Thoughts on love versus being "in love"
FYI: Didn't know which category to place this under so i picked philosophy of the mind because i felt it was most appropriate.
Well folks here are my thoughts. Please understand these opinions come from my own experience and reflection, not anything i have read.
To start i will define love. I believe love is an expression of the mind. I do not see it as an emotion but rather a will to act and by act i am referring to the act of giving. When you exercize your mind creatively and intuitively in the presence of a lover, you will be rewarded without fail.
On to being in love.
I understand being in love as a spiritual awareness. Think back to when you were a child and the world seemed magical and your curiosity boundless. I believe at this point in our lives we were in the state of being in love. I think this comes about through the connection we forge with a loving mother.
I will now speak a bit about my experience of being in love versus loving. I met a girl in my junior year of college who i had an instant almost preordained connection with. After i summoned the courage to speak with her i was intouch with my spirit like never before. It was as if i was a child again. Things did not work out, which i now realize was for the best, but what i came to understand was that i did not actually love this person at all. I loved the way she seemed to lift my spirit. I was therefor in love with her. The final realization that i came to, not so long ago, was that when i looked at this person i wasn't actually seeing her, i was seeing my own mother who i was still very much attached to. When things fell apart it was my mother that i sought. For many years took comfort in my mother's company and it brought me peace of mind. But what i have realized is that peace of mind is not at all what the human condition is supposed to be about.
On love
To love someone is to see them for who they actually are. Most everybody knows this but i did not until recently. One must observe both strengths and flaws in body and character. I dont think it wise to accept flaws if they can be remedied. I believe that to love another is to exercise ones will power in the most natural way possible. I love a woman now. I am not in love with her at all. She does not raise my spirits in the slightest. She challenges me to become a stronger, more self aware man, the same way a best friend might do.
Anyway, those are my thoughts for now. I would apprecate any thoughts and or experiences on the topic you guys might have. Peace.
Well folks here are my thoughts. Please understand these opinions come from my own experience and reflection, not anything i have read.
To start i will define love. I believe love is an expression of the mind. I do not see it as an emotion but rather a will to act and by act i am referring to the act of giving. When you exercize your mind creatively and intuitively in the presence of a lover, you will be rewarded without fail.
On to being in love.
I understand being in love as a spiritual awareness. Think back to when you were a child and the world seemed magical and your curiosity boundless. I believe at this point in our lives we were in the state of being in love. I think this comes about through the connection we forge with a loving mother.
I will now speak a bit about my experience of being in love versus loving. I met a girl in my junior year of college who i had an instant almost preordained connection with. After i summoned the courage to speak with her i was intouch with my spirit like never before. It was as if i was a child again. Things did not work out, which i now realize was for the best, but what i came to understand was that i did not actually love this person at all. I loved the way she seemed to lift my spirit. I was therefor in love with her. The final realization that i came to, not so long ago, was that when i looked at this person i wasn't actually seeing her, i was seeing my own mother who i was still very much attached to. When things fell apart it was my mother that i sought. For many years took comfort in my mother's company and it brought me peace of mind. But what i have realized is that peace of mind is not at all what the human condition is supposed to be about.
On love
To love someone is to see them for who they actually are. Most everybody knows this but i did not until recently. One must observe both strengths and flaws in body and character. I dont think it wise to accept flaws if they can be remedied. I believe that to love another is to exercise ones will power in the most natural way possible. I love a woman now. I am not in love with her at all. She does not raise my spirits in the slightest. She challenges me to become a stronger, more self aware man, the same way a best friend might do.
Anyway, those are my thoughts for now. I would apprecate any thoughts and or experiences on the topic you guys might have. Peace.
Comments (104)
What does that even mean? Are you attempting to convey that love is not emotional or something spontaneous that develops out of your control, but rather a wilful decision? I agree that relationships are certainly this way, but there is something about love that is unrelated to this because it is an expression of your feelings, of you or that inner 'I' and it is why you can fall in love with someone so unexpected and so different to you and still decide to be or not to be with them. Basically, the act of giving love is dependent on a number of factors, but giving love itself is an expression of who you are and you are both a feeling and thinking person. That is why love is moral consciousness.
Quoting Gord
Are you sure about that? I had a pretty shit childhood and I consider myself to be an extremely loving person. I see "spiritual awareness" to again be moral consciousness or the capacity for self-awareness and the empowerment that follows and that is not something you get from others as such artificial consciousness is inauthentic. This consciousness is a state of mind or a cognitive tool that we each have at a psychological level and although I understand the Freudian link here, I believe in free-will.
Quoting Gord
It takes courage to admit this attachment you had to your mother, which is that feeling of home, of something unconditional and safe. Being separate from that produces an angst that many cannot handle and so this "instant" attraction could be a reflection of your own loneliness and that your ego enlarges to consume the other person by imagining that she is a part of you or that she has the same ideas that you do. It saves you from feeling like you are alone and in particular separate.
We reach a time during our "coming of age" phase where we move away from our mother and attach ourselves to others and sometimes this transition is too difficult that attachments are made in much the same way as people re-arrange their prejudices and call it "learning". It is the reason why only a person who is alone and feels comfortable with being alone can truly separate themselves from this attachment to mother and feel safe and at home within himself.
Quoting Gord
Yeah, this is awkward. You do need to be in love with her too, as in, you love her for who she is and that she makes you a better person - as a friend would do - and I wholeheartedly agree with that, but you also need to feel that emotional connection too, that need to be near her. You need to admire your partner but this admiration needs to be for the things that they do, the person that they are and not the things that you will get out of it including that social protection [like popularity since it enables them to look good and that makes them feel less alone and less separate].
When you look at the advantages without that feeling, you are still being egotistical. It is still about you.
--
On a side note, can you please spell properly and use proper punctuation and grammar. I particularly hate the use of i when it is not capitalised.
" I see "spiritual awareness" to again be moral consciousness or the capacity for self-awareness and the empowerment that follows and that is not something you get from others as such artificial consciousness is inauthentic"
I do not understand what you mean here. Please explain further.
"It is the reason why only a person who is alone and feels comfortable with being alone can truly separate themselves from this attachment to mother and feel safe and at home within himself."
I believe you are right on the money here. I enjoy time with myself as much as i do with others.
" but you also need to feel that emotional connection too, that need to be near her"
The need exists, although it is not something i "feel" per say. I would call it more a longing.
"You need to admire your partner but this admiration needs to be for the things that they do, the person that they are"
I disagree with you here. I think we are all alone in this life whether we are around people or not. There is no way of escaping the "I" you refer to. I freely admit all of my motives are selfish. I believe if you can find a person who enhances that "I" within you then that is very much a good thing. In the same way i would not expect her to admire me, who I am, what I do. I would wish her to be with me because of how it helps her change herself. Do you understand?
Hope my grammar was better.
(To quote someone, you can highlight their text and click on the pop-up "Quote" button.)
Got it, thanks.
Then it is not love anymore but merely a transaction that is mutually beneficial. It is no different to forming a relationship based on economics - because you save money - or because she provides that platform that makes you appear more popular because she is attractive, etc, those artificial elements. What if a woman is actually right for you, someone who will bring you happiness, but she does not have those qualities - economics, popularity, attractiveness - that is beneficial to you, does that mean you reject her?
Love enables us to transcend those almost capitalistic transactions that make us see an object that is beneficial to us in as much as an iPhone would, and it is questionable in how much of that "need" that compels us to an iPhone is socially constructed. People tell us what we are supposed to want and that is where an absence of feeling exists, because the centre of our being is our connection to honesty and authenticity and why one needs to first learn how to love themselves so that they do not follow but think. Love is moral consciousness, a type of authenticity in our behaviour and responses; so, when you say you are using your mind, you are using your mind with clarity, with common sense and honesty - moral consciousness.
Friendship is the most important step in forming a bond, the very beginning and why when you meet a love interest you should first form that friendship, but there is love in this friendship too although it is something acquired and not given unconditionally. You are probably at this stage. That move from friendship to romantic love is a move from that conditional space toward trusting or having that faith that allows you to feel that emotional connection. You develop through reason and mutual enjoyment a compatibility that respects and admires the other as you move towards that love; it is not blind or spontaneous, basically. It is something you learn to give.
It is therefore your state of mind and your responses that you need to question; for instance, love is not something you give only to one other person while remaining indifferent to everyone else. It is an expression that you give to all people and that requires a type of feeling or comradeship with all people.
Quoting Gord
You speak of this 'I' as though you somehow have sufficiently found who you are but I see your articulation on love to prove quite the reverse. In your actual case, you are not giving love at all- and that is what love is, it is to give - but you are receiving. You want. That is why selfishness and love are incompatible. It is only a justification of your selfishness to claim that somehow she will improve by being with you, again, as though she were some object. This "I" that I am referring to is a feeling, intuitive, emotional that separates you from all that you have been taught to identify as 'reality' and thus separate from all that learning. It is a state of mind that explains your genuine or authentic responses.
To say your motives are selfish only show me a person who was probably hurt and wants to protect himself.
What's the difference, then, between a lover and a business partner?
I'd concur with @TimeLine in saying that a transactional relationship, at least on the face of it, doesn't seem like love. Not even erotic love, which may seem like a transaction of beauty for beauty, seems quite like that to me: I'd say that erotic love is a relationship where you share mutual feelings of appreciation for one another's bodies and mutual pleasures.
At least not "at bottom" -- obviously you can enter into transactions with a lover, such as the splitting of the chores, but you'd do so with a loving relationship already in place for it to count as love. Otherwise it seems like I must love the store clerk, the waitress, a coworker, or anyone who I do interact with on a strictly transactional basis.
I realize you could restrict the definition of love to particular kinds of transactions, but to that I'd just say that love doesn't feel like that -- phenomenologically the experience of love just doesn't feel like an exchange. Hence the difference between friends with benefits and lovers proper.
Doesn't that imply that love is a unique experience, in a phenomenological nonsensical sense? As if the feeling cannot be learned, and appreciated, and developed over time?
As wonderful as it is to feel in love, as wonderful as it would be for all to love one another, I think that love is something we experience infrequently in our lives and have for very few of those we encounter in our lives. I don't think it's something we can cultivate as we would a crop or extend it to more than a few. It has a very limited application; it's impact on our lives can be profound, but is narrow. It's very personal. Enjoy it if you're fortunate enough to love or be loved, and be content with that enjoyment.
I'm not sure what you mean by "phenomenological nonsensical sense" -- care to expound?
I don't know if it's unique. I think we know what we're talking about when we talk about love, at least -- it's not like a beetle in a box that only I have access to. Is that what you mean by unique, or something else?
