Love, Possession, and Intergration

In Plato's "Symposium", Socrates develops an idea that love is a yearning for the possession of object of beauty, hence, it is not Divine, as it is not self-sufficient (the Divine cannot be lacking), yet neither is it mortal, for it does not admit of an end.

Now, putting aside the Daemonic qualities of love (as such is how Socrates describe it, neither Man nor God, but a Daemon) the idea of love being a yearning for something and its possession intrigues me. Specifically because it draws to the fore this question:

If love is the desire to possess the object of love, is it truly desired to merge entirely with the object of love, and to take it into oneself? Specifically in eros, or powerful, romantic love? Does Romeo desire Juliet to be united in his being? Would this be the ultimate fullfillment of love? And at attaining it, would one be pleased?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Interesting topic PJ!
Could it be said that it is not the love of the object of desire but more the love of the feelings that thinking about and being in possession of that object of desire generate with in ourselves?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And I must admit that I am not comfortable with the use of the word possession as I see true love to be more a liberation than an act of ownership.

"Liberated from the oppression of loneliness and frustration of unfulfilled desire"

Reminds me of the lyrics to a song by Elton John.
"You can cage a song bird but you can not make it sing"
"You can trap a free bird but you have to clip it's wings"

So maybe the notion of "possession" needs to be defined a bit more......

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think Romeo or Juliet had enough time to find out, their relationship so quickly interupted by events around them.
I think it is true that at all times a love relationship must be founded on voluntary participation. Notions of possession must include voluntary participation by all concerned and thus the dichotomy of possession and voluntariness comes to the for.

IT is true I guess that Juliet and Romeo were both voluntarilly wishing for a union and I ask can this be really called possession? Can Romeo ever claim that Juliet is his and the he belongs to Juliet? Except as a voluntary participant?
So what I am saying is that a person must surrender to the other in a way that is voluntary so that the claim of possession is rooted in voluntary participation only, as when this is no longer voluntary the love is no longer a partnership of mutual benefit but one that is illusionary and lopsided.

 

Once very many yrs ago I had a dream, I had a male friend who was a superhero (I was quite young!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) and I was his side kick, and I loved him. part of our strength as a duo came from merging into one person. I would enter his body (somehow) and become one with him. Now in that dream I felt like I was one with him. I felt his feelings and his thoughts and the feeling of love was immense. Unimaginable. Hence I never forgot the dream of the longing for that feeling. A tears to ones eyes moment.

I never heard of the thing you describe before but while only being able to relate to my dream, I can confirm yes it was truely .....................

When having sex I sometimes try to draw on the memory of that 'two as one' feeling....

It's really not a thing for mortals.

Do we aspire to be one with the person? I think women do! Our idea of 'couple' is 'one' and mens idea of couple is 'me...my mates...and you'

 

too right

my children do possess me, I am theirs unreservedly for as long as they need me.

Re male/female relationships, practice has taught me that to posess is not to love either self or other. I posess a tv but neither it loves me or I it.

Love is about an 'ache' that exists inside you at the thought of prolonged separation but permits it if the other desires it. If you neither ache for attachment or permit detachment then you do not love the object of desired posession.

 

Love is propably the worst-defined word in the vocabulary (or then so finely defined that it cannot be understood without immense effort..)

Love is not directed at persons but personalities. Hence, "being one" is simply learning the good sides, or virtues as I like to call them, of your sig. other. Likewise, if someone loves you, then you have something precious (why people want to be loved). This gets confused in our mind, because we associate the personalities of a person with their bodies (we haven't seen them in any other body, afterall).

But this would mean that the love dies when the people learn what makes them tick. Which would explain things, but not some other things. We can also suppose common acceptance is seen as love as well. In which case we love also the people that are like us, since then "we are no longer alone". There is someone else like us (so we "like" them? or "are alike"?).

Common personalities, common experiences and common ideas make a good team. And marriage, above all things, should be a GOOD TEAM. Then desire for precious things is the "romantic love", and desire for understanding and likeness (company maybe) is the, uh, "old love"? This would also explain how some close people might seem "married", while they have nothing romantic between them (Sam and Frodo?).

