I was sitting in an outdoor cafe having my usual flat white when it occurred to me on the question of Love and Cynicism a line of thought that showed possibly a wisdom that might provide a way of clarifying why we so often become cynical of the love we feel and the love we generate in others. So often Love seems to lead to a dis-appointment and frustration and I asked myself the question why is this so prevalent in todays society. "Is it the way we love?" I wondered. It dawned on me that for most of our lives we make an investment. An emotional investment in the people around us and those that we impact on both directly and indrectly. That we make an investment of energy that so often falls flat and fails to provide the return that we seek. But I thought, "Surely if we invest in that which is eternal would this not be a wiser investment?" To invest your love in that which is eternal within another person means that your investment is never in vain not wasted on that which is temporary or transitory and fleeting. The notions of true love and eternal love comes to mind all reaching past and transcending that which is transitory such as the physical body and material assets such as cars and boats and property. Is it possible that this is what we are confused about in our loving and why people seem to be so much more cynical about relationships than as a race we were in the past? Surely if one loves only the physical image of a person, and given that that image must change as that person ages, that love invested is wasted on a delusion that some how that image will be sustained even if the person changes as they grow older. So, the wisdom I wished to test here in this forum is: "Loving that which is eternal is by far the wisest investment of our love" To love that which is eternal is to remove the potential for dis-appointment and cynicism just simply dis-appears. Of course as the western world moves away from values that are eternal because we do not believe in our own eternal natures, believing that when we die that is our finality then cynicism is a natural outcome. Is this dis-appointment in love simply because we can not sustain a belief in values that are eternal? Is it poossible that by clarifying that which we love cynicism and it's associated dis-appointments regarding that love can be diminished to that which is incidental and not the giant that they currently appear to be? Just a few thoughts that I wished to share and look forward to any you the reader may also wish to share. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
QQ, I think our main problem in the West is that when we love (or think we love), we put things at stake that have nothing to do with love itself. These beliefs may consciously or subconsciously be at work: -- Love or nothing. -- You are a nobody until somebody loves you. -- If a romantic relationship breaks up, you have no meaning in your life anymore, and you are worthless, everyone can rightfully look down on you. -- If your love for someone is not returned, then this means you do not really love them and your love is worthless. -- If your love for someone is not returned, then this means that the other person is worthless (and implicity you for having loved a worthless person). -- Things change, nothing is permanent, so why go after something which is impermanent? Holding such beliefs (which, to boot, are quite contradictory, but this doesn't really seem to be much of a problem), it is no wonder we end up being cynical about that which we call love. Thinking based on those beliefs is sure to make one insane. "Is this dis-appointment in love simply because we can not sustain a belief in values that are eternal?" Yes -- in the sense that when it comes to love, we tend to focus on the incidental (the individual person(s) we love), and not on the indepedent (our ability to love). It seems to me that we tend to confuse the object of our affection with our affection itself. "Is it poossible that by clarifying that which we love cynicism and it's associated dis-appointments regarding that love can be diminished to that which is incidental and not the giant that they currently appear to be?" Yes, very much so. We tend to objectify and personify our affection and then find a real person to match this personification as much as possible. Of course, this person may likely not be a perfect match to that personification, so we try to forgive the real person for not being a perfect match to our idea of how the one we love should be like. What we do is quite gross, when you think! So the solution is in distinguishing between our ability to love, and the people (or things) we love.
What is love? Is it born of a "natural" desire to reproduce? Is it some evolutionary flaw? Or does it serve some greater purpose? What do emotions have to do with evolution? I asked this question of someone who was making some rather snide remarks about the purposes of sexuality and emotional attachment. His replies really side-stepped the issue. How does emotion FURTHER procreation? In a very limited sense, it might. However, bacteria procreate perfectly without either a mate, OR emotions. And they do it very efficiently. How does the evolution of emotions make us BETTER at procreating? When people, through their empathy, will opt NOT to have children (no procreation) because there are already enough children that have nothing in this world, and they don't care to add to it. How then, do emotions facilitate procreation? And "fitness" to procreate has nothing to do with either the act, or the emotions that accompany it. Look at the world, for an example. What purpose do the complexity of human emotions serve? What is their purpose in the first place? This person attempted to tell me the "meaning" of emotions, after having just told another that "meaning" was a HUMAN concept. I quoted his own words about MEANING to him, and he never bothered to respond to me. What is the EVOLUTIONARY purpose of emotion (assuming there actually is one)? Perhaps THAT should be answered first, before any further inquiries are made?
