Love, Actually

[mundens]

mashugenah says he doesn't understand love. cha0sslave says it's something that can't be understood. So I thought I'd offer the reductionist counter-argument.

Please bear in mind that whilst I can write the following with full logical faculties engaged, I am no better than anyone else when it happens, and would like to believe there was more to it than this relatively simple explanation. I just don't have any evidence to suggest that there really is any more to it, and the following answer to me is sufficient to explain my observations. So, that said, let us pose the question "what is love?".

Love is that voluntary and necessary suspension of the critical faculties that allows the participants to temporarily ignore all the other person's annoying habits and the fact that the relationship is almost certainly doomed, in order to be able to enjoy being together in the moment.

A predilection for it is an evolutionary necessity to allow propagation of the species. Why else would anyone risk childbirth or be tied down by providing for a pregnant woman and child if they didn't have an inbuilt drive to allow themselves such a temporary insanity?

The fact that it can also occur between same sex couples, or without procreational sex, or without sex at all even, is merely a side effect of the evolutionary need to convince two people to procreate and raise the children afterwards.

It is quite easy to see why suspension of the critical faculties is necessary because if you critically analyse anyone they will almost always be more annoying than likeable. It is common for people to comment on how a person in love ignores actions and attitudes on the part of their lover that their friends find hard to believe the person can't see. Its not that they can't see them, but that they are deciding (possibly subconsciously) not to see them because acknowledging them would make the experience less enjoyable.

Love ends when those involved start looking at the other person with clarity, and they start noticing all the things they didn't like about the person from the start but had ignored in order to enhance the experience. And love always ends, though sometimes it can be started up again, it is never eternal.

That's why those in "great love stories" always die. The authors know it's the only way for the love to remain pure and eternal, because with one or both of them dead, they never reach the stage of clarity and loss of love that results from living together. See George Bernard Shaw's notes on Pygmalion where he points out what is most likely to happen to Freddie and Eliza after the show.

When love ends, if the people have also become good friends, not just lovers, they may be willing to work with each other to address the issues that each of them dislike about the other, or they may not. When they do this it is the nearest one gets to "eternal love", though the quality of the emotion in such a long term relationship is nothing like that when one "falls in love". Not saying that it is necessarily worse, just different, and usually not as intense, because the intensity of that first flush of love is physically draining and cannot be sustained forever.

Often when love ends, people are unable to accept that it was they that fooled themselves about how lovable the other person was, and so blame it all on the other person and refuse to see that person again, considering the discovery of those things a lying and betrayal by that person, when in fact it was their own choice to deceive themselves. Equally, a person may actually hide things from their lover, scared that revealing them will ruin the enjoyment. As Billy Joel says Honesty is such a lonely word.

Often a relationship may continue for years on pure inertia once the love has gone, because it's comfortable and familiar, and change is scary and stressful. I suspect that's what happened with Ele and I, as I know she was definitely unwilling to change, and I suspect I was as well.

On the other hand, I enjoy being in love as much as anyone else does. Understanding what's going on doesn't make it any less enjoyable while its happening, in the same way that even though I know exactly what alcohol does to my body, I still enjoy getting drunk.

So for the dreamers, if they accept this argument, this may be a depressing line of reasoning. But I'd like to think that knowing what is going on one can work to avoid nasty break-ups, understanding that there are things one will not like about one's lover once the first flush has faded, and actively work for the ongoing type of loving friendship that is more enduring than a pure passionate love.

Comments

[seraphs-folly.livejournal.com]

hehe! This reads like a peice of homework. So cute! *tempted to don her schoolmistresses costume*

'Love is that voluntary and necessary suspension of the critical faculties that allows the participants to temporarily ignore all the other person's annoying habits and the fact that the relationship is almost certainly doomed'

I think part of adult hood is learning _not_ to do this for the sake of your own sanity down the track. I think you know I'm not ignoring any of those things about you and I know you see my flaws and hitches clearly. You can be in love and be wise to your partner/practicality! But the benefit of the doubt is a dangerous and scary thing... Trust... needed in any of those stages and always a big thing to earn or give. I guess thats where your last paragraph rings true!

There are names for the two stages of love and its really well recognised so you're bang on there. Recently Scientists have even documented the neural chemicals that underlie each state. I'd looked it all up for you - maybe later tho when Im not running for an appointment. :)

'Often when love ends, people are unable to accept that it was they that fooled themselves about how lovable the other person was, and so blame it all on the other person and refuse to see that person again, considering the discovery of those things a lying and betrayal by that person, when in fact it was their own choice to deceive themselves. Equally, a person may actually hide things from their lover, scared that revealing them will ruin the enjoyment. As Billy Joel says Honesty is such a lonely word.'

I think it depends on whether the person who isn't seen actually lied to and betrayed their partners trust ;) For instance, I know there are behaviours you have previously exhibited that could hurt me if they reoccurred. Its still your responsibility to make sure they don't - reoccur that is. You don't get to play the 'she knew I was human and flawed therefore its her fault' card if you fuck up! That would be a cop out. You're always at risk when getting to know someone and in love its inevitable to want to give the person the benefit of the doubt because you care for them. Having that taken advantage of/ manipulated by direct dishonesty/omission is Loooooow!

As I've said to you before if theres something about you which needs work to make a relationship feasible, do the work, don't hide from the structural fault! Its harder but it makes for a more realistic foundation.

