Love, chemicals, and the Trick.

[jettison]

I posted this in repsonse to another thread, but I thought I'd offer it up as a separate discussion. It's always been fascinating to me how easily love goes wrong, and we all try to figure out why that might be. Usually, we take the approach of self-examing the relationship, and then placing fault or praise on ourselves or our partners for a job well or not well done. And then sometimes we conclude "it was no one's fault". I think that's the case most of time no matter how much it helps our ego to imagine that our ex's are vile, evil creatures that have come to torment us from the depths of hell.

 

Simply, there has to be a reason why the Universe designed us to be so absolutely terrible at relationships. Biologically speaking, it must serve the greater good. So, that's the preface. Here's the post:

 

Sometimes, love and relationships require a suspension of belief. One of my favorite poems by John Wright... I like to take it out if I'm in a jaded mood.

 

People come, people go

They put on their little shows

See them laugh, see them cry

See them live their little lies

I'm alone with you and I'm lying too

I'm alone with you and you're lying too

Oh, we are all liars and that's all that's true.

 

Since we percieve our world to be, we have to just have faith and believe even if it goes against all reason, and sometimes rational thought. Hell, usually it goes against rational thought. Falling in love makes almost no sense. So, those that cling to rationality at all costs when it comes to their romances are always outright screwed. I wish everyone knew this secret.

 

If you're mentioning stuff like "I'm just not sure that I'm in love with you anymore" after the love chemicals in your brain have worn off a bit then you really aren't getting it. Enjoy yourself!

 

link removed

 

We're all about to die if you really want to look at things rationally folks. In comparison to the history of the Universe, we're already 6 feet under. So, why take this stuff so seriously? Why be rational? In fact, this Universe practically begs you to be irrational when it comes to the nuances of love.

 

Your life is a movie. You are the writer, producer, and director of said movie. If you're making a Bond film and the scene comes up where Bond is about to jump out of a moving car at 65 mph, and after achieving said stunt, he gets up, dusts off, and blows away 18 terrorists with a machine gun made out of a bic liter, and your only response is, "Yep folks, I just don't see it. How could Bond possibly pull that off? No one will believe it!!!" If that's your take then you are straight hosed. Of course it doesn't make any sense... that's the bleeping point!

 

So in love, STOP worrying about it making so much sense. It doesn't you fool. It makes almost none. The only time during your entire relationship with anyone you date now or in the future where it makes perfect sense is when you're swimming, sure, but rather drunk on love chemicals. You are given a chemical license to be irrational for the sake of pro creation.

 

Do you think God, The Designer, The Universe, whatever did this by accident? Hells no! These chemicals are there for a reason. Otherwise, we'd never get ourselves to the point of mating and furthering the species.

 

So, when those chemicals wear off, and you start saying to yourself, "Heck, this just doesn't work anymore. It doesn't make sense. This isn't right." The Universe has just played you for a fool.... AGAIN. Ha! Sucker.

 

This is the point where you have to be able to revert to your inner-child a bit, be able to laugh and play, and embrace the absurdity of love. If you can't, you'll find yourself loveless.

[Weeblie]

Makes sense to me.

[melrich]

Falling in love makes almost no sense.

 

I don't get that. It's just like a throwaway line. It's said as a bald statement of fact.

 

To me, falling in love makes perfect sense. Humans are designed for it.

[jettison]

I don't get that. It's just like a throwaway line. It's said as a bald statement of fact.

 

To me, falling in love makes perfect sense. Humans are designed for it.

 

Just a throwaway line? Sure, if I didn't include every other word in that post. By itself, it's meaningless. And of course, that's why it's not by itself. Defenseless little phrase, left alone, in the dark, shivering and loveless. No way I'd do that to my defenseless little phrase.

 

And of course, since you're an ENA mod and have been here for a long time, you also know that falling out of love must make just as much sense since these boards are literally built on folks who fit that description. ;-)

[melrich]

you also know that falling out of love must make just as much sense since these boards are literally built on folks who fit that description.

