Notes On Love

It appears that genuine love, that is love of an interpersonal variety, is transcendent in essence and function. Our partner(s) are supposed to be not only mirrors (like a good therapist), but also conduits for unlimited freedom, like a mirror with no discernable foundation. The reflection has such depth that it cannot be fathomed, does not and cannot ‘conserve’ and dismisses any and all long narratives about ‘who’ We think we are. The problem for Western modernity is that love has become viewed as the exact opposite to these things. Where love tears apart, society wants stability, where love transcends boundaries, society wants security, and where love ‘frees’, society wants a one-sided commitment. What should be siad is: ‘I can love you fully because all the conditions are right.’ I do not claim that any of this ‘makes sense’, in fact, I am fully aware that genuine interpersonal love (as opposed to superficial desire and sating a physical urge) makes no logical sense whatsoever. Perhaps the capacity ‘to love’ evolved BEFORE the intellect and the higher capacities of the human-mind, and was originally intended to bond mating or supporting couples together (as sexual orientation and gender perception was probably not as ‘concretised’ as it is today). Today, however, the capacity ‘to love’ invariably involves ‘thought’ as well as ‘feeling’, and paradoxically destroys ‘thought’ in favour of ‘feeling’. To be able to love has evolved far beyond the limitations of its original biological parameters. Love may even be the ‘defining’ characteristic that makes us ‘human’. So be it, what other choice do we have?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s