On Love

[PhoenixRising]

This is the most cohesive explanation of the phenomenon of love that I have come to so far. I wanted to share it, and potentially exchange opinions on this particular definition and others that may add to or counter it.


Love is a result of psychic adaptation. Essentially, it is dependency.

Definition: Dependency - Reliance on a certain factor in order to function in one's present state or to achieve a desired result.

We become dependent upon many things in our environment; our particular home, the tools we use, the places in which we put these tools, the people we live with, those who we associate with a particular emotional disposition, etc. Having a stable form and order to our lives is what gives us a sense of security.

Security is very much associated with one's survival. If one has a secure place to live, secure means of acquiring food, secure relationship with their family (the people who watch out for their survival), then they are more likely to survive. When a part of one's life is destabilized, there is often a feeling of anxiety and loss that drives re-stabiliztion.

Definition: Security - A state of confidence that one's dependent factors are in place and will continue to remain in place for an extended period of time (therefore perpetuating one's survival and the present form of their psyche).


Saying "I love you" is really saying "my heart is shaped by you".

In a relationship, our emotional world becomes dependent on the particular presence of another person in our life. Every friend and family member changes the shape of our heart to accommodate their role in our circumstance. It is as though each of them creates an indent in our heart in their shape. The more involved the interaction, the more emotionally dependent one will be, and the deeper the indent will become. When they are absent, this indent is a void where the adapted interaction would take place. The experience of this void is missing someone. No one else can take the place of the person who is missed, because they can't fulfill the particular shape of the heart-void.

Two things draw people together in an emotional sense; the seeking of a positive experience, and the avoidance of a negative experience (like missing someone). We sometimes come to associate a certain person with a desirable emotional reaction. We love them in the sense that we feel dependent on them in order to exist in a desirable emotional state. This is when the drive to interact is about more than just stability and security, it is especially prominent, because we are rewarded with a certain emotion that we seek.

 

[redbaron]

Love is a result of psychic adaptation. Essentially, it is dependency.

I tend to think love is the opposite of dependency. Mutual independence maybe. For me dependence and love are entirely separate, even mutually exclusive.

I can't love someone who, "needs" me. I think that somewhat paradoxically, actual love only occurs between two (or more) individuals who don't need one another, they choose to have them.

 

[BigApplePi]

I tend to think love is the opposite of dependency. Mutual independence maybe. For me dependence and love are entitely separate, even mutually exclusive.

Love opens one up ... makes one larger.

I can't love someone who, "needs" me. I think that somewhat paradoxically, actual love only occurs between two (or more) individuals who don't need one another, they choose to have them.

It depends on what one wants to do with that need. A child needs its parent. The child may restrict one's focus while at the same time opening up one to possibilities heretofore unseen.

 

[BigApplePi]

As an aside, what do you think is the nature of love's transience? What happens when you experience love at its peak and someone else comes along and takes it away? How do you feel about that someone else?

 

[Jennywocky]

I tend to think love is the opposite of dependency. Mutual independence maybe. For me dependence and love are entirely separate, even mutually exclusive.

I can't love someone who, "needs" me. I think that somewhat paradoxically, actual love only occurs between two (or more) individuals who don't need one another, they choose to have them.

I'm more in agreement with this. I call it "interdependence" -- you choose to be together mutually but you are not dependent in that if one dies or leaves, you wouldn't be able to function; and you're each capable of caring for yourselves but choose to direct energy towards each other because you care about each other AND find the experience mutually fulfilling. It's not someone I "need" to be with but I "want" to be with them because it makes life for both of us so much better sharing it.

The love between parent and child is different -- it's not a mutual thing, the parent initiates and gives so that the child might grow. Not that in good parent/child relationships the child never gives anything back, but I think it's more one-directional and is very different from a romantic love relationship.

 

[BigApplePi]

The love between parent and child is different -- it's not a mutual thing, the parent initiates and gives so that the child might grow. Not that in good parent/child relationships the child never gives anything back, but I think it's more one-directional and is very different from a romantic love relationship.

I have no children and too late for me, but am not totally left out in the cold. I find this question fascinating. Does a child not give one a chance to discover one's own origins, pathways, errors? It does not have to mean a do over, but doesn't it show alternative life ways? The more children, the more the possibilities play out. Isn't that alone enough to make it worth loving a child ... or in my ignorance am I missing something?

 

[Red myst]

I don't see anything inherently wrong with the OP. If I understand the context, it is saying that love is a dependence, not a Co-dependence. And by co-dependence, I mean an unhealthy need.

 

[Jennywocky]

I have no children and too late for me, but am not totally left out in the cold. I find this question fascinating. Does a child not give one a chance to discover one's own origins, pathways, errors? It does not have to mean a do over, but doesn't it show alternative life ways? The more children, the more the possibilities play out. Isn't that alone enough to make it worth loving a child ... or in my ignorance am I missing something?

What does this have to do with my point that in a parent-child relationship, typically the parent gives more than the child does, simply due to the type of relationship? (The child in turn grows up and potentially becomes the parent, investing that bequeathed loved down the chain.)

 

[Red myst]

I have no children and too late for me, but am not totally left out in the cold. I find this question fascinating. Does a child not give one a chance to discover one's own origins, pathways, errors? It does not have to mean a do over, but doesn't it show alternative life ways? The more children, the more the possibilities play out. Isn't that alone enough to make it worth loving a child ... or in my ignorance am I missing something?

