On Love

"...Surely there must be this thing called love and surely there must be this binding force that compells us to die and live and sing and kill, all in its name, and in a way that accounts for all of us..."

I guess I would first like to begin by saying that I believe love can be discussed in a much more specific way than how it is conventionally brought about. Consider what it means to love someone. Is it essentially the same as liking someone? What's the difference between loving your mother and loving your wife?

Is it an emotion? A state? Does it mean attachment? Is it in our brain, our heart, the soul? What does being in love mean?

People have so many different ways of describing love that talking about it present a problem. We simply don't have the same experiences or relationships to talk about love without defining it first. It seems intuitive that some people can be more in love than others, but is that true? And how can we know?

When we say we love someone, we have to have some idea of what love is. What makes a relationship special to where we can say it is love and when can we distinguish between love and romantic love? It is easy to judge love when we see it. If we can identify someone in a bad relationship, an odd couple that we don't understand what keeps them together, or a couple we suspect won't last another month-- we must know something about love.

But experience and thought can only go so far in knowing any one thing. What does research say about love? If you know me, and as you read I'm sure you will begin to, I personally place my faith in things I can trust. In things that can be seen to occur no matter how many times we observe it. I begin abstractly talking about things like love, and the soul, and God because I think it's important to try and define them. Because really, until we join the search, we really have only a superficial knowledge of these concepts. We are told about these things without ever really understanding them. And then the feeling of not knowing becomes comfortable, the mystery all but forgotten in our confident responses and the advice we give others. We turn the ear infront of spoken truths at every turn because we forgot we should be listening. This seems particularly evident with love when we're asked to explain it.

Try to explain what love means to you.

If you relied soley on your life experiences and knowledge to explain what love means to you, all you can explain is what love has come to mean to you based on what has happened to you. If you're very first experience was of abuse, then any relationship thereafter will seem like heaven, even if it is a particularly uninspiring relationship. Your ability to predict what will happen to others with different experiences and different ways of thinking about love has diminshed to practically zero. If it differs, and it probably does, we might explain love differently. You might say love is patient, love is kind; I might say love is spontaneous, love is sex. But surely there must be this thing called love and surely there must be this binding force that compells us to die and live and sing and kill, all in its name, and in a way that accounts for all of us...

From one theory, romantic love comes as an emotion that involves many areas of experience: emotional, cognitive, and motivational. From this perspective, love has different styles as well. The triangular theory of love by Robert Sternberg has become very influential in the modern conception of love. He names three components of love, ways in which we piece together our relation to people based on their status in our relationship, which arises when components are absent or present. These components are Intimacy, Passion, and Commitment.

Intimacy is the emotional component of love. It is the sharing of deeply personal information about each other and mutual acceptance. For some people, this is extremely hard to accomplish. If they have been hurt in their life before, are defensive or apprehensive because of it, or feel like they don't connect well with others; this can pose a real challenge to forming connections with other people.

Passion is the motivational force (drive) behind love. Sexual attraction, desire, sexual intimacy, all that stuff. Passion is shown to give rise to preoccupation and fascination with loved ones. It has been shown (which should be no surprise) to cause rapid arousal but shown to quickly fade.

Commitment is the cognitive component of love. This is actually very difficult to conceptualize. Once a person decides if he or she is in love, a certain amount of time passes. This initial decision eventually becomes a lasting sense of commitment (kinda like... classical conditioning). I believe there are also other things that can create this sense of commitment, such as a protective nature or a sense of attachment (the kind of attachment that an infant has for their mother) but... that's just my opinion.

A really interesting thing about the 3 components of love is that Sternberg takes them and creates a model of love that can account for all the differences between people! He calls it.. The Triangular Model of Love... or The Love Triangle ;)

Which, as you can see, lays out all the different kinds of love based on the components of love (intimacy, passion, commitment). We can see that "liking" someone is simply just being intimate with someone, which can be a frequent event in our lives as we meet and talk with strangers-- and because it is without passion (or attraction), it is essentially a friendship. So we love our friends.

But maybe you are having relationship problems and you're not sure why. I think it would be helpful to research this particular thing and figure out what's missing. If you click this link, The Triangular Theory of Love , Wikipedia will give you a little more details. For example, Companionate Love, which consists of Intimacy and Commitment, is said to be a long-term committed friendship (like a marriage) in which the passion has faded. Without identifying the problem and placing goals, it's not likely relationship problems will ever correct themselves. "Oh look, we need to talk more about what our feelings and what bothers us (intimacy) in order to prevent these feelings of anger" is an example of what might be said to repair relational intimacy.
In this triangle, Consummate Love is suppose to be the complete form of love. It is quite rare according to the researcher and it is difficult to obtain. It might be hard to even imagine what Consummate Love would look like. Luckily, we have great demonstrations of Consummate Love throughout history. Consummate Love has been around long before Sternberg invented the term. It is the beauty in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, the crux of spirituality, the hype around Twilight. We often describe Consummate relationships with terms like soulmates or "the one".