And I'd say that love can be learned, but I don't know if it can be developed. We learn what love is by being in, falling in, and acting out of love. Then talking about love can help to gain understanding as well, but I think you'd have to have the experience first. I don't think that love is purely propositional and can be understood simply by telling someone 'This is what it is", in the manner that we might say we can understand that the capital of the United States is Washington D.C.
I think I'd fall pretty close to how @Ciceronianus the White talks about love just above in my thoughts, though I think I might make a little more room for its frequency and application.
Yet, we treat it as if a beetle in a box, that is unique to us only or to two partners.
Quoting Moliere
I don't understand the difference between the two here.
Quoting Moliere
We can talk about what people or ourselves think about love; but, in many cases love is a transactional attitude.
Hmm. I dunno. It seems to me that love isn't ineffable. Because it's not strictly propositional there is more to love than words, but we can sensibly talk about love.
Quoting Posty McPostface
Learning is more broad than development. It seems to me like development involves a kind of programme or discipline where someone could potentially teach a skill. But we can learn what pizza tastes like only by eating and tasting pizza -- there is no class that can teach that taste. True, we can develop theories of taste and improve our discernment based upon said theories, but I'm not sure that there is a real discipline here as much as it is a mutual discussion about a shared experience.
Maybe you could develop some sort of discipline, but I am merely uncertain.
Quoting Posty McPostface
Like when? And, if so, how is it different from other transactional attitudes? (or is it different at all, in your view?)
philia - deep friendship love
Philautia - love of the self (good self-love is essential; bad self love or narcissism is harmful)
eros - love as sexual passion
philia - deep friendship love
agape - love for everyone (unconditional love)
ludus - playful love -- young love
Storge - love of parents and children
pragma - the deep love between longstanding relationship partners
Point is, love isn't one thing.
Quoting Gord
Sure, love is expressed by the mind; but if there is no emotion, no passion involved, it's just not worth thinking about.
The passions, the emotions, are not a lesser or junior part of the mind. They are the mainspring of the mind, will, and body. You just can't have "love" as a mental process without emotion. To get biological here, the mind isn't some stand-alone pristine program; it's a product of a body with physical needs, pains and pleasures, emotions, drives, appetite, etc.
This is nonsense. When someone says that they love someone more than what words can convey, then they have conveyed their love, no?
Sure. But my bagel is not a "bagel", and when I eat it I'm not eating words.
Love needs more than expressions of love -- it is also actions, commitments, feelings, a relationship, and an experience.
Isn't all of that manifest in transactional acts?
And then there is the relationship itself -- the mutual feelings and commitments that are shared between people that I do not feel for the store clerk, nor do they feel that for me.
And then there's the kinds of actions. For a store clerk I simply pay for what I'm buying, and leave. If I don't buy something of his there is nothing personal at stake -- he's just not selling what I'm buying at the price I want it at, and that's that. But for a lover I will think of things they enjoy and do things so that they might enjoy them because I am motivated out of care for them, in particular. I'll know their quirks, their dislikes, their likes, dreams, feelings... so many personal details that just are not present in a strictly transactional relationship, which is goal-oriented and ends the moment the goal is completed.
Being in love, falling in love, and acting out of love just don't feel anything like a business arrangement or simply working together towards some end-goal. It's deontological and motivated intrinsically, rather than utilitarian and motivated extrinsically.
I think you are quite right. I must reflect on this.
You have no grounds for doubting here.
I don't think love is something we can give to all people, unless you equate it with "comradeship" or something similar. And I think it's quite possible to love someone and remain indifferent to everyone else. I think we do that all the time. We don't know anything about most other people, in fact.
I can say I love my children, but couldn't with a straight face say I love all people or can love them if by "love" I mean what I feel towards my children. That's why I think that it is, in a word, foolish to claim that we should all love one another. It will never happen. If one feels the need to establish rules of conduct for all of humanity, I think it would be far more realistic to contend we should all respect one another, for example. There's no need that I love someone in order to respect them, or consider them a friend, or be kind to them. I'm certainly not indifferent to someone I consider a friend, but don't love them.
What? I'm totally confused as to what you're getting at. My best guess right now is you believe I was talking about someone else's relationship which is transactional and so I don't know what they are feeling -- but I wasn't talking about someone else's relationship, I was talking about my feelings with respect to someone I have a purely transactional relationship contrasted to someone I have a loving relationship with.
A transactional relationship, be it emotional and material is no different than one based on one where love is present, as you seem to differentiate between one and the other, where there are no grounds to do so.
Again, have a expressed my love and adoration with saying that I love you more than words can say?
Surely, we can talk about love; but, it is often shown through deeds and acts. A transactional relationship can entail everything that is the case about love.
"Psychology: an interaction of an individual with one or more other persons, especially as influenced by their assumed relational roles of parent, child, or adult"
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/transactional
Sure. But I don't see what you think this entails.
Yes, it's shown through deeds or acts.
I'm not drawing the same implications you are. I don't see how you get from your first sentence to your second sentence, in a reasonable fashion.
Quoting Baden
I had hoped that the use of examples like a shopkeeper would make it clear exactly what I mean by transactional.
But even a role seems a bit off to me. I'm not so sure about that.
Quoting Baden
Yeah, I think you're right there.
It can be. But I think it's worth exploring love at a conceptual level, too. I'm halv-sies on the role cognition can play in healthy relationships -- it's not all talk, feelings and actions play a bigger role than Reason may wish, but reason can help too.
Even reciprocation is usually transactional. But, gifts serve as an external reinforcing factor to the furtherment of reciprocity.
Suppose you have a child Posty. And you love your child. Is it necessary or even appropriate to talk of such love in terms of a transaction?
I guess I just prefer a subtle approach than a full-on sermon, which even the most reasonable of us can fall into at times on topics like this.
I'll own up to the fact that love has been one of my philosophy topics for a bit. :D But there's wisdom to what you're saying here.
Depends on how you define what is of value to you in the relationship, is what I assume the question posed in proper transactional terms. Again, these things can be both emotional and material, not either/or.
I better quit while I'm ahead then. :gasp:
Do you think that would apply even to your love for your (hypothetical) new born baby? (Who is (let's face it) not immediately capable of reciprocation.)
I feel the love now.
And you are talking in terms of "transactional analysis" right? Because Moliere wasn't as far as I could see.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis
How can a baby reciprocate anything, that's nonsensical to assume such a state of affairs?
Anyway, the point you seem to be asking, is what reasons are there for having the child if it cannot reciprocate for the 'favor' in return. Is that correct?
You can call it, that, given that the idea seems to hinge on rational self-interest and an eclectic mix of utilitarianism along with it. Everything's OK as long as there was no other way for things to be the way they are/we're in transactional analytic terms, I think.
No, it just wouldn't seem to make sense to call that love "transactional". "Unconditional" would be a better word, no?
Who?
Assuming rational self-interest here, there is something being derived from the fact of having a baby of my own.
The transaction would seem to be more with your sense of self-interest than with the baby then?
Yes, the baby itself can be the source of my satisfaction, though.
So, your description of your love for your baby would be something like: you give to your sense of self-interest the sanction to give love to the baby, which in turn gives you satisfaction by responding to that love? The transaction is love for satisfaction then. Something like that?
Yeah, there's no free lunch as you seem to get the gist.
But suppose the baby was sick with a terminal illness and loving it was bound to cause you more pain than satisfaction (as it's always more painful to lose that which you love and in proportion to the intensity of that love) could you stop yourself loving it for this reason?
In principle I could though the idea is repugnant; but, would I be able to love myself with that conscious decision/deliberation?
What I'm trying to get is that the reality is that you would find you couldn't. You are likely to find yourself loving even if the result is overall more pain and sadness rather than satisfaction simply because that's how love operates. Reason isn't pulling the switches.
Love says pain is better than emptiness.
When it comes to the real world, things aren't as clear-cut.
If there's one thing we can agree on, it's that things in the real world aren't clear cut. Mull over the example though if you would.
The girl whom im in love with. Her Chinese name is ????????. I do not yet know how to pronounce it in English. Will report back when i do.
Dude, assuming rational self interest is assuming no love at all. They are opposed. One might have children to ensure someone to change one's nappy in one's dotage - but that is prudence, not love.
And you beat me to it. All other claims of love are so much less.
I believe that authenticity is a state of mind and love is synonymous with what we know as our motivation that combined can be explained as moral consciousness, that awareness and feeling combined. It is not something outside of us, powered by some external source but something that we work to better understand within ourselves and it is the reason why you actually matter, the state of your mind and why, indeed, by better understanding this self-love you were likely drawn to philosophy and stoicism in the first place in order to help articulate this subjective language. The authenticity of our motivations or will is empowered by self-love, when we understand ourselves, appreciate who we are and find that peace formed by an acknowledgement that transcends others - hence why paradoxically it is by being alone that we learn how to love - because love is that language that explains our place in the world.
When we know ourselves and our wants and likes, we better express ourselves and much of the misery and grief in this world is that ignorance caused by society that coerces conformism and initiates artificial explanations of "love" to ensure people remain distant from themselves while thinking they are happy. When someone mistreats you, makes you feel terrible about who you are, you feel worthless and your motivation is shattered and in your indifference to yourself you begin to lack that feeling of empathy, of affection and kindness to others. In such bitterness, they themselves begin to commit the same error and thus that self-hatred and hedonism is given outwardly where nothing but destruction grows. The destruction here being everyone trying to be loved but not actually learning how to love themselves.
That is why I agree that it is indeed possible to think you love one person and remain indifferent to all else, but that is not love, that is just an enlarged ego. The motivation is not the same. That feeling of euphoria when someone love you - that can be born out of manipulation because you present yourself in a desirous way, because you are popular, because that is what everyone expects you to be like - is caused by that desire to have someone love you and that motivation is rooted - just like selfishness and narcissism - because of a deeper loneliness. There is no self-love.
So the problem is not about knowing other people. It is about knowing you.
So it can mean anything from "trusting in someone to a point that one sacrifices things." to " A blanket"
The real question is: "What should they mean?" To craft the most beautiful understanding of love is not easy. It requires a strong root to your emotions and others.
I personally like to see it a warm flame in a cold dark night, the opposite of apathy, birds dancing in air.
There are as many perspectives about love as there are fishes in a sea.
Lot of them are a like, some of them are special.
Their worth is teaching us not to be superficial.
To blend with our desires and bond ourselves to the world.
To feel more then one, to be larger then the world.
When memory is created in the brain, aspects of the limbic system will add emotional tags to the memory, as it is written to the cerebral. This is why our strongest memories tend to have the strongest feelings; marriage, trauma, graduation, vacations, etc. This dual memory storage;thought-feeling, and writing schema is useful to the animal since if he encounters a similar situation; new good food object, he will react to the feeling attached to the original triggered memory and can act on the feeling without having to think. He will eat.
