Note - Prudence comes from experience. Prejudice without. Following is a combination of both.
Love is in the moment. You cannot expect it to be a continuous function. If you have the Bollywood inspired take on this, then eventually you will know better. Of course I am talking about that 'undefinable' feeling here. It is not a myth. The feeling exists. But it does not follow, surprisingly, the most socially accepted/popular beliefs.
There is nothing like 'there is only one person out there for me'. I believe that for every individual there exists a set of compatible partners.
If you think your relationship is perfect and will last forever - You have a lot to learn.
Some people adhere to the notions of "love" (that they pick up from our society) so blindly, that in the process they screw up their lives. I have known some friends, who just aren't happy with their boyfriend/girlfriend. It is apparent that it sucks. But they have sequins in their eyes. Their only argument is that they are in "love". I feel sorry for such people. If you look at your own life, sans any emotional baggage, and it still seems worth the crap, then maybe okay, but if it doesn't, stop kidding yourself and get out of it.
Now suppose everything is great. Apart from occasional quarrels, you two make a good match, a happy match. Savor it. Smile but don't expect it to last forever. Nothing lasts forever. All relationships have an expiry date. Yes unless you get married or something. That's a different case altogether. That leaves you with little choice.
Most people in 'love' think they will end up marrying and raising kids. Thinking about it occasionally is one thing, but believing that it will happen just makes me sad. Then almost every relationship eventually faces the test of long distance, getting beguiled into its complicated contraptions, and more often than not, failing.
I think long distance can work only in two cases -
1. Both sides have deluded themselves into the concept of 'eternal love' so badly that they are sure that they will marry and have kids. That life just couldn't take a different course. Then, I guess it would work. Well, I hope so, for them.
2. Umm. I can't think of anything else. Suggestions are welcome.
It is difficult because of our own selfish genes. Whatever you say, ultimately it boils down to the fact that we are all inherently selfish. And what is wrong with that anyway? We always do what makes us happy, and we should. Everybody feels the need for personal attention, which just cannot be quenched by chat over cell phone or skype.
And most importantly, when you are together with someone, you change along with them. When you are not, you still change.
We are, in a way, a product of our environment and hence dynamically changing/evolving.
Whoever you loved, has changed. So have you. Do you still expect it to work?
Versus
This is about my perspective on relationships, especially when it comes to long distance relationships. This is not an attempt to generalise ideologies, it is an attempt towards rationalising. Most people, single or otherwise, delude themselves with false hopes about relationships at al. I am pragmatic. So should you be.
Love is in the moment. You cannot expect it to be a continuous function. If you have the Bollywood inspired take on this, then eventually you will know better. Of course I am talking about that 'undefinable' feeling here. It is not a myth. The feeling exists. But it does not follow, surprisingly, the most socially accepted/popular beliefs.
There is nothing like 'there is only one person out there for me'. I believe that for every individual there exists a set of compatible partners.
If you think your relationship is perfect and will last forever - You have a lot to learn.
Some people adhere to the notions of "love" (that they pick up from our society) so blindly, that in the process they screw up their lives. I have known some friends, who just aren't happy with their boyfriend/girlfriend. It is apparent that it sucks. But they have sequins in their eyes. Their only argument is that they are in "love". I feel sorry for such people. If you look at your own life, sans any emotional baggage, and it still seems worth the crap, then maybe okay, but if it doesn't, stop kidding yourself and get out of it.
Now suppose everything is great. Apart from occasional quarrels, you two make a good match, a happy match. Savor it. Smile but don't expect it to last forever. Nothing lasts forever. All relationships have an expiry date. Yes unless you get married or something. That's a different case altogether. That leaves you with little choice.
Most people in 'love' think they will end up marrying and raising kids. Thinking about it occasionally is one thing, but believing that it will happen just makes me sad. Then almost every relationship eventually faces the test of long distance, getting beguiled into its complicated contraptions, and more often than not, failing.
I think long distance can work only in two cases -
1. Both sides have deluded themselves into the concept of 'eternal love' so badly that they are sure that they will marry and have kids. That life just couldn't take a different course. Then, I guess it would work. Well, I hope so, for them.
