Love, chemicals, and the Trick.

[melrich]

Falling in love makes almost no sense.

 

That was all I was commenting about. It does make sense. It makes perfectly rational sense. We are emotional beings that live in close familial and social groups. Falling in love not only makes sense, it is almost inevitable.

 

It only doesn't make sense if you want to eliminate all risk.

 

Forget the 25 definitions. Sense to me just means I can understand it.

[Cimmie]

I disagree with this actually, I think love can be based on rational choice and the reason so many relationships go wrong is that people mistake the chemical rush, which is lust, for love. When the lust wears off, they say they have fallen out of love, and move on to the next victim, and make the same mistake all over again.

 

The chemical rush *always* wears off. Always. What's surprising is that people stay together after this stage, and that is where the self-abnegating bit comes in, which shows that real love is involved. Love takes work and concentration and attention. It is a type of work in itself, and one makes a conscious choice to do it. It's a mutual choice to commit to and stay faithful to one person, have children together and take responsiblity for the love and care of those children, and so on. Life is work, it's not a free ride. Love falls into that category also.

 

Many moral philosophers make the point that love is in fact the most rational thing of all. It is part of a higher truth, not subject to whims of 'feeling'. Love is not a 'feeling' or sensation, it is a choice, an action.

[jettison]

I disagree with this actually, I think love can be based on rational choice and the reason so many relationships go wrong is that people mistake the chemical rush, which is lust, for love. When the lust wears off, they say they have fallen out of love, and move on to the next victim, and make the same mistake all over again.

 

That's exactly the point I made in the OP Cimmie... that people get that rush of chemicals, feel the love, and then end up perplexed and disappointed when those indescribeable feelings seem to have vanished so soon.

 

The chemical rush *always* wears off. Always. What's surprising is that people stay together after this stage, and that is where the self-abnegating bit comes in, which shows that real love is involved. Love takes work and concentration and attention. It is a type of work in itself, and one makes a conscious choice to do it. It's a mutual choice to commit to and stay faithful to one person, have children together and take responsiblity for the love and care of those children, and so on. Life is work, it's not a free ride. Love falls into that category also.

 

Exactly my point. We see eye to eye 100%. I said that in a completely different way though. I said that people have to look outside of the chemicals (the Trick) and look to what love really means to them. ie, committed playfullness and understanding (that was part of my definition at least). But when people say "real love" then what does that mean? It's just a vague concept that you have in your head that poets and writers try to illustrate through metaphor. And somehow, the word "indescribable" always shows up. That's because language is a very poor substitue for the feelings that you have when you're in love, and they always will be.

 

Many moral philosophers make the point that love is in fact the most rational thing of all. It is part of a higher truth, not subject to whims of 'feeling'. Love is not a 'feeling' or sensation, it is a choice, an action.

 

And some would argue that "real love" then is not romantic love which tends to always end. Real love, by the definition you just introduced, is something that will not end. It's a choice you make. That makes perfect sense. However, most people could then argue that "real romantic" love is just as much a contridiction as "fresh frozen" food. Who on these boards over the age of 30 have not experienced their "real love" end? And if love is not based on a "feeling" as you put it, and two people are good to each other, then it should never go away. But why does it leave us anyway? Because romantic love is based partially on feeling. ENA proves that every day and with every other post.

 

Again though, there is a semantic disagreement about the OP. I could say "I love ice-cream", and one could respond with "what the heck do you mean? You don't really love ice-cream. You just enjoy it." And of course, you'd just shake your head and be annoyed that the person bothered to point that out for you. I used love in very loose terms when describing the intitial throws of passion. And pointed out that it was really all just the chemicals in your brain going haywire, and even posted an article about it.

 

I hear a lot of people say "that's not love". Ok, fine. But what you really mean is "That's not the main thing I think about when I think about love." Because again, when you say the word "love", much like I just illustrated, you can mean all kinds of things. This is just like Melrich debating the use of the word "sense". "That's not what sense means to me." Ok, great. But it's still "sense". You can just pick and choose the "right" definition of the word because it makes you happy and makes you feel good. That's just an arbitrary employment of language.

[jettison]

That was all I was commenting about. It does make sense. It makes perfectly rational sense. We are emotional beings that live in close familial and social groups. Falling in love not only makes sense, it is almost inevitable.

 

It only doesn't make sense if you want to eliminate all risk.

 

Forget the 25 definitions. Sense to me just means I can understand it.

 

Yes, you're right. It does make sense. It makes perfect sense. And also, it makes no sense. None at all. Both are right. And yes, of course, falling in love is inevitable. I wonder if anything I've written indicates to you that I don't believe that.

[jettison]

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

 

You mean the little wrap/quote icon that you can press right above your writing? It's a snap. Highlight and then press.

 

 

 

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.