Love, in general, is when we use our memories, with attached love feelings, to induce the love chemicals. For example, we can think of when we first met our mate. Once the love chemicals are flowing and we feel love, we can trick the limbic system to use these chemicals, in part, in the writing process; love your enemy. The enemy will not help you induce love, externally, through your sensory systems. He will try to induce fear and hate chemicals to the writing process. So you need to induce the love to cancel the fear/hate so you can control the writing process, from within.
Perhaps I was too exposed to Wittgenstein and "ordinary language philosophers" like J.L. Austin in my younger days, or am myself merely ordinary, but I'm inclined to define "love" as I think we typically do, as we use the word in context; as a noun or a verb, depending on the circumstances. So, I'm inclined to say that when I love someone I have a profound affection for them, for example, or a romantic attachment to them. I may have both for the same person, or I may not. I don't see these uses of the word as artificial, but rather think that uses of the word which substantially differ from them are misuses of the word and language, which may as lovely, lovely Ludwig W used to say, lead to the bewitchment of our intelligence.
That's not to say you're bewitched, though. Only that I what you describe isn't what I would call "love" though it may involve love, or relate to it.
If love is something that you feel and express, and relying on socially constructed ideals about what love is and how relationships function only explains the depth of your low self-esteem since these connections are alien to your inner agency. Moral consciousness is that self-awareness or genuine behaviour that characterises a willingness distinct from what others expect and it is you giving because you want to and not doing because you are supposed to since that is what everyone else is doing. The expressions - erotic love, love toward your child, love of friends, family etc - are coming from within you and explain a positive feeling of care and affection. Many people have partners that they do not love but comfortably say I love you, they have children that they don't care about, friends they treat badly. There is no love, just an artificial display.
I am saying that you should feel profound affection toward someone, but ascertain whether that is real; do you admire them for who they are or are you deeply lonely; do you have that profound affection for them because they are worthy of it or do you feel affection because they are popular and attractive, the difference between giving love and wanting love.
Because this interconnectedness is a deep feeling, we observe its impact on our physiology and psychology, but like energy we cannot observe it directly. Nor can we reliably distinguish it from other simultaneous interactions with our physiology and psychology, such as sexual drive and other evolutionary drives to manipulate our surroundings for the benefit and perpetuity of our genetic code.
So we observe it as ‘romantic love’ when our inner conditions strongly suggest this: sexual attraction, compatibility of genetics, interests, ideologies, life paths, etc. All of these strengthen our awareness of this interconnectedness - but it is concentrated between two actual entities. We are more convinced of this particular pocket of interconnectedness, the more physiological and psychological evidence we experience, and those around us also notice its impact on our outward demeanour and our actions.
When we are ‘in love’, that sense of interconnectedness often radiates into our other connections, enhancing the way we interact with everything - the world looks brighter and full of possibilities, food tastes better, we are nicer to everyone, etc. We become more aware of how we interact with the world and create potential for ourselves and for others.
But society’s view of love and marriage dictates that we can only feel this romantic love with one person (at a time). The institution of marriage, with its origins as a property exchange contract and an effort to control sexual drive, restrict our capacity to love when the conditions suggest this interconnectedness to be of a ‘romantic’ nature. So we strenuously deny our interconnectedness with other ‘romantically compatible’ people around us, rationalising physical and social compatibility boundaries to love, and channel our capacity to love towards that one person.
Likewise, as a mother, my connection to my own child is enhanced by the recognition that she carries my genetic code and that her life is intertwined with mine in so many more ways than any other human being. As a newborn, her unique potential and capacity for life was almost completely dependent on my own capacity - the experience of fundamental interconnectedness was at its strongest. As she grows, I must adjust to the reality that my individual capacity is limited, and that her capacity for life becomes greater the more she interacts with the universe and intertwines her potential with others.
Like being ‘in love’, this sense of interconnectedness radiates into the way I experience the world around me - If I’m honest, I become acutely aware of the capacity of others to genuinely love this child, too: from my husband and family members, to the nurse, neighbours, friends and strangers. I am also aware of my own capacity to love others with the same strength of feeling, including other people’s children, the orphans on TV ads, etc.
If I wholly embrace this feeling, then the fear and lack of control can be overwhelming, so I cope with this awareness of universal interconnectedness by applying a hierarchy or circle of concern - rationalising physical, genetic, ideological and other boundaries and distances that deny this capacity for love beyond a certain point. Rightly or wrongly, these structures form the foundations of our society...
I think people should explore the stochastic nature of who gets love and who doesn't. One obvious way is how children can be born to parents that show little love. Some even have to be brought up in foster care for much of their life. But another one is how some people experience and keep true romantic love and others never find, or never keep romantic love for long periods of time. Thus, the somewhat random distribution of who finds love makes love partly a misery for what is denied millions and billions of people. Human life, being very indeterminate in how people's personalities and circumstances play out in the world-stage, has a lot of non-optimal outcomes for many people. This is yet another reason not to bring another person into the world. The indeterminate nature of contingent circumstances and life-decisions of an individual will often lead that individual to non-optimal circumstances (for the personal preferences of that person or objective set of preferences if one buys into that idea).
I don’t think it helps to expect anyone to show love on the basis of genetics, ideological affinity or physical attraction. Just as there are many children born to parents who fail to ‘love’ them, so many children are raised in a loving bond that has nothing to do with genetics, and also children adopted or switched at birth can form a bond just as strong or even stronger with non-biological parents.
It certainly suggests that while parental love can be enhanced by genetics, this may have more to do with awareness than any actual connection.
As for romantic love, I think the parameters we set for what this type of love ‘looks’ like, and the belief that we are obliged to find one person who best fits these particular parameters, prevent us from being open to love in all its forms. Personally, I think romantic love is a myth - if we work to free the concept of love from the parameters of sexual attraction, and likewise free sexual attraction from the parameters of ‘romantic love’, we recognise that sexual attraction really has nothing to with love as an awareness or deep feeling of interconnectedness - all it does is enhance our awareness or feeling in certain circumstances.
I get the sense that we all have the capacity to love and be loved with the intensity of a mother and child bond in all circumstances. The apparent ‘distribution’ of this love perhaps comes down to the boundaries, structures and distances that have helped us to make sense of, control and feel safe in society and the universe in general. When we have the courage to dismantle these and to be aware of interconnectedness beyond them, then perhaps we may find love in unexpected places...
At a minimum it requires 1 thing - you can love yourself.
We also know the term like which in the simplest of terms is an attraction or pull between the one who likes and the liked.
Let y = 1 ÷ like
As like increases or tends towards infinity, y tends to 0, which in French is love.
So love is a function of like, specifically infinite like.
You either misinterpreted what I meant or you are creating a strawman, as I never mentioned genetics as a result of bad parenting situations and foster care. I was simply stating that it is a fact that some set of people will not experience "love" from a parental figure the way others might. That was it. My argument had nothing to do with whether someone was raised by genetic parents or not.
Quoting Possibility
I'd say this is a case of "moving the goal posts". I can certainly point to a phenomenon called "romantic love" and I can identify its traits. In fact, you described the feelings associated with this phenomenon quite well. But it seems that to counter my claim, you denied the importance of romantic love all together when it seems to be a very powerful force in the human psyche.
Quoting Possibility
Yes the Greeks had a concept of different forms of love. Agape, storge, philia, eros, etc. etc. I get that we can feel interconnected outside romantic love. However, let's not downplay the role of romantic love. It's pursuit and its lesser cousin lust, are the reasons the species continues and procreates in the first place. The human condition is a wiley mysterious thing, but it can be characterized with a kind of self-awareness- a meta-understanding of itself. We can analyze our situation as we do what we do. No other animal has such reflective abilities. One of the conditions we constantly find ourselves in is the need for need. We cannot get beyond our own restless boredom. One level up from our restless boredom is loneliness. Thus humans tend to be characterized by their restless need to "do anything" and their need to connect with others while doing something. Romantic love is a sort of the ultimate "connect with another person" in the sense that one's time, devotion, physical needs, are connected with another person. This satisfies some craving in the human psyche to get beyond loneliness. This kind of connection is deeper than even a really good friend (but not necessarily better). It is different than the reverence one pays parents or the awestruck feelings of some religious experience. In a way, it is the practical need to get through life with someone who cares for you and vice versa. Of course, one of the conceits of the human condition is no one (or any) person knows you like you know yourself, and people often have unreasonable expectations that their "partner" will know them fully when no one can know that..so best not to expect it.
Anyways, the point is that this kind of deep romantic love is not experienced or experienced in any kind of meaningful duration for millions and billions of people in the world. That is troubling that such a seemingly fundamental thing is not had by many humans. You can downplay it, change the goal posts, or whatnot, but then you are not really dealing with the problem itself, but trying to diminish it so it doesn't look like a real problem.
I guess if I were to use the different Greek concepts I would be using the two ideas of eros and pragma. Eros is that passionate love found in pop-culture. This is that immediate attraction one feels and excitement. People often confuse this with pragmatic love, which is trying to find someone who has common interests and living together as a goal. People want a combination of both but often cannot have it. This is another frustrating aspect of love. So there are many things about love that are troubling.
1) Love (pragma) is not had by millions and billions of people but it is a deep psychological need to want to have someone to live life with. Thus people are living with a lack of the is deep need.
2) People want their pragmatic love to be combined with their romantic love and that often times doesn't pan out the way they want it in their minds. This may be a case of unreasonable expectations.
3) Loving relationships often fall apart due to a variety of reasons and leave the person feeling worse off.
Love seems more trouble than its worth, but at the same time is wrapped up in the human condition.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I’m not arguing with you here - just offering additional thoughts on the notion of parental love. My point (clearly not well made, let me try again) was that we tend to expect an expression of love between parent and child that (as you suggested) doesn’t always occur, and we wonder where the failure lies. My thoughts were that, given the frequent occurrence both of genetic bonds without an experience of parental love and strong experiences of parental love without a genetic bond, it seems to suggest that what we think of as ‘parental love’ is not really parental, but something more generic that not everyone is open to experiencing at that point in their life. This is not to say that they never will, however. Most of us have barriers that need to be dismantled first.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Perhaps ‘myth’ is not the right word - I think your use of ‘phenomenon’ and ‘experience’ is closer than your previous suggestion that there is ‘true romantic love’ out there that we either have and keep, or we don’t. I’m not saying the phenomenon of ‘romantic love’ doesn’t exist in subjective experience - I experience this phenomenon myself within a marriage of more than 20 years, which I guess makes me one of the lucky ones. But I think it’s false or even misleading for me to claim that I ‘have’ romantic love at any point.
