Love: It’s a long way down to the place where we started from
Trase posted her treatise on love, and, of course, I felt like it would be a good time to delineate how I feel about the subject. There are those of you who are uncomfortable with such direct talk (or can’t stand reading a post that’s *gasp!* 3 pages), so it’s under an lj cut.
I invite your commentary and discussion, if you’d like. :)
I don’t use “love” and “in love” as separate definitions. There was a time where I decided to define love itself as whatever the lowest common denominator was that I could find in my many definitions of how I feel toward other people, and I’ve been very happy with that definition since then. I pile onto that definition other feelings and emotions and definitions, like a modular construct of some sort, but I don’t try to use the same word to mean all these different things.
Loving someone is feeling joy in their existence. There is no room in this, most base description for reciprocity, lust, familial attachment. Those are other things that can make love greater, happier, more fulfilling. But when I feel joy at someone’s existence in the world, I love them, and I try to enjoy that feeling without laying an expectation on it that it will be returned, let alone in exactly the same way I intend it.
When I feel deeply connected to someone, when I can’t imagine living my life without them, that is of course love in those other senses, but first and foremost, it is joy.
Now, this has little to do with what makes a relationship work. Maybe that’s why I can love someone but never even imagine getting together with them – I know that just because someone says they love you, that doesn’t mean they’re running on the same definitions that you are.
For me to be in a serious relationship with someone, I need to know, first and foremost, that they love me as a friend and a human being that deserves as much respect as I give. I need to know that I am a confidant (maybe the confidant), and that my partner has my back at all times, whether we are in public, with their family, or if they’re alone with their friends, where I will never hear what they’re saying. I need to know that I can trust them to stick to their word with me, that we can come to an agreement with each other about what is right and what is not right, and that they will come to me before stepping over those boundaries, not because I am their boyfriend or husband, but because they feel it is the right thing to do for another human being, to fulfill their promise before moving on.
I need someone who isn’t afraid of deep communication. I flog my demons on a frequent basis, and anyone who finds that to be “TMI” won’t last long, and anyone who feels compelled to hide their true self will find it difficult to handle my probing nature.
I need someone who can spar with me, mentally speaking, and understand the enjoyment I get from it, as well as the respect I feel for anyone willing to get intellectual for the fun of it. I need someone who knows when we’re disagreeing for the fun of it, and when we’re really exploring a topic together, and trying to resolve our differing understanding. Someone who gets joy from learning from others, like I do.
I need someone who puts as much energy into discovering my idiosyncrasies and my way of thinking as I will put into theirs. Someone who sees where I am consistent, but doesn’t simplify me into predictability. I need reciprocity, balance, an even relationship with a partner who is uninterested in passive-aggressive power struggles.
Ultimately, I need that more than I let on: I need for my partner to see me as a whole, and not put me in a box based on my often-conflicting traits. That’s a pretty tall order, perhaps even taller than all of the rest.
I need someone who is amused by my goofy nature, amused by my horrible puns, amused by my childish need for attention without being so amused, that they see me as solely a joker. I need someone I can live with, meaning someone without conflicting desires for property, lifestyle, finances. I need someone who will giggle with me, who will tickle and wrestle and watch Invader Zim with me. I need someone who will put in the effort to make sure I know my place in their heart is secure, with the expectation that I will do the same, until such time as that is a question.
I need these things in order to have a significantly serious relationship with someone where there is any hope of cohabitation.
HOWEVER: That has absolutely nothing to do with love.
Love is about how I feel for someone. Maybe the mere thought of them makes me horny. Maybe they’re a comfortable bear that I can hug when I’m feeling insecure. Maybe they’re inspirational, challenging, stimulating. Maybe they’re family, or there is a long and deep common history.
