The Psychology of Love
54Love: a conceptual prologue
The notion of love occupies a legendary domain in the minds of humans. The phenomenon has been explicable through time in terms of a myriad of sentiments, feelings, urges, impulses, impressions and fantasies. The real question would be: What exactly is LOVE?
Like the notion of beauty - another nebulous, shifting variable - love has transcended intelligibility principally due to the absence of a cogent, concretized, unambiguous, ultimately resolute definition. This task, then, falls into the lofty vortex of philosophical speculation in general; or, within that of linguistic analysis in particular. The problem with the latter discipline however, is that the analysts themselves are slaves to the social system which constructs and subscribes to the social language in the first place; thereby skewing the ultimate definition, if any, in favor of mass-hysterical platitude. But conventional platitudes, as we all know, are devoid of objective value.
So, we are back to where we began. Enter objective analysis. Objective reasoning is most certainly the final arbiter when definitions dissolve into fused, blurred distinctions among phenomena. No, objective thinkers are not cold, they possess clarity of mind, with a reasoned approach to problem identification en route for problem solving. Now, absolutes are returned to where they belong: in the true nature of things. End of distortions!
Love as Value
On close objective inspection, love is simply a value. This valuation assumes a hazy array of complexions; yet, it persists as value. It is imperative to note the import of the word value. If love is value, then I must generate an intransigent dedication to that which I value; otherwise I couln't possibly be serious. Now we have a perfect definition of the notion of love.
The anatomy of erotic desire as love
Human sexuality is probably the most potent force in the cosmic sphere. In fairness to sexuality, without it, there is no human history. Contrary to all evil attributed to sexuality, the phenomenon transcends all things human-since it is the reason humans exist to populate the planet. The vanquishing enormity of sexuality means that most humans are veritably subservient to, subsumed beneath, submerged under its whimsical spell. Yet, politicians, the clergy, lawmakers, among others, pretend to know how to apportion, control, legislate censor its many ramifications. It's such a joke! Parents emerge into parenthood sceaming and barking while replete with their own ignorance, shame, guilt, confusion. All these moral agents converge to electrify and galvanize "genarations of anxiety" within the vortex of sexuality. I ask: Who are the appointed beneficiaries of all this confusion?
It is squarely proper for most people to fear sexuality. The unknown is generally feared. The real question is where sexuality is in relation to our notion of love. Since humans fear sexuality, it puzzles the mind why people think sex is love. It appears to be a gross contradiction in terms...to accept love as sex - a devalued, shameful, dirty, repulsive phenomenon. Why?
Whch brings us to the absurdity of sex, shame and guilt, with its associated confusion, torment and emotional strife - all self-inflicted. Fools the world over proclaim undying love in anticipation of lots of sex. They also divorce from the bond because one of them cheated. So, sex is sin according to moral authority. No...sex is blessed within matrimony...But...umm sex is evil after matrimony...and its pure evil if you cheat...But wait...you should go to hell if you have sex before marriage. If you intend to sin, do it in marriage. You'll be blessed in the end. Is it any wonder that generations of people are screwed?
To add to all the confusion, people grow into adulthood amidst all the vagaries of convention, thinking they understand sexuality. The males swagger with erections and boast about being great lovers to women who fake orgasms to keep up appearances. Life is wonderful... But little do we know that erections do not great lovers make! Ofcourse we live in a culture that is completely devoid of discourse around sexuality. Porn prevails...where most Americans get their news about sex through porn stars. MTV's T&A along with crotch-grabbing entertainers are the paragons of American virility. Sex & the City and Cosmo's teenage asexual nymphs add to the mix to entertain and confuse the already clueless consumers. When I have initiated discourse on sexuality, some would say: after a few drinks we can talk about it. Talking about sex in drunken stupor is hardly an intelligible option.
It blows my mind the extent to which many humans are un-evolved. My sense is as follows:- the basic problem is that so many people are so non-self-actualized or so devoid of emotional refinement...to the extent that relationships are actually not clearly possible.
When people operate at the simplistic level of need, mutually mature relationships are not possible. I have always maintained that IF YOU NEED TO BE LOVED, YOU ARE DOOMED. When you don't NEED, you can have great relationships. You will also have enough control to choose those psychologically clear minded humans with whom to interact.
The likely state of many readers would be to dismiss these comments as academic and abstract. But as long as people remain emotionally unrefined and unresolved, intra-relationships will never work.
On the issue of remaining friends with an ex, if all I have indicated above prevails, then the efficacy of friendship with an ex stands or falls accordingly. The question is: are you emotionally mature or not? Is your ex? If you had been friends, who, in the spirit of friendship enjoyed the fullness of Being, would you break up? Why? Have you sought to acquire a penetrating insight into why your relationships fail?
The question, as you can see, comes complete with its answer. It is NOT the relationship. It is about WHO you are. If you were the best human you could be, you could replicate yourself in the one you chose. Show me your friend, and I will tell you who you are. Do you know who you are? If not, wait until you do. Your choice represents a total sum of you. Your choice of another represents your expression of value. For at any given time, a person is the total sum of his or her consciousness. What you do not know could certainly destroy you.
