Google Search: True Love

I know I've been on hiatus with my 'Meditations on Love' entries, but there are still a few more chapters I'd like to squeeze out. So onward...

With the recent bombardment of technology we've encountered in the past decade our entire world has changed. The way we interact with people, and the way we feel for people has also been affected. In this entry, I want to take a look at how these changes have affected the way we go about relationships, and how we love. 

--------------------------

How can I miss you if you never leave me? 

I once wrote that to a lover a long time ago during a stint at a Colorado Outward Bound course. I was out in the middle the woods in a national park, and I had only a picture of us to remind myself of her. But what I meant by it was that she was still everywhere, my memories or her voice, her smell, and her glowing smile. Of course at the time that statement seemed very endearing, but with today's technology that statement is quite literal. If you are on a trip, or far away from your loved ones you have many ways of keeping up with them today. There is Skype, AIM, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Text Messaging, E-mail, Webcams, Blogs, etc... Missing physical contact with each-other? They even have a vibrator that can be controlled from a remote location by your lover over the internet. Or suppose your love fades, and the relationship ends. Whereas a few years ago you would never hear from your ex, today their information is still easily accessible. Whether you see their relationship status change on Facebook, pictures of their new significant other on MySpace, the urge to communicate when seeing them on AIM, or reading their Blog; you ex is always within the reach of a few keystrokes.

Compare this model to how things used to be "back in the day". Let us look at love in a time before e-mail, before telephones, before telegrams even. To get in contact with your lover you would have to physically write a letter, and wait the months it would take to have the letter delivered by boat or horse, and have then wait for the response to be delivered back. Today it is as easy as sending a text message and waiting a few seconds (which of course you can check to see if they've read it or not). Compare a common "love text" today with a exceprt from a love letter written in 1838.

2008

i luv U

1838

What would I not do for love of you, my own Clara! The knights of old were better off; they could go through fire or slay dragons to win their ladies, but we of today have to content ourselves with more prosaic methods, such as smoking fewer cigars, and the like. After all, though, we can love, knights or no knights; and so, as ever, only the times change, not men's hearts...

They say distance makes the heart grow fonder. And with today's technology they say the world is getting smaller, does that mean our fondness and desire for others is waning as well? In order to tackle this question let us look at another way technology has changed our love lives, the way we meet people. 

With social networking sites like MySpace and dating websites like Match.com and eharmony meeting people would seem to be easier than ever. Sign up for a site, type in the attributes you are looking for a mate, and hit enter. Voila. Multiple different profiles show up, and you can browse through them to select who you would like to contact. All of the benefits of meeting people in a bar, but without shouting over loud music. But there is one factor, which I mentioned in my previous entry, that you cannot search for: chemistry. Don't be surprised if you meet that athletic, open minded female that listens to the same music and the result is one hour of awkward painful conversation. Even with the benefits of technology, finding a lover seems just as hard as ever when actually applied. 

An article in The Atlantic a few months ago looked at the effects that new technology (more specifically Google and the internet) had on affecting the way we think. The argument loosely says that our brains are not instinctively programed to read, that we must train it to read, and the way in which we read directly affects the way we think. We are in the process of adjusting to reading on the internet. We no longer sit and read a long novel, slowly examining plot, sentence structure, and vocabulary. We are now in the world of the internet. We have a near infinite amount of resources, and as a result we have now resorted to a scanning method of reading; jumping from webpage to webpage, traveling on a highway of hyperlinks, going wherever our curiosity takes us. While the article convincingly shows us how our minds have changed through this new technology, one thing that is not covered is what is the effect of these changes on our emotions? Surely thought and feeling are connected, and since our thought process is changing naturally so must feelings. 

Surely on could say computers can replicate our thought process; Google is nothing more than an artificial intelligence. When someone asks me what kind of car passed by my mind instantly researches my knowledge on car shapes and logos, finds the correlating images, and verbally expresses my "search results". But while computers maybe able to simulate our thought process can they mimic our abilities to emote and love? The reason I bring this up is because the more we use the computer and internet to acquire information the more our brains become like one. The playwright Richard Foreman worries we risk becoming "pancake people", a people spread too wide and too thin (or even worse becoming crepe people... bad joke). He mentions that mistakes are human, and it is often through mistakes that we learn and grow. With todays instant gratification it's no wonder that we see so many divorces. If something doesn't work perhaps you just searched wrong, therefore the answer is simple, click 'back' and try another result. My Grandfather once told me, "find a good woman and stay with her." An old fashioned way of thinking perhaps, but perhaps just a way of thinking that existed before our minds became the scatterbrained models that they are now. 

