From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: How Important Is Being IN-LOVE?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 22:55:37 GMT

jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond, AKA Spidey!!!) writes:

>>>The terminology of love is confusing, unfortunately.  
>>It's only confusing if you don't bother to think about it and
>>clarify your notions.

>Then clearly you haven't tackled the really tough problems.  

If by that you mean I haven't gotten into emotionally unhealthy
relationships, you're right.  I've been quite lucky in that regard.
But I don't think you have to tackle some certain set of "really tough
problems" to come up with a clear, consistent and non-confusing terminology.

>   >>Is it possible to love someone and not want to be in a
>   >>romantic relationship with them?  
>   >Of course.  Consider your parents.  (I know not everyone loves their

>   >>Is it possible to love unconditionally while still being 
>   >>selective about a mate?  
>   >No.  Unconditional means not subject to conditions.  If you want to be
>   >selective about a mate, if you don't want to just love anybody who
>   >comes along, then you have to have some selection criteria--
>   >some conditions.  ([Such as] that your love interest be female,

>I think your statements are contradictory.  First you use parents
>as an example of a case where you love, but are not interested in a
>romantic relationship. This implies that one can love, but not desire
>a romantic relationship.  Then you state that unconditional love is
>impossible -- equating romantic love with platonic love.

Huh?  I have no idea where you come up with this claim.  Reread what I
said, my statements are not at all contradictory.  I don't think that
even the love of or for parents is "unconditional."  YOur first
implication is correct but trivial.  Your so-called "equation" is
absurd, and doesn't follow from anything I said.

>My claim:
>1) to love != to be in love
>2) Unconditional love is desireable, and possible.
>3) Unconditional being in love is undesireable, and most likely
>   impossible.

>Is that what you are trying to say?

No.  I disagree with the implied dichotomy of (1) above.  
I can love someone and be in love with them at the same time.  
(I have already pointed out that the other is possible as well.

As for (2) I think that whether unconditional love is desirable or not
(and I think that truly unconditional love is meaningless, and
sacrificing one's judgment is never desirable) it is simply NOT
possible.  Are you saying that you could love _anyone_, regardless of
any or all of their possible characteristics?

I've never considered the first notion of (3) because I don't think
any emotion can be truly unconditional.  The very things that trigger
emotions are conditions.

>>>I believe that it _is_ possible -- and now I tread that course.
>>You're wrong.  Your notion of 'unconditional love' has very little to
>>do with more practical forms of love, and has almost nothing to do with
>>'romantic love.' 

>I'm truly sorry that you do not perceive of non-romantic love as being
>practical.  I don't think that I would enjoy life very much if I was
>only loved by those who had a romantic interest in me.

Argh.  I said no such thing.  I said that your notion of unconditional
love has very little to do with more practical FORMS (plural) of love,
and cited romantic love as an example of ONE of those forms that I
think is quite far removed from your notion.

Pay closer attention when you read, and consider taking a logic course.

>A question for everyon out there on the net: Of your relationships,
>present and past, which could be described as "romantic
>relationships", and which would be better described as "friends who
>sleep together".  I get that there is a lot of both out there.

And some people have both in the same relationship.
-- 

Kiran Wagle                           <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>