The present writer was so appalled when he first realised the innate selfishness of the phrase ”I love you” that he {Law 8} promptly attempted to partly rectify the balance in verse:- AN UNSELFISH GRAMMAR
three little words
that hackneyed phrase,
should really be
thus: You i love.
or: i love Us.
for only Us
can cherish Both,
you, i, itself,
and more besides.
However, on reflection, and on very carefully reading the words of many authors, he (that is, I) later decided that most of us had been making an incorrect fundamental assumption.
Some authors (or some of their characters) had approached the truth, but it was only recently, in the hit series Sex and the City, that we had Carrie’s immortal and epigrammatic “I love you, but I love me more"{TBA}.
Here is the start of my logical arguments to establish why I consider that we have been making such a wrong assumption about this phrase:
Let us assume that “I love you” is basically a selfish statement by the Lover (my use of title case is deliberate).
Let us further assume that the time-honoured reply of “I love you too” has a double significance:
• Firstly that it is a necessary "return stroke", as part of an informal ritual (Berne {9}), by the Beloved to reassure the Lover that what they said was acceptable.
• Secondly that it is an equally selfish statement by the Beloved asserting their personal right to be regarded as the Lover.
Now, at this point in this informal ritual, most impartial observers have been conditioned to say or think something like “Ah, how nice to see two people in love / who love each other" and to assume that this time-honoured exchange of words (which so closely resembles the Grazie-Prego-Grazie sequence in Italian) is positive proof of a lifetime commitment to a caring, loving, and mutually supportive relationship. As Lessing’s character Hilda said {51} "I used to wonder if these young people would ever say to each other: I love you. Do you love me? Will our love last? - and so on. All of which phrases seemed more and more like the keys or documents of possession to states and conditions now obsolete."
In the English language, if you seek them, there do remain a large number of hints as to where these phrases and terms came from and how the things that they describe were originally regarded.
Why do you suppose that we refer to "falling in love"? How many more times do you hear or read that "he/she fell in love" rather than “they fell in love"? This I suggest is in recognition that the state is essentially a selfish one, or at the very least that it is something that has happened to the person as an individual rather than to two people. Again, to quote Lessing {48} "... she knew love like a fever, to be suffered, to be lived through; ‘falling in love’ was an illness to be endured, a trap which might lead her to betray her own nature, her good sense, and her real purposes. It was not a door to anything but itself: not a key to living. It was a state, a condition, sufficient unto itself, almost independent of its object ... 'being in love'."
But selfishness is not a quality that is generally admired, so it has become natural to cover-up or disguise this universal activity that is essentially selfish by nature, and further to create a myth that such activity is for unselfish ends. This makes it socially acceptable. Hence the need for "in love" with its multiple implications of caring for others (named individual), following a known pattern (courtship), leading to the ultimate goal (monogamous Christian marriage). Note also that it is implicit that this is a process that happens once and once only and we still speak of “Mr Right” and “soul mate”. Most modern writers still tacitly acknowledge this singularity, although they may take a pragmatic view like Banks’s character Oelph {M} “Doctrine of the Perfect Partner. We must be content to know that she exists, somewhere in the world, and try not to care overmuch that we will probably never meet her.”
Why "fall/fell"? The implication of suddenness is acceptably objective; the other implication is that of descent - so it must be a "lower" state of some sort. If the initial state is spiritual, then a “descent” will be less “pure" - so already there is a built-in implication of non-desirability: if less spiritual, then more physical, more carnal, more animal (definitely less desirable for the Victorians). Exactly when, I wonder, was this portmanteau phrase first introduced? Maybe it is like “falling” into a trap, with the difference here that you have effectively set the trap for yourself?
This disguise of the essentially selfish nature of love has probably been the greatest single cause of misunderstanding apart from the word itself. It may indeed prove necessary to use the word love in italics (or in title case) to denote the different senses in which it is being used. There is an almost automatic implication, whenever it is used, that it carries the "good" qualities of its use in the Holy Bible (which therefore dates it to the Reformation?) - particularly that of selflessness.
