In Greek, there are six forms of the word love. In English, there is only one. The underlying psychology at play here is that the English are uncomfortable with asserting which type of love…“what could it be? Which type of love is it? We don’t know, it’s a mystery.” They are uncomfortable with their own feelings and announcing the exact type of love it is they feel, it is shrouded in mystery, a mystery phrase which they can use to dishonestly manipulate the other. The English are innately biologically averse to their own needs…while the greeks were bathing naked, English priests were giving their vows of celibacy. Love is essentially an act of bravery, it is putting your own self at risk of crumbling at the hands of an other. Enshrouding of the word is evidence of the englishman’s deceptive nature, uncomfortability with his own feelings, and his own general cowardice, as well as cowardice of truth.
Generally, cowards are less loving, which is why modernity is so hated, because cowardly minded people do not tend to reciprocate feelings of love, which is an indication of their general inability to love. There is a distinction between a coward and a scaredy cat - for example Fluttershy is a “scaredy cat” but is actually not a coward, and thus, she is loving.
And all black skin people are this, all white skin are that, all Christians do this and all Muslims do that, women behave here , men behave there etc etc etc,
Blanket comments about behavior is a mistake.
Stereotypes are general guidelines. The #notall hashtag will always be present, but we can make general associations about groups. Are we practical jokers, if Muslims were the same as Christians, why not just call them Christian?
I would rather characterize their seeming affect of insensitivity and
aloofness, their reserve, and a preference for sensibility over mere sense, as a form of objective manifestation of feelings.
I think stereotypes manufactured thus, are more a source of confusion, then a an effort to gain clarity in this regard, into their ‘psyche’.
Perhaps then it is not such much a product of the Saxon’s DNA, but his programs. Perhaps the English language is simply a bad software, an agent of corruption encouraging apathy and the certainty of religious uncertainty.
trixie
Well their needs would be innate, which suggests to me they would rather not be so driven ~ even if ultimately mostly are that. An attempt at freedom which itself i admit, can close the heart or make it temporarily like that. Being stronger than or at least attempting to be stronger than ones instincts, is perhaps not a weakness!
The language was only partially taken in during the migrations, while the old latin/celtic language was also lost in that process. That being where multiple languages [mostly germanic] were being spoken, and old english deriving from old frisian [dutch] one through. In a sense the language was secondary to an already secondary language base, so third hand. In this i think much more of a language is lost than moving from one language straight to another, or at least the variations in meanings and terms. Not sure how much of that goes directly into culture and emotions, but i can imagine the distance/difference is felt.
I can only imagine that there was a lot of migration from old frisia in the netherlands to the east and middle part of england, especially where directly across the english channel. Then that london is in that vicinity, and they all speak a similar accent now so maybe there is a commonality there, and has been for some time? People in that part of the country have a certain look, big cheeks and eyes kinda, which i also saw in holland.
_
& with the English, uncertainty is not detrimental, it is an attribute to their sensible take on affordable options to be had, quite missing on the continent.They are more contained, and content.
They do not attempt to be stronger than their instincts, they run away and hide their instincts, and separate themselves from their instincts, by manipulating words like love to lose their clarity and meaning.
certainty of religious uncertainty. means that you can be certain that the religious will carry around their uncertainties as if they were certainties. perhaps this topic was a bit religious in the title, but the body of which is surrounded by falsifiability and fact.
Edited last post…
Orbie
On the surface yes. 
Trixie,
See my edit and perhaps we can get some insight going here. I don’t see anything religious here, although historically there a puritanical nature. This is because people dont want to be the ones being called witches, and they do like to name others it to ensure they are on the right side. Which is a fault, but nations are like people, there are good things and bad things.
Beneath the surface? Then it is a matter of duplicity?
Or, expediency? But can this not be said of those who are not British, as well, at least to a degree?
Could be more related to war. That country is historically war and conquer/ed . Breeding, generational nondeviating upbringing will alter the personality.
Also the ruling classes and hence most of the educated, spoke french for hundreds of years. Then decided to speak english and so began the process of composing the current language, with added latin, greek and french terms often used. Naturally, people in oxford wouldn’t think of anything so simple as different meanings of love doh, and instead just tell us to say ‘whom’ and not ‘who’. Its not their language nor ours, but the way we speak it is ours and i don’t think they have the right to say how we should say it ~ the writers are foreigners or belong to a foreign culture which was transplanted over here, and without doing much mingling to speak of.