 

Absolutely, if you can pour water in you can pour it out.

[jettison]

Absolutely, if you can pour water in you can pour it out.

 

True. I think the "love doesn't make sense" thing is exactly what you say it is. Generic. You could say "drinking orange doesn't make any sense" and then anyone would say "huh? What the heck are you talking about? I love OJ! It makes perfect sense." So their reply makes sense unless you read:

 

"Drinking orange juice doesn't makes sense... because the Floridians have been experimenting with slave labor in juice fields for the last 3 years. If you drink OJ, just remember that you might be contributing to exploitation of immigrant farmers."

 

Then, of course, the original statment makes sense. Love, all by itself, makes sense. The main qualifier of my argument was that it makes less sense simply because it is so easy for it to go wrong, and we all understand the potential heartbreak that follows. Jumping out of an airplane without a parachute woudl be thrilling, adventurous, and a once in a lifetime opportunity. A lifetime that is about to come to a quick end. So, it makes no sense. That's an exaggeration, but that's how love can feel to some folks after they've just been through extreme heartbreak or have been through multiple, serious, LTRs.

[melrich]

The main qualifier of my argument was that it makes less sense simply because it is so easy for it to go wrong

 

Yes I guess that i where we would differ in our thinking. But there have been so many attempts down the ages to define love that it's not surprising everyone has a different view of what it is.

[jettison]

Yes I guess that i where we would differ in our thinking. But there have been so many attempts down the ages to define love that it's not surprising everyone has a different view of what it is.

 

Well, from what I understand, you're in a happy, committed relationship right now. So of course, that's your take. Should your relationship ever end, however, especially abruptly and not from your choosing, you're unlikely to voice that same take on this topic. In fact, you'd certainly be in the clear, clear minority if you responded with a post that said "Love makes perfect sense" after being dumped from an LTR that you loved.

 

So, not only do most of us have different takes on love, but our takes tend to change from place to place, and situation to situation. What one feels about love today is not always a great indication of what one might feel about love tomorrow, or next year, or 5 years from now. One thing we know for sure though... all love ends. Whether it be by choice or by death, it's temporary.

 

A very close friend of mine that I've known for two years now has been quite unlucky in love, but definitely looking. She's put herself out there A LOT. I'm proud of her for that, but she's also gone through her share of unhappy endings. Recently, she met a guy who "made her feel like she hasn't felt in 12 years." "I'm in love!" she told me. In fact, she was even planning to move out of state to be with him after only having known him for a month.

 

We were out to dinner about 3 weeks ago, and a mutual friend was voicing his dicontent with his relationship, complaining that his GF loved him more then he loved her. I mentioned "the Passion Paradox", the well known theory about love that contends that in the majority of relationships, one partner loves the other more, and it goes on to explain why that might be. It's just a theory, but it rings true for most people.

 

On this night, I merely mentioned the words to the mututal friend, and my friend was up out of her seat, and out the door. She said, "I can't believe you want to crap all over my new relationship. Can't you just be happen for me!? This is real love! Real love!" And then she was gone.

 

Three weeks later, her relationship is over. I wonder if she's describe her love the same way today. I doubt it. This is a microcosm case, but merely a small example of how "sure" everyone thinks they are when they're really in love. It feels like magic, and it feels like forever... but it's not.

[melrich]

Should your relationship ever end, however, especially abruptly and not from your choosing, you're unlikely to voice that same take on this topic.

 

No I'd be exactly the same. I have had a couple of long term relationships end, I have been through a divorce.

 

I have always accepted that love can be transient. That makes perfect sense to me in the same way so many of our feelings can be transient.

[jettison]

No I'd be exactly the same. I have had a couple of long term relationships end, I have been through a divorce.

 

I have always accepted that love can be transient. That makes perfect sense to me in the same way so many of our feelings can be transient.