I don't expect a coherent or "meaningful" response from anyone, because it would only be conjecture. And of course, SCIENCE only deals with fact, not mere observation or conjecture. And of course I'm being sarcastic and cynical.
I must admit I do have a tendancy to throw really difficult questions to explain at people. I have no agenda to promote or come with an ulteria motive with this pondering. IT just occurred to as my wife deals with her insecurities of growing older and loosing what she considers as her beauty to the ravages of older age [ she has just turned 57 - 10 years older than I] In an attempt to console her and somehow make her feel better I attempted to describe why her physical appearance is not what I married and I was really lost for how to describe the love I feel for her. In my questing for a solution I realised that what I was attempting to describe is that which I have put forward to the forum that Love is not just about the temporary but more about that which endures beyond our mortal existance. The things we do leave behind, the memories and the compassions, the generousness, we have shown and the things we have done that endure beyond our physical exstance, not to mention if one holds to life after death type notions such as those proposed by many religious and Shamanistic theosophies. Initially I just sat in that cafe shop and imagined that my partner was eternal in spirit and it seemed to clarify things enormously and to be honest put my wife in a more confident position as I was now focused on that which is enduring about her and I and not just the moment but all moments and so on. Her intuitive response showed me she sensed that clarity. It then occurred to me that possibly this is one of those subconscious reason why religion evolved, to try and reinforce the notion of eternal values and not just values of the present. To push our minds and hearts into considering that there is more to existance than just the mere 80 odd years of our mortal lives. Some no doubt will say that loving the eternal is a delusion because the eternal nature of us is not evidenced. However I must ask the question: Why does loving in this way make one feel so much more content and purposeful even if it may turn out to be a delusion afterall? And: What if it isn't a delusion and our cynicism was unecessary? I know this is probably just me rambling but hey that's the mood. An easy read....an easy write.... Water: You have mentioned some important points and I will comment later after a but more thought....BTW thanks for posting. Giambattista: Thanks also for posting, and Likewise I shall respond soon...
Do you KNOW (without doubt) the origins of the universe, man, and religion? Neither do I! And of your uncertainty in the matter, I am CERTAIN. I don't think you can give me the meaningful response that I'm seeking. And neither can I give you that which YOU seek. Why are you skeptical of your love for this woman? Do you doubt your own sincerity? And I'm being very serious about this!
The disappointment and cynicism comes because of selfishness and hurt pride if you go deep enough for the reason of those emotions. It is an expecation for selfish want or need not manifested by other. Perfect love will cast out all fear. Perfect love, or in this case eternal love, has the focus not on self but on other. And in this, if all would have focus on other then self would be satisfied... Unfortunately in our selfish nature we choose to put ourselve first and therefore we will become disappointed and cynical in love. Love is not a delusion. Love is constant and never changes. It is our fickle selfish nature that changes and the delusion, if there is any, is not the love that changes, but our perception that changes to justify our selfishness... cynicism is born. We must change towards love, not love change towards us. It is the highest ideal anyone can hope to attain. It is the highest purpose of life for anyone to pursue. It is the most needed of all things in the world we live in, today.
Because inside, we know that it is only the constant, the permanent, that can bring true happiness. For love is not love if it alternation finds. It is, however, quite spooky for creatures who tend to consider themselves impermanent, to go after the permanent.
You DARE to make such a statement on a SCIENCE forum? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! God bless!
She was not asking you to tell her why you married her. Her lament was because it is the design of woman to bring beauty to your life and in her eyes her beauty is failing and she will choose the obvious beauty as the example. Focus on the fact that her beauty is both an inner and outer glory. She can make your home beautiful in the way she designs it. Her speech is beautiful. Her manner is beautiful. Publicly praise her for her beauty of spirit. It is that beauty that you see and love deeply, and the physical beauty is but a part of an aging like "fine wine" in its delicate bouquet of richness that is so much more than her physical looks. There is a design in man and in woman that we have lost in our society. You both touched on it at the cafe.
Yes, I will, because it is in the realm of Psychology, dear Giambattista. I've studied all my life. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Yes, I do. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! God bless!