As I'm typing this I realize my mind itself is wandering, and there are no real conclusions I am coming to here. But I suppose this post is more of a survey of the way technology has affected the way we love. So with that I'll leave you all of these thoughts to ponder, and ask yourself how technology has affected you and your mind. 

Soulmates and Sandcastles

Through these posts I've investigated various components to relationship building. I've argued that we choose mates to complete our own personal identity, I've discussed the various factors that we consider when we choose a mate, but I have not discussed the main focus of these meditations yet: Love. So in this post I will discuss what is love, and how it develops. 

*********************

As I first discussed in my initial thesis these postings will be looking at "love as a union." That is to say love as experienced by two people who are to be fully committed to each other. I recognize there are other types of "love" out there, but in this post I want to solely focus on "love as a union."

What is love? Love has been written about for centuries, yet no words can describe it. Scholars and philosophers have spent a millennia trying to grasp it, yet only come out with empty hands. Poets, musicians, and painters are the only ones who've come close to defining its meaning, and despite bloodshed and tears each definition and representation is more convoluted than the next. It has been said to make the world go round, and it has been said to start wars and end cities. But what is love? And where do we find it? In my previous post I've discussed where we look. We seek to find our "other half", a completion of our own identity. But once we've found that person does that mean we've found love as well? Or is love something more organic? An entity unto itself. 

But perhaps I'm jumping into the deep end too soon. Let me back up, and start with a bit more doggie paddling. In order to understand these questions a bit more let me dissect various examples where love can occur:

- You see a girl from across the bar, you lock eyes for a brief moment, she smiles and turns away. She's no longing looking at you, but the image of her face is burnt into your retina as though you had just looked into the sun. Crossing the bar you strike up conversation with her. Turns out you both are from New England, you both listen to Otis Redding, and you both love drinking Red Stripe on the beach barefoot. The talk flows like a river, and you both just "click". You both have similar interests, you both happened to be in the same bar at the same time, and you both have perfect chemistry. You fall for each-other instantly and spend the next weeks at the hip together. 

- You're eating out with your best friend. You two have known each-other for six years now. He's seen the best, and he's seen the worst in you. Despite your short-comings, and despite his,  you both have learned to overlook them and thoroughly enjoy each-other's company. You two have never had problems talking, and have always respected each others opinions no matter how different. You two are currently talking about your latest mishap in the war of love, your most recent break-up. He listens attentively, lifting the weight of each word off your shoulders. You realize he's always been there for you, and the bond you feel for him has always been stronger than any flighting emotion you've ever felt for a lover. Scared, you realize that what you've developed for him has become much more than friendship. 

- It's the third time she's broken your heart. It didn't hurt as much as the first, but it's definitely made you madder than the second. You feel like she's the love of your life, but you never thought it was going to be this hard. It's your fourth year together, and you don't see why you can't overcome another heartache. Nobody seems to understand your on and off again relationship, and sometimes you don't either. But with each passing day you feel your love getting stronger, and with each trial you overcome you become more and more sure of it. You reassure yourself that years from now, looking back on all this heartache, the ultimate destination will be well worth it. 

- It's your wedding day. You're dressed in a beautiful pink sari, adjourned with jewels and jasmine oils. You hope your future husband takes a liking to you, but you don't know- you've never met him. You know how to cook, be attentive, and raise children; you hope that's enough to keep him happy and content, and maybe even enough to have him love you. You know he's successful. A businessman who speaks English and drives a car. You only hope he's a good husband, and a good provider, and maybe in the future even you too could learn to love him. 