But those things aren’t directly related to my personal needs in a partner, and so I can feel free to love someone without guilt or worry, even if they fit few or none of my other requirements, even if they don’t feel the same for me. Every person that I’ve ultimately walked away from, that I’ve decided is unhealthy for me to have in my life, I’ve loved. Now, that’s not the same as pushing away everyone you love. *grin* However, I realized that my love for them had nothing to do with whether we were good partners, or whether they treated me as I expect to be treated by someone I care deeply for. Separating the two ideas makes it easier to understand when someone is a great person without that spark that makes them impossible to put down, and when you deeply love someone, but mustn’t date them.
I feel like it’s okay for me to feel good about loving someone, even if nothing, nothing, nothing else fits. I want joy in my life, don’t I? I do.
And for the record, I consider my love for someone else to be deep and true when someone can ask me why… and I can tell them. That is the moment when I know that my mind and my heart are together.
That was well said and I agree with what you said 100%. That is really what everyone needs to strive for in a love relationship. People should really not ask for anything less.
I also agree with your different definitions of love. Some love is liking the hugs a certain person gives, or loving some aspect of someone…….
Well put! *big tacklehugs*
*tacklehugs back* Thanks, cutie. :)
*grin* It’s good to see you are consistant (not sarcastic- sincere)
Miss you.
Thank you. ;) We’ll have that beer some time this week, I’m sure.
good.
beer foamy.
Wow.
You have a follower in this.
Rock on.
I need someone who can spar with me, mentally speaking, and understand the enjoyment I get from it, as well as the respect I feel for anyone willing to get intellectual for the fun of it. I need someone who knows when we’re disagreeing for the fun of it, and when we’re really exploring a topic together, and trying to resolve our differing understanding.
This is part of the reason me and James work so splendidly together. We have the most wonderful spars back and forth, and we both take utter delight in it. People at the grocery store might not think we get along until they look at us and see the big grins on our faces*. Besides that, you put it very well about taking joy in another’s existence. He calms me, delights me, picks me up, and I honestly think he is one of the most (if not the most) interesting people I know. And I honestly believe he feels the same way. All of those put together give us a relationship worth working for.
*I never posted about that time at the grocery store that James accused me of throwing the eggs out before they expired and called me an ovophobe…I have never laughed so hard in my life…
Well, that’s a pretty awesome connection to make with someone – I’m glad you found someone who fits with what you need in so many ways.
So am I. *grin* Hopefully you find that someone too!
every time I see you, I’m going to think “ovophobe!” and snicker. or, better yet, when you walk into the room, I’ll elbow the person next to me and say “you see that blonde chick over there? she’s an ovophobe.”
that ovophobe comment was me
I was accosted by a nonny moose.
Like I told you in IM, you speak with the wisdom of someone who has led a wonderful, long, rich life and is looking back in retrospect.
And because I love saying it, I feel a tremendous amount of joy in your existence.
*grins* Good, love, because I feel joy in yours. :D
Obviously. :)
Jesus christ, I’m tearing up again after reading this for the second time, and I’m at school.
Ah hell, fuck them. Tears are our body’s response to extreme emotion. The world needs a little bit more passion and a lot less bullshit.
Love this. In all possible ways, as it brings me joy and faith. Thank you again.
*big warm hugs* I’m coming to L-town tonight, Wren. Let’s get together and take Benny by storm for some Theio’s action.
And thank you, very much, for caring and letting me know how you feel about this kind of thing; it can be hard to sit around thinking you’re nearly the only one who thinks like this.
For Plymouth, for Oxford, for King Henry, and for England, lads. Onward unto the breech we go!
Not a direct quote, but fitting enough, I think. ;) I’m out of class at eight.
I’ll leave the cheese and simply say this – you’re not alone. *kotc*
Indeed
What I wrote to you in IMs was: I feel a .. resonance, for lack of a better word, in what you say. I myself have used many of those words to define love, and to separate loving someone, and wanting to be with them. Many people I’ve talked to about it don’t understand it. I feel sorry for people who have a narrow definition of love. There are many people in my life that I love, and definitely take joy in their existance in my world, and I have *always* asserted that that is ok, and that it’s natural, and that it’s the people who confine their love to one person who will ultimately be dissatisfied in their heart.