Orbie
No, what you said sounded like conservative british, where we brits also have something of a socialist/working class side too [Anglo-Saxon-celtic [non-French/norman]. …and the coldness or standofishness denies the hearts real feelings sometimes. Not duplicity but the natural duality any mind has such to draw comparisons.
Having said that, well we are british lol and have always had to be duplicitous to a degree. With many historical allies [except americans] changing sides all the time, and stabbing one in the back, and with three strong/er potential enemies ~ germany, france, spain at any one time, then people are bound to react to that by inventing things, like pig iron and steam engines etc. All of which involves intellectual ‘perversion’ of thought [doesn’t mean action necessarily].
I don’t think there are better/worse nations/people.
Why is Trixie a racist ignorant twat?
They may only have one word for it, but they use it an awful lot.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1uMA120Mhk[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaERrNGRjAs[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y88sXeNJrOw[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePsHKqbdRfA[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJCBYUKMvMQ[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDgjK-gPG60[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAJRBIHkQFs[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kijpcUv-b8M[/youtube]
Just a few random results, nothing to do with my tastes, mind you.
So now for some Greek music. I know they have good stuff, in all the bars was singing late at night, and when I was driving through the Peloponnesos there used play all these very intense heart-wrenching songs on the radio.
Oh and this song. They were lovin it.
Exhibit 2i, 2ii and 2iii
Is this the speech of a people cowardly in love? I think not; it is a speech rich with the tragic knowledge. Perhaps even only the Greek match the English in their boldness facing the dark aspects of eros. All Latin peoples have opted for a more physical path, where it is harder to get lost in heroic madness.
Exhibit 3, i & ii
“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”
- Englishman
Exhibit 4
I have given this some thought, and since this is a case of defense, by a foreigner no less, I think it is fair to suggest to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury that there has perhaps quite rarely lived another people that holds its ideals in such high esteem, or a people that has been so consistent regarding its ideals. That ideal has withstood and assimilated the Romans, the Norsemen and the Franks and even, to an extent, the Christians; the Church exists for the greater glory of the nation, which quite sensibly contains its fair share of shopkeepers. (Exhibit 5) Your honor, personally I find there to be no more courageous or more intelligent or sweeter people than what one finds as often among the English as for these qualities to be a rule, or rather among all those islanders, because the Irish are even loopier with love and the distances within that realm belong to its overall, extremely peculiar and particular character. It must be honestly said that in terms of that inner- and inter-islander struggle the English are the least likable of all, they come to reflect the tyrannical aspect of the church and of ‘babylonian’ politics, and yet this does not harm their worldly character, it probably makes them wiser with respect to the pitfalls.
The English capacity to rule its colonies by attributing an unprecedentedly light density of military presence was due to its ingenious ways of both frightening and seducing the subjects to the standards of Anglosaxon culture. The surviving worldly quality, which now lacks in virtually all other European nations, is clearly in part due to having been able to resist all invaders except a narrow selection of very powerful types - one may even call it sensible of them to have ‘allowed’ these invasions; it is a sure way to build up an already enterprising, ingenious and independent-minded Islander stock to world class elite.
Their absolutely wyrdness is this; they have no aspirations to be greater than they already are, they know it to be sufficient to bask in the common-sense of human glory that they’ve always tried to cultivate. Well what do you know, Your Honor - I’ve even talked myself into appreciating those dreadful philosophers of theirs!
Nothing further!
The English might be unloving, unimaginative and essentially unlikeable, but are not cowards.
^^ a constraint which yields release in individual explosions of creativity, perhaps.
Jakob
thats very kind words about englishmen, though i can assure you we are assholes same as everyone else lol. To paint a picture, i’d see britain as like a forge, sometimes you get tumultuous times where it has been so busy infighting [as a furnace would] that it made itself weak. They are really prejudice about those people who live in the next town lol. If i remember correctly, the first saxon invasion failed because they ran amok kinda. then and as there is no evidence of mass burning down of villages etc, and that britain is around 50/50 celt/germanic, the second successful invasion was more accepted. We tend to have foreign kings since the roman invasion. I have noticed some saxon types act like they think they are the guardians of the people ~ could be purely subjective of course.