"and every time I try to pick it up
like falling sand
as fast as I pick it up
it runs away through my clutching hands". - The Cure
In the past, believing that I might eventually have the ability to define love or understand love as some kind of constant feeling has created more loss than it has helped me understand it.
I've been running from love my whole life at the same time that I have been searching relentlessly for it. If love is the point (0,0) on an xy-plain, I've been everywhere but that point--or perhaps started at the point before I was aware, sometimes following a trail outward farther away from love, coming back closer to it--in a way I've referred to as "coming back down to me"--then moving back out in another direction--then coming back towards the center, etc. Funny now, when I think of this, I see a flower, with love at the stigma, or the center.
I used to draw during church as a kid. I'd get a pen from my mom and draw on the bulletin, or write letters to my cousin or my grandparents in the States. I'd get frustrated when I'd misspell a word and then share my frustration with my mom by grunting with a pout on my face, showing her the scribbled out word. While my dad preached in Chinese at the front of the church, my mom would would lean over, cup her hand over her mouth and whisper in my ear, "make it into a flower". I'd try, but it frustrated me because all I could see through the flower was the mistake I made before that, and I knew the receiver of the letter would be able to tell too. I'd finish up the letter anyways and go back to the bulletin, coloring in all the enclosed shapes within the Chinese characters, much like how one would color in the o's, e's, a's.
As a kid, I interpreted the idea of love as a kind of action. A verb.
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails." 1 Corinthians 13:4-8
If I acted in the following way, I would be showing love. And that's what I did, I acted, and I believe I acted out of good intentions. I tried to be patient and kind. I tried to not envy or boast or be proud. I tried not to dishonor others, be self-seeking, not angry or bitter. I tried to stay away from things that I thought to be evil and only dwell in "truth". I tried to protect, trust, hope, and persevere. And I tried desperately not to fail. On the outside, for the most part, I did alright, but deep inside I was so conflicted because I also had ideas forming in my head about who I was, who others were, and what things should be like. As I was "learning to love", I was also learning how to build barriers between myself and others--myself and my life. I watched others and mimicked--like many of us do when we don't know how to do it ourselves, while the walls got higher and thicker and more petrified.
I acted out this "love" but I hurt. I trusted but lost trust. I was kind, but was angry on the inside. Really, I was a perfect contradiction. My efforts towards ideals blocked me from the truth, like a giant bubble between me and everything I came into contact with--perhaps the giant bubble I felt I was clutching, and losing grip of while laying on the couch at my friend's house. I have not understood until today, writing this, working out this problem, that love cannot occur when our plan/idea/desire/attachment/belief separates us at all from the object with which we are coming into contact.
I was guided by The Voice. Geneen Roth describes The Voice (which we all have) in this way:
"Everyone has The Voice. It's a developmental necessity. You need to learn not to put your hands in fire, walk into incoming traffic, stick electrical wires into water. You need to learn that you probably won't be welcomed into other people's houses if you throw food on their walls or put snakes in their beds. When external authority figures such as parents, teachers or family members communicate verbal and nonverbal instructions about physical and emotional survival, we coalesce those voices into one voice--The Voice--by a process called introjection (internalizing authority figures).
"According to developmental psychologists, The Voice is fully operative in most of us by the time we are four years olf, after which it functions as a moral compass, a deterrent to questionable behavior. Instead of being afraid of the disapproval of our parents, we become afraid of the disapproval of The Voice. Instead of being punished for daring to disagree with our mothers or fathers, we adults punish ourselves for daring to believe that our lives could be different. We become risk aversive. Frightened of change.
"...the intention of The Voice is to stun you, not activate your intelligence or equanimity. In its early development, it was biologically adaptive: it kept you from being rejected by those you depend on. Now it is archaic, a vestigial remnant from childhood that, despite its ersatz usefulness, is now running your life and rendering you incapable of acting with true discernment and intelligence. Its main warning is: Don't cross the line. Maintain the status quo.
The Voice is merciless, ravaging, life destroying. The Voice makes you feel so weak, so paralyzed, so incompetent that you wouldn't dare question (its) authority. Its intent is to keep you from being thrown out of whatever it perceives as the circle of love.
