i.kurtzer (961008.2000)
here's a short essay i have been working on in an attempt to more
rationally recognize our condition, even if that entails accepting what
could not be considered rational; let me know what you think either on the
forum or in private. thanks and enjoy.
Analects on Amore'
Of all the falsities that have been uncritically accepted
throughout our time Love might rank highest; and more, the coupling of
these fairy tales' outlandishness with the import of its referent invites
danger. Let me preface this by denying the ability of concepts, such as
Love, to determine even partly what one does. Concepts are not internal
stimuli, mental pinpricks, nor any other "because" for how we live.
Concepts simply do not control people. People control certain aspects of
their experiential flow according to what they want to experience.
Concepts-- such as "doors open by rotating and pulling the knob" or "love
is blind"--do not determine whether a person will ever open a door or try
to find a lover. Instead, as a shorthand, concepts can help us bring
about situations we want in a sensible and predictable manner. However,
if the concept is baseless then applying it for that end will fail.
Unfortunately, failures are typically chalked up to not enough rigor in
following prescription (read:incantation) ignoring that increased
adherence to baseless concepts can only bring unhappiness more quickly.
Owing to the remoteness of certain facts persons often take the
advice of those considered honest and possessing such information.
Concerning matters of taste or triviality this is harmless and, hence,
arbitrary as the consequences are relatively equal, but no one would agree
that "ignoring stop signs to aid a case of bad teeth" is proper advice.
Clearly, there are cases where such lightfootedness should be avoided;
that is, if we accept moral responsibility in proportion to the import of
the consequences and their potential differentiation. So it surprising
that for the case of Love advice follows a "whatever you feel it is"
course whose potency stems from the presumed knowledge of persons who have
"been there before", and the endless repetition in song and print; so
every day "Love is.." something else entire.
I begin with the assumption that Love like any universal
psychological fact is not a "whatever you feel it is", but a fact that
can be circumscribed, scrutinized, examined, and agreed upon if we are
patient and honest enough. On presentation of a brick we can talk on how
it is this-like or that-like incessantly, but even the most die-hard
deconstructionist will duck if I throw it at his head.
Love's Features
Love can be roughly characterized by two features: uga! and
imperatives. The uga! is the only word I can think of that captures the
essential "emotive" component of Love. It is that odd warmth and
constriction passing though the throat to stomach accompanied by intense
engagement in the focused object of Love. It is that gripping and
distinct pit feeling--I have yet to confuse the uga! with a longing for
herring or even heartburn for that matter--all of us share but having no
appropriate title. (Aside, calling the feeling Love would be synechdotal
as there remains imperative in the total psychological fact, though this
is as common as its contrary: both wreaking equal amounts of confusion.)
It is this most immediate of sensations that can only be rightfully
identified with Love as it is both foundational to and invariable with
respect to the poignant secondary associations, by-products, and
corollaries that congratulate our poetic sense.
In turn, imperatives are those standards we demand of ourselves in
interacting with our loved ones. Unlike the uga! imperatives take on many
forms across persons and sometimes change for the individual. If X loves
X-ena he by his demands remembers their anniversary, brings flowers every
other Monday, and makes sure to never sleep with her sister. These
imperatives are idiosyncratic in that X's are not the only ones
conceivable, although they might be the only ones conceivable for X, or
the only ones he is willing to uphold. It is just as conceivable that Y
loves Y-ena and considers adultery and severe beating to be a reasonable
manner to treat a wife. He can beat her violently, commit adultery, and
still love her as fully as any other man. Certainly, imperatives that
abrogate another's will result in conflict and I would hope persons adopt
and revise standards according to the particular needs of the loved ones
and themselves, but Love does not demand any particulars. There is no
independent standard of how one should treat a loved one implicit in Love.
Eternal Love
One of the most tiresome cliches is "Love is Forever." Some wish
this might be true as any limit would be belittling, but this is an absurd
judgement comparable to judging one's worth according to the monstrous
immensity of the world. The first limiting factor on love is one's
lifetime. Simply put, love is a mind fact and is therefore dependent on
brain. Bye-bye brain, bye- bye mind, bye-bye love, period. Moreover,
Love as what people identify with the uga! is fleetingly present and its
presence is of short duration. This seems fortunate as there are affairs
other than love that I would care to conduct which in continual neisseria
might injure someone. But even those lapses are an exceedingly small
portion of my conscious moments. Now if asked if I felt the uga! I would
say "now, no" though it could be quite possible one moment from now. This
does not denigrate feelings but only admits that feelings--including the
uga!-- are typically absent. How do you feel now, are you loving your
mother, your girlfriend? Most times the honest answer is "I wasn't really
feeling anything I'm just walking to class" , or "noticing the bush's
shadow" , or something else relatively banal. Life is a succession of
differences that are mostly neutral to intense feelings possibly because
they are in and being brought to satisfying states of affairs within the
limits of other experiential specifications like how much time, effort, or
ass-kissing one is willing to do. The uga! does not continue--I do not
accept unconscious continuity as that is unverifiable even by an audience
of one--but exists as a series of gripping, memorable, and altogether
wonderful pulses.