I think that might be part of the problem. Those of us who experience love attempt to substantiate it in the ways we describe our experience. We talk about possessing or having something, about physiological responses such as heartrate, and even psychological evidence such as emotion. Each of these associations help to make it seem more ‘real’ or substantial. In doing so, we paint a ‘false’ picture of what it is we are actually experiencing.
I’m not saying that we lie. That’s the trouble with romantic love - because it’s defined by association with sexual attraction and sharing a life, it’s easier to rely on these elements of the experience in order to substantiate what is essentially a much deeper feeling. One that’s difficult to articulate, let alone to verify. The human sexual drive is a powerful force in the human psyche, so it stands to reason that this notion of ‘romantic love’ would also be seen as such. But I think what everyone is searching for comes from a more universal ‘love’ that originates at a deeper experiential level, and is then informed by a variety of physiological and psychological responses to our interaction with others.
It’s a bit like the concept of energy. We know it exists because we observe or experience evidence of change. But we can’t see it, and we can’t say what it really is. So we talk about it in terms of the physical evidence it leaves behind: kinetic, thermal, etc.
In my experience, at the base of all love is the awareness that one’s unique potential and capacity for life is greater for being intertwined with another (and vice versa). This is the source of romantic as well as parental and familial love, deep friendship, tribal, community, humanity, etc.
I don't believe in true romantic love. By keep I meant, that we sustain- as in a long-term relationship for many many years, not just a fling or a short-lasting relationship. I was not indicating love is some "thing" that is kept. But that the relationship itself was sustained. For example, you have a 20 year relationship. This may add some happiness or positive well-being to your life to be involved in the sustaining of this relationship that someone who does not experience this might not experience. That is what I am talking about here.
Quoting Possibility
To mention this is to not recognize that I already addressed that the ancient Greeks have deduced a multiplicity of the forms of love (or as you put it interconnectedness). I even split up the idea of pragmatic love (being in a long term committed relationship) with specifically erotic or romantic love which has more to do with immediate sexual attraction. They can be comingled, but not necessarily. Anyways, either form- romantic or pragmatic can be something missing from many people's lives.
My claim is that 1) pragmatic/romantic forms of love are a real form of social connectedness. 2) People are qualitatively worse off who don't experience pragmatic/romantic forms of love or don't experience them for long sustainable durations of time. From these 2 things I also conclude 3) pragmatic/romantic love is a major form of suffering for those who don't experience it or who experience it and lose it or have a bad time with it leaving the person worse off. Thus, like many things in life, pragmatic/romantic love is actually a deficit for many people.
Yes, a sustained experience of pragmatic/romantic love is perceived as a deficit for many people. They ‘suffer’ specifically from an awareness of loss or lack, fuelled by the false perception that a sustained experience of pragmatic/romantic love: 1) is out there to be found in a complete state, 2) simply combines the experiences of sexual attraction and life compatibility, and 3) requires no continued effort on their part.
You define pragmatic/romantic love as a combination of immediate sexual attraction and being in a long-term, committed relationship. Sexual attraction can be reduced to the combination of physiological responses to certain visual and other stimuli. A long-term committed relationship can boil down to a mental checklist of preferences and ‘deal-breakers’ in terms of actualities (common interests, beliefs, ideology, etc) based on future hopes and past experiences. This is by no means all they are, but the fact that they can be reduced to so little points to a flaw in how we define this type of love.
Many people experience these two elements separately without experiencing the ‘love’ that is an awareness of interconnection at a deeper level. On the other hand, it is possible (if difficult) to experience a deep and abiding ‘love’ that transforms our wellbeing without experiencing either of these two. Somewhere in between is a journey towards deeper awareness from the experience of only one of these elements at time, to a love that encompasses both.
This deeper awareness is certainly prompted by experiences of immediate sexual attraction and life compatibility. They draw our adult attention in the strongest way to a necessity of interdependence - the recognition that complete independence is achieved ultimately to our detriment - and they potentially open our minds and hearts to experience that deeper sense of interconnectedness across all our relationships.
But there are many experiences in life that close our minds and hearts to this deeper experience of love. People experience a disconnect from the universe and each other now more than ever in our history. We have learned to protect ourselves from pain, loss and humiliation with boundaries and limitations on our awareness that make it almost impossible for us to experience sexual attraction and life compatibility in a single relationship, let alone experience that deeper sense of interconnectedness.
Personally I think it helps to examine these boundaries and limitations in the way we interact with others, to recognise them as false, and then to dismantle them. This often leaves us vulnerable in a way that terrifies us to our core - but I think only then can we be genuinely open to experiencing love.
My 24 year relationship was primarily based on life compatibility (from my experience) for the first 18 years. In my youth I failed to combine romantic and pragmatic love, and ultimately chose one over the other. This was a deficit I chose to ‘suffer’. It wasn’t until many years later that I managed to recognise and discard the boundaries I had to experiencing a deeper interconnection, opening myself up to romantic love within an existing experience of pragmatic love.
It wasn’t easy, and I imagine most people who feel that deficit find it easier to assume that romantic love must be experienced elsewhere. I spent many years conscious that some ‘romance’ could come along and tear my marriage apart. But I still yearned for both in the one relationship, and I was willing to entertain the possibility that the issue was mine, and that it was fixable. We were raising two children, I knew my partner loved me (in both ways), and I knew from experience that life compatibility required constant effort to sustain over time.
After examining my past relationships, I recognised that the problem was with protective boundaries and limitations I had formed around sexual attraction since childhood. Recognising and dismantling these boundaries was scary and required not only facing some dark, painful truths, but also sharing them with someone who thought they knew me already. It was, and continues to be, well worth the effort.
So I would say that romantic/pragmatic love definitely seems more trouble than most people are willing to face these days. This is partly because we have a long way to travel from our experience of individuality, independence and profound disconnect with the universe, and partly because we can experience one side without the other and in it fail to see the deeper love that each experience of sexual attraction or life compatibility is leading us towards.
But the sum is definitely greater than its parts, and being open to experiencing that deeper sense of interconnection is worth more than any effort you can put in, more than any fear you have to face or any experience of pain, loss or humiliation - in my experience, anyway.
Yes all well and good. Your answer regarding your personal experience with this type of love and its leading you to greater awareness of interconnectedness is fine for what it is. So it looks like we can agree that romantic/pragmatic love is a type of love that exists, and that (for the most part) an important element for most people to achieve a type of interconnectedness with at least one person that shares interests and burdens, and also physical affection. Okay, we got that far. So my 1) claim: pragmatic/romantic forms of love are a real form of social connectedness we can establish as more-or-less true. Now, how about the problems I identified with 2 and 3? I see how you sort of addressed it by mentioning our problem with being too individualistic and less open to experiences with others, but the effect is still the same. That is mainly: 2) People are qualitatively worse off who don't experience pragmatic/romantic forms of love or don't experience them for long sustainable durations of time. From these 2 things I also conclude 3) pragmatic/romantic love is a major form of suffering for those who don't experience it or who experience it and lose it or have a bad time with it leaving the person worse off. Thus, like many things in life, pragmatic/romantic love is actually a deficit for many people.
Thus, this kind of basic need for romantic/pragmatic love in the human adult, is problematic in its absence in billions of people and/or its negative effects in creating worse off situations with the drama and loss that occurs in bad relationships and breakups. Thus, it is a stochastic phenomenon which was my initial claim- and only really experienced by a smaller subset then is usually touted. This is not denying that this subset has to "work" at it, or saying that love is always a cakewalk for these "successful" types (actually making my claim stronger that even the "best" of love circumstances aren't that qualitatively or quantitatively great much of the time) but just to say that there is a subset who experience romantic/pragmatic love in more quantitative ways (longer duration of relationships or more frequent loving relationships) and in more qualitatively ways (these relationships bring positive effects in both lives and make the lives more richer or better in some way to the lovers involved). But only this subset has these experiences which are not had in any major quantitative or qualitative way by billions of other people who have a deficit of this kind of love or who have negative experiences from bad relationships and breakups.
Okay, here’s where you and I appear to differ:
I don’t believe that pragmatic/romantic love is a ‘stochastic phenomenon’ - that’s not to say that I think it’s easy to predict, but that it’s possible to increase your chances of experiencing it by developing a greater awareness of interdependence and an openness towards interactions with others that risk experiences of pain, loss and humility.
I think we spend so much of our energies these days trying to protect ourselves from experiences of pain, loss and humility when we should be welcoming them as evidence that we are living. They are the fundamental condition of every living being. The more we believe that we should avoid these experiences or that we are entitled to a life without them, the more we ‘suffer’ or inflict suffering, and the less we truly live or experience a ‘quality of life’.
One could also say that owning your own home or travelling the world are similar experiences that bring positive effects in people’s lives and make life richer or better in some way to those few who achieve this. That we can buy these experiences and even tailor them to our needs disguises the fact that, like pragmatic/romantic love, their real qualitative value lies in how we are able to connect with the universe on a deeper level. These experiences, too, can be “a major form of suffering for those who don’t experience it or who experience it and lose it or have a bad time with it leaving the person worse off”.
I think the main contributor to this ‘suffering’ or feeling ‘worse off’ is the unrealistic expectation that this ‘magical’ experience will somehow be free from associated experiences of pain, loss or humility, or will be some kind of antidote to counteract these ‘negative’ experiences.
But do you see that you are not really countering my argument but strengthening it here? Overall, love is a bitch, if you will. Not only is love not obtained by billions of people, but this time around, you mention that it is associated with pain, loss, and humility. This is very Nietzschean of you. Strength through pain. No pain, no gain. I'm an antinatalist for the most part. That is to say, I don't see the need to procreate more people into the world who will suffer. I don't see the need for people to pump their fist in the air and try to defy the gods by suffering through life experiences as if life is one's own work of art that one embraces through the catharsis of one's own suffering. Rather, I see no need to make anyone suffer through life in the first place.
But anyways, I still think it is a telling thing about life that this seemingly basic need of the human- to at least connect with one human in a meaningful way, is so difficult in the first place. It is precisely this elusive nature of this basic need that I am examining here, and that you are also inadvertently explaining (even if you think you are actually differing with my view in some way). I actually agree with much of what you say, but the implications are perhaps different- where I am going with it regarding what it means for life itself, that is.
Also, just to add, I see romantic/pragmatic love as more basic than traveling the world or other cultural forms of entertainment. I see it as more fundamental in our psyche (on a species/animal level) as a social animal that craves deep connection with at least one other person in ways that are different than other loves that might be obtained in life (philial, agape, etc.).
