Love vs. Practicality

[silverwhisper]

yank: you know how in certain types of investigations the motto is "follow the money?" in this instance, i would say "follow the love". i don't believe it's possible to be in love w/ multiple people at the same time.

phaedre: i know enough folks who were raised by parents in unhappy marriages to feel that staying together for children is often (not always, mind) an excuse. i've often said that the second most powerful force in the 'verse (first: murphy's law) is inertia. people resist change b/c change is hard.

guys, i don't need to tell you that a marriage, like any relationship, requires both parties reaching towards each other or it will wither. one person cannot keep a marriage alive--at least, not meaningfully. at some point, only one person trying is rather a lot like a life support device on a patient in a hospital bed who's brain-dead: technically alive but for most intents and purposes, not so much.

so yank, in the example you cite: if the existing marriages are happy ones, that implies both partners are working to keep it healthy.

phaedre: in your example, you make clear that love within the marriages isn't really a factor. and we all know that marriage requires sacrifice. but you know, at some point, if you keep giving and giving w/out getting anything in return, you're left w/ nothing, no?

ed

 

[midwestyankee]

yank: you know how in certain types of investigations the motto is "follow the money?" in this instance, i would say "follow the love". i don't believe it's possible to be in love w/ multiple people at the same time.

<snip>

so yank, in the example you cite: if the existing marriages are happy ones, that implies both partners are working to keep it healthy.

<snip>

ed

We're going to have to agree to disagree then, because I firmly believe that it's possible to love two or more people - and to love them well. M. Scott Peck believes it also, by the way. Check out The Road Less Travelled for his explanation of how this works.

 

[silverwhisper]

yank, maybe it's different for you than it is for me, but any time in my life that i've thought i might have been, i was kidding myself. however, as you're a smart guy, i wager that isn't the case for you.

ed

 

[bobsgirl]

yank: to each other, did you mean, or otherwise?

bg: we appear to disagree.

ed

Yes, we do. But I heart you anyway.

 

[midwestyankee]

yank, maybe it's different for you than it is for me, but any time in my life that i've thought i might have been, i was kidding myself. however, as you're a smart guy, i wager that isn't the case for you.

ed

I'm not claiming that I am or can do this, only that it's a possibility.

 

[bobsgirl]

We're going to have to agree to disagree then, because I firmly believe that it's possible to love two or more people - and to love them well. M. Scott Peck believes it also, by the way. Check out The Road Less Travelled for his explanation of how this works.

Which is an excellent book, that deserves to be read over and over. And I thank you for recommending it to me, once upon a time, sir P.

 

[silverwhisper]

yank: in matters relating to love, we can only go w/ our own experiences.

bg: you're a sweetheart. you know that, don't you? :>

ed

 

[midwestyankee]

yank: in matters relating to love, we can only go w/ our own experiences.

bg: you're a sweetheart. you know that, don't you? :>

ed

If this were really true, how would we ever advance beyond our adolescent experiences? We also learn from the experiences of others. Were it not so, no one would read Shakespeare's sonnets.

 

[Phaedre]

I've not read that book Yank but a quick wiki skim suggests it might be very interesting. I shall add it to my wish list.

I am torn between agreeing that it is possible to love more than one individual at a time and arguing that if that does occur then the types of love are not the same.

 

[silverwhisper]

yank: it's true b/c we filter everything we learn through the lens of our experiences.

ed

 

[midwestyankee]

I've not read that book Yank but a quick wiki skim suggests it might be very interesting. I shall add it to my wish list.

I am torn between agreeing that it is possible to love more than one individual at a time and arguing that if that does occur then the types of love are not the same.

Phaedre, I recommend this book highly. I've re-read it nearly every year for many years. As for your suspicion about having two loves, bear in mind that loving two people in a similar way is possible but requires a great deal of energy and focus because of how much attention you have to give both of them.

 

[Phaedre]

Phaedre, I recommend this book highly. I've re-read it nearly every year for many years. As for your suspicion about having two loves, bear in mind that loving two people in a similar way is possible but requires a great deal of energy and focus because of how much attention you have to give both of them.

That would make sense, if it's possible to love one's children (plural) then why shouldn't it be possible to love multiple persons in a more adult way?