Maybe you never really thought you loved anyone if these 3 components are all that love is. I'm sure we've all had a "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" by now-- so maybe you don't even think all this applies to you.

Well, there is clearly more to the picture. Psychologists speak of different kinds of love (or styles). This shouldn't be too surprising, but as an example, work in the field done by a couple of psychologists (Clyde and Susan Hendrick) suggested 6 styles of love among college students based on questions that students answered about themselves:

Romantic love--This is what most people refer to when they fall in love. This kind of love is basically characterized by passionate desire, lots of great sex, and associated with powerful physical attraction.
Game-playing love-- Characterized by lack or fear of commitment and getting over love affairs pretty easily
Friendship-love-- Loving attachment, deep friendship, and nonsexual affections. Thought to be the same emotion that binds friends and parents to children. Key word is basically attachment similar to the attachment infants have with their mothers.
Logical love-- Considers the costs and benefits of a partnership, also called pragmatic love.
Mania love (possessive/excited love)-- This is basically neurotic feelings about the lover. They get excited to where they can't sleep, when the lover ignores them they feel sick, ect ect. Very... very... unhealthy. Obviously.
Selfless love-- This is selfless giving and concern for the significant other. They list themselves as willing to do anything to simply help their lover, and view their lover's wishes and needs as far greater than their own. There may be a certain type of dependency here (although I'm not sure that's really in the research, just my lovely opinion once again).

Chances are you've had one of these 6 styles of love yourself. The point being that interpersonal styles like the 6 stated above are different from what Sternberg says love consists of (intimacy, passion, and commitment). Styles more have to do with personality than love as a concept.

So I think it would be pretty wise to assess Sternberg's model of love and see how this applies to you. And just because you see yourself in Consummate Love doesn't mean you are. That is a subject assessment and a big problem with studies like this. It would be better to examine the components intimacy, passion, and commitment and see if these things are qualities your relationship really possesses. Be realistic. What are some examples you can think of that characterize passion in the relationship? The hardest thing I have ever tried to do in my life so far is understanding myself. There are so many reasons why we don't really want to know everything about ourselves, and many more psychological structures in place to make sure we'll never find out.

But it can be done, to some extent, for the willing and the brave. Mostly so by asking questions. Do you keep things from your partner? Do you feel like there are some things you just can't tell him/her? What about passion-- is there a strong physical attraction? Sex? And if there is no commitment (That is, there is no offical title like boyfriend/girlfriend or husband/wife) then do you wish there was? Why? It is possible to change things for the better, to live in healthier relationships, love many people, and be self reliant and content.

There is this ignorance about love, which exists primarily in you girls, which holds that you will find your perfect match, fall in love, get married, have babies, live happily ever after. Even girls who disagree when questioned specifically about these things all tend to have these very expectations. I have seen some of the greatest suffering among people my age because of the framework this type of love fallacy creates within relationships. It is unyielding in its need to propagate security, from which should only be established by the self; unforgiving in its selfish quest to find "the one," disregarding relationships and burning bridges; unknowing of motivation; uncaring in matters of fulfillment. The goal of this kind of love is simply security rather than human compatibility. There is a romantic notion of "true love" and "soul mates". These words often have a prejudice against all other forms of love. If we want to have better relationships and experience higher forms of human connections, love must be a clear concept.

Someone once said to me in desperation, "love is so hard." And I thought... No it really isn't. My dog practically loves me unconditionally. We make love hard. We don't see people as they are, we see people as we are. We see people through a lens. A filter of experience and baggage. We can fantasize about someone and in doing so make them more desirable, overlooking their vices. Exaggerate their virtues. Experience is an endlessly thick filter which can bias the eyes.

We all yearn for better relationships and happiness. Where you fall in this triangle has it's own set of problems and obstacles... unless you're in the middle of the triangle of course. In which case, you probably thought all this was boring.

For the rest of us, a strong sense of self and identity is needed. Self reliance. I have not lived long enough or had enough experience to say this for sure, but I know of no couple who have tried to work on each other and succeeded. I know of no circumstance whereas a person "changed" the other. The only change I've seen in people come when they are alone. But I have heard rumors...

I hope my next blog will be on self reliance, because it was that concept alone which showed me a higher truth and convinced me of self actualization. Hopefully I'll explain more later.

"Your vision will become clear only when you look into your heart. Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside, awakens."
-- C.G. Jung (One of my favorite Psychologists)

On My Belief in God

One topic I refuse to be ignorant about is human nature. If I was being honest with myself, which sometimes I'm not, there is apart of me that wishes I could go back to a more childlike way of thinking. I wish that there were good and bad forces, that I was always good, invincible, and all the important things were knowable. All the years of trying to sift through fact from fiction has almost always led me to the conflict of the two ways which we acquire knowledge: authority or observation. Faith or science. Does truth come from what we are told by prophets, pastors, or professors, or does it come from what we can see and measure and predict?

