This four-letter word is usually held to be the power word in the triptych “I love you”. The word “love” has been and is used in so many different contexts that it is no wonder there is so much confusion as to what it “really” means and what it implies. So, where could this word and concept have come from and why? “…the idea of love was formed in the fragmented psyche of European man - the knowledge (or invention) of which was to make him the most vulnerable of creatures in the scale of being, subject to hungers which could only be killed by satiety, but never satisfied; which nourished a literature of affectation whose subject-matter would otherwise have belonged to religion - its true sphere of operation.” (Durrell {42}). Apart from his apparently parochial view, it does seem possible that the Holy Bible was the first source.
Look at the Oxford English Dictionary and you will find many definitions and uses. Think on a "love for" or “love between" basis and you will probably come up with at least half-a-dozen. For convenience, a suggested broad classification of types of love (Religious, Parental, Neighbourly, Self, Sexual, and Personal) will be given in an {{appendix}}; this study is devoted to Personal love.
This study is devoted to Personal love, so, where shall we start? The following quote says so much so well that it will be taken as our text:
"… love is a joint experience between two persons but the fact that it is a joint experience does not mean that it is a similar experience to the two people involved. There are the lover and the beloved, but these two come from different countries." (McCullers {18}).
This need for an object on which to bestow all that stored-up love has often been remarked on by others "There is one thing worse than not being loved and that is not having someone to love ..." (de Little {19}) and again "There are times when a man's greatest need is to have someone to love, some focal point for his diffused emotions." (McCullers {20})
Both from reading the literature and through my own experiences I reckon this need to love is so important that we need to formulate
2nd Law of Relationships: “To have someone to love is more important than being loved by someone.”
To fulfill this need can be a surprisingly easy process as others have remarked " … it is one of the peculiarities, perhaps one of the blessings, of this planet that anyone can experience this transformation of the world. Also, anyone can be its object.” (Murdoch {})
With a need to love so paramount, it is hardly surprising that a man will avidly assess for suitability nearly every woman he meets. Unconsciously, he will already have formed an Image of what he thinks is his “Ideal”, and it is that Image which will then be compared with those Images projected by or received from actual women. When an acceptable level of match is obtained with a real live woman (Reality) - he could well be in love. At this initial stage we, unlike him, recognise that it is the Image and not the Reality with which he is in love - as well as being "in love with love".
His Image will also be a composite one; many of its characteristics will have been pre-determined in his thoughts and desires, thus forming an Ideal (definition) and the physical appearance of the Reality will have become merged with (or transferred to) the Image. For the duration of that relationship his Ideal is likely to remain lost within the Image.
It is the Image that will be constantly in his thoughts, with whom he will be having imaginary conversations, and with whom he will people scenarios with favourable outcomes for himself. It has been said (TBA {K}) that at this stage, women will start to assess suitability as a husband, men will assess suitability as a lover. Curiously enough, the less he sees of the Reality the more depth he will develop in the Image.
As he sees more of the Reality (real person) he will need to adapt the Image to match sufficiently well; thus starts what has been referred to as "… the long catalogue of self-deceptions which constitute a love affair." (Durrell {32}).
While he can still distinguish between Image and Reality he can make objective judgements: later this will not be possible (but how to recognise that turning-point?) even though he may look at her and ". . . try to remember what she really looked like on the other side of that transforming membrane, the cataract with which Aphrodite seals up the sick eyes of lovers, the thick, opaque form of a sacred sightlessness" (Durrell {32}).
The Image, then, becomes the "real" Beloved as seen through that cataract, and there’s an accommodation process by which the Lover is constantly reconciling unexpected behaviour by the Reality with that Image. This is similar to the inherent danger in mathematical modelling which has been called "the duel of substance and shadow." (Law {34}).
That it was the Image which was being acted upon and thought about is also apparent when a relationship breaks up, for then it is as if a stranger had spoken. The break-up of a relationship due to breaking of trust is discussed in a later chapter (The Power of Us); this is an extreme case of disclosed disparity between Image and Reality.
To complicate matters still further, there is a tendency to "love" the Image according to the Grammar, and with constant close contact either the Image has to be adjusted as differences between it and the Reality become apparent, or the relationship suffers, or both in varying degrees. A more detailed discussion of Image and Reality will take place in a later chapter (The Virtual World of You and I).
It is to be noted that this Image has nothing to do with the Imago introduced by Hendrix {TBA} “When we meet an Imago match … love ignites. All other bets … are off.” which he defines as a buried parental image.
There is also a cynical version of the 2nd Law of Relationships - “It is important to have someone to love, even if it’s only someone to return to.” The elsewhere implied by that ‘return to’ need not be physical infidelity, it could well be work or art-related. The even more cynical version ends “even if it’s only someone to get away from.”
So far, we have identified the need to love, and how we may deceive ourselves during the acquisition of a Beloved; this is a natural process and must be acknowledged as such. Why, apart from sexual gratification, do we seek it?
Already we have seen that it is a selfish, self-centred process. "At first we seek to supplement the emptiness of our individuality through love, and for a brief moment enjoy the illusion of completeness. But it is only an illusion." (Durrell {35}).
Another reason, or rationalisation, is that being in love is a very agreeable state with the side-benefit that part of the mind is then freed for other activity. I put it this way because I believe it to be a necessary part of the human condition to need to love - especially for younger men and women for whom this paramount need can divert the mind from almost everything else.
• Paradoxes •
• Initially, love can be kept going with very little effort by the Lover, and no action at all by the Beloved: "... as delicate as a faithful lover who is content with very little provided he is not banished from the beloved presence." (Lessing {50}).
• There is a deceptive permanence about those initial stages of love: "Peleia of the doves has caught me. This is her madness, this love like a barbed arrow that cannot be pulled out. When you try, you drive it deeper." (Renault {33}).
• If you have someone to love then you can also be happy when you are away from them. As Hendrix {TBA} has said about children growing up "… the goal of successful attachment is, paradoxically, the ability to be separate." It is likely, though, that the two partners in the relationship will have different tolerance levels for such separations.
“Love” is a good (as opposed to bad) word in the English language; the only problem is that it can and usually does mean different things to different people – which can be very awkward for forming lasting relationships.!
However, a relationship can and should generate its own internal power, and this is discussed in the next chapter (The Power of Us).
|
Contributor's Note
This is an extract from a sort of pocket dictionary of relationships – a phrasebook of the grammar of love. © 2010, Roy Law, all rights reserved.
|