To add: I’ve always been an incredibly open person, with probably too big of a heart for my own good. Strange that I turned out that way when my own family rarely said “I love you” to each other, although I always knew I was loved. But I will never close my heart to it, because loving, and being loved, on all levels, is what drives my life. Well, that and Claussen pickles. Claussen pickles = love
Re: Indeed
Many people I’ve talked to about it don’t understand it. I feel sorry for people who have a narrow definition of love.
That’s been my experience, too. *hugs* Thanks for digginy my post. *hands you a pickle*
I love you. There, I said it. I agree (nearly – see below) 100% with what you said about loving someone meaning having joy that they are in this world with me. And I have joy that you are. Your posts, whether they express optimism, despair, frustration, wonder, joy, curiosity, silliness, or just plain honest, bare-ass-nekkid let’s-get-it-out-there honesty are so refreshing, enjoyable and moving to me, I need to tell you so.
You have not stopped amazing me in your ability to express exactly or almost exactly what I think. Even more, your fearlessness in putting yourself out there inspires and awes me as well. You have moved me enough in this post to re-join LJ so I can connect with you, if you don’t mind.
On the subject of love: While I do agree with what you said, I realize there are some differences. Though I do think that the “joy in their existence” definition is wonderful, I realize I have some differences. Maybe you do, too. To wit: I have many people in my life that I can hardly stand to be around, and yet I love them nonetheless. These are mostly (but not all) family members. Though I have little dealing with them, I will miss them dearly when they are gone, and I cannot deny the bond we have from sharing a household and our lives together. I have much I owe to these people. But, do I feel joy in their existence? Not really. Not joy. I feel gratitude for what they have given me, even though I have not at all enjoyed it in the moment. I feel abond, maybe a spiritual or karmic bond. I am not sure how to describe it (you would probably do better).
So, for me the meaning is not quite so simple. But I do know one thing: I knows it when I feels it. Does it really have to be explained or justified? Can’t love just be there? I feel a love for this world and all the wonderful and not-so-wonderful things in it, and I positively HATE it when I am called upon to justify it. To me it is like asking my why I don’t like coconut. Why? What an absurd question! I just don’t. It is MY feeling, MY opinion, MY dislike, MY love. I don’t have to explain justify or even define it for anyone.
I guess I had something to say after all. Which doesn’t surprise me, nor should it you. I am a thinker and a feeler, and I love to talk.
I would be honored if you responded to this post. Though, no sweat if you don’t.
Well see, that’s some of those other things, for me. Familial obligation. The bond of knowing someone very intimately for a very long time. Again, not necessarily love. I have family members that I don’t entirely love, and I am not afraid of saying that, though they are still family and I will still treat them as such. On the other hand, I do have family members that I do love, and other family members I have grown to love over time. Even with family, it shouldn’t be assumed.
I am a whole person, and by that I mean that my logic and my heart work together, or I try to make them understand each other as much as possible. If I love someone and I can’t explain what they do for me or why I feel that way even to MYSELF (and if these are MY feelings, I should understand them), that points the way to an infatuation.
On the other hand, if I can say, “I not only feel joy in their existence, but I love the way they notice details, the way they choose to be happy instead of dwelling in grief, the way they tease me gently, the way they respect my opinion while arguing against it, the way they brush their hair when they’re hoping I’m looking, the way they cook with abandon, and the way they touch me exactly where I want without ever asking”… well, those are all specific was that they give me some sense of joy. If the only answer I can give myself is, “I just DO,” I am not trusting myself to understand what makes me tick.
And I’ve a burning desire to know what makes me tick. It’s half-way to understanding what makes everyone else tick.