Quoting Gord
That you'd see goals and striving as having nothing to do with emotions.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I never claimed to counter your argument as such. I recognise that we’re approaching this concept of romantic/pragmatic love from very different perspectives, although we’ve discovered that we agree on many things. We can either turn this into a political debate and achieve nothing, or I can attempt to see it from your perspective, and perhaps we may both get something useful out of the discussion. I refer to the term ‘romantic/pragmatic love’ not because I recognise it as ‘a type of love that exists’, but because you do, and I think I understand what you mean by it. We won’t get very far if I reject your terms and you reject mine, and I’ve been enjoying the discussion so far...
Overall (and if you’re going to look at it this way), I would say that life is a bitch. But, okay, we’re in it now, so what are we going to do about it? Stop living? We may recognise that ‘life is pain’ (‘The Princess Bride’) and it’s also loss and humility among other experiences, but when did we decide that these experiences are so terrible?
Pain, after all, is simply awareness that energy/effort/attention is required to adjust to change. Loss or lack is awareness that everything is a process and nothing lasts - that we are dissipative structures who must continually assimilate from the universe and let go of elements of ourselves in order to perpetuate our existence. And humility is awareness that in isolation we are fragile creatures, utterly dependent on our relationships with the universe in order to have any power in it at all.
None of this is so terrible in itself - it is what it is. It’s only ‘suffering’ when we refuse to accept it, when we misunderstand or are led to believe that life should exist without pain, loss or humility. Or that life shouldn’t exist because of the pain, loss and humility that inevitably comes with it. We’ve been led to believe that some things should last forever, that who or what we are essentially shouldn’t change, and that we should strive to be the most independent, most powerful and most loved.
Whenever we deny that pain, loss and humility are a necessary part of life, we perceive the experience as ‘suffering’. And we hide from it. This is what we’ve done with our self-awareness - we have run for cover. And we’ve wasted almost the entire history of humanity so far ‘suffering’ from fear and misunderstanding, striving to avoid pain, loss and humiliation by pushing it onto others - which contributes to more ‘suffering’, and so the vicious cycle continues to escalate and radiate outwards.
We were led to believe that life can be perfect if we do it right and that romantic ‘love’ is some amazing cure-all that makes life all sunshine and rainbows til death do us part, but that’s actually a load of crap. This appears to be where you are now in your awareness. And it probably feels like ‘suffering’ occurs everywhere you look. Why would anyone choose this? What good can possibly come from it?
I think the problem is we’ve inherited a worldview that is built on misinformation. It tells us that ‘suffering’ IS pain, loss and humiliation, and that it shouldn’t happen - it’s bad, wrong, unfair or evil. Everything we do, then, is geared towards eliminating this evil from the world (prioritising our own experiences, of course). And some of us eventually recognise the futility of this task. Because what we have come to see as ‘evil’ (pain, loss and humiliation) is in fact the very process of life.
So does that mean life itself is the ‘evil’ we need to eradicate? Or does it mean that there’s something wrong with our concept of ‘evil’ - that we should be doing something other than trying to eliminate pain, loss and humility from the world?
I don’t think it’s a matter of finding purpose in ‘suffering’, either. I think we should still be trying to reduce ‘suffering’ - just not by trying to eradicate pain, loss and humiliation. I think it’s a matter of recognising ‘suffering’ as an internal, misinformed response to pain, loss or humility - one that can only be eliminated from the inside. It’s a matter of reassessing how I respond to pain, loss and humility, and how or why that response then contributes to or reduces experiences of pain, loss and humility around me, and so on.
I can’t eliminate your experience of ‘suffering’, but I could pity you, perpetuating the illusion that your experience makes you different to me because you suffer, whereas apparently I have a life without pain, loss or humility (at least by comparison), OR I can interact with you in a way that demonstrates how much I also recognise pain, loss and humility as fundamental to my own experience as a human being. This is compassion, literally translated as ‘suffering with’. And I think it’s the first step towards discovering what ‘love’ is, at its core.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I think maybe what makes it so difficult is that most people don’t really understand what this ‘basic need’ is. It isn’t ‘romantic/pragmatic love’ that we need - that’s just how we’d prefer to have this need met as human beings. We prefer romantic/pragmatic love because it’s always been the easiest form of love to legitimise - I can accumulate proof that I am loved by a real person in a visible way, and this love promises to last. I have a ring on my finger, a signed legal document and witnesses to our solemn vows. I also have two children who can be genetically traced back to a physical ‘union’, and a real person to stand beside me as a physical comfort, support and witness to key moments in my life. Romantic/pragmatic love not only satisfies a deep, spiritual connection, but it also provides objective, material evidence of its existence - evidence that cannot be produced in such ‘lasting’ abundance by any other form of love.
The more our modern lives are built around digital and wireless connection, the less we connect with people physically. It’s no wonder the elusiveness of romantic/pragmatic love is felt as a source of ‘suffering’. But I think it is more the physical, material proof of love that eludes us, and causes us to doubt its existence. Because as much as my love is legitimised for outside observers in all the physical evidence described above, it is only the subjective experience of deep, spiritual connection that constitutes love. Everything else is an imperfect and transient expression. If I lose my ring or the signed document, if death comes to these witnesses or to my children, if this person loses their life or their ability to witness or provide physical comfort or support in my life, then have I ‘lost’ that love? I would say no - but when these things do happen it can certainly feel like it, because we will have lost a key material proof of that love, even as the connection continues to exist.
Quoting schopenhauer1
To reduce travelling the world to ‘a cultural form of entertainment’ is to miss the value of the experience, but that’s another discussion.
What you see as fundamental on a species/animal level in romantic/pragmatic love I see partly as the urge to procreate - and I realise that you don’t recognise it as such right now, but our physiological responses are nevertheless informed by the systematic assimilation from the universe and letting go of elements of ourselves in order to perpetuate our existence. For you, it may be more associated with forming relationships with the universe for the purpose of functionality. It feels so fundamental because it links basic physiological responses on the surface not only with this systematic awareness but with an even deeper connection at a sub-atomic level. I often refer to this as a ‘spiritual’ connection, although I’m conscious of the connotations this term may bring. And this connection exists whether or not we’re aware of it. It informs all ‘other loves’ that might be experienced (not obtained), as well as our sense of wonder about the universe, our courage to experience more from life and our reverence for the overwhelming potential of our interactions with the universe.
I believe that we’re connected to the entire universe in a deeper and more fundamental way than we may ever fully realise, but we’re often hampered from recognising this by fear and misinformation about pain, loss and humility - and about love.
All reasons for my antinatalism. We shouldn't put more people in this situation. Just because we can recognize our situation and adjust sometimes to conditions, doesn't mean we should expose others to the situation in the first place.
Quoting Possibility
This is just identifying with the tormentor. More of the same. You're not the only one. Society tries to get us to not be antinatlaists by sayings "it's not that bad..it's only your perception" thus perpetuating the conspiracy.
Quoting Possibility
We push it to others by procreating.
Quoting Possibility
More identifying with the tormentor.
Quoting Possibility
That's fine.. doesn't negate the fact that some have stuff that others don't- that's just a fact, with or without compassion. I'm not saying to not be compassionate, it just doesn't negate the facts on the ground.
Quoting Possibility
I can agree with this framing.
Quoting Possibility
Sure, but it's the lack of connection that I am talking about. A connection between at least one other person.. It's not the trappings of love that you describe. Though I agree some may put weight on the outer manifestations and not the connection.. The facts on the ground are that some people have that connection with another person, and some don't.
Quoting Possibility
Yes, certainly the urge to procreate is part of our species in terms of connecting with others, physical pleasure, and this leading to sex. Culturally, we bolster procreation by instilling the idea of pride in family and creating family bonds, etc. Of course, more people leads to more suffering, and the whole thing continues. As I said before, Society tries to get us to not be antinatlaists by sayings "it's not that bad..it's only your perception" thus perpetuating the more of the same.
I wonder if ‘society’ really benefits from procreation - we seem so intent on promoting it, despite overpopulation. In my opinion, bolstering procreation and pride in family bonds are excuses for surrendering to evolutionary instincts...but that’s another discussion...
Quoting schopenhauer1
I’ve been there - I spent many years thinking that maybe I was just never going to have that deep connection with someone, despite yearning for it. It’s easy to be convinced in that situation that there are two kinds of people in the world, and I’m one of the ‘have nots’. But it wasn’t that I didn’t have that connection - it was that I didn’t recognise a connection when it was standing right in front of me. I had walls up that I didn’t even know were there - for a long time I was so sure that the problem either had to be with the world or with me, not realising that there was a third option: that it was the way I was interacting with the world.
As I understand it, at any point in time it appears to you as if some people simply ‘have’ that kind of relationship with another person, and some don’t - this is your observation of ‘the facts on the ground’: an objective and consistent reality. I would hazard a guess that you also separate the world into people you have any kind of relationship with at any point in time, and people you don’t, and that each relationship is classified or valued in relation to others. This is not a criticism - it is how most people interact with the world - this is how the world makes sense.
These relationships change, shift or come and go over time, but you’re not focused on the process of change, let alone any potential for change - only on the reality at any point in time. The change isn’t important - it’s the facts on the ground that matter. This way the world as you see it at any point in time makes sense - it’s solid and predictable...to a certain extent.
When change happens, it often appears to happen suddenly and without warning - and it hurts. From your point of view, a relationship ends, but the pain or the loss continues to reverberate through your life, and the only way to eradicate the pain is to pretend the relationship was never there to begin with - to sever all connections with that particular relationship - or to somehow ‘manage’ the pain.
I don’t expect you to fully understand the way I see the world - It probably sounds like I’ve been trying to ignore the ‘reality’ that you see so clearly. I would describe the difference in terms of particles and waves: you look at the world and see the particle, whereas I see the wave. I’ve learned that neither is more correct than the other, and that the trick is to recognise both/and.
As far as I can see, the entire universe is already interconnected. When we interact with the universe, we develop awareness of this deeper existing connection through our ‘relationships’ - in our physical or emotional interaction with another person, for instance. The relationship is evidence of our awareness of this connection, but it is not the connection itself, anymore than electricity or heat is the energy itself.
Relationships change (because all of life is a process), and with that awareness of change we experience pain, loss or humility. And even though the deeper connection itself remains unchanged, it is the relationship - the facts on the ground - that we tend to focus on. When a relationship changes dramatically, it feels like that deeper connection is lost, but we have only lost our awareness of it. We find it again by accepting the pain of change, the continual loss and lack of an open system and the humility of interdependence. And we find it by giving love instead of looking for it.
Or, you could continue to do battle against life as if it’s the enemy, but to me that seems a waste...