 

You're exactly the same concerning love when you're in a loving relationship and after you've just gotten dumped? Well then my friend, you are a super-human, very unique individual to be sure. I think that most of us tend to forget the awful feelings that we had after just leaving a relationship because there's no need for us to revisit them once we're in love again. Just my humble opinion.

[melrich]

You're exactly the same concerning love when you're in a loving relationship and after you've just gotten dumped?

 

Yeah, my definition or concept of love doesn't change because a relationship fails. As I said, I accept and from experience understand that love can start and it can end.

 

I've never looked back on a relationship and thought I'd rather not have had it because of the pain I felt at its' ending.

[tiredofvampires]

I honestly have to say, I feel the way Melrich does on this.

 

Just because something can go wrong, or end, or change, doesn't mean that it "doesn't make sense" anymore, or that I have lost a sense of purpose in it. I think love is a MYSTERY -- i.e., who knows why we love some people more than others, or fall out of love with someone we were once in love with? I think ENA does help many people to try to pinpoint such factors, in the attempt to save that elusive thing called love when a relationship is flailing. And in many cases, a resuscitation is possible -- for some lucky ones, for life. And many near-ruinations do end up mended and even stronger.

 

So I do not believe the categorical statement, "Love ends" is true. In fact, I think the opposite is true. If you want to telescope out. Love changes to the point that it is unrecognizable sometimes, that is all.

 

Despite the mystery of falling in and out of love, and love itself, I myself do not feel that any of my horrendous, eviscerating heartbreaks change my feeling about the durability of love as a Force, and a self-perpetuating phenomenon when you find the right person to share it with. I think that that falling in love comes from a place within us that is non-rational, but even that makes sense.

 

(btw, I saw your post in the other thread before I noticed this, and left my mark there as well. )

[jettison]

Yeah, my definition or concept of love doesn't change because a relationship fails. As I said, I accept and from experience understand that love can start and it can end.

 

I've never looked back on a relationship and thought I'd rather not have had it because of the pain I felt at its' ending.

 

I've never looked back at a relationship and told myself I'd like an undo either, but I also know that my take on love immediately following a breakup and during the actual relationship when it's flourishing differs somewhat. My emotions aren't static. Sure, I know what I'm suppose to feel and say, but my emotions are a different animal.

[melrich]

I myself do not feel that any of my horrendous, eviscerating heartbreaks change my feeling about the durability of love as a Force

 

I do understand that people can get bitter and jaded, but to me in this situation, making statements like "what's the point of love" is directing that anger to the wrong place.

[jettison]

TOV... love doesn't end? Really? Even after death?

 

You just said that it comes from the "irrational" but that that "makes sense". Har. Is that kind of like "fresh frozen" food, or "friendly fire", or "postal service". ;-)

 

Love tends to spin us all around like a top. I think it's just both of your definitions of "sense" and not of "love" that we're apparently contesting here. If love didn't put you on edge, it could not be considered love. And if you're in love right now, not on edge, and perfectly content, then just wait. There is so much that is competely irrational about love, and that's what I love about it. Who wants a rational, romantic love? That's not for me. You guys can keep it. I'll reserve that for my mom and my sister.

 

And love that has me thinking "Gotta get naked. Gotta have that shot of tequila. Gotta buy flowers for the 4th day in a row. Gotta write this poem or I'll die." That kind of love doesn't make sense just like the Bond film I described doesn't make sense. But at the time, I won't question it. I'll just accept and love love for all its irrationality and that's just fine with me.

[jettison]

I do understand that people can get bitter and jaded, but to me in this situation, making statements like "what's the point of love" is directing that anger to the wrong place.

 

 

Whoa there. Here, we present our first disconnect. I did not ask the question, "What's the point of love". And also, I never said "there's no point in love". I just said that it didn't make sense. Those two ideas are very, very different. Taking a last second trip to Vegas right now wouldn't make sense either, but I'd never preface said trip with the phrase "what's the point?".

[melrich]

There is so much that is competely irrational about love, and that's what I love about it.

