TED Conversations

lynn eschbach

TEDCRED 30+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Love vs. Connecting

Love is exclusive. Try as one might, one cannot love everyone. "I love you, but not him," can be very painful. Love's circle is fairly small. Love has agendas.

Connecting has no agendas. Connecting is inclusive. One can connect with anyone on some level, if with just a smile, all the way to procreation. There are many levels from which to choose that bring contentment.

Rather than feeling guilty for not being able to Love Thy Neighbor As Thyself, connect to those around you, for a moment, for an hour, for your life.

Topics: love
0
Share:
progress indicator

  • Anjana Srikanth

    • 0
    Mar 25 2011: Connecting somehow seems larger than life. Love is more personal, a tad selfish when looked at as romantic love. But unconditional love is something else and probably higher than mere connecting. Yes, one needs to have an emotional connect with friends and the people we interact with, a 'smiling' connect with our daily aquaintances and the strangers we meet...i guess connection happens on multiple levels, but love is more intense and as you said, is to do with worrying about someone and their lives without really wondering about what you may get in return or if the same feeling is reciprocated or not. Some folks may term this kind of love compassion...:)
    • thumb

      lynn eschbach 30+

      • 0
      Mar 26 2011: Connecting IS life. We are social beings and we need them. A connection a day keeps the blues away : ) One might say I'm just talking about intereactions. No. An intereaction is not a connection. Connections, on whatever level, have the potential, if recognized by the receiver or receivee, to make a difference. In your day. In your life.

      Unconditional love is a survial instinct which is usually seen in mothers. It is an instinctual connection for survival of the species.
  • thumb

    Marianna Gomes

    • +1
    Mar 23 2011: Connecting is attaching in some way point A to B. (to C, to D...)

    Loving is impossible to explain.

    In order to love, you must connect. One is inside other, though connecting doesn't mean there's love.


    And love is not that exclusive. Maybe you are thinking in terms of only sexual love in our monogamic society. But I absolutely love all sorts of things. I've even had that fuzzy feeling in my stomach (that can't be mistaken: it was the falling in love feeling) about my own life, when a new phase was taking place.


    Love is the answer.
    • thumb

      lynn eschbach 30+

      • 0
      Mar 23 2011: You say, "In order to love, you must connect. One is inside other, though connecting doesn't mean there's love."
      Absolutely correct. Love is exclusive. Connecting is inclusive.

      Now, tell me, do you 'Love Thy Neighbor', the one that roars in on a motorcycle at 3 in the morning; the one that cheats you; the one that kills your dog. 'Love Thy Neighbor' is a setup for failure. Can you connect with your neighbor on some level - yes. Can you move forward from there, more likely.

      Connecting (I wish there were a more beautiful word) is the basis upon which love can be at all.

      Connecting with your fellow human being is the answer.
  • thumb

    Tim blackburn 30+

    • 0
    Mar 23 2011: maybe "connecting" is love. it is in my context.
  • thumb

    Lee Wilkinson 20+

    • 0
    Mar 23 2011: I think for me it's the other way round, I find it easy to love or have love for other people no matter how little my actual connection with them but sometimes I feel that I might have know someone for many years but never really connected. I think connecting is a bond which goes between two people where as a love can and often does only go one way. Connection with another Actor for instance while in a play is a wonderful experience. I have been in several plays where I have never really connected with other Actors, which may well have been my fault, but it has been apparent that the connection never happened and oddly enough after a long rehearsal and run of a show I realized I had love for those people.
  • thumb

    Anna Hoffmann

    • +1
    Mar 23 2011: And is not connection a form of love?
    I guess some of it just has to do with how you use words. Words and definitions are understood and used in many different ways, by different individuals, even in small groups of people who are connected (and even love each other)..