Well, yes we are having a "meta" conversation, because well, this is a philosophy forum and almost everything is discussed at the abstract "removed" level. That's just the nature of philosophy in general. So I can't help but talk about it in this sort of way given the forum we are in and the topics at hand. Anyways, I don't think relationship connections with other people (specifically romantic/pragmatic connections) can be compared analogously to other interactions. Just because it is a form of interaction, does not mean it gets generalized and loses its unique characteristics. No, rather romantic/pragmatic relationships have certain characteristics that stand out.. I mentioned earlier that loneliness is part of the human condition.. actually it is one step away from the barest of all human emotions (in my opinion anyways) which is boredom...That is to say, I see loneliness as a flavor of boredom manifested in a social species like our own, but I am aware that is arguable. Anyways, the point is loneliness is a real thing.. You can have friends- even good ones, and it still is not the same. I've said this one before. There is something deeply fulfilling with having a "mate" that you "go home to" and "share your day with" and "deal with life together" and "physically connect together with". That is just a type of relationship that has occurred since as far back as we know and happens in every society (though some polygamous I understand..still same principle). It is handled differently in different cultures, but the principle is the same. I am simply not going to let you get away with making this unique type of connection into a generalized idea of "connections" and use it as a type of therapy, and then say that the matter is dissolved or resolved.
@Bitter Crank any thoughts? Do you get what I am trying to say in terms of @Possibility trying to generalize this kind of love to dissolve it away as a real problem- which is to say some people will be a part of these kind of relationships and some won't? That the lack of these experiences for billions of people in the world is a real thing?
Hi Possibility!
I read this thread and found it most interesting, and I thank you for your candor... . In adding to the intrigue with the love phenomenon, I would like to ask a few questions if I may. Could one interpret your forgoing quote to include the notion that men and women are naturally open to other sexual relationships even when they are in an exclusive one?
I see that making an obvious commitment would involve the channeling of our energy towards just one person. But it seems as though human nature has it that reading from the menu is more or less an intrinsic past-time full of intriguing distraction. Sort of an existential question, but in your view, why is that (I'm sure Freud could speak to that Ha)?
I think you mentioned in this thread that at one point (during your marriage) you had your own radar tuned to that frequency or said possibility. And that's because I think your criteria at the time was 'pragmatic love' and not 'romantic love'(?). You were struggling to integrate the two and I think you indicated you had been successful in doing so... .
Accordingly, you also were brave enough to share that your sojourn included an introspection that involved a form of repression or suppression or denial of certain romantic feelings that possibly presented itself earlier in life.
Quoting 3017amen
I don’t believe that an exclusive sexual relationship is a ‘natural default’ for humans only because I don’t think there IS a ‘natural default’ that is human. Every ‘instinct’ we think we have, we are capable of acting against, given the right circumstances. This means that, whether we promise exclusivity and then re-neg on it, or we insist that we’re incapable of it and then find someone to change our mind, the choice is always ours to make based on a self-reflective understanding of our subjective experience and potential, rather than a predetermined result of ‘human nature’.
I think we observe the mating behaviour of other animals, and Darwin tells us that we’re no different from them - that our capacity for communicating intention and feeling, and our self-conscious reflection and evaluation on how we perceive the world and how we respond to it, is simply observational in relation to behaviour we have in common, or a matter of choosing a ready-made path, and not an opportunity to refine, correct and create a more collaborative pattern of relating to the world.
Quoting 3017amen
I think the desire for obvious commitment in a sexual relationship, like most social contracts, enables us to bring some certainty into an otherwise uncertain co-existence. Our potential to love is much broader than we are often willing to admit. If I am capable of multiple lovers then so is my lover, and the imagination boggles at the uncertainty of inner experiences we don’t share. By limiting this concept of ‘love’, we limit its potential, and with that the uncertainty it brings to our world.
Quoting 3017amen
‘Romantic’ and ‘pragmatic’ concepts of love are ways that we isolate this capacity to connect deeply with the universe in a number of ways. Being able to open up and share your inner experiences of life, both good and bad, doesn’t need to be confined to one person, be it a ‘friend’ or a ‘partner’. There are people we feel comfortable sharing with more than others, but this idea of a ‘best friend’ or ‘soulmate’ is just a way that we limit our capacity to connect with the universe that enables us to learn from each other and better understand what this inner experience might look like for others, despite the uncertainty.
Likewise, being able to connect and collaborate fully with others in a physical way to achieve, create and ‘remake the world’ doesn’t need to be confined to a romantic or sexual connection. Any physical connection and collaboration is full of risk and uncertainty as much as it is full of potential: it involves contributing the limited energy and effort of the organism to an event or experience of the world that may not benefit or sustain the organism itself, but has the potential to achieve beyond each of our limited, material existence. Limiting the potential of this connection to mutual pleasure or even procreation with one ‘romantic’ partner is a way to control the uncertainty of what can be a frighteningly overwhelming capacity to collaborate, and together, change the world.
Quoting 3017amen
I would agree with this assessment.
Love is overrated, and romantic love is very dangerously overrated.
It makes sense to get along with people you do transactions with. That is why we are friendly to the cashier in the neighbourhood minimart. However, getting along is never, ever the goal of the transaction. In the minimart, you exchange cash for groceries, and that is what it is truly about.
There does not exist any situation where "getting along" is not fundamentally transactional. If you believe in unconditional love, you are naive, and one day or the other you will be in for a very, very rude awakening.
If the other person simply does not need you anymore, in a transactional way, this person will cancel the arrangement with you and end up transacting with someone else. Therefore, you need to keenly keep an eye on what both parties are bringing to the table and what they keep taking from the table. If it does not make sense, the entire arrangement will eventually come to a screeching halt.
We simply do not love other people. That is an illusion. Seriously, in fact, we only love what they can do for us.
Thank you P. I am sure it brought back memories...and I do appreciate your attention to this matter. I admire your candor, particularly from the various excerpts from this thread. So before I unpack a few things, let me return the favor.
My point relates to Romantic Love:
I will try to give a synopsis rather than elucidate over the details for now. Years ago, I ended a relationship (a marriage) that was purely based upon Romantic Love. By all accounts, it was indeed a fever pitched, passionate, very intense, somewhat lustful relationship. Almost to the extreme in a selfish way, where we blocked-out the rest of the world. It was movie-like, in that it could have easily been us all alone in the Blue Lagoon or in Endless Love. Or, like a Country song, 'Living on Love'. Nothing else mattered but her and I and our physical desires and passion's. We would have what we called 'all dayer's', where we would be in bed all day, loving each other (usually on a Sunday for some reason). It lasted to the day we parted.
In that marriage, as the years went by, I changed and became a different person with a different perspective. I was forced to change as I got promoted at work (having to lead people), got back into performing music, and explored other hobbies that were very mentally stimulating for me. I grew and evolved from essentially an introverted person, to an extroverted person. My partner stayed an introvert. Additionally, through that process of change I experienced (subconscious) growing pains. I did not know where these pains were coming from; I just knew that something didn't feel right. As I've come to realize, I discovered I only had one component from the so-called Mind, Body, Spirit connection. And as you might have guessed here, the only connection I came to realize then was primarily relative and exclusive to the Body.
To make a long story short, I decided to divorce. I knew it was the best for the both of us in order to continue to grow as people, both personally and professionally. I also became aware that ' homeostasis' would further, only rear its ugly head if I were to try and salvage it. I wanted more. I wanted a higher Love. I wanted the so-called Mind Body Spirit connection.
Fast forwarding, I subsequently learned a little more about Love (through experience and theory-cognitive science-The Psychology of Love, Yale University Press). That there are many theories about Love, but that is all that they really are; no concrete answers, just theories.
A couple statements and questions:
1. How did you resolve your so called struggle or dichotomy with Romantic/Pragmatic Love?.
2. How important do you consider Romantic Love?
3. Can we escape the physical and sexual energy that exists between man and woman (somewhat rhetorical I know)?
One thing (that may be helpful) I did learn through psychology, that there is another component to Love ( among many components of course). It's called Love as an Attachment theory. It basically says: mom sees baby, baby is happy. Mom leaves baby, baby cries. That phenomenon essentially says there is arguably no real intellectual or higher love connection, just a lower- level Body connection ( from the Mind Body Spirit paradigm). Albeit one could argue that there is nonetheless a spiritual connection, I'll just interpret it as contextual in the adult-adult dynamic over the importance of a physical connection- the object itself known as the Body.
Quoting 3017amen
The main thing I realised was that this distinction is in our heads - in how we socially and personally conceptualise love, based on what we’re taught and what we experience. My issues can be traced back to my childhood experiences, to how I experienced my parents’ marriage and even in some part to my parents’ childhood experiences, which impacted on what they demonstrated to and taught (or didn’t teach) their children about relationships and sexuality. In some ways I had inherited years of trauma, which I needed to carefully unpack as an adult without assigning blame, and remove the limitations for my own children. It’s not as simple as cause-and-effect, you see, because mostly we manifest this kind of information we’re exposed to as conceptual relations without any awareness.
As another personal example, recently my mother, ten years a widow following almost 40 years of ‘happy’ marriage, finally opened up to her children about her years of childhood sexual abuse at the hands of brothers and an uncle - something she had never told anyone, not even my father. The reverberations of the #MeToo movement had apparently pointed out to her how much this experience impaired her capacity to feel and show love across the board, and (now 80) she wanted ‘a chance to explain’. Some very large pieces fell into place for me at that point - although I had already suspected something.
It’s hard to believe that what seems on the outside to be a ‘solid’ upbringing can conceal seriously distorted or at least limiting concepts of love, but it’s such a personal subject of inner experience that there’s no way to determine what is ‘healthy’, only what is obviously ‘wrong’ (at which point the damage is done). To be grateful that ‘we turned out alright’ isn’t enough for me anymore. The idea occurred to me that what we consider to be normal, healthy relationships may in fact be perpetuating and concealing limiting concepts of love. That this was the second intimate example of ‘systematic distortion’ revealed in what seemed otherwise ‘healthy’ family experiences suggested to me that our social concepts might be missing something important. So your realisation that all we have to understand love are theories fits into this.
Being a parent (and resolving not to make my parents’ mistakes) taught me a lot about what love is and isn’t, as did working in the education sector. Awareness and realisation of potential is more of a significant component to love than we give it credit for. This particular component is common to all concepts of love, and can even be seen as its common strength. It certainly suggests that all forms of love may be different conceptualisations of a single human experience - one that we isolate in relation to certain relationships, for various reasons, mostly to do with fear.
Quoting 3017amen
Well, it’d be disingenuous of me to declare that Romantic Love isn’t important, when I certainly enjoy its benefits! Humans have evolved to fundamentally need other humans, but it’s not just about survival, pleasure or procreation - and the idea that these are the main ‘reasons’ that we touch needs to be reassessed in my opinion.