 

I totally agree with that. But I am not sure why if something has irrational elements it doesn't make sense. The fact that love can be random, fleeting, permanent, a fine line, difficult to pin down, hard to define doesn't make it not make sense to me.... (if that makes sense).

[jettison]

I totally agree with that. But I am not sure why if something has irrational elements it doesn't make sense. The fact that love can be random, fleeting, permanent, a fine line, difficult to pin down, hard to define doesn't make it not make sense to me.... (if that makes sense).

 

link removed - link removed - link removed

ir·ra·tion·al / Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation [i-rash-uh-nl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1.without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason. 2.without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment. 3.not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments.

 

 

If something is irrational, then it doesn't make sense. In other words, it is "deprived of reason". Yes? Not sure what's not adding up.

 

There are 25 different definitions listed for the word "sense". I guess you could choose any of the 25 when I make a statement like "Love doesn't make sense." Again, this is seemingly a debate about semantics.

 

I did go on to say that love does make sense from a biological perspective. Our brains fill with love chemicals, we want to be together and mate, we feel love. When we are made to feel love we tend to stay together, mate together, and make children together. Hence, the conclusion really is that love makes sense from that vantage point because it allows us safety and the ability to mate and raise children. If we just had sex with anyone we chose then we wouldn't be good at raising children, and the species as a whole would take a hit. Poorly raised children have problems feeding and sheltering themselves which doesn't allow them to reach the age where they can mate and raise children.

 

And is it an accident that most feel like once we no longer want to have sex with our significant other that we simply MUST move on. We MUST. You can still love the person, but you want to move on anyway. Why? It's because you have to do your biological duty and find someone else to mate with. Even if you don't do that, there are little chemicals in your brain that are acting like subliminal messages.... leave, leave, leave.

 

It's not an accident that particularly attractive and successful people have an easier time leaving relationships then less attractive, less successful ones after the sex has died in the relationship. That's because the more attractive, more successful ones will likely find an easier route to a new love, and to mating.

[tiredofvampires]

I totally agree with that. But I am not sure why if something has irrational elements it doesn't make sense. The fact that love can be random, fleeting, permanent, a fine line, difficult to pin down, hard to define doesn't make it not make sense to me.... (if that makes sense).

 

I couldn't have tried to articulate this better. We can be driven to do things that we don't entirely understand, or that goes against some kind of "logic", but that doesn't mean that what we are feeling doesn't "make sense." To me, "making sense" means that there is a reason for it being the way it is.

 

For instance, if I value financial security and materialistic comfort in finding a partner (this is just an example), my rational, logical mind will be utterly confounded and conflicted about falling in love with someone whose job is never guaranteed (like, oh, say a freelance artist), who lives out of a frugal apartment devoid of some creature comforts. Falling in love with this person may be based on an emotional, intellectual connection that outweighs the practical and logical considerations, and despite my rational thinking on the matter, the irrational part of me that is no longer concerned with mapping my life the way I thought I wanted it may go careening into a full-fledged passionate relationship with this person. You might say, the mind is the rational part of us that tries to figure out why we love someone or don't, and the irrational part is the language of the heart -- it is feelings-based, visceral and not involved in calculations, shoulds or shouldn'ts, or even sometimes moral considerations.

 

But all of this fits together as part of human nature, and as such to me makes "sense." Sense being what I defined above -- that there is a natural order to things and phenomena. And that it can be predicted, even. The unpredictability and mystery of love, the fact that it grows, flourishes and then can either go south or continue to flourish in a new direction as it gains history, can be predicted in human beings.

[melrich]

Yeah, I agree with TOV. Dictionary definitions don't really fit philisophical discussions.

 

Just because something defies logic, behaves irrationally doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. In fact it may be exactly what makes it "make sense".

 

In fact, the patterns of love repeat over and over and over...as you can see from these forums. It does in fact follow a certain number of reasonbaly well defined paths, there is a large element of predictability about it. It makes sense to me.