In these examples we see four very different ways of experiencing love. Love at first sight, love flourishing from the foundations of friendship, love tempered through tribulation, and a love developed over time. These are three very different loves, both in conception and fruition. In the first example we see a man and a woman meet and love instantly. A classic example of what I'll call "love at first sight." That instant chemistry and connection someone feels when they meet Mr. or Ms. Right. When this connection pays off into a long and satisfying relationship one could say they have met their "soul mate", a term meaning they've serendipitously met the love of their life, the only one to make them happy. Of course one could argue against the "soul mate" theory, the belief that there is a single person that could make you completely happy and satisfied in love. Astronomers say we'd be ignorant to believe that ours is the only planet to bear life, and the same could be said in the belief that there is only a singular solitary person in a planet of 6.7 billion that could make you truly happy. Of course the instant connection mentioned above could also be a bright flame which dies quickly due to lack of flammable material. Lust and passion are two powerful things, and can easily sway even the most stable of of hearts. That instant connection could easily turn out to be an infatuation, a short lived obsession with with eerily similar interests to yourself. While the rose-colored lens of love make the world a prettier place, they may not always be your prescription.  

In the second example we see love stem from a deep rooted respect and trust of a friend. Using this base for the foundation of a relationship, these two move onto develop a long lasting and strong relationship. I refer to this theory as the "castles made of sand" (coined by a friend of mine). Taken from the Jimi Hendrix song of the same name, he sings, "And so castles made of sand melt into the sea, eventually." The instant connection and click I've mentioned above could turn into a strong and loving relationship, but it's not built upon a solid foundation. Of course a base needs to get built in time in order to succeed, like any successful relationship. But in the second example that foundation is built first, and a love assembled on top of it. They've already put in the leg work, earned each other's trust, learned to communicate, and genuinely enjoy spending time with each other. Of course there is a thin-line between a friendship and love, and crossing is always a scary proposition. There is no way of knowing whether the relationship will successfully pan out or fail. And there is no way of knowing whether you can go back to being friends should it end. 

My third example speaks of the enduring love of an "on-and-off-again" relationship. The kind where two just can't let go of each other, yet the breaks are frequent. In the human body our muscles and bones become stronger from damage. When we lift weights or run hills we make tiny tears into the muscle which grow back stronger, when we break our bones the oddly shaped minerals fuse together in an even stronger pattern. Even plants flourish from pruning. With these examples found in nature, it's not so strange to believe the same can be said about the heart, that for each heart break we survive we become stronger as a person. As a person surviving heartache we learn what we want from a mate, and we learn what we don't want. We learn how to treat others, and we learn how we'd like to be treated ourselves. But does a love get stronger as well? Surely this statement depends on the context. For a break-up over infidelity is vastly different than a break-up due to distance. The two parties involved are also variables. Can they communicate and overcome the obstacle? Is the love strong enough to overcome the obstacle? While a plant may spawn more flowers after shearing there are more factors than simply to cut. Prune too much and the plant will die. Prune at the wrong time and it will stunt its growth. Prune without supplying enough nourishment and the plant will regress. Healing and growth do go hand in hand, but there are many variables which determine the outcome.  

The last example is an arranged marriage, and the foreshadowing the possible love afterwards. This example points out that love can be born between two people, even if the factors of time, chance, and similar attributes don't exist. Of course this is only a single example. This type of love could arise from a blind date, "settling" due to various reasons, or marriage due to an unplanned pregnancy. Surely this is the least romantic vision of love. It's not instant, it's not hot passion from the start, it's a slow long process to find that glimmer in the dark. When people think of love they don't often think of the long slow struggle uphill. But perhaps love is just that. A long slow struggle to find someone you love. There are enough poems, songs, and paintings to support the theory that love is the agony of pining for someone. But is love such a strong thing it can grow from poor soil? Suppose you are stuck on a desert island with X person. Given enough time could you fall in love with just about anyone? Investigating these various examples, it certainly seems like I've come up with more questions than I had initially, and have yet to come up with any answers. Let me now dig through these discoveries, and see what I've found so far from this mental exercise. 