But there we are totally agreeing with each other arent we? :D And I think theres still plenty, if not more, passion - even if that also holds true for a little extra effort - no? ;)

[mundens.livejournal.com]

Mmmm.... school mistress uniform!

[buzzandhum.livejournal.com]

eeekk! A Billy Joel quote! Spare the children, please!

[adrexia.livejournal.com]

While that all reads true for romantic love, it is not true for all forms. I was waiting for someone to say most of that in response to Mash's post though, thank you. :)

[mashugenah.livejournal.com]

Really? I don't think that Frank and I are talking about the same thing at all. My post very quickly diverged from talking about love to talking about the power of the idea of love.. *shrug* either way I'm feeling pretty ignorant.

[adrexia.livejournal.com]

More in response to Damon's comment actually.

[mundens.livejournal.com]

Good point, I am looking at only one form of love here.

Romantic Love

[xenogram.livejournal.com]

I disagree completely. This is a particularly misanthropic and naive view of romantic love; it presupposes that the lovers are so befuddled by sex that they don't notice that the other person is basically a jerk, and that later they carry on out of fear and habit.

It has nothing to do with real, 90% proof, romantic love. It does look like a lot of fucked up relationships I've seen staggering around KAOs, but I wouldn't dignify it with a label like Romatic Love.

Re: Romantic Love

[adrexia.livejournal.com]

It is an opinion. It is also one that has been scientifically tested. I don't believe it myself... but I do feel it needs to be said.

Romantic love isn't a nice label... it is just a title given to a certain type of relationship.

Re: Romantic Love

[xenogram.livejournal.com]

Well sure, that happens, and psychologists can call it love (and generally dice the idea up and stamp on the bits). It's not what I'd call love though. I'd save that for something stronger (if not necessarily nicer).

Having degrees doesn't grant psychologists ownership of the english language.

Re: Romantic Love

[adrexia.livejournal.com]

No, of course not. Only English degrees allow that. ;)

Love is a rather emotive word, and tends to mean different things to different people. A number of people do describe the situation above as love. In fact, they even believe it for a while. It certainly feels that way to them... If there were enough people who did this, it still wouldn't change what love meant to you, or to anyone else. But when you are trying to study something like love, you have to be able to define what the word means. The type of relationship Frank mentions is by far the most common.

[dirtyfilthy.livejournal.com]

I'm agree with most of this - except to add that life in general requires a suspension of critical faculties.

[xenogram.livejournal.com]

Your frequent expository monologues on the divine imperfection of your girlfriend, long after the first shock of sex must have worn off, give the lie to this remark. You sir, are a posterboy for romantic love. Now, put on the fluffy bunny ears, bitch.

Curses! Foiled again!

[dirtyfilthy.livejournal.com]

There go all my carefully crafted street credentials. :)

[yeldarb-smaillw.livejournal.com]

I enjoyed reading this and concur! Naturally a pessimist, aren't I?
I think, for me, I am far too logical and love (sorry I mean romantic love) is fleeting.

[xenogram.livejournal.com]

It smacks of sour grapes and misanthropy, and conveniently ignores the existance of couples who're disgustingly happy with each other on a long term basis.

Personally, I think it's just hard to find, and that a lot of people just try and find somebody tolerable with which they can get comfortable with. It's easier to think that that is all that love is about, and we can all achieve it, construct it, if we work at it, than accept that it's a lottery.

[mundens.livejournal.com]

I specifically covered "couples who are disgustingly happy with each other on a long term basis". Those are the ones that work at their relationship once the first flush of love is gone.

I think it is easier to believe in some ideal of romantic love than to accept the observed facts. Those that believe romantic love is something special just have to wait around long enough and it will find them. They never have to bother really looking for it, risk rejection, or put the required work in to developing a good relationship. It is the lazy option, it is an excuse for never really trying. That is understancdable, relationships are scary, I'm not trying to denigrate those who have real difficulty with interacting with people, for those people the ideal of romantic love can give them some hope to carry on.

"Believing in love" is very similar to believing in god, abrogating personal responsibility for love, in this case to "the power of love", just as deists abrogate their personal responsibility for their morals to an imaginary being or it's self-proclaimed agents on earth. It offers the same sort of comfort for those who are, or believe they are, unable to act.

Your use of the term "lottery" nicely illustrates the point. A lottery win is what the lazy and the scared pin all their hopes for money on, whereas the industrious and the risk-takers go out and try to make their million dollars themselves. In both cases the money (the love)when achieved is the same, it is merely the method by which it is achieved that is different.

Sure, someone has to win the lottery, and luck is often involved even for those that work at it, but to me love is too important a thing to leave purely to chance, and those who do win the lottery will find they still have to work at it if they wish to keep it once found. The person who believes they don't have to work at it, is the lottery winner who is broke again six months down the track.

This reminds me of an SF book I read once, called "The Tomorrow File" about a corporate future where money was actually called 'love'.

I take your point that (similarly with money) some people are happy with "enough" love, who don't feel the need to wait or work hard for a huge amount of it, and will make do with something less than earth-shattering rather than not having anything. To me, that's just being practical. I want a 60" LCD TV, but I can't afford it right now, so rather than not having a TV at all, I make do with a smaller one until I can afford the big one. Why miss out on TV altogether just because I can't have a big one? Of course, some people are genuinely not interested in televisions at all.