    But, Lynn, I guess you are trying to create a way to have less drama and more easy-going relating, by using the word connect instead of love. And I sympathize with that. But I think that if an individual wants to grow and become more intelligent and wise, he or she has to go through a lot of dramatic and painful feelings, connected with love.
    And I also believe there is way of loving in a more cool and detached way, with less drama and more empathy.
    What do you think?
    • thumb

      Nicholas Lukowiak 50+

      • 0
      Mar 23 2011: I agree connections are the ultimate form of love, just the general acceptance of worrying about one another for no reason besides being human.
    • thumb

      lynn eschbach 30+

      • 0
      Mar 23 2011: Nicholas and Anna assume 'Connections are a form of Love'. I would say 'Love is a level of Connection' and that is all it is. Connecting is MUCH bigger than love, more important because it is inclusive. What the world needs now is inclusivity (not sure if that's a word).

      I really can't love my enemies, but I can connect. In acknowledging the connection (on whatever level it may be), a step is created for going foward.

      The love of which you speak I believe is more sexual in nature, or love of babies tugging at one's heart strings. That love is instinctual. Connecting is deliberate.

      Thank you for your thoughtful words. I hope mine are appropriate and helpful.
      • thumb

        Nicholas Lukowiak 50+

        • 0
        Mar 23 2011: I would disagree further then, since in order to understand the value of connections it would be a part of education in which the idea of treating others equal would have to be introduced; whether it be the whole lesson, part of the lesson, or the result of the lesson. Like anything else one learns there is an interest factor so for argument sakes we are teaching 3 and 4 year olds why caring for other is important. Human beings are natural questioners; we are curious by nature so this age would be most appropriate.

        In the lesson of why to teach others the way you want to be treated; maybe use questions of logic that involve an either-or scenario (3 kids are a track do you pull the lever to make the train hit 1 person or the 3?). Plenty of these philosophical question exist.

        Now one child ask the question "why do we have to care about others that don't affect us (strangers)?"

        How can there be an answer without care in it? The dictation of the importance of a stranger could only come from passion and heart-filled ideas. In short emotions. So of course connecting is a level of love. a child must understand that it is important to care for others because if everyone cared everyone could share and come together with no gain or lose besides the connection.

        Simply the value of connecting the world together could not be done without the understanding and need of love, because you wouldn't gain anything of material value from such connection except the knowledge you have a million people to rely on.
      • thumb

        Anna Hoffmann

        • 0
        Mar 24 2011: Lynn so you say connecting is inclusive and love exclusive.
        That is not how I use the same words.
        Love, as I understand the word, is inclusive. It is a quality that spreads, in a way contagious and when I look deep into it, love has no giver and no receiver, it just is.
        To me connection is like a bond, a canal. There is a limit to how many connections someone, or something, can have, but no limit to how far love can reach.
        One can lose oneself in love. It is a healing experience. If one tries to lose oneself in connections, one goes mad.
        • thumb

          lynn eschbach 30+

          • 0
          Mar 24 2011: I think completely opposite. Interesting, huh.
        • thumb

          Nicholas Lukowiak 50+

          • 0
          Mar 25 2011: maybe you are assuming connections are a human nature perhaps. Like we should be primitive and not have many cultures and be one people? The flaw of evolution?

          If so, brilliant.

  • Comment deleted

    • thumb

      lynn eschbach 30+

      • 0
      Mar 22 2011: Debating which is worthy of more empahsis in our discussions about life: love or connecting.

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb

          lynn eschbach 30+

          • 0
          Mar 23 2011: I would say no. Connecting is not love. Love is just a level of connection.

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb

          lynn eschbach 30+

          • 0
          Mar 23 2011: Love is the connection one has with family or tribe (exclusive). Love is the connection I had with my husband (a cultural expectation, procreation, cute babies and the survival of our species). Love is the baliwick of many religions (exclusive to which of them you belong - maybe not Buddhism). Love sells.

          I don't mean to so undermine love except that it is over emphasized. I say instead, think about the healing, comforting connections that can be made with 'just a smile'. Notice after you've lost someone to death how 'just a smile' mean SO MUCH. That's a connection. Fleeting but invaluable.

          Love is most certainly exclusive. Romantics think not.

          I rambled. But have enjoyed our exchange.
Showing all 17 comments