"The Voice saps you of strength, cuts you off at the knees, and positions you in a world modeled on past authority figures who bark directions that are often cruel and almost always irrelevant to who you are and what you love. By co-opting your clarity and objective knowing, The Voice renders you incapable of contacting your own authority. It treats you as a child in need of a moral compass, but its due north does not include any terrain that is fresh or new. Think of the Voice as a Global Positioning System from the twilight zone. When you follow its directions, you spend your life trying to find streets that no longer exist in a city that vanished decades ago. Then you wonder why you feel so unbearably lost." - Geneen Roth, from Women Food and God
I've got a lot voices in my head. I am sensitive to others. It's not that I grew up around terrible people--on the contrary!--but I internalized so many different points of view of what people believed their version of love was.
We all interpret love differently, give love differently, and want love differently. We make love out to be an object, an idea, an action, a feeling that comes from past experiences and ideals in the form of some physical unseen substance within the heart or brain. Love is the undefined variable that I've longed to plug into some life-long formula--if only I could define it. It's funny then, that each time I believe I have found it and defined it, and plug it into my "formula for life", the equation fails and I have to start over from scratch, because since love has been so important to me, I made my equation such that every other variable relied upon it. In thinking that love needed to be showcased somehow, I could divide everything by my idea of love and move it outside of the rest of the equation's parentheses as a kind of cornerstone. But if that form of love failed, there would be no love in any of my equation anymore, and everything previously recorded would seem wretched and stark because it lacked what I believed to be so necessary: My love did not work. I was incapable of loving, and therefore I was ashamed of my own existence. Love scared me because it always failed, much like the quote below:
"To love is to suffer. To avoid suffering one must not love. But then one suffers from not loving. Therefore to love is to suffer, not to love is to suffer. To suffer is to suffer. To be happy is to love. To be happy then is to suffer. But suffering makes one unhappy. Therefore, to be unhappy one must love, or love to suffer, or suffer from too much happiness. I hope you're getting this down." - Woody Allen
We use love to describe so many different situations and feelings. I love my husband. I love my dog. I love my family. I love my friends. I love my job. I love my condo. I love my computer. I love Saturdays. I love you. If love is in these actions and feelings--but undefinable at the same time, what if I removed it from everything? What if my idea of love isn't "something"? What if it's nothing--a smokescreen of sorts? I my husband. I my dog. I my family. I my friends. I my job. I my condo. I my computer. I Saturdays. I you. Without the undefined love word that lies (pun intended) between me and everything that is in my life, I can actually make direct contact. In fact, I am those things. The gap has been closed.
The limit as x (obstruction) approaches 0 (no obstruction, or love) of the function xy (y being me) + xz (someone or something else) also written as x(y+z) = love...
So love seems to be the absence of anything between me and everything.
It doesn't sound too good to say that love does not exist. I use this word all the time, to my husband, my family, my dog, my friends, things I like. It's integrated into my entire life. So it's not that it doesn't exist, it exists in the form of all the obstructions that it is not.
The limit as x (obstruction) approaches 0 (no obstruction, or love) of the function xy (y being me) + xz (someone or something else) also written as x(y+z) = love...
After thinking about this more, we do not carry the same obstructions as one another. So there would need to be 2 limits in my equation. My "obstruction variable" would be x, I am y, another's "obstruction variable" would be z, and they would be a. Because if I tried to eliminate my obstructions, but someone else doesn't, or vice versa, we would not be able to converge into that single moment of pure love or presentness.
I looked up others takes on love that are close, but seem too defined:
The limit as x approaches 0 of f(x,y) plus the limit as z approaches 0 of f(z,a) = love. If I multiply by our obstruction variables (implying that they are a within us and always will be, but somehow at the same time able to be transformed) I end up with zero, eliminating any definition of 2 separate beings and becoming just about the convergence into the minute moment of nowness (when time seems to stand still), but if I divide by our obstruction variables (implying that they are separate from us--maybe like a monkey on our back, or heavy baggage--able to be completely thrown out), the equation becomes undefined...perhaps because it's impossible.
