну если они друг друга не выносят)? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hamo Posted August 28, 2002 Report Share Posted August 28, 2002 а прежде чем объединить, откуда же Она появляется (ну если они друг друга не выносят)? Xoroshiy vopros, no na nego u menya net otveta. On iz klassa voprosov - est` li Bog, ili ego netu. Ya dumayu - est`, i Lyubov - eto ego chuvstvo. No eto zvuchit ne tak, kak ya xotel by, potomu, chto v personificirovannogo Boga (Yehova, Allah, Budda, Zaratustra, itd.) ya ne veryu. Anyway, skazannoe mnoy naschet lyubvi - eto vsego lish dogadka, kotoraya mne prishla na um. Ya ne prorok i u menya net otveta na vse voprosi. Bo9lee togo, dazhe esli u prorokov budet otvet, ya ne dumayu, chto ego mozhno oblech v slova. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
oops! Posted August 28, 2002 Report Share Posted August 28, 2002 i think the question should be "is there LOVE ? " at all ? :notify: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hamo Posted August 28, 2002 Report Share Posted August 28, 2002 i think the question should be "is there LOVE ? " at all ? :notify:what do you mean by that, hon ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Masha Posted August 29, 2002 Report Share Posted August 29, 2002 Interesno poluchaetsia: bud` to piatiy element, bud` to dva nachala... no chto zhe eto vsio taki takoe? Est' millioni predstaviteley odnogo nachla i millioni - drugogo, kak zhe poniat` kto dlia tebia imenno tot "samiy, samiy"... iz ostavshixsia millionov? Kak poniat` chto to chto ti chustvuesh` k cheloveku eto imenno liubov`? S odnoi storoni yasno, chto ETO dolzhno idti iznutri i nikto ne obyasnit. No mezhet vsio taki est` formulirovka, formula liubvi Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hamo Posted August 29, 2002 Report Share Posted August 29, 2002 Interesno poluchaetsia: bud` to piatiy element, bud` to dva nachala... no chto zhe eto vsio taki takoe? Est' millioni predstaviteley odnogo nachla i millioni - drugogo, kak zhe poniat` kto dlia tebia imenno tot "samiy, samiy"... iz ostavshixsia millionov? Kak poniat` chto to chto ti chustvuesh` k cheloveku eto imenno liubov`? S odnoi storoni yasno, chto ETO dolzhno idti iznutri i nikto ne obyasnit. No mezhet vsio taki est` formulirovka, formula liubvi Masha, esli by byla formula lyubvi - to eto bila by ne lyubov`, a teorema. Glubokoe zabluzhdenie schitat`, chto muzhchini - eto predstaviteli odnogo nachala, a zhenshini - drugogo. Chelovek po nature dualen (ob etom, kstati, pochti vse fil`mi odnogo iz moix samix lyubimix rezhisserov - Kubricka). kazhdiy chelovek soderzhit v sebe oba nachala, prosto u odnix byvaet yarche virazheno odno nachala, a u drugix - drugoe. Teper` naschet "samogo, samogo": mi ishem "dopolnenie" samix sebya do celogo. Vnutrenne i vneshnee 'ya' ishut svoyu protivipolozhnost`. I ishem my v drugix lyudyax, xotya pravil`nee bylo by iskat` v samom sebe, potomu, chto nasha ideal`naya polovinka v nas samix, a vokrug mozhno nayti tol`ko boleme prilichnoe priblizhenie. esli sumet` nayti sebya, to stanovishsya polnocennoy i samodostatochnoy (ne putat` s samodovol`noy) lichnostyu, tvorcom i potrebitelem v odnom lice (potomu, chto nastoyashee tvorchestvo - eto kogda tvorec sam sebe potrebitel` tozhe). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Masha Posted August 29, 2002 Report Share Posted August 29, 2002 Masha, esli by byla formula lyubvi - to eto bila by ne lyubov`, a teorema. Glubokoe zabluzhdenie schitat`, chto muzhchini - eto predstaviteli odnogo nachala, a zhenshini - drugogo. Chelovek po nature dualen (ob etom, kstati, pochti vse fil`mi odnogo iz moix samix lyubimix rezhisserov - Kubricka). kazhdiy chelovek soderzhit v sebe oba nachala, prosto u odnix byvaet yarche virazheno odno nachala, a u drugix - drugoe. Teper` naschet "samogo, samogo": mi ishem "dopolnenie" samix sebya do celogo. Vnutrenne i vneshnee 'ya' ishut svoyu protivipolozhnost`. I ishem my v drugix lyudyax, xotya pravil`nee bylo by iskat` v samom sebe, potomu, chto nasha ideal`naya polovinka v nas samix, a vokrug mozhno nayti tol`ko boleme prilichnoe priblizhenie. esli sumet` nayti sebya, to stanovishsya polnocennoy i samodostatochnoy (ne putat` s samodovol`noy) lichnostyu, tvorcom i potrebitelem v odnom lice (potomu, chto nastoyashee tvorchestvo - eto kogda tvorec sam sebe potrebitel` tozhe)."Oba nachala"- chto iz sebia predstavliayut togda eti nachala?vpolne soglasna s tem chto ischem dopolnenie sebia, no eto skoree vsego otnositsia k tomu kak naiti sputnika jizni, a ne k tomu chto jzh takoe liubov`. Ti mojesh' naiti sebe svoyo dopolnenie, no dostatochno li etogo chto bi skazat` chto eto i est` "liubov`"? I esli ti naxodish` v sebe dopolnenie sebia je, to togda voobsche neponiatno- poluchaetsia chto ideal`naya liubov`- eto kogda ti samoliub (narodno virajayas` "egoist"):)Po-moemu misli vpolne pravil`nie, no ne imeyuschie nikakogo otnosheniya k poniatiyu "liubov`":) imho :xmas: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hamo Posted August 29, 2002 Report Share Posted August 29, 2002 "Oba nachala"- chto iz sebia predstavliayut togda eti nachala?vpolne soglasna s tem chto ischem dopolnenie sebia, no eto skoree vsego otnositsia k tomu kak naiti sputnika jizni, a ne k tomu chto jzh takoe liubov`. Ti mojesh' naiti sebe svoyo dopolnenie, no dostatochno li etogo chto bi skazat` chto eto i est` "liubov`"? I esli ti naxodish` v sebe dopolnenie sebia je, to togda voobsche neponiatno- poluchaetsia chto ideal`naya liubov`- eto kogda ti samoliub (narodno virajayas` "egoist"):)Po-moemu misli vpolne pravil`nie, no ne imeyuschie nikakogo otnosheniya k poniatiyu "liubov`":) imho :xmas:Oba nachala - eto "dve protivipolozhnosti", ili in-yan u kitaytsev (ix filosofiya okazala bol`shoe vliyanie na moe mirovozzrenie): chernoe-beloe, sil`noe-slaboe, poryadok-xaos, itd. Poskol`ku v predele (v beskonechnosti) oni stanovyatsya drug druzhkoy (slishkom sil`noe stanovitsya slabim, slishkom beloe - chernim, itd), to po suti oni - odno i tozhe, dva razlichnix proyavleniya kakoy-to osnovnoy Visshey Sushnosti (nazovem ee Bogom, dlya privichnosti). Dlya Sozdatelya net ponyatiy dobra i zla - eto dlya lyudey, dlya nego vse eto odinakovoe. dlya nego, no ne dlya nas. Poetomu mi i ishem chego-to...A lyubov` - eto Bog, ob'edinyayushiy v sebe eti dva nachala (kazhetsya, eshe v Biblii bilo: Bog - eto Lyubov`). Da, ideal`naya lyubov` - eto lyubov` k samomu sebe, no ne sebyalyubie (raznica primerno kak samodostatochnist` i samodovol`stvie). K sebe tozhe, no i ko vsemu ostal`nomu tozhe, potomu, chto chelovek