[tiredofvampires]

TOV... love doesn't end? Really? Even after death?

You just said that it comes from the "irrational" but that that "makes sense". Har. Is that kind of like "fresh frozen" food, or "friendly fire", or "postal service". ;-)

 

So glad you asked!

 

There are two ways of looking at that.

 

The first way is that yes, love ends when two people who are married for 60 years finally both kick the bucket, because they are, well, dead. So how does that materially relate to opening yourself to the possibility of a lasting love, "lasting", that is, until the mortal natural end? Would that be an argument against trying to find a loving lifelong relationship? That we are gonna die, and take with us the love of our partner, doesn't have any bearing on how we live. And for me, the desire to find this relationship keeps me going in my faith about love, because I know that exists. Why not for me? If I find one that ends before we do (edit: that is, if the relationship breaks up), that love has ended. But not Love. The love for someone ELSE might last. Until we croak, which I agree is a certain limitation.

 

The second way of looking at this is that no, after death, love still continues. I still love the people in my life who died, so MY love continues. My love is still very much alive for those who are physically dead, so no, the love had not ended. Where they are I do not know, so I cannot speak for them, but my feeling about that is that after they (or both of us die), we are re-united with a Force that is Love unmanifest, which is sheer potential. It is a potent, fertile abstraction, one that is absolute. It could be said that Love is an immortal (and thereforeeee, un-endable) Force in the Universe, and that we are really just vehicles. Like in physics, energy is never lost, it only changes form. Love could very well be this way, and I personally have a strong sense it is. If love were water, and the water were spilled from a jug into the ground, is it gone? It was first contained in the jug, and took that form. Then it went into the soil, and dispersed. But it is still there. I see love much the same way, so from a cosmic perspective, if one or both parties die -- they simply become re-integrated and subsumed into the love that NEVER ends -- and from which love is re-born out of every time we experience it. Every time we fall in love, we are just acting as instruments for that song which is playing "forever".

 

Not to go all airy fairy on you. lol.

 

And your comment about my and Melrich's definitions of "sense", I agree -- that may be coming down to a semantic matter, though I tried to clarify that in my previous post.

[tiredofvampires]

There is one more thing that comes to mind I wanted to add, about "irrationality". I am not completely sure I agree with this, but it does "make sense" (lol) in that "I get it", and it's certainly food for thought.

 

My previous therapist told me that in her view, there is nothing "irrational." That everything we feel, believe or think -- however outlandish and apparently inexplicable -- can be traced to something we have experienced. So for instance, in the example she presented to me, say a woman is raped in a dark alleyway at night by a man wearing a red bow tie. Many years later, at cocktail parties, she cannot stand to talk to any man who is wearing a red bowtie. He tries to make small talk, and she just feels repulsed by him and even fearful. Is the innocent bowtie to blame? Is this nice guy a threat? Is she being "irrational"? Common knowledge would say this is an "irrational fear", but the truth is that it is based in an EXPERIENCE, something that lead her to feel this way. Now this is a really absurd example, and extreme, but so it works with many other aspects of life that aren't as apparent, some very subliminal, unconscious or part of our primitive brains.

 

So as this translates to love, one would have to ask, if this position that there really is nothing irrational in nature, just an extention of one's unconscious experience -- might we be resonating with people who we fall in love with that you could actually trace to a myriad of associations, experiences and past feelings/desires that are all acting on us in the present moment? As unlikely and "unreasonable" as they may seem?

 

Just spotlighting the word "irrational" for a moment, since we are already picking apart words and their significance.

[jettison]

I couldn't have tried to articulate this better. We can be driven to do things that we don't entirely understand, or that goes against some kind of "logic", but that doesn't mean that what we are feeling doesn't "make sense." To me, "making sense" means that there is a reason for it being the way it is.