Is this multivariable calculus, which I haven't taken yet, or is this my own made up math? ... probably a little bit of both :)
I know it's impossible to figure out anyways, but it's fun to think about...
I looked up others takes on love that are close, but seem too defined:
"Love is the total absence of fear. Love asks no questions. Its natural state is one of extension and expansion, not comparison and measurement." - Gerald Jampolsky (American psychiatrist)
Here is me arguing with myself and then proving my opinion wrong: I can agree with Jampolsky's statement to a point, but I also think more can exist within a barrier between me and something than just fear--although if Roth's definition of The Voice is our barrier, and The Voice comes from fear, maybe it is accurate. Still, fear is not necessarily required to dislike something or someone, and disliking might be merely due to misinterpretation or ignorance. But then Buddhist philosophy says that ignorance is the root of all suffering (I am not Buddhist, but this does make sense), but does it only lead to fear? Maybe so....Also contrary to what Jampolsky says, I like the idea of asking questions, because I believe that in connection lies inquiry, and if ignorance leads to fear, the way to lessen ignorance is through inquiry. I guess that does prove his quote to be accurate according to my "formula", because if love is the absence of fear there would be no need for inquiry because there wouldn't exist fear (which contains suffering and leads to fear). Therefore, like he said, "Love asks no questions." Interesting. So then, I guess, since we are all ignorant anyway, inquiry is an essential tool toward love. On inquiry:
"The effectiveness of inquiry lies in its open-endedness, its evocation of true curiosity."..."When you practice inquiry, you see what and who you have been taking yourself to be that you have never questioned. Inquiry allows you to be in direct contact with that which is bigger than what you are writing about: the infinite unexplored worlds beyond your everyday discursive mind." - Geneen RothIt is difficult to inquire when our mind is clouded by The Voice.
"One word frees us of all the weight and pain of life: That word is love." - Sophocles
And the way it frees me is by eliminating my previous beliefs about love. Love acts as a vacuum, not a soft pillow.
To me, the dramatic passionate all-encompassing love, the heartbeat of the ideal world, or whatever you want to call it has shrunk in size, and individual connection rises to the top of my small understanding of love--what the ancients called philia:
"Even within personal love, philosophers from the ancient Greeks on have traditionally distinguished three notions that can properly be called “love”: eros, agape, and philia...‘Eros’ originally meant love in the sense of a kind of passionate desire for an object, typically sexual passion (Liddell et al., 1940)...Badhwar (2003, p. 58) characterizes agape as “independent of the loved individual's fundamental characteristics as the particular person she is.”...Finally, ‘philia’ originally meant a kind of affectionate regard or friendly feeling towards not just one's friends but also possibly towards family members, business partners, and one's country at large (Liddell et al., 1940; Cooper, 1977)." -http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/love/ Standford Encyclopedia of Philosphy on "Love"
As simple as it sounds, "affectionate regard" in philia is probably the hardest of all. Agape love seems to say, "I love you regardless of my already pre-conceived negative notions that still exist in my head about you". I can't have affectionate regard for anyone or anything when there are hang-ups or judgments between us. Try to just affectionately regard everyone you come into contact with. This may bring about uncomfortable feelings. It's difficult! At least I know it is for me.
“Love is the absence of judgment.” - Dalai Lama XIV
"Love consists in this, that two solitudes protect and touch and greet each other." - Rainer Maria Rilke
"What else is love but understanding and rejoicing in the fact that another person lives, acts, and experiences otherwise than we do…?" - Friedrich Nietzsche
I recently found a beautiful song called "Nemesis", that reminds me of Nietzsche's quote above. It ends with these profound words:
Love is not ours and must not be carried like a bag of sparkly gifts. It's already there between us all in its ability to vacuum away the bullshit, and we have no other choice but to see it for the pain that it can eliminate. 1 Corinthians 13 makes sense after all. It's not a personality; it occurs millions of times throughout the day; It's presentness. It's living and dying over and over again between every moment. It's everything and nothing at the same time. Uh oh, here I go defining it again."I am your one true love who sleeps with someone else I am your Nemesis, baby, I'm life sweet life itself" - David Gray
Disclaimer: This definition of love is subject to change. :D