 

It's amazing how much all of us completely agree right now, at leat in general terms, about the nature of love. It's also interesting how completely off-puting the language employed has come accross. My Icelandic quote strikes again. This OP has been misinterpreted "in the most beautiful ways."

 

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.

 

Again, in complete agreement.

 

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?

 

Yes, of course. Since we've talked about this at length many times, I know you know that I see it the same way. There is no "logical control". That is how you state it. If something is devoid of logic then one could also say "that doesn't make sense" when speaking merely of the logical component of the statement. Do these statements mean the same thing?

 

"I am not understanding the concept."

 

"This concept isn't making sense to me."

 

For me, they are the same. Something cannot be figured out in my brain so it is not making sense. Or, put succinctly, "it doesn't make sense." Again, the assumed, unwritten words that follow might be "for me, right now." It doesn't mean that the concept isn't true, worthwhile, amazing, or spot on. Whatever the fictitious concept we might be discussing, it might be all of those things, but if I can never completely grasp it in all its intricacies then it still may mean that I'll say "It's not making sense."

 

Does this make sense or am I still trying to sell an orange to and orange grove farmer?

 

 

 

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.

 

Again though, since love mean different things depending on how you employ it, this is going to become just another semantical argument. Some Joe-Blow could ask you very simply, "Hey, how's your love life?" If you're single and not seeing anyone then you could respond with "My love life sucks." And truly, the person would know what you meant by that. You wouldn't have to write 5 more pages about your meaning. The person would get you.

 

However, you could also say "My love life is great!" and have no significant other and no prospect of a significant other. You could say "I love my friends so much, and I still love my ex. And this person at my work... I think I'm in love. So for you, maybe that means that it's "great". I guess it would depend on one's definition of great.

 

 

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?

 

Well, no. It wasn't written from a jaded vantage point. It was actually an argument for "love" and an argument for not breaking up. I was trying to convey that people get tricked into confusing the different kinds of love and end up disappointed when the "chemical, off balance, pure lust" component of love fades away, as it always will, and they're left with this new potential love that seems to be missing all those ingredients that had us singing from the rooftop. And when I mentioned the "writer, director, producer" metaphor, I was trying to convey that people have to have the courage and the guts and the artistry and the creativity to keep loving, even when all the chemicals have faded away some. That was really the entire point of he OP... that people get tricked because there is a biological imperitive in "love making" that makes us feel like we're "in love" and like it must be "forever" like it always does when we think that we've fallen in love. But sometimes, we haven't fallen in love, but merely lust. Sometimes, I've thought I was in love, and I wasn't. Or maybe I thought I wasn't in love, but I was. Or perhaps some woman told me that she was in love with me, but she didn't really know me, and she was really in lust.

 

It's the enduring aspects of love, for me, that help give a more genuine feel and component to "love". However, I am not arrogant enough to tell anyone what love if for them. If you say you "love someone with all your heart" and you only knew them for two weeks, and you'll never see them again, then who am I to argue? I am not you, nor have I walked a mile in your moccasins. For you that is love. How can't everyone accept that even if that's not love for you? It's a perfectly fine definition of love. And in fact, accepting other's definitions of love, even if they don't happen to match your own is quite loving I think.

 

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".

 

"Love doesn't make sense" and "love is senseless" carry two very different meanings for me. Maybe it's not the same for you. Just like Eskimos have 20 different definition for snow. Everyone hear's about that. But hey, so do we!

 

In fact here are 22:

 

avalanche sleet blizzard slush dusting snow bank flurry snow cornice frost snow fort hail snow house hardpack snow man ice lens snowball igloo (Inuit iglu 'house') snowflake pingo (Inuit pingu(q) 'ice lens') snowstorm powder spindrift

 

The eskimos don't seem all that special anymore for their use of subtle language I don't think. We're exactly the same way, and that's why people are thrown off by words like "love" and "sense".

 

 

, 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,

 

Oh, but I have to completely disagree with that. There is certainly a point to saying that it makes no sense just like there is a point to saying that it does. Melrich indicated that it was a "bald statement". That denotes the use of a phrase left all by itself, with no clarification. However, there is plenty of clarification in my post. It's not "bald". In fact, it's quite a head of hair on my phrase.

 

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.

 

It's both a paradox and a turn of phrase. It's both. You can turn a phrase to read a million ways. And you can read a phrase that means one specific thing and understand it in 10 different ways. And we wouldn't even have to introduce the idea of sarcasm to understand that. With sarcasm, I could write "You're great" and it denotes a negative. Without sarcasm, I could write "You're great" and it means the opposite. Same words, different meaning. So in written form, sometimes you hear people say "I didn't catch your sarcasm." That's because they would have had to pick up on the other sarcastic elements in the prose. Otherwise, it's missed. There is no sarcasm in my post. It's genuine. But there are subtleties in the way I employ the word love. It doesn't have the exact same meaning each time I use it.

 

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.