Every situation is different depending on the child. Havering a child will turn you into a parent. It will give you a perspective you never had before. It will force you to consider what you have not considered before. With a child, you are locked into a relationship with another personality. Maybe one similar to yours, maybe one completely opposite. Almost certainly you will find new ways of thinking, and appreciating life. I did learn something from my child about myself. He had the exact same struggles in school that I had some 35 years ago. I dropped out of high school back then. I took him to be tested for ADD. He tested positive and he started taking meds. It it changed his life for the better. I was not a believer is ADD. I thought he was lazy, I thought I was lazy. Thats what my parents thought of me, but after trying everything else I could think of, I realized he was not being lazy and it had to be something else. I learned that ADD traits con be hereditary, and discovered that this had been part of my problem all along also.

 

[BigApplePi]

The love between parent and child is different -- it's not a mutual thing, the parent initiates and gives so that the child might grow. Not that in good parent/child relationships the child never gives anything back, but I think it's more one-directional and is very different from a romantic love relationship.

I agree with this, just didn't respond to it. The relationship one way is not the same as the other way.

What does this have to do with my point that in a parent-child relationship, typically the parent gives more than the child does, simply due to the type of relationship? (The child in turn grows up and potentially becomes the parent, investing that bequeathed loved down the chain.)

I was bringing up another different point because of my Fe, but failed to recognize your original point. What I was doing was speculating on what the child might give back, though entirely different from what the parent gives. Could you be mad at me? I'm sometimes neglectful with Fe.

 

[OrLevitate]

Love is someone actually caring about you, its not just a s.o. thing but that's where there's a lot of love

 

[PhoenixRising]

So.. I've been contemplating this topic to a deeper level, and think that the first definition I presented was grossly incomplete >.>

I've come to a new definition that seems to be more cohesive, and I'm curious as to what you guys might think of it?

Love - the phenomenon of a person, place or thing fitting into one's subconscious framework and fulfilling a role that is associated with self benefit.

It is a complex phenomenon that is not described solely by admiration, affinity or dependency, although it can/does include these emotions and states of the psyche.

The subconscious framework includes the functionality of the mammalian brain which generates instinctual guidelines for social behavior and higher emotions. There is a "place" in the psyche for a mother, father and lover, if not for children, siblings and extended family. We are wired to be familial creatures. The emotional and mental state of "love" for another person occurs when one of the social niches in the psyche is fulfilled. A large part of how we gauge this fulfillment is if the outside world meets the expectations of the role that has been fashioned in our psyche.

The role of lover is, as far as I know, unique among the social niches. Jung referred to the psychic shape of this niche as the Anima or Animus. It takes the form of a character of the opposite gender of a person, and is shaped over time by the person's ideals for a lover. The remarkable thing about the Anim is that it has another function in the psyche besides being a social niche. It is the bridge between the conscious and subconscious mind. Interaction with the Anim can lead to one being aware of the most fundamental principles of their psychic operation. It can also lead to a blissful immersion into the subconscious mind, an emotional and mental state similar to that of a very young child. Reconnection with this part of the psyche breeds feelings of completeness, safety and fulfillment.

Romantic love is different than other types of love. Before a person is aware of their Anim as a part of their psyche, they often will seek the experience they desire with this psychological archetype with other people. They desire to see the ideal in their mind manifest in the real world, and will conform their perception of their lover in order to make them into their Anim character. This projection of the Anim character often leads to disappointment when the real human being does not live up to the perfection of the Anim. They also cannot fulfill the role of the Anim as bridge to the subconscious. The projection of the Anim, and perception of perfect alignment with one's ideals is the basis of romantic love. The desire to "merge" or "become one" with a lover reflects the desire to integrate the Anim into the rest of the conscious psyche. There is also the experience of bliss as the ideal is perceived in the real world. This bliss is the trademark of an experience of the subconscious.

 

[Duxwing]

@PhoenixRising

Your definition should exclude such absurd ideas as loving prey. Prey is in my subconscious framework (humans are omnivorous) and fulfill a role associated with self-benefit (food). Therefore, by your definition, I love it and therefore would presumably not, like I do, have it killed, bled, skinned, gutted, cooked, packaged, chew it into bits, and dissolve it in hydrochloric acid--I would merely kill my worst enemy.

-Duxwing

 

[PhoenixRising]

@PhoenixRising

Your definition should exclude such absurd ideas as loving prey. Prey is in my subconscious framework (humans are omnivorous) and fulfill a role associated with self-benefit (food). Therefore, by your definition, I love it and therefore would presumably not, like I do, have it killed, bled, skinned, gutted, cooked, packaged, chew it into bits, and dissolve it in hydrochloric acid--I would merely kill my worst enemy.

-Duxwing

Yes, I think you're correct that I need to specify that my definition only applies to certain things. In the example, the familial archetypes are noted. While technically a place or thing can be loved, I believe the clearest example of the phenomenon of love is that which occurs between two human beings.

 

[Cognisant]

Foofy nonsense.

A number of biological and psychological mechanisms if triggered simultaneously and with sufficient frequency in turn trigger a massive surge in the production of dopamine and serotonin, that's what love is, a drug, you're quite right to call it a dependency because although memories fade the mind of an addict is never truly clean.

The connection between parent and child is just a yet stronger cocktail.

 

[BigApplePi]

@PhoenixRising

Your definition should exclude such absurd ideas as loving prey. Prey is in my subconscious framework (humans are omnivorous) and fulfill a role associated with self-benefit (food). Therefore, by your definition, I love it and therefore would presumably not, like I do, have it killed, bled, skinned, gutted, cooked, packaged, chew it into bits, and dissolve it in hydrochloric acid--I would merely kill my worst enemy.

-Duxwing

In looking for an all encompassing general definition for love I look for:

Love = an affinity for expansion. This alone is inadequate as we need a lover and the object loved*. Anything outside of this is not love.

In the above example, the lover is the food afficionado. What is loved is the consumption, not the object preyed upon. The prey it treated as an "it" without love or compassion.
____________________________

*Thus X loves Y.