From: mike.mcaulay@spacebbs.com (Mike Mcaulay) 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: TADA!  A NEW THREAD...
Date: 25 Jul 92 03:33:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: mike.mcaulay@spacebbs.com (Mike Mcaulay) 

swann@acsu.buffalo.edu (Stephen Swann) writes:

SS>>Oh no - not the "let's start a new thread" thread again!  :-)

SS>Not even - it's the "This old thread -again-?" thread!

Okay, here's one for you:  What the hell IS love?  What does the word
mean?  I submit the the word 'love' has been worn smooth and featureless
like a coin left too long in circulation.  Think of it:  a husband loves
his wife, a mother loves her child, a redneck loves his country, a
coprophage loves to eat shit.  I can even imagine Arnie saying "I chust
*luff* to kill pipple."  The word can connote almost anything depending
on context; hence, its denotative value is null.

This gives rise to no end of mischief.  The most obvious example occurs
when person A asks "do you love me?" and person B replies "of course I
love you," but they *mean different things*.  I overheard a conversation
very similar to this recently in which person A's definition of "love"
was "cherish and value me above all others eternally" and person B's was
"really want you to feel comfortable where you are and not make waves
because I'm quite content to continue fucking you and taking advantage
of you." (how do I know this?  Well, I don't for *sure* but I do know
both parties pretty well and base my interpretation on things I've
observed and heard over several months)

Here's my opinion -- I sincerely believe it to be true, but I'm also
aware that it is at odds with the way most people look at things:  Love
is not a *thing*.  It is a feeling or an experience that arises directly
out of perception and emotion.  Hence, its defining characteristic is
evanescence, not permanence.  If you change, or that which you love
changes, love will change too in the same instant, and often will die.
The "eternal love" to which our culture is so fond of paying homage is
therefore a myth, a convenient fiction concocted, most likely, by horny
minstrels in an effort to bed their ladyes.

Love occurs in the moment, not eternally, and thus is based on *the
new*.  I believe this is the key to successful long-term relationships.
If both partners are continually growing and changing in healthy,
non-conflicting ways, then the odds are good that they will be
continually falling in love with each other over and over again as well.

I take a very dim view of most of the types of relationships tacitly
sanctioned by our culture.  Most of the cave-dwellers masquerading as
citizens of our fair land (ah!  I knew I had a rant in me...) aren't
even *capable* of love, in the sense I've defined it.  They want to bonk
the object of their momentary captivation over the head and drag it back
to the cave, there to suck the marrow out of its bones and have it
have it MINE MINE MINE!!!.  Unfortunately the bones have similar designs
on their souls!  Fuss.  Fight.  Accuse.  Yell.  Make up.  Fuck.  Repeat
until boredom, then repeat until death.  Or, worse yet, skip steps 1-6
and just lapse straight into boredom.

Far from being within easy reach of any touchdown scoring, pom-pom
waving, rant-posting cretin, sustained love is IMO *extremely* rare,
*extremely* precious, and not to be had by anyone who tolerates
impurities and half-assedness in hir soul.

Of course, comfortable we-get-along-okay-together-and-really-do-feel-...
affectionate-and-the-sex-is-pretty-good-and-gee-it-would-be-a-drag-...
and-kinda-scary-to-have-to-look-for-a-new-SO-ness (which many of YOU
READING THIS call "love") is another story.

Or kill me.

M.
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . A smile a day keeps the evil twin at bay!