 

You just said that for you, "sense means" fill in the blank. And I just told you that there were 25 different definitions for the word "sense". So, you're saying what sense means to you, and then saying that what I say it means is not what it means.... but I have 25 choices from which to choose. Hmmmm. Can you see how you're not making any... erah... sense.

 

For instance, if I value financial security and materialistic comfort in finding a partner (this is just an example), my rational, logical mind will be utterly confounded and conflicted about falling in love with someone whose job is never guaranteed (like, oh, say a freelance artist), who lives out of a frugal apartment devoid of some creature comforts. Falling in love with this person may be based on an emotional, intellectual connection that outweighs the practical and logical considerations, and despite my rational thinking on the matter, the irrational part of me that is no longer concerned with mapping my life the way I thought I wanted it may go careening into a full-fledged passionate relationship with this person. You might say, the mind is the rational part of us that tries to figure out why we love someone or don't, and the irrational part is the language of the heart -- it is feelings-based, visceral and not involved in calculations, shoulds or shouldn'ts, or even sometimes moral considerations.

 

Yes, you could say all that, but then you'd be debating yourself since I wouldn't be disagreeing. "Love doesn't make sense" has a different meaning that how each of you have taken it. Completely different. You're using the definition of sense meaning that I'm an advocate against love somehow, when in fact, I'm anything but. TOV, as you well know, I'm a complete proponent of love and everything about it. So knowing that, how can you take a phrase like "love doesn't make sense" and assume the definition of sense you've chosen from the 25 possibilities?

 

But all of this fits together as part of human nature, and as such to me makes "sense." Sense being what I defined above -- that there is a natural order to things and phenomena. And that it can be predicted, even. The unpredictability and mystery of love, the fact that it grows, flourishes and then can either go south or continue to flourish in a new direction as it gains history, can be predicted in human beings.

 

In the end, this is really, really simple. I could say "love doesn't make sense" and later, in the very same paragraph, say "love makes perfect sense" and be right both times depending on the way you read the phrase.

 

If something = irrational = illogical = doesn't make sense. It does not mean love = irrational = doesn't make sense = bad idea. And TOV, we had a very similar debate off-line a looong time ago. I even remember quoting Bjork to you and her quote about the idigenous people of Iceland. "The most beautiful thing about artists in Iceland is that they can take in Western culture and then misinterpret it in the most beautiful ways."

 

It may not be a rational interpretation, it may not make sense to those outside of Iceland, but it is the most beautiful misinterpretation when it's done out of love.

 

So when I say "love doesn't make sense" I can't possibly mean that in a more affectionate way. It's embraceable. It's a similar concept to Rob Wright's "Be strong, be wrong." On face value, someone might think, "How are you strong if you're wrong?" You have to look underneath the surface a bit to catch its meaning.

[jettison]

Yeah, I agree with TOV. Dictionary definitions don't really fit philisophical discussions.

 

If there are 25 different definitions for the word "sense" then it's hard to imagine that all of those definitions are now rendered meaningless simply because our debate is dubbed philosophical. Sometimes, the more philosophical the discussion becomes, the more important it is to understand the semantics employed.

 

Just because something defies logic, behaves irrationally doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. In fact it may be exactly what makes it "make sense".

 

And spoken another way, using a different take on the word "sense" that's exactly what it means. So it means both. I could say "love makes no sense" and "love makes perfect sense" and be completely correct each time. I'm finding it very difficult to understand why both of you are so stuck on this word "sense" however. And when presented with evidence that proves that the word means 25 different things, the response is "there's no place for that kind of logic in a philosophical debate." Huh? It seems like you guys are just arguing a point which has absolutely nothing to do with the OP. In fact, in the OP, I introduced a the idea of a biological imperitive as to why "love makes sense". So when I said "Love doesn't make sense" and the kneejerk reaction was a definition you already had in your mind about love, you just ignored the bulk of what followed. If you read the rest and tied it to the statement then the phrase "love doesn't make sense" makes perfect... erah... sense.