 

Not satifying. I don't know what to think half the time when I think about love and perhaps that's why it's so infinitely fascinating for all of us. One can imagine that they have a perfect handle on what love it, and then inevitably, once they feel like they've gotten it all figured out, it will change a bit. Sure, your general principles are likely to remain the same, but litebulb moments always come. If not, then that's ashame. I always want to see people beside themselves a bit. One's life doesn't have to be some remembered set of empty phrases. It's great to surprise ourselves about love from time to time. How many posts on ENA have the theme of "I just had an epiphany?" You see that all the time on ENA. And those that say they have love "all figured out"? Nonsene. I don't believe you for a second, but I'm 100% convinced that you've convinced yourself of this.

 

 

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?

 

Of course. I just didn't know that I was going to be so challenged by using the words "love" and "sense". That really wasn't what I was hoping to discuss in the OP.

[love4life]

I haven't read all the posts here, but I will say first off, Thank You, jettison, for posting this thread! I enjoyed reading the original post very much, and I agree that people, especially after being dumped, try to rationalize everything about the relationship. I'm a classic case - leaf through my posts here since August and you'll see I had an answer for every little thing that happened during and after my relationship. I labeled my ex narcissitic, sociopathic, manic-depressive (that last one he actually is and is medicated for). But when I finally let go of the hurt and stepped back, I was able to see the break-up for what it actually was: two people with different priorities and different levels of emotional maturity at this particular moment in time.

 

The danger we all face is in NOT letting go and accepting that not everything in life is rational. Letting go is the only way we can ever allow ourselves to love again.

 

I will say this in regards to the jettison-melrich debate:

 

The concept of love IS irrational, it does NOT make sense - how it happens isn't clear, and we'll probably never understand the "how" behind it.

 

The why, however, as melrich points out, is clear - to procreate - "Humans are designed for it".

 

Sounds like both your arguments, if reapplied, could actually work hand-in-hand, rather than against each other, to try and explain this mess called "Love".

[LBP]

I think all you're saying is that 'true love' is a choice... Not a given state. Yes?

[meaningsearcher]

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.

 

How do you think that biologically speaking being absolutely terrible at relationships serves the greater good?

[Carl5000]

Nicely put together. It reminds me of Camu and the myth of sisyphus. Where when he's pushing a bounder up a hill and he's in engaged in the act. He's in a state of bliss and happiness and only when the rock falls back down. Does he reflect, ask questions and then the absurdity of existence engulfs him. This analogy could be applied to love and you put it beautifully. On a grand scale, it is irrational, pointless and nilhilistic but our genetics demand it, we need it for our happiness and to make our lives worthwhile. I think Freud tells us alot about love when he said 'sublimating the sex drive or IT causes a neurosis within the individual. . So just go with the flow of love and try not to look beneath it for reasons.

 

Like you said, if you don't. You will just end up with the conclusion that love is tricking us into continuing the species "The ultimate aim of all love affairs ... is more important than all other aims in man's life; and thereforeeee it is quite worthy of the profound seriousness with which everyone pursues it." What is decided by it is nothing less than the composition of the next generation" Schopenhauer. Or even as you brushed over. Each of us is a tiny minute of time, part of nature, in a universe that is 14.5 billion yrs old, where our solar system is 5 billion years old, us (homo sapiens) have existed for around 100,000 yrs and were just a spec of dust on a grand scale. With no purpose, telelogy or meaning to our lives. We have to find it ourselves and like sisyphus find enjoyment and meaning in pushing that rock up the hill and that goes for love. Engagement, not reflection. Camu's whole philosophy could be about the 'absurd' and engagement but even Nietzsche touches on it, on many occasionals. In Nietzsche's the use and abuse of history he describes humans are the sick animal due to their self reflection within consciousness. He uses the analogy of the cow and how in a sense, it has the better life, as it has little self reflection and to quote heidegger 'it is just engaged in the world' and i feel that is how we should lead our lives for the most part.

 

As for Language, semantics i try not to become too passionate about it. It's an interesting area. Somewhat beyond me. However, Wittgenstein is the man on language and how language has many connotations, meaning and understanding and it is 'out there in the world' within custom, habit and society and it has no objective truth to it. Its just like an ebb and flow of the herd and is very much relativistic and subjective - i type of learnt custom and social agreement with no logical foundation. I was reading some witt. the other month. But he's seriously beyond my intellectual capacities. So i just take a leap of faith and have to accept his conclusions. My philosophy is that the world is is chaos, change, becoming, flux and for something to become rational it has to come out of irrationality and thereforeeee, who decides what goes in x, y, z categories of reason? we do and i think pythagoras was right when he said 'man, is the measure of all things' or women, one sexist !@#@!$ but it was greek custom which fits in nicely with wittgenstein. Anyhow enough rambling and self reflection for one day. Interesting discussion... Reason should always be the slave to passion! and engagement over reflection.

 

Just figured i'd add my 50 cents to an interesting discussion.

 

Carl.