I read Lisa Feldman-Barrett’s book ‘How Emotions Are Made’ last year, which looks at the neuroscience of emotions and provides meta-research to show that emotions are conceptualised rather than intrinsic, and that current psychology is based on biased research which claims that emotions are ‘universal’. It’s well worth a read. One of the things she found is that humans use interpersonal touch and other sensory connections to help re-balance their ‘body budgets’: how we re-distribute available energy in the body based on our conceptual predictions.
So while ‘romantic’ love is an effective way to ensure we get the interpersonal touch we need to operate at optimal capacity, it isn’t the only source of touch, and confining our connections this way can even limit our ability to restore balance - if we’re both having a crap day, for instance. When it feels like this ‘romantic’ love isn’t enough anymore, we’re led to believe that the love we have is fading. But I don’t think we’re constructed to be ‘two halves of a whole’ as once suspected. We’re more designed to be interconnected in a wide variety of ways with the whole universe - even us introverts!
In a strong, introverted ‘romantic’ relationship like the one you’ve described, it’s easy to believe that we don’t need anyone else - that the rest of the world can fall apart and we wouldn’t even notice. I can relate - and our two children are also introverts just like us, so that’s a feeling we can often get even between the four of us. Adjusting to the idea that our partner derives satisfaction in life from something other than us can lead to fears that we’re drifting apart, that the intensity of connection that we call ‘romance’ is suddenly fading. I think introverts find achievement more satisfying than attention, but it can seem difficult to tell the difference. Two introverts in a relationship means we need to adjust to sharing our partner not with friends or social life, but with hobbies, work and intellectual stimulation without taking this time spent with other people personally.
But the whole social concept of ‘romantic’ love says that this not-needing-anyone-else is how it’s supposed to be - like in the movies, as you say. It comes more from the false idea that we’re meant to aspire to individual autonomy, than any real understanding of what love is. Or perhaps it’s left over from patriarchal expectations - this ‘shut out the world’ idea of ‘romantic’ love can even be a foundation for domestic abuse situations. So when we look around and see that we’re limiting our individual AND combined potential by limiting our connections to the world, we mistakenly think we have to choose EITHER to fulfil our potential OR hold onto ‘romantic’ love.
Personally, I think we need to extract what love is from its differentiated relationship concepts. They’re based more on limitations and boundaries than on a more holistic concept of love as realising the potential in others. Understanding physical attraction as more than sexual ‘love’, and ‘romantic’ love as more than physical attraction, also enables us to feel attracted to someone other than our partner without calling our love or commitment into question.
Thanks P!
Just for clarification purposes, I failed to mention one other point about Romantic Love. From my particular experience relative to my 'selfish' (unhealthy blocking-out the rest of the world) kind of sojourn between consenting adults, I wanted to share a brief observation.
My theory needs to include a phenomenon of an introvert/extrovert dichotomy. Meaning, I think, that an introverted person viz Romantic Love communicates through physical intimacy and/or love making. Maybe not exclusively, but I am thinking about homeostasis or one's default position here.
I know from my experience, since my partner was introverted (almost to the extreme) that she communicated through physical intimacy. Although I can't describe it, I could feel that in sort of a metaphysical way. For example I could tell by looking at her, in the eyes, during love making. It was kind of understood and unspoken. (It was powerful yet ineffable.)
I still want to elaborate on your last post, but want the aforementioned to stand alone.
I can relate to this, but I think it’s more a learned ‘path of least resistance’. I don’t subscribe to ‘default’ positions in reference to human behaviour - it becomes an excuse to act without thinking, which I don’t believe should be an acceptable baseline for humanity. The capacity to be aware of, to evaluate and then redefine a ‘default’ position is part of what makes us human, what sets us apart from other animals.
Introverts are also particularly suited to this detailed inner activity, I think. There’s often a lot more going on beneath the surface than we let on, and one-on-one is where we open up and communicate - but it needn’t be only physical intimacy. Certainly the concept of ‘romantic’ love isolates physical communication, which suits introverts fine because it’s naturally intimate. But I also find a deep and intimate conversation to provide a similar strength of connection with another, which points to our capacity to love beyond the isolating concepts of romance or pragmatism. Social concepts say this can’t be ‘love’ because the connection isn’t observable, like touch or sex or a visibly shared life is - there’s no external evidence of love. But an introvert often recognises this as a loving connection, and can begin to doubt their commitment to another.
I think we have the capacity to sustain deep and intimate connections on a broader scale with the world and with those around us, but we’re hamstrung by these concepts of ‘romantic’ or ‘pragmatic’ love that isolate and exclude opportunities to increase awareness, connection and collaboration - out of fear.
I dunno. It sounds like you want some kind of control over the outcome.The fate narrative that runs through all of the instances cited is interesting but not self evident.
Most of the differences expressed between Agape and Eros concern supporting or opposing various ideas of the self.
It may be more efficient to just talk about that since so much is incumbent upon it.
Hello P !
And what is your theory behind such a fear?
Quoting Possibility
There's an important point to be made here. I am not talking about volition. What I'm referring to is intrinsic psychological behavior that relates to one's natural state of being or genetics. Psychological homeostasis basically means I can try to change many things, but certain core things I cannot change.
Quoting 3017amen
I’m just cautious of assertions that some things cannot change. I do recognise that certain brain structures are more or less stable at the level of genetics, but psychological homeostasis is only a relative stability - as you seem to have demonstrated in your own shift to becoming less ‘introverted’. I’m not convinced that any psychological behaviour is unchangeable in itself, although conceptualised behaviour patterns require more self-conscious or at least meaningful effort over time to shift. I think we need to be careful what we label as ‘natural’ or ‘intrinsic’, even beyond the level of volition - as Feldman-Barrett demonstrates with emotions.
Quoting 3017amen
The way I see it, the universe has evolved each level of awareness, connection and collaboration through the ‘courage’ of only a minute percentage of its capacity. The rest have ignored, isolated or excluded information beyond their limited awareness of the universe. Dark matter, the atomic nucleus, mineral ore and single-cell organisms are examples of these limitations manifest at other levels of awareness. At the level of self-consciousness, this manifests as fear of perceived potential.
As humans, we develop an awareness of potential in the world, including our own as participants. We can perceive the potential of future interactions, and then determine and initiate our own actions to increase or reduce this potential, perceived in relation to our own. We also have the capacity to ignore, isolate or exclude information about this potential in how we conceptualise the world. This means that we maximise our perceived potential only in a world with less potential than our own - a world that we perceive as controlled, stable and knowable, and that more or less revolves around our existence. But to achieve this necessarily limits our awareness, connection and collaboration with the potential of the universe that isn’t and doesn’t.
Our capacity for love corresponds to this capacity for awareness, connection and collaboration. We limit this capacity in order to distinguish and maximise our perceived ‘individual’ potential in relation to the perceived potential of our world. But potentiality doesn’t consist of distinct entities - that’s only how we perceive it.
Hi Possibility!
Do you have any examples of that?
Otherwise, you're saying you can change from hot to cold through the harshest conditions; where it is imposed upon you that you are not able to you cannot change something.
It is viewed as a statistical universe.
The universe is the freak but also the perfect school. In some artistic way.
Technology is a huge factor of existence, you can create good and evil technology. Isn't the universe just technology discovered by pre-existence? Accept this information.
Most people that meet him would disagree that he’s an introvert. But if you get to know him, you’d realise that he often prefers to keep to himself, his hobbies and social groups all involve solitary activity or at least require limited numbers, he has no interest in trends or popular opinion at all, and he ‘naturally’ gravitates away from crowds or people in general.
Introversion/extroversion is often seen as a dichotomy at the level of certain psychological behaviour, but it’s more fluid than that. Not all introverts are shy and disconnected, for instance, and not all extroverts aim to be the life of the party. The distinction occurs at a much deeper level than volition, allowing for far more variation and change than people might think. What is ‘intrinsic’ in my view is not any psychological behaviour, but a one-dimensional qualitative distinction in where we perceive potential in the world.
While it’s the potential for attention and connection that energises extroverts, it’s the potential for collaboration and achievement that energises introverts. In this way they complement each other, but in a way that often works like an electromagnetic force. Extroverts are drawn towards the quiet achievement of introverts, who back away from this attention and ‘trivial’ connection. Inversely, extroverts back away from a need for unheralded action, which draws introverts like a vacuum to make productive connections. So an introverted child living in a loving house full of extroverts learns to be highly capable, confident and conversational, or an extroverted child who grows up isolated and abused learns to be shy, reserved and limited in their perceived capacity to connect with the world.
The way I see it, all patterns of behaviour are changeable - we are capable of self-reflection beyond volition to evaluate and adjust the conceptual and value structures we employ in determining our own potential in relation to the world and initiating action. In the same way that we can increase and adjust potential interactions in physics to create a more effective action, we can also increase and adjust our own perceived potentiality in how we conceptualise psychological patterns such as ‘introverted’ or ‘shy’, for instance. So, an introvert is capable of developing more awareness and diverse connection with the world, and an extrovert is capable of achieving a deeper connection and collaboration with the world.
Hi Possibility!
I can certainly appreciate the dynamic associated with our learned responses from environmental stimulus or conditions. And completely agree how 'awareness' is absolutely critical in effecting change. I too believe that self-knowledge is the first step.
I caution you on suggesting that "...all patterns of behavior are changeable." I don't believe one can dichotomize that into an either/or choice. I think there are core homeostatic conditions that cannot be changed, both psychologically and physiologically.
Physiologically:
Body temperature, blood pressure, glucose levels, at al. We know that living organisms need to maintain homeostasis constantly in order to properly grow, work, and survive. Homeostasis is essential for normal cell function and balance for maintenance stability, as they need to resist any change that happens within and outside the organism’s environment which might be harmful.
Psychologically:
A person is born with a musical, mathematical, etc. talent, but their parents want them do be something else. They try other things, but revert back to their intrinsic way of being. How homeostasis relates to love can be demonstrated in the in the following phenomenon. When a person keeps choosing the wrong partner and doesn't know why, and also a person who chooses the right partner and still doesn't know why. Hence: I don't know why I love him/her I just do. I feel very comfortable with him/her. He/she validates my sense of Being.