 

 

 

 

 

In fact, the patterns of love repeat over and over and over...as you can see from these forums. It does in fact follow a certain number of reasonbaly well defined paths, there is a large element of predictability about it. It makes sense to me.

 

Makes sense to me too. But why you have such a narrow definition of the word sense makes little... ummm... sense.

[tiredofvampires]

Wow, I am dually impressed with the nested quote functions you so adroitly know how to employ! Some day, you must teach me.

 

You just said that for you, "sense means" fill in the blank. And I just told you that there were 25 different definitions for the word "sense". So, you're saying what sense means to you, and then saying that what I say it means is not what it means.... but I have 25 choices from which to choose. Hmmmm. Can you see how you're not making any... erah... sense.

 

First of all, I was writing my post while you were putting up the one about the 25 diffferent definitions of the word "sense". So I didn't see your post until I had already tried my best to define the word "sense" to me, without the use of a dictionary or thesaurus. (My two favorite books, so I am one to go find those 25 definitions, now that you mention it.) I was trying to express what the word means to ME. And I also indicated that this may be fast becoming a semantic matter -- again, coincidentally I wrote that and posted it after you made the same observation/assessment about semantics. So we are kind of posting in tandem with some of the concepts here.

 

I am not sure what you mean by my definition being "fill in the blank." Things that make sense to me are things that have some basis in, as I said, what can be expected in this life to occur. It can be expected that people will do and say things and feel things that do not have a logical, linear explanation. Love being one of those things, aside from the biological one you described. I think when you consider the "Cosmic" factor I talked about above, if love is the glue that holds us together as conscious beings so that we do not destroy eachother and the human race, I think it makes perfect "sense" to enter upon feelings of rapturous love that take us by surprise without pre-meditation or logical control. That makes SENSE to me, because it happens regularly and we are outfitted for that program.

 

I am not making SENSE to you, with this?

 

Now putting that aside --

 

If something = irrational = illogical = doesn't make sense. It does not mean love = irrational = doesn't make sense = bad idea.

 

I know you weren't saying that, and I did not take anything callous, unaffectionate, or at all "anti-love" out of your post -- only that you are grappling with the sense of love's demise as being an inevitable part of it. I believe you have had some experiences that have left you wary, and jaded. That is not a bad thing, it just is. And all I (and we?) have been doing here is challenging some of that, which seems to be what your thread is resting on. Am I wrong about that? If I am fine, but then what were you driving at with your thread and the ideas in the post? I know life is filled with contradiction, but if one were to try to distill what you are getting at in your posting, it would seem to me it is a mixture of intellectual investigation and desire for feedback on the "prognosis" and definition of love, as well as a more subdued emotional, personal take on it that reflects some level of struggle. I was trying to address myself to both. It seemed like you wanted to provoke a debate about the endurance and the notion of love as being "senseless", and I took it at that. I did not judge your outlook, not did I try to say that you are saying love is a bad idea. I was addressing myself to the words you used -- "it makes no sense", and since that was a prominent aspect of your thread, I (we?) were trying to speak to that. If you could just as easily say that love DOES make sense, then there is little point in your saying it doesn't, unless you want to make the point that there is a paradox. Which I would agree with. But I don't think you were posting in order to say A is true and A is not true, were you? Maybe I missed the thrust of your post in its aims and what you wanted to share, specifically, about your views. I thought you wanted to dialogue the views expressed in your OP.

 

But I am of course not saying that you are against falling in love. I think maybe you are saying doing so is great, but ill-fated. "And here's why." Though I'm not so sure now what to think, and that may be very satisfying to you.

 

Yes, you could say all that, but then you'd be debating yourself since I wouldn't be disagreeing

 

Ah, such a nice and friendly way of saying we are on the same page. C'mon -- I love to debate, it's as good as lemon meringue pie (well...nearly!), but I am not that much into mental masturbation.

 

Intellectually, we can come to agree on some things, but emotionally, you are coming from a place that comes out in ways I feel you might want to explore. Isn't that why you put them out there?