Given that all of these examples speak of love, then love must be the constant variable in all of these examples. So let me now strip away the differences to uncover this constant. But before I do that let me first point out the difference between "loving" and being "in love." Not all of these examples show people "in love." The first and third examples show people "in love", while the second shows people who love each-other. "In love" implies the being completely surrounded by that persons love. Consider a body of water, by perceiving it you may love the sounds of the ripples, the cool breeze off the surface, and the smell. But this perception is very different than when you are in the pool. This is analogous to the difference between "loving," and being "in love." Of course being "in love" is the ultimate goal for any love. One wants to be "in love" all of the time. Yet this is a difficult task. Surely the couple in the third example love each other dearly, yet are not always "in love." The couple in the fourth example can love each-other, and lead a very happy and successful companionship together, yet never feel the thrill of being "in love." One could certainly argue that being "in love" is not a constant that follows love. So with that in mind let us look at constants that can be found in love. 

Love cannot be defined by its inception, nor it's follow through, as can be found by differences between all of the above examples. Love is not defined by a set of similar interests and activities, as can be found in example four. Love cannot be defined as a singular feeling; in the first example it sweeps them off their feet, it is a steep precipice the two must jump off in the second, and an enduring trial to the third couple. Love is not always found between strangers, as seen in the second example. Love is not a continual and self-fulfilling prophecy, as seen in examples two and three. What we're left with seems to be the need to find companionship, find someone who we find ourselves in, yet also supply us with a fulfilling life. Given this conclusion it seems like the behaviorists have won. Love is nothing more than a way of connecting us with someone who makes a good mate, and helps us fulfill our biological need to continue our genetic code. In Lori Gottlieb's article Marry Him!, she discusses her case for settling. She argues that our ideals of romantic love and finding "the one" has become so idealized by popular culture that we find ourselves chasing a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. She argues that we should settle for a "decent" and "imperfect" mate, for "Marriage isn't a passion-fest. It's more like a partnership formed to run a very small, mundane, and often boring nonprofit business." But if love is to be courted in the halls of behaviorism, then how can we explain its existence? Consider the romanticized definition of love; Romeo dishonoring his family for love, Pocahontas risking her life for love. Surely emotional attachment isn't a very good survival mechanism. So why does it exist at all? 

A few nights ago I was having drinks with some friends and the topic of love entered into the conversation. A few glasses of wine in we were discussing the topic quite vehemently, and quite freely. Being the devil's advocate I raised Gottlieb's point on the idealized concept of love in popular culture. My friend quite rightly responded, "Who says there can't be romance? I'll make my life romantic if I want to." Perhaps that is what love is. It's something you have to work at, something you can create through effort. But that does little to explain our natural affinity towards feeling love. As elusive as love may seem, it's a real and tangible thing, felt by everyone. We watch romantic films, read love poems, and we can all relate. Perhaps love is both. The paradoxical self-fulfilling attachment towards another. It's everything we make of it, and more. It's not something that we can expect to sweep us off our feet, but sometimes it is. It's that persistent work to be a good partner, and it's doing nothing yet being completely content. It's starring into each-other's eye and getting lost, and it's being so mad you're unable to look at that person. 

There is a story from ancient Greece that tells how a few men traveled to the Oracle of Delphi to discover who the wisest man in the world was. The Oracle replied, "Socrates." The men confronted Socrates and asked him what he knew that made him so wise. Socrates responded that he, "...knew nothing." But it was not his ignorance that made him the wisest man, it was his modesty, his acceptance that he was mortal and could not comprehend the many mysteries of this world. Love is one of these mysteries. The more we try to define it the more we fail to grasp what it truly is. About the only certainties we have on love is that it's felt differently by everyone. We can't always help who we love, but we can help how we love. And that love is not a constant and unchanging, it's a living organic thing that we can only nourish, sit-back, and hope it grows healthy and strong.

Searching

In my last post I argued that when we choose our mate we're simply discovering a part of ourselves. I felt I used some fairly loose logic (as blog sites do), so I thought I would revisit my thought and discuss a few ways in which we choose our mate, and the various factors that go into the decision. 

