really, this should be prefaced by stating that i still agree with everything i wrote here. that said, this discourse isn't really on what i feel Love is described as, or how i necessarily define it... but rather, what it means. what it means, in my opinion, to say the words, "i Love you."
i guess for the sake of not alienating people who disagree with me, i'll sort of divide "people" up into two categories: the hopeless romantics, and the normal folk. or perhaps the emotive, and the rational. or perhaps the bohemian revolutionaries and the dukes. now, certainly, this would step on toes, nobody likes to be pigeon-holed into specific "molds," so i of course further preface all this by saying that there's lots of grey area. that very few people fit into one spot or the other, and of course, people can be a mix between the two.
but really, this distinction, or your temporary discomfort of being stuck in one category or another, is not the concern of this "rant." i very much stick myself (obviously) in the former of these distinctions. which is all i'm aiming to discuss.
to the hopeless romantic, what does it mean to be in Love? yeah, we know what it is, how one feels about the object of their desire, how they want them, how they enjoy spending time with them, how they care for them, how when with them, they can fully allow themselves to relax, and be at ease... but when our subject, the hopeless romantic, says "i Love you," what does it mean to him?
when he says that he Loves her, he means that she is the most important thing in the world to him. he means that he'd do anything for her, he means that she is all that matters to him. the things that he means just drip with cliche, because it's all been said: to the common hopeless romantic, the emotion is surely nothing new or unique, not when described in words that have been used time and time again.
but we all know how language fails us in matters of this sort. so when he says, "i deeply, wholly, and truly Love you," in nearly any context, it sounds trite, almost. like a bad line from a cheesy movie. but that's a failure of the language being used, not in the emotion behind it.
to him, it's almost frustrating, that he can't find new words. the only expressions he can find have been worn down like the edges of a quarter, exchanged between too many people. how contradicting, it feels for him, to be forced to use words that don't adequately represent what's most important. words that can't capture his emotion, his reason for being. ... already, i'm digressing. but i guess this is just further setting up the stage of what exactly he means.
so what does it mean when he says "i Love you"? it means that he considers everything else in his life using this emotion as his marker. it means that he bases his other experiences, his other good-feelings, his day-to-day routine around her, the object of his desire. it means that she's always on his mind, daytime or night. it means that he puts her interests above his own. it means that when she's around, he feels like a better person. it means that the simple memory of her smile can put one on his face. it means that his words fail to describe the emotion he feels when eye contact is made. ... it means that she can make him happier than anything else.
but certainly, you say, this is just bit over the top. certainly, you say, there're aspects to Love that aren't all rose petals and unicorn giggles. life, the astute observer will retort, is all about the bittersweet. the good and the bad. because as jason lee has told us, you can't appreciate the sweet, without the sour.
but does this affect Love? i don't think it has to. i think that we are governed by two "forces," for lack of a better term, and most people agree, at least on some level. first, we have the brain; the mind, if you will, representing reason and rationality. and on another level, we have the heart; the emotion, what we feel. and as anyone who's been in a relationship knows, these two entities don't often agree. in fact, they seem to go in completely opposite directions.
so when our bohemian revolutionary, listening mainly to the emotional aspects, says "i will always Love you," what does his mind say have to say about this? is the mind thinking, "well, yeah. always, unless all your hair falls out and you lose that sexy tan." or "yeah, until i find someone better" or "yeah, until you gain 500 pounds"? ... maybe. but i don't think it really matters to the hopeless romantics.
i think that the dichotomy that can exist while making decisions (in deciding the correct path to take, etc) is unnecessary. our subject doesn't agree with the mind. he lets the mind do whatever it wants, taking its advice only with a grain of salt. yes, he understands that the mind knows what's going on. he knows that it thinks through things logically, rationally, and intellectually. he knows that the mind can say, "oh, don't be silly. that'll never work." and when the mind tells us these things, most people listen.
but for some of us, it just doesn't matter. for some, the mind is a back-seat driver at best. the mind can offer its rational explanations, and it can try to guide us down certain paths, but these people have learned to follow emotion instead. interestingly, this can get them into lots of trouble.
for our subject, the hopeless romantic, his decision-making process comes from his heart, from emotion, from what he feels. the heart doesn't listen to reason or rationality. it doesn't care about the possibility of a situation. the heart doesn't understand words like "impossible" or "foolish." it doesn't care about the rationality, because everything rational and concrete is moved into the realm of the inconsequential. the heart has no time for useless phrases like "stable" and "reasonable" and "static." it understands only the fire, the dynamic, the passion.
and this is precisely where our subject gets into trouble. it's sort of why we have the term, "hopeless romantics" in the first place. our subject can become completely smitten with another person, completely disregarding things like "possibility" and "rationality."
so where does this leave us? from a rational standpoint, it looks almost grim for the hopeless romantic: how can good come from this? how can it be anything more than simple delusion? well, in some cases, maybe it's not. from a rational standpoint, it seems like a gamble, at best.
but what's the payoff? the Love that the true hopeless romantic feels is not hindered by rational thought. thus, this Love is deeper and fuller and more passionate than the Love one could recieve from any "reasonable" source. sure, it could be delusional; sure, it could be unrequited Love; and sure, it could be completely foolish and no different than living in a fantasy world...
but i'd argue that for our subject, it doesn't matter. he Loves who he Loves because that’s what he believes above all else. it's his pursuit.
because of this, he Loves so fully that reciprocation is not a requisite. for him, he does all he can just to Love. now of course, he desires the reciprocation, he wants to be Loved back more than anything... but he doesn’t need it. he can be content from just... Loving.
this is why when he says, "i Love you," he means it forever. he means that part of him will always Love, because the aspects of life such as "rationality" and "reason" won't slowly erode at the emotion. it's permanent because he believes in Love more than any other thing. that it is all that matters -- all you need. and he believes that no matter what happens in his life, even when other objects of desire come along, that somewhere inside, always, part of the emotion will remain.
when he says, "i Love you," he means it forever.
<home>