I challenge great thinkers to disprove my thinking...
Godfrey Silas
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
I know who I am, I know what upsets me what scares me and what i look for in relationships, if my partner was friends with an ex, i think it would still worry me to begin with however. I know this about myself, i know how certain situations will make me feel. This is who I am and I don't see that that will change, everyone has fears, aware or unaware of them. The only way to overcome them is through taking steps over time together and then you would see that there is nothing to fear.
Even when you know what you are and what you ar elooking for, you can still be hurt in a relationship. You can choose people well, but you cannot predict the future and what they will do and if it may hurt you, you may then feel needy. Is this not part of the human condition? However well you know yourself, you cannot prevent these things. Maybe your arguement is that if you do not need, you will not hurt becasue you don't need someone to make you feel a certain way. I cannot imagine too many people are this far advanced. Such is life!
Glassvisage,
Thanks for your comment. My sense is that relationships are complicated. But they are as complicated to the extent that those involved are. My argumentation around the issue of love is obviously not for everybody. The normal state of affairs for most people is to assume that love and relationships are out of human control. Which is completely NOT true. We are responsible for the relationships we propagate. As I have tried to explain, most of what we call love is not. The problem is our desire to use the word LOVE for any number of feeling states. NEED is certainly not love.
Solving the problem of need is not the same project as having a reasoned, seasoned, objective discussion on love. We cannot move forward until we resolve this elemental problem of definition. If we are talking about need, then it lies outside the boundaries of my topic. Real love is not need. I have no issue with the human frailty of need. Although the truth is that the clearer a person is, the more defined their emotion.
On the issue of being hurt in a relationship, I would make this observation: The maturity principle that informs true love is so penetrating as to shock-absorb true lovers from the pitfalls that afflict relationships. Most so-called love relationships are built on ego and power. The other person represents the sum of your conquests to date - a prize of sorts for your ego and power system. But you are not actually fortified just because you are in a relationship. Relationships do not fortify people. Fortification is a personal project. It is all the work you did on your core consciousness as a self-actualizing human. Most choices stand or fall on this fortification or the LACK of it. If you do not know about fortification of consciousness you are probably not ready for a relationship with another human outside of yourself...if that relationship is about love.
I enjoyed this post greatly. I think the questions it raises about love and how we live it (or not) are very relevant - particularly in these times. As unbounded senses of entitlement proliferate at an exponential pace threatening viable relationships at each strata of society, it is good to have a post that reminds us there is much more. I appreciate you sharing your views with us. I will look forward to more good things in the future.
Deidre, Thank you for your trenchant commentary on my impressions about the psychology of love. You impress me with an incisive temperament. I had the liberty of reading some of your writings and came away with conviction that you are either unusually vigorously trained in the art of reason and transactional logic; or most certainly inspired. Let me know if a third variable obtains. A poetic excitement indeed...that higher minds do persist amidst contemporary distractions. You are a gem for all students of advanced ideation. Thank you, Godfrey Silas http://glamourtelevision.com/ http://www.digitalglamourtv.com/home_page.htm
i like reading this page. i would just like to ask if, what are the possible causes why people who are single loves to flirt rather than having a commitment? can you explain what part or the personality of an individual would connect it in psychology? thank you
Dear Love,
I will attempt to answer your question as best I can.
People flirt for many reasons, and it does not matter whether they are single or not. But it seems to me that you are asking about single people who prefer to remain single and flirt, without the need for commitment.
It is generally assumed that people in relationships feel happier, more confident about being lovable. That could be so. But not if the relationship is a lousy one. Flirtation is the most exciting part of erotic interaction by far. For that reason, some people who are single like to keep it that way. Commitment is the most burdensome part of eroticism for most people who desire freedom. Even in the 21st Century, most people are still not evolved enough to be open and accepting of a partner flirting with others; and some single people know that a commitment usually means the end of that fun experience.
The truth of the matter is that freedom from commitment actually requires a high level of comfort with oneself...if the person makes it clear that he or she is not interested in a committed relationship. As far as psychology is concerned, the stronger a person is emotionally, the easier it is to remain single. Relationships are usually, at core, an emotional need. There are people who do not need relationships. The need to be in a relationship is complex, and based on any number of reasons. The need to remain single is mostly simple: the person has no driving need to be tied down. Based upon my research and experience, most people should be single. The reason they are not...is because they NEED to be loved. They are not necessarily loved, however, but being in a relationship evokes the semblance.
In conclusion, the Clarity of being that is required to reject relationships and commitment is a rare condition. Most people do not have it. The interior and exterior, psychological and social pressures to make a commitment to a relationship is so overpowering that most people are weakened to submit. As you can see, most commitments are a joke. They never last. The single person always wins.
Godfrey Silas
glassvisage says:
2 years ago
A very thoughtful and complete hub... well-written!