*********************

One could argue against my claim that we look for ourselves in others; that either people cling onto unhealthy or unsatisfying relationships without second thought or that people sometimes choose a mate who is completely different from themselves. On the first point, on could merely point out the myriad of bad relationships that exist out there, be it from friend, family, or former-self. I would point out that unhealthy relationships do exist but don't usually last. I would also argue the person in the relationship could not have a full grip on their own identity, who they truly are. This flaw could be for various reasons, whether it's a low self-esteem, immaturity, inexperience, or simply because they don't know themselves. As they say, "You must learn to love yourself before you can love others." As for the "opposites attract" argument I would say that claim simply strengthens my own argument. If I choose a mate who's a morning person when I'm clearly not, it may actually be a good thing. Sure we'd have the difficulty of having only a few good hours of the day, but through time I would learn to wake early and have coffee with her, or she would learn to stay up late and watch the stars. We'd share parts of our own world, and together we would expand the facets of ourselves. In fact when people are too similar it can sometimes be a bad thing. Imagine if two heavy drinkers got together, surely a more stabilizing force for one or the other would be better. But I think both scenarios can exist, and do exist. We choose our lovers not only similar interests/habits, but we choose them because they fascinate us and teach us in areas we don't know. 

But how do we choose our significant others? What qualities in ourselves are we looking to compliment or suppress? I believe among the various reasons we have in choosing a mate there are three primary selection factors: aesthetic, moral, and familial. Clearly there is the aesthetic factor. We choose a mate largely based on looks alone. This fact can be placed firmly into the 'behaviorism' camp. We look for a mate that we are sexually attracted to, which of course is the main argument for any behaviorist on relationships in the first place. But aside from sexual attraction there are other factors we could argue for as well. Women choose tall men for their strong genes, men like curvy hips for childbearing ability. But outside of the behaviorists camp we can also consider the way it effects our own aesthetic identity. Of course who we choose will be spending a significant amount of time with us in social settings, and as a result we want our mate to look good so that we in turn look good. We also choose our mate based upon their moral compass. We want a partner who has similar morals to ourselves, for morality is a huge part of our identity (in fact another facet: ethical identity). I can't imagine a pro-lifer and a pro-choicer staying together very long. We want a partner with similar familial ideals. The end goal to all relationships deal with family, and therefore the familial ideals can always make or break a relationship. 

The above mentioned factors are necessary for any successful relationship, the following factors I shall discuss can vary in degrees. I've already discussed the blacks and whites, so here are the greys. We choose mates with similar interests, hobbies, and activities. Surely I could be completely happy with someone who doesn't know how to ski, but they better at least enjoy the snow. Of course there could be some people who believe this to be a make it or break-it quality. We choose mates for similar tastes in arts and culture. A foodie would have a very hard time dating a chain-restaurant fan, and an art lover would have a hard time with a die-hardcore (I just made that word up) sports-fan. We choose mates on sexual compatibility. A guy or girl who follows strict "no premarital" would obviously place this one in the factors above. But that rule aside, the two persons involved must be one the same wavelength physically. We've all had bad kissers, but what we need to realize is they are simply bad in the subjective sense, not objective (although I'm sure plenty would argue that one). What we may not be into could completely true for another lover, and visa versa. We choose mates for background reasons, whether they be cultural, national, or economical. As a general human rule of thumb we surround ourselves by the familiar. All of these are factors, but as I've mentioned they can easily be overlooked or compromised. As they say, "Love conquers all." So with all of these factors determining how we choose our mates it should be easy right? If only life were so kind. I think there are two very important, and intangible,  elements that play as factors as well: timing and chemistry. 

I was recently talking to a dear and old friend of mine about a recent break-up he had. We were talking about love, and relationships. He loved the girl he was with, she loved him, he loved her family, and she treated him ten-thousand times better than his last girlfriend. They had similar interests, similar backgrounds, all of the factors I mentioned above lined up, but they just didn't "click". I'm sure every reader knows what I mean by that term. It's the feeling when you just feel comfortable with the other person. Communication flows like water, and it's like you've known each-other forever. Sometimes it can be felt across the room, sometimes it comes out from behind a smile or eye-contact, sometimes it needs to be discovered like a precious stone deep in the earth. Either way that "click" is essential to a good relationship. I told my friend that as much as his ex-girlfriend may line-up and make sense, love isn't a logical thing, it's an emotional thing. It can make all the sense in the world why you should be with someone, but if you're just "not feeling it" then it's never going to be a successful relationship. 