Other option is that people shy, like they usually do, from the truth and sort of cling to the fact that someone loves them instead of realizing they love someone. It's easy to see how violence breeds from this. Someone constantly proves that you are wrong, but you can't abandon them because their love proves you're right.

 

Sorry for not replying for over two weeks!

But let's get down to business, shall we?

Perplexity:

"Were there no need to own, we would never have heard of "'till death us do part", but if a lover happens to feel unworthy of the loved one it may rather be oppositely expressed, and often is, in terms of a separation."

This is true. Inferiority often causes one to leave the other, on the foundation that they are not worth the other's time and effort.

Quantum Quack:

"Interesting topic PJ!"

I hope you should think so even two weeks later!

"Could it be said that it is not the love of the object of desire but more the love of the feelings that thinking about and being in possession of that object of desire generate with in ourselves? "

Ths is an interesting way to look at it. Do we love the person, or do we love the felings? Let us consider, however, that do not the feelings have an object themselves? And that object provokes said feelings? So whereas we may not experience the object of our love directly, it nonetheless is from whence the feelings are generated and therefore our true foundation for love? For one can hardly speak of loving the taste of apples without referencing apples, can one? Then one can hardly speak of loving the love of the beloved, without referencing the beloved.

"And I must admit that I am not comfortable with the use of the word possession as I see true love to be more a liberation than an act of ownership."

Oh? How do you figure?

"So maybe the notion of "possession" needs to be defined a bit more...... "

To possess, I mean to have. To have love means to be within control of it, to have its effects, et cetera. To not be deprived of it, for it not to be alien to oneself. All of this would seem to imply that what we want is an intergration of the beloved into oneself, for would not this be the ultimate expression of possession?

"I think it is true that at all times a love relationship must be founded on voluntary participation. Notions of possession must include voluntary participation by all concerned and thus the dichotomy of possession and voluntariness comes to the for."

I am not so sure here. It would seem to me that we precisely want love to -not- be voluntary, for the voluntary always implies a capacity for us to lose. No one wants the object of one's love to go away.

"IT is true I guess that Juliet and Romeo were both voluntarilly wishing for a union and I ask can this be really called possession? Can Romeo ever claim that Juliet is his and the he belongs to Juliet? Except as a voluntary participant?"

Well presumably, once love reached any point of theoretical possession, no sundering of the relationship could occur. That is to say, one would be eternally connected with said person.

"So what I am saying is that a person must surrender to the other in a way that is voluntary so that the claim of possession is rooted in voluntary participation only, as when this is no longer voluntary the love is no longer a partnership of mutual benefit but one that is illusionary and lopsided. "

That is a question that must be asked: Do we really care if such is the case? Specifically when one suffers being scorned by one's love, one does not seem to much care that this is an exercise of freedom of one's lover (or ex-lover).

Theoryofrelativity:

That was a fascinating response from you. Really. And yes, it seems that your dream and the manifestation of the idea of which I have spoken about are connected in such a way as to seem to, at least from a female prespective, give a foundation for love to be found in that desire for intergration.

But you also raise several points which I think are worth discussing about:

Is the experience of "love" and "couplehood" different for men and women? And can people in general, but specifically men, be satisfied with an idea of love which denies relations with other people?

And if such is different, are they truly both experiencing love? And are they both seeking the intergration which seems to be one of the principles upon which love is founded?

Is it possible the in intergration itself is viewed differently? In your dream, you intergrate with the object of love. Would a man want that object of love to intergrate with him instead?

perplexity:

"To possess another person you have to surrender yourself, and vise versa: "

How?

"There is nothing more possessing than unrestricted vulnerabilty.

Ask any parent."

Only if that parent loves its child.