Thanks for commenting, no I don’t mind.
i agree with most of the post. well said, too.
it’s hard for me also, though, on the can-explain business. once, i was asked “why do you love that person?” and i had answers, but they were prelingual. which is great, to a certain extent, because the primordial thought soup is so much more whole-seeming to me than the fragmentary limitations of words. i can say things like i love the way you think, or i love your smile, or make any number of related insert-noun-here kind of statements. but that’s not enough to explain the joy felt in someone’s existence. the whole idea of things that are “self evident” bothers me a little, because, you know, maybe it’s just turtles all the way down, and the whole thing is just ineffable. answer unattainable, and i hate hate hate the unattainable, especially in the realm of understanding. but to be sure of a thing without an explaination is something i place importance on. i think i need some number theory to tell me *why* 2+2=4, just to get a little deeper into these ideas. check out some of the lower turtles and stuff.
I’m not so certain I believe in the permanently and solidly ineffable. I also think that perception often more important than the concept of an objective truth, and that one fashions one’s own reality to a greater extent based on that perception.
I think the problem with communicating deep concepts has more to do with working on the same definitions as the person you’re communicating with, rather than finding an objective truth.
Good luck on the number theory, if I remember correctly, that’s one of those things that philosophers have had a great deal of difficulty delving into – physical scientists would say that it’s just a natural effect of the individuation of (or if you’d rather, the effect of entropy on) matter. When one substance is divided into two, in space, you have to have a reference for the fact that they are, to our perceptions, separate entities. Seeing as how entropy continues to break things down, said separations continue ad infinitum, and being beings of compulsive categorization, we must find a way to label and individuate such things as much as possible. If we could name every atom in our bodies, we probably would. ;)
“but that’s not enough to explain the joy felt in someone’s existence. the whole idea of things that are “self evident” bothers me a little, because, you know, maybe it’s just turtles all the way down, and the whole thing is just ineffable.”
Well, I agree that the particular definitions of what things a person does or says aren’t necessarily the whole picture of why you feel the way you do about someone. I do, however, think that it is possible to get down to it – it’s just no fun. No one wants to get into the details of past history (they have a behavior that reminds you of the uncle that always treated you well), metaphor (they represent something you feel you need in your life), transferrence (you want what they have, particularly their personality/behavior), and other factors we boil down into one solid experienced emotion. It removes the romance, if you will, of the feelings, and honestly, I don’t think it is necessary. However, I know what I’m feeling when I meet someone, and I know how that changes as they speak and act, and so I can point to those things that affect me.
A person’s actions make up who they are, IMHO, I believe in the self-constructed soul, I guess, existentially speaking. That said, I don’t particularly believe in a mystical connection between people that is completely divorced from perceptive reality. And if you can perceive something, you can attempt (at least) to define it.
what you said there was kind of the point, really. that it’s not necessarily productive to make a point of catalogueing the whys of loving. though i suppose it is totally plausible to figure out where all the points come from and accept them pointedly, even when they squick you out. that might be something you’d have to be definitely ready for, though. i agree with you on not believing that mystical connections are completely divorced from factual reality, but i also think that doesn’t make them unmystical. hell, that’s a lot of double negatives. oh well.
thanks for the wishes on the number theory. i understand about the individuation – the idea, here, is to get a better idea of why divisions happen and how or on what basis they form, and how valid are they, and a slew of other questions that aren’t in any way addressed by just slapping names on them.
which is coincidentally relevant to what i’ve been thinking about the love business, which also doesn’t get addressed by naming it. that being, of course, why you and everyone else has all these *other*, related, cross referenced, catalogued, analytical-catharsis-seeking words on the topic. but words are defined by other words, and it’s hard to avoid the regression loop. which may very well have something to do with why i’m so enthusiastic about all things prelingual. language limits and defines, which is useful for our purposes of breaking down and catalogueing. perhaps less useful to getting a complete picture. ’cause nothing looks like itself as we know it under a microscope. or really, from any angle other than the ones we’re accustomed to viewing it in.
was going to say something else, but forgot. must not have been that important, heh.