2. Umm. I can't think of anything else. Suggestions are welcome.
It is difficult because of our own selfish genes. Whatever you say, ultimately it boils down to the fact that we are all inherently selfish. And what is wrong with that anyway? We always do what makes us happy, and we should. Everybody feels the need for personal attention, which just cannot be quenched by chat over cell phone or skype.
And most importantly, when you are together with someone, you change along with them. When you are not, you still change.
We are, in a way, a product of our environment and hence dynamically changing/evolving.
Whoever you loved, has changed. So have you. Do you still expect it to work?
To be clear, long distance mentioned here is for a "significant amount of time".
ReplyDeleteRationalizing everything would take us into the rather dangerous domain of existentialist questions like 'Why do we exist?' and 'Why do we feel?'.
ReplyDeleteRationalizing the perception of "love" is not really justified, as "love" has nothing to do with logic in its inception or continuation, other than that the warm feeling of love stems when the inherent and ever-present human need for affection and attention is mutually satisfied by two human beings. Why that need exists, again seems to have no logic except that we are social animals. And so on.
What I'm trying to say is that it's a warm and contented feeling, transient of course, like everything else - (on a rather spiritual level, expecting anything to last forever is folly). It is also not reasonable to expect everyone to be able to successfully compartmentalize rationale and romance.
Accepting transience is always difficult for us, be it with life or with love. So basically, the so-called heartbreaks are a result of our permanently naive longings for everlasting comfort. Now, since that is a constant for everyone (though varying in magnitude), unless of course you consciously try to eliminate it by rationalizing all the time, it is not logical for people to actually fall in love and then easily accept that it has limitations, as the acceptance is clouded by the very reasons one falls in love in the first place.
Not to say that it can't happen, of course, but it's difficult. More difficult that it's thought or made out to be by rationalizers.
In conclusion, Ignorance of reason is bliss. Awareness of it leads to conflict and torment, as you try to tell yourself that the happiness is temporary and will pass, thus possibly ruining your fleeting happiness.
after all, Sab Moh Maaya Hai.
I disagree that she has tried to rationalize 'everything'. " Of course I am talking about that 'undefinable' feeling here. It is not a myth. The feeling exists. But it does not follow, surprisingly, the most socially accepted/popular beliefs." The warm and contented feeling is not being questioned here, It does exist. But the notion of eternal love just seems too vague to accept.
ReplyDeleteNone of the following is relevant.
ReplyDeleteLove is social concept - it changes from time to time and place to place. The views you've expressed may seem to make sense today in the current society, but perhaps not so in another context.
For instance, if you look at Europe at around, say, 1000 AD, the concept of love was very different. Love was necessarily (by definition) unrequited, untainted love (something we describe as a _crush_ in modern lingo) that was never consummated. The very idea of *being* with someone you love is rather recent.
Specifically, sociologists agree that the concept of love in a particular society depends on two factors: how individualistic (or collectivistic) the society is and how stereotyped the gender roles are. Try comparing Japan, France and USA in this light.
A professor from Yale (too tired to dig up the reference from TTC lectures now) published a paper dividing love into three components, intimacy, passion and commitment and based on this (and some basic math :)) came up with eight different kinds of love. Again, as I mentioned, the concept of love (and similar things) is a function of the place and time in society in which you exist.
PS: I think you misinterpreted the concept of a selfish gene - we are not selfish; the genes are, often at our own individual expense. For instance, a lot women complain of getting attracted to the wrong kind of guys (I'm inclined that there are unreported cases of the inverse as well :)) - an example of how the purpose of our genes is not keep *us* happy. The genes are playing some kind of global optimization game - local optimization (focusing on us) is strictly a distraction.
Also, I think you should read `A New Life' by Dante. I have not read it myself (will, soon). Dante describes the concept of an _ideal woman_ (Beatrice, in Dante'e case) - quite representative of the unrequited love I was talking about.
ReplyDelete@Sanjoy : I agree with you. Especially on, "the concept of love is a function of the place and time in society in which you exist."