Timing is a very important factor in life in general. In sports if the goalie mistimes his action in accordance to the speed of a ball he gets scored on. If a musician is off rhythm she spoils the song. Like in life, our love lives are determined by timing. Meeting a loving potential mother to your children after she's already had kids, finding a perfect match who is already matched up, coming into a coffee shop just as a a potential companion is leaving, being separated from someone by or more years of school, coming up with the right thing to say to her just as she leaves the bar. All of these are examples of how timing can adversely affect the selection process. But of course the opposite is always possible as well. By listening to the same song on the radio you two begin speaking, bumping into someone entering the building, being at the same party on the same night, taking the same class together, waiting in the same line together. My friend asked me if he met someone whether he was ready for another relationship, or whether he needed to heal himself, and do some soul searching before he could move on. I responded that he should go for it. Meeting someone with chemistry and matching factors at the right time is such a rare thing I think you should do everything in your being to capture it while it's there, for you never know when it'll come back around. I've regretted the times I didn't say something far more than the times I've regretted not saying anything (although regretting not saying the right things is a completely different matter). Like the last verses in the Tim Churchard poem "I Never Held Your Hand" eloquently states:

How many people I don't know

How many chances I let go

Passing strangers, we might be friends

Even lovers... it never ends

The people I don't know.

"Where You End and I Begin Is Like a River Going Through"

Looking back on this post I'm realizing how difficult it is to write air-tight philosophical though on a blog, so please bear with me. On the other hand, there is certainly plenty to discuss/disagree with, so if you do so please contribute. Philosophy isn't about finding truth per-say. As they say, "Philosophy is like looking for a black cat in a dark room that isn't there." 

************

While writing my senior thesis on the qualitative change in identity over a period of time I came up with my own theory on identity. In not so many words, our personal identity is not a singular entity. Instead it is the amalgam of various identities, each one derived from our various experiences and tribulations concerning that particular identity. Various identities can include our: physical identity, emotional identity, sexual identity, intellectual identity, cultural identity, etc... In this post I'd like to take a look at how love and relationships affect our own personal identity, and as a result who we are. 

Let me first discuss what I mean when I speak of Qualitative identity, as opposed to Quantitative identity. Suppose I showed you a playing card, let's say the Ace of Hearts; I then proceed to light the card on fire and place the ashes in a bowl. With the wave of my hand I then produce another card, another Ace of Hearts. While being impressed with my trick there is no part of you that thinks that card is the exact same card that I burned and turned into ashes. Surely this is true, for we have the remains of the card in the bowl as proof. What makes the trick a trick is that I am able to produce a card with the same qualities- the same Red 'A' in the corners, the same Bicycle logo on the back, and the same heart symbol in the middle. The card I produced is qualitatively the same as the card I burned, but not quantitatively. This post will discuss the qualitative changes in our identity that we go through in love and relationships. 

Why do we have relationships? According to behaviorists (a theory that places behavior as the cause for our actions, not rational thought) our main reason for establishing a relationship is to further our own species, and more specifically our own genetic offspring. According to behaviorism love can be reduced to a behavior, with its main end being that of survival our own lineage. We do not leave flowers and love notes because we wish to express our love, we do such acts so that we may secure our mate in order to produce offspring. We don't select a mate because we think they are funny, or smart, or interesting, we choose them because we believe their genetic strengths are good matches to help produce our own offspring. In fact it's actually been proven that smell plays an important role in our selection of companion, and what can be more primordial that our sense of smell? Regardless, I have always had a hard time with the theory of behaviorism. I think as humans we have come a long way since our animal heritage, and we have developed complex systems of thinking- logical and otherwise- that we use to help define ourselves. I believe our path to choosing a mate is largely based in our biological needs, but even more so I think we choose a mate to help understand ourselves and develop our own authentic essence. 