Do imperatives relating to Love continue? Being a behavioral
question this would have to be tested experimentally, but I strongly
suspect "yes". Imperatives can be continuously carried out quite
unconsciously such as the churning of guts or the positioning of one's
body. Though these activities are typically unnoticed they are a
purposive result resilient to affects that would otherwise lead to
contrary consequences such as food not being emulsified or one's falling
over. With imperatives relating to Love one actively continues and brings
about experiential specifications; the degree to which this is
behaviorally manifested is the degree as to what is necessary to continue
or bring about the states. If the current state is fine (to that
individual) then no action relating to that will be taken as none is
needed. One cannot infer from an absence of certain "behaviors" the
absence of a specification; the current state could be the satisfying one;
hence, leave well enough alone. For example, a man who considers his
wife's happiness to be of utmost importance might not give flowers to his
wife though he knows flowers (among others things) lead her to happiness;
let us assume that he is not a avid fan of surprises and gives flowers
only for specifiable reasons aside from surprises. As she seems quite
content and gives no perceptible indication to him as to her want of
flowers (the obtuseness of males to the unspoken concerns of ladies is
beyond reproach and so becomes a reasonable minor premise) he sits "doing
nothing" in his new Lazy-Boy thinking all is well. He still holds those
imperatives and still loves her as strongly as ever; he just considers the
current situation adequate to specification. And so imperatives are
always being carried out, consciously or not, manifested behaviorally to
the extent that circumstances require.
Blind Love
While if given clear delineation the cliche of Eternal Love held a
small grain of truth, though I cannot over-state the smallness of this
grain, the cliche of Blind Love is so untrue its mere mention is
revolting. Love is not blind, or more properly, since Love is not an
entity, Lovers are not blind. I have never heard of persons falling in
love with gophers, house hold appliances, or other objects which if love's
object was truly arbitrary would be expected to occur. I am fairly sure
that I will never fall in love with a man, someone forty years my senior,
or a young lady that continually insults me from the beginning.
Falling in love is terribly discriminative; virtually everyone is
discarded in a mostly unconscious process that leaves no more than a
handful. It seem highly critical that certain conditions are met for one
to fall in love, and once met, suspiciously similar to imprinting, one
"attaches" to that person regardless of what follows. The transition from
high criticality to an attachment impervious to events that would have
previously eliminated the person as a candidate is baffling; once it is
completed one will continue to love that individual regardless. One will
have fleeting ugas! directed to that person no matter how miserably they
might treat you. The uga! recurs indefinitely though clearly one might
adopt different imperatives in how to interact with the person. One could
even begin to despise their lover, but then one hates and loves that
person.
This is not blind nor "unconditional love" as commonly understood.
Love is clearly conditional as we never fall in love with rocks and that
we hold imperatives. However, our Love is relentlessly unconditional to
the loved objects though not due to sincerity nor the graciousness of the
lover. It is simply a fact of Love that one can never rid oneself of it.
One loves that person for better or for worse because that is what love
is, not what it should be. But how we choose to conduct ourselves is
another affair.
What Not to Expect and What of Forgiveness
Love is a fact obvilious to the lover in inception, character, and
cessation. "Ah..its a beautiful day, I guess I'll fall in love" or "She
sure has a nice bottom and a digging French accent..I'll start loving her
now!" are phrases I doubt have ever been seriously uttered. Falling in
love, the reccurring uga!s , and the cessation of love are not what can be
reasonably called decisions that you and I make as it is so with so many
other items. (This is the "I" associated most closely with the effort
that accompanies certain events and not the totality of consciousness,
which we will leave be and sound no calls to war excepting what we can
expect as it listens to our demands according to its own. This is after
all advice for you and not your guts). We can reasonably imbue influence
to the often droll affairs that one makes to "I" 's, such as "I" choose
Wheaties versus eggs and ham for breakfast. But "I" do not choose
whether Wheaties are tasty. Wheaties taste so-so for me and meatloaf
sandwiches taste wonderful immune to my wishes. Obviously, there is a
criteria for what tastes good but not one that "I" have a say in. And
here is the kernel that contains the only lesson I can give and only
tentatively at that for what is contained within "getting over" a lost
love and in "forgiving".
(I conflate these two as that is the case for myself and for many
others, and the meager medicine applies equally to both. So drink up!)
I contend that noone can give forgiveness. I used to feel instead
that we "filed", as opposed to forget, simply owing to our obstinate
nature, but now I feel we do not because we cannot. It is not within our
power, it is not something we, these "I" 's, can give. Persons seem to be
forgiven but it is not something done forthright, because I say so or
because I will it. Likewise, one cannot just "get over" another by a
willing, by some resolution that it is unreasonable to let this hurt
continue and so "Be gone you blue meanies" and for good measure "I'll show
you how little I hurt now" . Rather Be Gone you cock-sure conceptions
true owing to repetition and the "intuitive" sense that strangely always
makes things so simple. It is more like the random-dot stereograms that
persons stare at, squint at, and walk about trying to bring an image. One
tries, one "wills", and yet when it comes like a pop! how was it? It does
not come simply because one focused here rather than there, but with
practice one can find where it more likely will. Again, focusing in
itself or even where is not enough, but it is all we, these "I" 's can do!
And so with these other pieces--these songs, places, numbers,
expressions--overfilling with facets that can be emphasized. And now you
hear it and immediately comes her and with her a loneliness, but there is
so much more. With the song one can focus to other moments, maybe shared
with friends or walking across a small retreat from the mediocre affairs,
and with this alone can I suggest to you who have loved and lost. And a
reminder that we can always turn the music off.