TheoryOfRelativity:

"Love is about an 'ache' that exists inside you at the thought of prolonged separation but permits it if the other desires it. If you neither ache for attachment or permit detachment then you do not love the object of desired posession. "

Yet what about when that love is completely spurned? The ache becomes more pronounced and suffering induced when such is the case, no? But do we love that person any less at that time, or do we love them significantly more?

Perplexity:

"The truth of it is that love is blind, and it aches to that extent.
We fall in love with idealistic illusions, wishful preconceptions, ignorant of the reality of the object."

If the object in question does not have some connection with the ideas we have of it, how can it produce our conceptions of it?

Ogmios:

"Love is not directed at persons but personalities. Hence, "being one" is simply learning the good sides, or virtues as I like to call them, of your sig. other. Likewise, if someone loves you, then you have something precious (why people want to be loved). This gets confused in our mind, because we associate the personalities of a person with their bodies (we haven't seen them in any other body, afterall)."

I would agree that we primarily relate to a person's mind, but why do we gravitate to these virtues?

"But this would mean that the love dies when the people learn what makes them tick. Which would explain things, but not some other things. We can also suppose common acceptance is seen as love as well. In which case we love also the people that are like us, since then "we are no longer alone". There is someone else like us (so we "like" them? or "are alike"?)."

Would not "similarity", or in fact, "identicalness" be basically the same sensation as "we are alike"?

"Other option is that people shy, like they usually do, from the truth and sort of cling to the fact that someone loves them instead of realizing they love someone. It's easy to see how violence breeds from this. Someone constantly proves that you are wrong, but you can't abandon them because their love proves you're right."

Yet if someone doesn't love you, can one truly love them? Unrequitted love eventually must die and when it lives, brings but suffering.

 

Prince_James,

You mean, why do we want these virtues? Simply the law of symbolism, like attracts like (muahah!). Or then we lust for power. Knowledge is power, and we desire more

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Or more like, without wisdom, you are powerless to prevent the misfortunes of life, and you seek shelter and strength, like a tree that wishes to grow and live.

I don't get your point. Yes? Although I'd prefer "similarity" over "identicalness". When similiar, each uniting fact drives you together. With "identicalness", each thing diffrent would drive you apart. And change always...changes you. Makes you diffrent.

I rather meant "in the fashion previously described". That is to say, you can love a painting although it does not love you back.
And you DID say "eventually". So you're saying it's possible for a while anyway? And yes, suffering. And even still, you can always PRETEND they love you.

They just had a bad day, see. Or then they usually get angry if they don't get their special time (or any such bs). But they still love you.

 

"...merged entirely with ..."? ..... "...united in his being"?

Just what the fuck does that mean? I mean, really, ......?

Is that all just a play on words and meanings so as to have something to talk about that's more like drivel than anything else? Or is this something like Star Trek where the transporter has malfunctioned and parts of two people are scattered randomly together? ...LOL!

Baron Max

 

People only love other people and things because they love the feeling of love. In other words, they love God, unity, source, consciousness, themselves (universal self). There's nothing else to love because everything is the same.

 

Baron Max:

"Just what the fuck does that mean? I mean, really, ......? "

Take two pieces of clay. Would love make these two pieces of clay want to press together and become one piece of clay?

Ogmios:

"You mean, why do we want these virtues? Simply the law of symbolism, like attracts like (muahah!). Or then we lust for power. Knowledge is power, and we desire more "

But no one gains these virtues by loving something. One does not become beautiful by loving a beautiful person. One does not become smart by loving a smart person.

"I don't get your point. Yes? Although I'd prefer "similarity" over "identicalness". When similiar, each uniting fact drives you together. With "identicalness", each thing diffrent would drive you apart. And change always...changes you. Makes you diffrent."

How would identicalness drive one apart, if "like attracts like"?

And as to my point: If love is partially based on the desire to find something one shares a commonality with, does this imply that we wish to be identical to it?