Once we recognise that the state of being "in love", and indeed that of "loving" is essentially a selfish one, then many things become more explicable and certainly simpler, then many things become more explicable and certainly simpler - almost logical.
For a start, there are less expectations and therefore less opportunities for disappointments: this alone makes the “selfish” interpretation worthwhile. Furthermore, realisation of the essentially selfish nature of the process of loving will bring you far more tolerance of your partner.
Of course, nowadays it is acceptable that certain actions have to be of selfish motivation, if they are not to be hypocritical. To be aware is paramount, and it is absolutely essential to be aware of yourself (and preferably be “at peace” with yourself) before trying to establish any meaningful relationship (sorry!) with someone else. The same must, of course, also be true for them.
So, unlike when I wrote the poem An Unselfish Grammar (see the start of this chapter), I now no longer regard “I love you” as a misleading part of the Grammar of Love.
Instead I now believe it to be a true expression regarding a selfish (often self-induced) outlook. That such an outlook is not only inborn, but both necessary and desirable, is so important that I have formulated
1st Law of Relationships: “It is essential that you have a good relationship with yourself.”
Put another way, if you are not happy in yourself then it is unlikely you will have a happy relationship with someone – especially if your partner is not happy in themselves.
This has parallels with the First Rule of First Aid, which I was taught as “Don’t become casualty number two”. It might be instructive to develop this analogy further since the outcome of a bad relationship can be the emotional equivalents of both scar tissue and bodily impairment.
Of course, some appear to take a diametrically opposed view to this law of relationships like this narrator (McCullers {N}) ”Once you have lived with another it is a great torture to have to live alone. … it is better to take in your mortal enemy than face the terror of living alone." More modern authors come dangerously closer to the truth "We like to make much of this word ‘love’, to pat it and stroke it – but does love as we know it ever appear except as a mask of self?” (Murdoch {TBA}), and "… our romantic attachments are a kind of self-love." (Hendrix {TBA}). The latter quote is all the more relevant because it is non-fiction.
This 1st Law of Relationships is fundamental to all the other Laws of Relationships, it is about you as you – alone in the cosmos – and your relationship with yourself! We are born alone and we die alone, in between you must be able to exist happily on your own even though you would prefer to be in a relationship with someone. In almost all relationships there will be moments when you feel “on your own”, they will usually pass; however you do need to be your own “bedrock” (no pun intended).
Part of the conditioning process referred to earlier (in Romance and Relationships only start with the same letter) makes us think we are incomplete unless we are in a relationship. Like McCullers’ character Frankie thought {TBA} ”She was an I person who had to walk around and do things by herself. All other people had a we to claim, all other except her.”
In her autobiography Halliwell {TBA} said “And unless we can go it alone and live with the consequences, then all we bring to any relationship, whether with a lover, a friend or the rest of the world, is an invitation to share our emotional baggage.”
• Paradoxes •
• It has been suggested (de Angelis {}) that "Men don’t interpret words like women do – they take what you say literally." which could be taken as a massive cop-out since interpret is a perception whereas words (which, once said, cannot be recalled) are facts. Yet women appear to be more influenced by the words of romantic fiction. It is probably safest to remember that words cause powerful reactions, this is the province of Neuro Linguistic Programming (Seymour {TBA}).
• It has been said there is a very fine line between love and hate and many instances of this apparent dichotomy can usually be found at all stages of a relationship. "In our friendship we were able to share our private thoughts and ideas, to test them upon one another, in a way that would have been impossible had we been linked more closely by ties which, paradoxically, separate more profoundly than they join, though human illusion forbids us to believe this." (Durrell {41})
• “I love you” is actually a selfish statement; both you and your partner need to accept that.
Being in a relationship is great, even better if you are both happy within yourselves. Keep saying, and meaning, “I love you” – it is a paradox and can add value to the togetherness (Mutual) element of the relationship which will be discussed in a later chapter (The Power of Us).
So, if those three words “I love you” are not in themselves totally misleading, why is their import so often misinterpreted? To try and answer that question, we will look next at the longest word – love.
|
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.
|