For all I know, the answer may be both.

It seems to me perfectly reasonable to believe in God, but a God who conflicts with what we know requires much more faith than a God explained by what we can see.

I'll try and explain. If there is a God, which I believe there is, then I do not believe in a personal God that controls or is concerned with human affairs, guiding human actions and thoughts, or interferes with the natural laws of governs nature. These positions violate the concept of free will, and are contradictory in a religious sense. I think quoting a man I heard speak last year about the origin of the universe might be the most appropriate way to convey my belief about this:

"What could define God [is a conception of divinity] as the embodiment of the laws of nature. However, this is not what most people would think of that God...They made a human-like being with whom one can have a personal relationship. When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is, this seems most impossible." - Stephen Hawking

I wouldn't go so far as to agree with Professor Hawking on the insignificance of human life, but his definition of God is something I cannot help be swayed by. It speaks to the vastness of space and the miraculous survival of life on earth. The most attractive thing about this outlook is the definition of God. You see, the problem with most religions, with most conceptions of God, is a lack of definition-- something religions should strive for and borrow from scientific reasoning:

"To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with the natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress... If it is one of the goals of religions to liberate mankind as far as possible from the bondage of egocentric cravings, desires, and fears, scientific reasoning can aid religion in another sense."-- Albert Einstein

What Einstein is suggesting is that religion can be improved if grounded in the pursuit of truth, as science is, and becomes open to modification by the interpretation of facts. For me, I learned it best to describe what I do NOT believe to better understand what I DO believe. This logic is certainly borrowed from scientific reasoning and is called falsifiability, i.e. proving things false versus proving things true. It is presumptuous of any man to to think to prove a thing true. This is what drives the dogma of religion. It must be acknowledged that religion does, in every sense, operate in vague and unclear terms.

I feel the closest depiction of God is what Einstein and Hawking believed in which is essentially that the universe itself is god. 

"If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

There is a regularity to all that moves in the universe, physics and chemistry; the laws of nature, and while science cannot prove God exists, it can disprove some of the more absurd claims of fundamentalist. I see each side of the debate of God: those for want to believe in a higher power, in the transformative power of love, but at the cost of truth and knowledge; and those against it, who see something contrived in believers, something hypocritical and self-defeating, but often at the cost of empathy. Both have something true to communicate. Both are at fault.

"The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whosoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of of mystery-- even if mixed with fear-- that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds-- it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitutes true religiosity; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let the feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature." -- Albert Einstein essay "The World as I See it"

Knowing what you believe (and what is knowable) is essential for human growth and happiness. Learning new things can give meaning to life. I would love to see more people try and codify what they believe as I am doing.

The Long Prolonged Blog

I know to some people, the idea of a blog is ridiculous. I've heard many people call it an "online diary". But secretly, I have always admired those persons who have the courage to put their thoughts at the mercy of others-- those confident enough to show their true selves and let their words fall where they may.

And now, I must have found that courage (perhaps from the examples of a few friends) but I am still nervous about writing my thoughts for others to see. It seems strange. I'm sure their will be those who mock it, and that fact alone was enough to prevent me for the longest time from starting a blog. But I know of no better way to communicate ideas than through the writing of them. There is something lost in speech-- in the way we talk to each other. Half the time people are just waiting for their turn to talk. The other half their attention is divided. From my training this semester in a crisis hotline, I learned some valuable skills of active listening, only to realize that among my friends and family, I may be the only one who is ever actually listening.

Well, I better not start a rant-- even though that seems to be what blogging is sometimes. But I just want an introduction first.

I will always try to fashion my blogs in such a way where it argues a point. I don't want this to be just another emotional outlet to vent; I want my words to have weight. My blog, I hope, will be used to explore ideas. I will mostly be writing about topics and issues I have long debated in the confines of my mind, which have gone mostly unchecked against the experience and opinions of others. More than anything I want discussion. Sure, I have my thoughts, my beliefs, my ideas-- but what are yours? I have always been more interested in how other people think and how they perceive their world. And because of that I've learned how I perceive mine. It's why I love psychology (I'm a psych major if you didn't know). After all, what are my thoughts but the accumulation of thoughts before me?

"If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." -- Isaac Newton

So please, as I blog, if you have any comments, go ahead. I want your thoughts. That is  really why anyone creates an "online diary"-- they want it to be read; they want their thoughts validated. I want more. I would rather have mine invalidated; I would rather be corrected than confirmed. Maybe the content of our discussion will generate something that can enlighten the both of us.