"I rather meant "in the fashion previously described". That is to say, you can love a painting although it does not love you back.
And you DID say "eventually". So you're saying it's possible for a while anyway? And yes, suffering. And even still, you can always PRETEND they love you. "

I have found that it is a curious aspect of a liar that he always knows the truth. Thus a liar is incapable of deceiving himself, as he all ready realizes what is true and what is not. To pretend, to fantasize, always has the air of the fake about it. I do not think one could properly then say that someone who is not in love with you is, in fact, in love wtih you.

Moreover, do you think it is proper to construe the love of inanimate objects and animate beings as distinct?

 

"If one loves unconditionally how can it be considered as unrequitted?"

just a thought.......
edit:
Love is not just simply a craving, or a desire. Love is also a gift that you give.

It could be said that it is the unrequitted or unfulfilled conditions of the love that you give that generate the sufferance of unfulfilled craving or desire.

 

Maybe I am a bit uncommon in this area as I simply love the notion and reality that my wife is with me because she wants to be and not because she feels obligated.

That at all times she and I spend time together because we want to and not because we have to.
"It is only when you are prepared to loose something that you actually have it" - old wisdom.
"If you fear the loss of something then you have already lost it" - another old wisdom.

Possibly this is a bit deeper than you intend PJ......but I have found that it is only when some one has the true and unfetted ability to say no that their yes has real and full meaning.

 

So .....how does that relate to humans? Please explain ....'cause as I see it, it's extremely pertinent to your original question/post.

Baron Max

 

Prince_James,
Love is a word, and all definitions and uses of it are allowed, unless otherwise defined!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Ah, no. But Love merely motivates someone. As such it imposes no action. When you love someone, this naturally makes you want to be with them and to gain love from them etc etc. You love something that is meangingful and precious and so on. If such a person likes you, you are also etc.

But virtues draw you to someone, and being with them (or her?) allows you to understand them. Young pairs often try to find everything about each other, eh? Love doesn't teach, it's just a feeling telling you something. This is my interpretion.

eh....Kinda almost a joke. We desire virtues, because otherwise we mess our lives.

Like attracts like only because you understand someone that is like you. So it's easier to live with these kind of people. And you know your goals or methods will not conflict (and of course because it confirms you right, but that's not kinda noble..). So it is diffrent kind of love from appreciating someone. Well you obviously appreciate them, like you appreciate yourself.

And I meant that if you wish to be identical, you feel sad when you are not (that is when sig other is diffrent from you). Similarity simply does not exclude any non-identical traits.

So..

Yes, but this would require that both you and he are both perfect. If there is need to improve (that is, change), this illusion of identicalness is shattered. So this kind of love would be vulnerable or constricting. Thus the preference of merely similarity. But in regards to your question (your definitions), yes.

Yes yes, but this does not prevent him from being a liar, no? So of course such a love would be damaging and so forth, but this merely explains some aspects of love found. Just another way to ruin your life. So you could say such a love is not TRuE love, and be correct. But love nonetheless.

So love attracts people like you, but also people who are noble. And those who do not accept anything they are not (or do not already know), cannot find "true love".

 

That only applies to materialists, and not just materialists, but materialists who value beauty.

Love is actually just magnetism, and egoism. It's a type of narcissism which allows people to cooperate and form families.

 

Love is a chemical reaction in the brain
Eating chocolate can have the same effect but won't get you pregnant

 

So explain love on the atomic level, explain magnetism? You just explained what the emotion is, but you did not explain why it exists, or what it is.

Chemicals are actually atomic in nature as well. The emotional structure is based on DNA, and none of what you said explained anything other than that feelings are caused by chemicals, but love is not only a feeling, it's also rational though, a calculation, it's in our genetic code, and it's a type of magnetism.

 

Plenty of people 'buy' love like chocolate they just fool themselves into thinking it's something else, something on a higher level. We sure waste a lot of time thinking about it and worrying about it.

Magnetism, love whatever you want to call it is simply an attraction for the opposite sex as a precurser to mating. Each individual tries to get the most from a dip in the gene pool. Some succeed others fail. Ever noticed how even the most passionate of couples 'cool off' after a couple of years (or less) especially if children have been produced? Amazing how soon individuals are ready for another dip....