Taking no prisoners. Including herself.

Evoking (and invoking) Socrates, all I have to offer for tonight’s post are more questions:

  • Can “crush” (generation 2)  actually mean “learning to love anew”?
  • Are some types of love more dangerous than others?
  • Doesn’t all love carry with it some inherent danger?
  • Is it “dangerous” to be vulnerable?
  • Isn’t love, really, the safest bet of all?
  • When is love “not worth it”? When is it worth everything?
  • Does love have a quantifiable value? If so, would you pay it?
  • If it’s probable to re-love an old love, is it equally probable to un-love a new love?
  • What if that new love and old love are the same love?
  • Is love is love is love? Was all love created equal?
  • Since when does having a crush mean breaking a vow of celibacy?
  • Can one have sex and still honor the original intention of abstinence?
  • How is it that I don’t care about any of these questions, and that I already know the answer?

 ”Substract love from love and the remainder is love” – Upanishads

§848 · February 9, 2010 · Celibacy Vow, Over in Oakland · · [Print]

2 Comments to “Dangere! Danger~”

  1. Kate says:

    I love you.

  2. kathi DeJong says:

    Love is caring for a very, very old cat.

Leave a Reply