ne est` nechto sovershenno nezavisimoe ot vsego sushego. Ob egoizme v "narodnom" smisle i rechi net, xotya egoizm nichut` ne xuzhe altruizma. Vse eto poxozhe na propoved` cheloveka religioznogo, no dlya menya eto skoree prosto aksiomi, ibo chelovek ya ves`ma racional`nogo mishleniya (fizik, programmist). Segodnya ya dumayu tak, zavtra, vozmohzno, budu dumat` inache - skazannoe mnoy ne est` religioznaya dogma.Teper` bylo by interesno uznat` tvoe mnenie o tom, chto zhe takoe lyubov`, esli skazannoe mnoy ne imeet k ney otnosheniya ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Masha Posted August 29, 2002 Report Share Posted August 29, 2002 Oba nachala - eto "dve protivipolozhnosti", ili in-yan u kitaytsev (ix filosofiya okazala bol`shoe vliyanie na moe mirovozzrenie): chernoe-beloe, sil`noe-slaboe, poryadok-xaos, itd. Poskol`ku v predele (v beskonechnosti) oni stanovyatsya drug druzhkoy (slishkom sil`noe stanovitsya slabim, slishkom beloe - chernim, itd), to po suti oni - odno i tozhe, dva razlichnix proyavleniya kakoy-to osnovnoy Visshey Sushnosti (nazovem ee Bogom, dlya privichnosti). Dlya Sozdatelya net ponyatiy dobra i zla - eto dlya lyudey, dlya nego vse eto odinakovoe. dlya nego, no ne dlya nas. Poetomu mi i ishem chego-to...A lyubov` - eto Bog, ob'edinyayushiy v sebe eti dva nachala (kazhetsya, eshe v Biblii bilo: Bog - eto Lyubov`). Da, ideal`naya lyubov` - eto lyubov` k samomu sebe, no ne sebyalyubie (raznica primerno kak samodostatochnist` i samodovol`stvie). K sebe tozhe, no i ko vsemu ostal`nomu tozhe, potomu, chto chelovek ne est` nechto sovershenno nezavisimoe ot vsego sushego. Ob egoizme v "narodnom" smisle i rechi net, xotya egoizm nichut` ne xuzhe altruizma. Vse eto poxozhe na propoved` cheloveka religioznogo, no dlya menya eto skoree prosto aksiomi, ibo chelovek ya ves`ma racional`nogo mishleniya (fizik, programmist). Segodnya ya dumayu tak, zavtra, vozmohzno, budu dumat` inache - skazannoe mnoy ne est` religioznaya dogma.Teper` bylo by interesno uznat` tvoe mnenie o tom, chto zhe takoe lyubov`, esli skazannoe mnoy ne imeet k ney otnosheniya ?I vsio taki mi ne Bogi, a liudi, i chustva u nas tozhe zemnie (prostite za primitivizm). Rech` idet o chelovecheskoi liubvi, a ne o dostizhenii polnogo absoliuta.Navernoe ya chto to ne ponimayu, i slushkom primitivno misliu. Neuzheli 2 "chernix" ili "belix" cheloveka ne mogut liubit` drug druga (ne govoriu o zelennix)? Nuzhno obiazatel'no chto bi v sobokupnosti bila vsia gamma?Poluchaetsia chto vsiu zhizn` chelovek doljen bit` posviaschen zabotami o samom sebe, o tom kak naiti emu etu garmoniyu v samom sebe. No esli uzh rech' zashla o Boge, on zhe sam i daroval nam tex zhe liudey i chustva i ostavil mnogo chego nedoskazannim chto bi liudi vidili smisl v naxozhdenii otvetov.Esli bi ya znala tochniy otvet, to i ne sprashivala bi. DUmayu chto esli liubish` cheloveka, to doljno bit` on tebe doroje vsego. Ne znachit chto nado na nem zaciklivat'sia, no ti mojesh` otdat` emu vsio chto tebe dorogo. I ne nado chto bi ob etom prosili i zhdat` chego to v zamen. Eto nerazgadannoe chustvo, i toto kto ego ispital (ne k samomu sebe) poistine bil schastliv, xot` eto i "pain" i tiazhelaya bolezn`. Xochetsia ot nee izlechit'sia a po "vizdorovlenii" prixodit polnoe