Before the ages of 18-24 months we have no concept of self-awareness, no concept of our individual identity. Ever since we first discover our own self-image we are on a continual look to find out who we are, our own individuality. Satre said, "existence precedes essence," meaning our own identity is one created, and not existing a priori. But discovering our identity doesn't always come from self-discovery or our own creation, in fact many of the greatest lessons I've learned about myself has come from others. And I believe our search for a mate is in a large part a search for ourselves, another part of our own identity. Just as we first perceived our own physical image in the mirror, we look towards others for our own identity. We look into the eyes of our loved one for affirmation as to who we truly are. My father recently wrote me a letter giving fatherly advice in the realm of relationships (and in my father's fashion wrote it on grocery list stationary), "My advice- there are a million women out there that you could fall in love with- and each one would excite you and interest you in different ways. Each would stimulate a totally different facet of your personality." I could completely see his point. Each partner we take on adds something to us, they amplify certain habits, and subdue others. I could date a librarian who would increase my thirst for knowledge, I could love an actress who would play off my sensuality, or I could choose to date a triathlete who would motivate me further in my athletic endeavors. What continues our quest in seeking a satisfying relationship is to find that person that accentuates our personality in a way that we see ourselves. Or as my mother says about my father, we are looking for someone who, "makes [us] a better person." 

A Four Letter Word

I've been thinking about love and relationships a lot these days. A close friend of mine has broken her spell of bad relationships, and has found a really good and decent guy who respects and loves her to death. I just found out a second friend of mine is engaged. Another friend of mine "has a boyfriend" after a long string of unsuccessful attempts. And after three tumultuous months I find myself getting closure and ready to turn the page on a long seven year chapter of my life. I've always been a hopeless romantic. From when I was a small child and The Princess Bride was my favorite movie, to when I left my first flower on a girl's bag in middle-school, to when I snuck into the window of a high-school girlfriend, to when I sent a singing telegram for a year anniversary in college. Love has scarred me, love has healed me, but above all love has fascinated me. It's something that is as ageless as man, yet as unknown as the heavens. Unfortunately they never taught the philosophy of love in my college, so I was never able to study it; but regardless I consider myself a life-ling student. So in the next few posts I think I'll wax philosophic on love and relationships, and everything else involved in such matters. 

To begin with I will first break down the meanings of love. Clearly there are many ways we use the word love in our daily vernacular. Consider:

1. I love ice cream

2. I love to ski

3. I love the outdoors

4. I love my cat

5. I love my Dad

6. I love my friends

7. I love my girlfriend

There are two types of love being expressed here. One could say 1 through 3 is a different type of love than that expressed in 4 through 7. 1 expresses a strong liking, the thorough enjoyment of eating ice cream. 2 expresses the same thing, yet towards an activity. This type of joy or "love" comes not from the enjoyment of flavor, but the athletic endeavor of skiing. Whether this be for exercise, adrenaline, or relaxation can all vary depending on the "lover" of skiing. 3 also discusses a great enjoyment of something, but it is more associated with an abstract concept. While ice cream or skiing can be linked directly to a sensation(s), the feeling of being in nature cannot be simplified down to a single concrete object or activity. Similar statements could be made about freedom, my country, God, etc... These types of love I will refer to as "love as a value". For these types of love speak of an appreciation towards an object, activity, or abstract idea. While these topics are interesting to study, I am more interested in the type of love encapsulated in items 4-7, what I will call "love as a union". 

"Love as a Union" clearly implies that the word 'love' acts as a bond between beings. While this seems simple enough, consider the vast difference between the relationships in 4-7. 4 discusses my pet, 5 speaks of my family, and 7 my lover. Were I to say these four statements to someone I could certainly mean four different types of love: familial, platonic, true, and emotional. Or could I? And if I could what are the differences between these? And what does it mean to be "in love?" Over the next few posts/discussions/inquiries I hope to address some of these questions and more. And while I know this geometric introduction makes no sense when what I am trying to discover in something tied in emotions, something that doesn't heed to the laws of logic. So I will stop that; my only point here being that what I want to discuss is "love as a union".

In closing let me quote my dear friend's post, one that makes much more sense of love than the above list, and will probably make more sense than my posts to come. 

"Four letters? That's all we can muster? All we can muster for a thing that transcends and defies reason or convention, or contention; that both burrows deep and loftily soars; that weakens the strongest's will or may make the meek go brave; like an oasis and final drink for a man who has wandered in the desert, reunited at last with the thing he's been long denied. Love? It is a hasty word."