A combination of both is parsed here:
Maslow’s pyramid, for instance, is a perception of value structure, not a set of ‘natural’ limitations. The more we understand how we construct this perception, how we evaluate experiences that don’t fit the pyramid, as well as alternative ways to structure these values that motivate similar behaviour, the better positioned we are to critically evaluate the accuracy of the conceptual structure itself. I have argued elsewhere on this forum that Maslow’s theory is individualistic and built on an assumption of abundance. An isolated community suffering from widespread famine, for instance, whose individuals subscribe to Maslow’s theory will destroy itself. It is only when they invert the pyramid - when they’re prepared to risk what little security and comfort they have in increasing awareness, connection and collaboration beyond the reach of famine that they gain the capacity to escape it (although those who give assistance too often take self-actualisation credit for the result).
Thank you Possibility! I will definitely check-out the theory you mentioned, and report back my interpretation. And I certainly get where you are coming from, particularly as it relates to breaking through intrinsic fears to arrive at change. Just a couple quick questions if I could regarding homeostasis:
Professionally: How do you reconcile the person born to be a doctor, musician, lawyer, etc. from some other profession?
Interpersonally: How do you reconcile the person who is intrinsically affectionate, and searches for a partner who is also affectionate, rather than someone who is not affectionate?
In both cases, mitigating fears for the sake of changing would not be germane or appropriate, unless they themselves want change. In other words, using your explanation, change for the sake of change is virtuous or good?
Regarding Maslow and the hierarchy of needs, why would people destroy themselves? The hierarchy is really simple. The gist is that once one need is met, another takes it place (indicative of an ordinary life of striving/in our stream of consciousness). And in turn, lower basic needs will dominate over other needs like the meaning of life stuff. So basic needs like food clothing and shelter, etc. need to be met before other things like debating philosophy, playing sports, going to school, searching for a higher love connection; uncover/discover one's own passions for life, abilities, gifts, strengths and weaknesses, ad nauseum.
And so, how does your definition of change effect uncovering one's strengths and weakness? In other words, idealistically, are you thinking there exists some sort of perfection that is attainable here (ie, a perfect Love)?
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Both the examples you give seem too simplified or conceptual to answer. I don’t believe anyone is necessarily ‘born’ for a particular career - there are a lot more factors that go into choosing a profession than genetics, and I think looking for dichotomous traits such as affectionate/not affectionate isn’t an effective way to determine a life partner.
We like to think there is an actual essence to who we are - something intrinsically unique about us that nothing in the world can change or take away, that no amount of terrible parenting or circumstances in life can spoil. I think in psychology there is often a sense that we can get back to that essence and start over, rather than recognise these ‘good’ and ‘bad’ influences as intrinsic to who we are at any one time. I tend more towards a process philosophy: that the structured relations between the unique circumstances of our birth, each of our past interactions with the world and our current experience are continually negotiable, but that ignoring, isolating or excluding them from our perception of reality limits our potential in the world.
I don’t think change for the sake of change is virtuous, but that the world effectively consists of change, or potential for change, depending on how you look at it.
Hi Possibility!
I don't understand why you are not able to respond to my questions about homeostasis. You are too intuitive for that. Respectfully, is your acquiescence by silence something I should take as a denial of some sort? Again, I'm asking this with the utmost respect.
This is an important topic in the Love equation. Personally, I know of too many people divorcing over homeostasis (both men/women who can't and won't change, fortunately/unfortunately). Indeed it is true, there are many things we can correct by first having awareness of a [the] problem, then by overcoming our fears to break through and effect change.
But, you seem to be denying inborn gifts, natural talents and even to some degree wants and needs. We have both core or intrinsic ways of Being ( that you seem to be denying), as well as discoverable truth's about the world and ourselves in it, through volition. Life then, is indeed both a discovery and uncovery of Being, from which choice plays an obvious role. But, not a mutually exclusive role, as you are suggesting.
Accordingly, we are back to trying to explain why there are only a few Einstein's, Picasso's, Hitler's, etc. in this world. Are they that way exclusively by choice? Using your theory, they chose to be that. Your theory also suggests all people can be musical geniuses.
But back to Love: if someone is driven-in their professional life-by their desire to practice science, and their love partner abhors such activity, why should they change if they have the potential for great discoveries ( the theory of relativity, as Einstein did)?
Maybe I'm not making my point clear enough, I'm not sure. However, if I try to use your reasoning. I arrive at an answer that precludes things like predisposition and natural aptitude which in turn can be extremely useful and virtuous.
Perhaps your response is an exclusive fight against those unfortunate memes and dysfunctional behavior resulting from early childhood/bad parenting. But I hope you will allow yourself to see that's not all that we are talking about here.
I don’t see it as denying them - I’m arguing against the consistency we tend to attribute to them. The idea that ‘this is who I am in my core, and you have to accept that’ is a misunderstanding that leads to us limiting our capacity to relate to the world. I’m not saying that’s wrong - only that it is a limitation we’re not always aware of. When we are aware of it, then we still don’t have to change, but it then becomes a choice that we make.
Life, as I see it, is increasing awareness of, connection to and collaboration with potential - our capacity to relate to the world. ‘Being’ is a limited, temporal awareness of that capacity. Beyond this concept of ‘Being’ is an awareness of infinite potential, and our capacity to relate to it. It’s beyond the awareness of most people, for whom Being is a universal condition. But this awareness that we have vastly different ways of Being broadens our capacity not just to discover or uncover our own unique way of Being, but to uncover the relational structure between various ways of Being. In doing so, we recognise that what we once saw as an intrinsic way of Being is in fact relative to our unique relations with the world, all the way to the quantum level - to how we perceive or relate to potential.
I’m certainly not saying that Einstein, Picasso or Hitler were aware of the choices they made at all - only that the intrinsic capacity was there to choose otherwise, despite their level of awareness. I don’t believe Hitler was ‘born’ to commit mass genocide or even to go into politics, but neither do I believe his path (or Einstein’s) was entirely nurture. I just don’t think our potential is as limited as we seem to think. It was a particular awareness of their potential and the choices available that ‘made’ them who they were.
Yes, I do believe that all humans can potentially become musical geniuses - but by the time most of us are aware of what it would take for us in particular to become a musical genius, our focus is elsewhere. Do you think if Mozart wasn’t thoroughly immersed in music and nurtured in his interest and ability from such a young age (when children can still firmly believe in their capacity to become a dog, for instance) he would have become the composer he was? I’m not saying he wouldn’t have yearned to make music, but if he’d never heard music until his twenties, I’m not sure he would have automatically given up a banking career, for instance, to become a composer.
But that’s all speculation. That there is more uncertainty, potential or relativity in our way of Being than we’re often aware of is my point - not that we have no particular way of Being.
Quoting 3017amen
It’s a two way street: love is not an individual action, but more of a dance. It’s about making allowances that maximise a collaborative potential, not about changing to please someone. To love someone and abhor what is their passion doesn’t make sense to me. To abhor the practise of science is to limit your perception of human potential - to relate to someone only within that limitation is a reduction of Love, and to accept that limited relation as Love without challenging it is a choice you make to limit your potential as well as theirs.
I’ll offer another personal example: I am currently working part time and raising two teens, while I am driven to practice philosophy: a motivation that I have been aware of only in the last few years, although I realise it has always been there. But in a marriage with children at school, it’s not only about my potential. Love is sometimes recognising that what I want will take time, money and attention away right now from maximising our collaborative potential in the long run, and that it can wait a few years. I’m not changing who I am, and I’m not sacrificing my potential - my family are aware that a career change is on the cards, and are gradually adjusting and contributing to enabling this eventual opportunity for me as much as they appreciate my contributions to their potential.
I think it’s when we don’t share and acknowledge the allowances we make for each other that we lose sight of the capacity for Love in a relationship that must constantly change and evolve relative to each other. When we assume a level of consistency in a relationship, we limit its potential.
Sure, agreed. However, if one were to treat like cases likely, and different cases differently (by positing some reasonableness here), one would say to Einstein in parody: "Please don't change Mr. Einstein, we like you for who you are. And the reason we appreciate you is because we consider your work most helpful to us, and your accomplishments and contributions to society quite ubiquitous."
Therefore, there is no need for him to change certain aspects of himself that comes naturally to him; his virtuous self or way of Being is good. And in turn, he should similarly feel good about that relative to his self esteem needs. We want to celebrate that.
Quoting Possibility
This is where your argument strengthens. Awareness is key, particularly if harmful to oneself or society. To embellish what Aristotle said, the best gift we can give to ourselves and each other is to 'know thyself'. So in the case of Hitler, change would have been obviously paramount.
Quoting Possibility
I see that you used the word immersed. Indeed the right terminology for parsing human creativity, as studies have shown one typically has to be immersed in the genre to be creative in it. But, once again, extraordinarily novel ideas typically cannot be taught. And that would seem to lend itself to the notion of a type of virtuous homeostasis, or way of Being.
Quoting Possibility
Love being a 'two way street' as you well put it, maybe just be what the doctor ordered here. No exceptions taken! Also, perhaps your personal example is inspiration to those who don't understand Love as being a multifaceted dynamic (like the Greeks thought), including the phenomenon of altruism.
I think it is safe to say we arrived at an equilibrium of sorts, where there might be a balance between the need to change and the need to say the same (change and acceptance). This could be considered a planting-of-the-seed toward heathier growth viz a type of self Love or self esteem, not sure. But it seems that learning to Love oneself, in a healthy way, as well as Loving others for who they are, indeed has its virtues. Ideally, I would like to think that through Love itself, awareness of both good and bad can be discovered and/or uncovered.
I think there is a kind of dynamic balance to be achieved, recognising that there is always change as we interact with the world, but that increasing awareness, connection and collaboration enables us to negotiate that change. We don’t always get to choose what stays the same - it’s all very well saying to Einstein ‘don’t change’, but he’s dead. The idea is that in striving to understand all the little contributions that helped to nurture and realise his potential along the way, as uncertain as it may have been at the time, we learn to be aware of, connect to and collaborate with this uncertain potential in ourselves and others, and to correct instances where that potential has been ignored, isolated or excluded. We can look at Hitler’s potential in the same way - recognising that ignoring, isolating or excluding the uncertain potential in ourselves and in current or future leaders to orchestrate mass genocide, for instance, would be as detrimental to our future as ignoring, isolating and excluding an equally uncertain potential for impressive collaborative achievements. That your potential and mine is essentially as adaptable as Hitler, Mozart or Einstein is something I think we struggle to get our heads around.
I think an important part of Love is coming to terms with the uncertainty of potential as an irreducible aspect of reality. When we focus on trying to reduce that uncertainty - rather than on our capacity to increase awareness, connection and collaboration with the irreducibility of that uncertainty - then we ignore, isolate and exclude information, limiting our capacity to Love: to relate without fear to the possibilities (‘good’ or ‘bad’) in ourselves, each other and the universe.
I'm not big on love, because I think there's too much superficiality to it in our society, but I do experience the emotions of love.