ReplyDeleteOur society is evolving and so are our views on everything. What I wrote is based on what I see happening around me. I cannot comment on the notions of a time period/society that I have not lived in, have not got to know well enough.
Yes, we read and we can form certain perspective regarding the same.
I was trying to distill my thoughts, what I feel as of now. Obviously, some years from now, when I chance on this post, I would shake my head in disapproval.
Anyway, eight different kinds of love? Interesting.
I wasn't really referring to the ideology of Richard Dawking. The 'gene' word slipped in unintentionally. It is just that, *I* personally feel we all are selfish to some extent, the degree might vary from person to person.
okay... an unintellectual comment
ReplyDeletebut
"That leaves you with little choice. " :D
@bishnoi - we don't *rationally deduce* that happiness is everlasting. It's hope which is extended to longing and we cling to it. It is interesting enough to analyze it, but to expect everyone to come up with rationale and stop *hoping* for it to last forever and ever - that is not feasible. They are 'popular' and socially accepted' for a reason - the lack of reason. That's my point.
ReplyDeleteSpecifically, they are 'popular' and 'socially accepted' because they are 'popular' and 'socially accepted'.
ReplyDeleteRight from stories ending with `... and they lived happily ever and after.' to `A diamond is forever'; the eternal nature of love is written and re-written into our psyche. People who accept things without a deep thought (theists, for instance) are likely to fall (in a very objective sense of the word) for such a definition. People who think a little deeper (like ChikaChing here) are likely to differ.
Most existentialists agree that `experience' and `reflection' interfere with each other. The more you think about *what* you are feeling, the less you feel it. You can either enjoy and get lost in the music or try to figure out the brand of drum-sticks the drummer is using - you can't do both (which is why, IMO, people tend to enjoy music better when they are high / stoned). Perhaps the same is true for love.
@Sanjoy : Interesting view.
ReplyDeleteSo, it is best to be high on love, than be rationalising like me. Ignorance is indeed bliss.
@achyuth - I agree with sanjoy's reply, atleast the parts that refer to your comment
ReplyDelete@sanjoy - "The more you think about *what* you are feeling, the less you feel it. You can either enjoy and get lost in the music or try to figure out the brand of drum-sticks the drummer is using - you can't do both "
So not true! Thinking about what you are feeling is not just about what drums sticks are being used. Still I think I understand what you are trying to say. This view actually falls into the category of "People who accept things without a deep thought (theists, for instance) are likely to fall (in a very objective sense of the word) for such a definition"
When you think about music, read about the theory which is basically a subspace of maths (considering maths to be some sort of space, hence the closure property holds in music) you start appreciating it much more than just by the fell of it. Obviously there's a feel in the music you listen to and you can vaguely differentiate b/w good music and bad music but after contemplating about, learning the theory involved you start appreciating the deeper things in music. One example being "beats", i.e. the time signature which you must have felt while listening to black dog by led zeppelin or kashmir which are somewhat progressive in nature.
Argh I forgot what point i was trying to make :|. Figure it out yourself
typo: fell -> feel*
ReplyDeletealright i didn't read all the longer-than-post comments. my apologies. as a person in a long distance relationship, i'd like to add my perspective. I had known my b/f 2 n half yrs b4 we got into an LDR. the reason y i did it was 'coz i wans't ready to break up with him n start looking for someone new jus 'coz he's going away. i said to him lets see how far we can take this. he agreed. non of us is dellusional enough to believe we'll definitely get married and live happily ever after. i think of love as preferred companionship. like when i feel an emotion n i want to share with a person, the 1st person to come to ur mind most often is the one u love. n trust me sharing every minute detail isn't necessary. and yes we change and evolve but not at a moment's notice. its a slow process and one can keep up with it. i dont even knnow if everything i said makes sense...:P
ReplyDelete@Hardii : Who would want to break up with one's partner *just* because he or she is leaving. The best anyone can do is try and hope that things work out, at the same time acknowledging the fact that 9 out 10 times, they don't.
ReplyDeleteThat was the view I wanted to express.