We do seem to be born with this ability to love and a drive to place it somewhere, loving your friends or your community or having love for all living things doesnt seem to be enough. We need a sole individual on which we can focus our 'love-energy' on. And the energy we give we expect an equal amount back if not more! prehaps thats what inter-personal love is; an exchange of energy, things break down when youve depleted all your reserves and the other person hasnt been conscientious enough to fill you back up with their own reserves. I think the perfect relationship would be an almost psychic connection where the other knows exactly when to give and when to be quiet and receive. Kind of like two cups continually pouring out water into each other in a perfect counter-balanced equilibric motion.
I do agree with most of all that you have said here. I woudl though extend the line of thought : A while ago I pondered on the issue of an "us" or an "our" or a "we". And it always created a sense of confusion when talking about how it is our own feelings that we must deal with and not those of others. Yet.......the "us" in a relationship is still very much evident so I considered that the "I" solution was left wanting. What I eventualy came up with is currnetly being, in part discussed in Wes's thread "Abstracts again" By way of example: We have person A We have person B And we have the abstraction of the relationship between the two A+B or AB. There fore the feelings between two persons can be described as an abstraction of meaning and value AB. Or, My love Our love Your love My business Our business Your business. etc etc........ The distinctiion between the "I", "you" and "our" allows us to identify the partnership whilst maintaining our unique perspective. For example: We are having a discussion. "I" have made a post. "You" have made a post. our relationship via these posts is established, however it is an abstraction, or feeling that is generated as we negotiate our feeling about a given topic. The abstraction is neither you nor I, but a "fantasy" of "us". I found years ago [ then promptly forgot] that by allowing for this "our" abstraction we can accommodate our individual unique perspectives yet at the same time focus on what we consider to be the more complex abstraction "us". So often in society we see this abstraction of relationship. In the form of a company we create a legal entity that is pure abstraction, Company limited, or Pty Ltd, or partnership with all the laws that pertain to those abstractions. I would suggest I guess that relationships automatically form abstractions of AB from A and B. To love that which is eternal is to generate an AB abstraction that transends the material and enters the realm of eternal abstraction. A love that endures and has survivorship beyond the actual members A and B. So in response to your thoughts posted earlier I agree but have found that position somehow wanting in that to deny the abstraction of AB is to get caught up in all sorts of confusions that are difficult to resolve and explain. So when I say I love what I am actually doing is loving the abstraction that Has been created in that relationship even if it is love of self, the abstrtaction of our love is still present. I, myself and me. My relatioship I have with myself is also an abstraction. Do you see what I am trying to descibe? Any thoughts?
I see what you are saying..... and thanks... In other threads concepts os unconditionality etc have been explored [ no doubt many more will be started and the cosmic discovery continues....] It is true I guess that we make an investment in the focus of our love attention and it seems inevitable that we would "anticipate" a return on that investment. However can we expect a return, can we invest only if we place an obligation on that investment. Is not that investment in "truth" unable to be conditionalised in that the investment is in reality an open offer of an exchange and not the deluded conditions and obligation that we usually place on such investments? I see two people wanting to create something and the reality is that that someting must be voluntarilly created and not under the duress of expectation and obligation. Say for example I give you 2 units of my energy [ love] and all I get back is 1 unit. Will I continue to invest in that exchange? Possibly I would for a small amount of time until I realised that that person was simply not finding me to be worthy of similar investment thus the truth of our relationship comes to the surface and I would choose to place my investment somewhere else. Keeping in mind that symmetry of exchange is never exact yet over time a person must in reflection realise whether the effort [ suffering] is worth it [ on balance over time] However what I am suggesting with this thread is that even though we have this getting into, staying and relinquishing of relationships if we invest on the basis that it is eternal and due to the infinite nature of eternity, even if the relationship is not able to survive directly the investment will at some time in eternity be returned, possibly in the form of a better relationship [ exchange rate - ha...... makes it sound like the commodity market] at a later stage in life etc ...a form of karma if you will.
QQ, To me, "my" can imply two things. I can say This teddy bear is mine and I can do with it whatever I want to, even tear it apart if I wish so. or I can say This teddy bear is mine and I love it and I will do everything in my power to keep it unharmed so that it can be in my company as it means so much to me. "My" can imply ownership, or endearment. Understanding it this way always makes it clear for me what I mean when I say "my" or "mine". The same goes for "our" or "your" and other possessive pronouns.