opustoshenie:) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mona Posted August 29, 2002 Report Share Posted August 29, 2002 насчет Бога, пожалуй, воздержусь, дабы никого случаем не обидеть А вот насчет дуальности я согласна. Именно этим объясняются такие случаи как: мужчина с женским характером или женщина -с мужским (речь идет не о транссексуалах или гомосексуалах, а о психологическом складе). И несмотря на то, что это достаточно распространенные психотипы и физиологически выглядит вполне соответственно своему полу, такие люди бывают достаточно несчастны в любви, так как от первых всю жизнь требуют "мужской твердости", а от вторых - "женской мягкости". И действительно, если понимая это, человек подбирает себе, грубо говоря, "дополнение", то это получается скорее на правильный разумный расчет (вполне возможно оправдающий себя в дальнейшем, может это верно в принципе, кто знает), а вот любовь...?Пожалуй, на это у меня тоже нет ответа. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hamo Posted August 29, 2002 Report Share Posted August 29, 2002 I vsio taki mi ne Bogi, a liudi, i chustva u nas tozhe zemnie (prostite za primitivizm). Rech` idet o chelovecheskoi liubvi, a ne o dostizhenii polnogo absoliuta.Navernoe ya chto to ne ponimayu, i slushkom primitivno misliu. Neuzheli 2 "chernix" ili "belix" cheloveka ne mogut liubit` drug druga (ne govoriu o zelennix)? Nuzhno obiazatel'no chto bi v sobokupnosti bila vsia gamma?Poluchaetsia chto vsiu zhizn` chelovek doljen bit` posviaschen zabotami o samom sebe, o tom kak naiti emu etu garmoniyu v samom sebe. No esli uzh rech' zashla o Boge, on zhe sam i daroval nam tex zhe liudey i chustva i ostavil mnogo chego nedoskazannim chto bi liudi vidili smisl v naxozhdenii otvetov.Esli bi ya znala tochniy otvet, to i ne sprashivala bi. DUmayu chto esli liubish` cheloveka, to doljno bit` on tebe doroje vsego. Ne znachit chto nado na nem zaciklivat'sia, no ti mojesh` otdat` emu vsio chto tebe dorogo. I ne nado chto bi ob etom prosili i zhdat` chego to v zamen. Eto nerazgadannoe chustvo, i toto kto ego ispital (ne k samomu sebe) poistine bil schastliv, xot` eto i "pain" i tiazhelaya bolezn`. Xochetsia ot nee izlechit'sia a po "vizdorovlenii" prixodit polnoe opustoshenie:)Mi ne bogi, no mi sozdani "po obrazu i podobiyu ego". Inimi slovami, ya ponimayu eto tak, rasnica tut v masshtabe, a masshtab - velichina otnositel`naya.Chelovecheskaya lyubov` - eto chast` ot bolee obshey Lyubvi. Esli razobrat`sya s obolee obshim, to s chastnostyami sushestvenno legche, kak pravilo.Opyat` zhe, ya lish govoryu svoi glubinnie oshusheniya idomisli, i ni na chto ne pretenduyu. I mne bol`she nechego dobavit` k skazannomu. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hamo Posted August 29, 2002 Report Share Posted August 29, 2002 насчет Бога, пожалуй, воздержусь, дабы никого случаем не обидеть Interesno, chto eto ti takogo sobiralas` skazat` naschet Boga ? Mozhno na milo ;)Net, nikakogo "rascheta" tut net, vo vsyakom sluchae - soznatel`no. Vse proisxodit na kakom-to nevedomom "glubinnom" urovne. Esli seystvitel`no interesno vo vsem etom razobrat`sya - prochitayte Yunga. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Masha Posted August 29, 2002 Report Share Posted August 29, 2002 Esli razobrat`sya s obolee obshim, to s chastnostyami sushestvenno legche, kak pravilo.No dlia togo chto bi doiti do razbora "obschego", nado poinat` i razvobrat`sia s chastnostiami (xotia bi nekotorimi). I togda verno, razobravshis` v "obschem" s chasnostiami budet legche:)U Akunina bilo xoroshee zamechanie: "Liuit` - eto zhelanie bit` vsegda riadom, osobenno togda kogda tomu kogo ti liubish` ochen' ploxo." Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hamo Posted August 29, 2002 Report Share Posted August 29, 2002 Eto zapadniy podxod k issledovaniyu mira: ot kusochkov - k celomu. Tak postupaet nauka, no ona bessil`na ponyat` transcendentnie veshi, takie kak lyubov`. Na samom dele, po tochechkam izuchaya fotografiyu vryad li uvidish kartinu v celom, nado ovesti izobrazhenie ot glaz podal`she. Akunin skazal xorosho, no razve on chto-to proyasnil ? :)Takix opredeleniy mozhno privesti tisyachi, vse budut vernimi i nichego ne govorit` o tom, chto zhe takoe lyubov`.Veroyatno, voobshe slova tut izlishni. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
anomalia Posted August 30, 2002 Report Share Posted August 30, 2002 ТАК!!! ЛЮДИ..ВАМ ОБЪЯСНИТЬ, ЧТО ТАКОЕ ЛЮБОВЬ?????МЕЦ МАРДИК ЭК У ЧГИТЕК???? БА АМОТ ЧИ????? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hamo Posted August 30, 2002 Report Share Posted August 30, 2002 ТАК!!! ЛЮДИ..ВАМ ОБЪЯСНИТЬ, ЧТО ТАКОЕ ЛЮБОВЬ?????МЕЦ МАРДИК ЭК У ЧГИТЕК???? БА АМОТ ЧИ????? Che, gitenq, ughaki bacatrel chenq karum :xmas: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Satenik Posted August 31, 2002 Report Share Posted August 31, 2002 Cheq el karogh bacatrel. Petq el che. Sireq, eli... Ughaki sireq. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hamo Posted August 31, 2002 Report Share Posted August 31, 2002 Cheq el karogh bacatrel. Petq el che. Sireq, eli... Ughaki sireq. Isk ete sirel el chenq karoghanum ? :confused: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atos Posted August 31, 2002 Report Share Posted August 31, 2002 The laastr developments showed that, bud to dva nachala, bud to obman, bud to eshe che nibud, sireq te chsireq anyway,one thing is left taht cant be expalined, even if we think that we know everything about love.Lubov vsye ravno ostanetsya potemkami, kotoroe dazhe proydya mnogo raz, vse ravono kazhdij sleduyushij raz ona nova i tak tainstvenna! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hamo Posted September 1, 2002 Report Share Posted September 1, 2002 ...Lubov vsye ravno ostanetsya potemkami, kotoroe dazhe proydya mnogo raz, vse ravono kazhdij sleduyushij raz ona nova i tak tainstvenna! Sir, vi poet ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Satenik Posted September 1, 2002 Report Share Posted September 1, 2002 "Isk ete sirel el chenq karoghanum ?" Hamo.Bayc vonc " el chenq karoghanum"? :bigsmile: Aydpes chi linum. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hamo Posted September 1, 2002 Report Share Posted September 1, 2002 linume, linum Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Satenik Posted September 2, 2002 Report Share Posted September 2, 2002 Hamo,Dzaxord orery dzmran nman kugan u kertan,Vhatelu che, verj kunenan, kugan u kertan,Darrn cavery mardu vera chen mna erkar,Vorpes hachaxord, sharve-sharan kugan u kertan:Jivani. ;-) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.