 

[wicked woman]

Weighing in on this one.


To answer your question EJ, like BG, I've found that love doesn't conquer all. While there are some practicalities that it can overcome...a lot even...there are some that it can not.

Agreeing with Yank that yes it is possible to love more than one person romantically at the same time.

As for the book Yank recommended Phardre, I'll add another recommendation that it's an excellent read...and adding to BG's thanks to Yank for recommending it in his old Defining Love thread.

 

[Quoll]

Ahem...

Weighing in on this one.


To answer your question EJ, like BG, I've found that love doesn't conquer all. While there are some practicalities that it can overcome...a lot even...there are some that it can not.

Agreeing with MWY that yes it is possible to love more than one person romantically at the same time.

As for the book MWY recommended Phardre, I'll add another recommendation that it's an excellent read...and adding to BG's thanks to MWY for recommending it in his old Defining Love thread.

 

[bobsgirl]

Ahem...

Oops.

I missed that one too, pq.

How are you, cutie pie?

 

[Quoll]

Oops.

I missed that one too, pq.

How are you, cutie pie?

Sore, tired, busy, sore, tired, busy.

 

[wicked woman]

Ahem...

thank you sweet quoll

 

[wicked woman]

Sore, tired, busy, sore, tired, busy.

(((quoll)))

 

[bobsgirl]

Sore, tired, busy, sore, tired, busy.

Rest, sleep, relax, rest, sleep, relax.

 

[SweetErika]

As for your suspicion about having two loves, bear in mind that loving two people in a similar way is possible but requires a great deal of energy and focus because of how much attention you have to give both of them.

I don't know if loving multiple people requires more energy for me, but having several intense/involved relationships certainly does. IOW, the emotion is free, but the actions require an investment. I think the same can be said for most things; it doesn't take more effort to love my mom, for instance, but it can take a lot to maintain a good relationship with her - we have to communicate, spend time together, help each other, commit thoughtful acts, etc.

As for love overcoming practicality/circumstance, I think it usually does in some way eventually. To use EJ's example, if the love and desire was really there, the crack dealer would make some changes or they would find some kind of compromise. Similarly, loving spouses will find a way to incorporate the other relationship(s) or decide their love supercedes others, people will make tough decisions and leave poor relationships for better ones, find new homes, careers, etc.

 

[midwestyankee]

SweetErika, you and I are on the same page, more or less. As I see it, love is something you do and not something that you feel. Your example of nurturing relationships is exactly what I was talking about. It's a lot of work and a great deal of attention to do a good job of nurturing a relationship. To apply that same energy and effort to multiple relationships not only increases the loving workload, it complicates the relationships as well. This adds more demand on one's capacity for paying attention to others' needs and attending to them.

That said, it's not impossible to maintain multiple relationships of romantic love - but it is hard work.

As for love overcoming obstacles, I'm not sure that I buy the underlying assumption that there is something called "love" that exists apart from our actions. I see it more as a case of our desire to continue a relationship and to continue nurturing it into an even better state that conquers all. It is that desire that enables us to conquer practical barriers keeping us from acting on our love.

 

[EJFan]

SweetErika, you and I are on the same page, more or less. As I see it, love is something you do and not something that you feel.

[snip]

As for love overcoming obstacles, I'm not sure that I buy the underlying assumption that there is something called "love" that exists apart from our actions. I see it more as a case of our desire to continue a relationship and to continue nurturing it into an even better state that conquers all. It is that desire that enables us to conquer practical barriers keeping us from acting on our love.

i can wrap my mind around this concept... i'd never really given it any thought but it makes some sense to me. i'm just wondering, however, what is it that compels us to do the things that reflect love if it's not the feeling of love to begin with? are you saying that the emotion and the action are independent of one another? am i misunderstanding what you're saying or would it be possible to act in the way you describe without having a sense of love?

 

[midwestyankee]

i can wrap my mind around this concept... i'd never really given it any thought but it makes some sense to me. i'm just wondering, however, what is it that compels us to do the things that reflect love if it's not the feeling of love to begin with? are you saying that the emotion and the action are independent of one another? am i misunderstanding what you're saying or would it be possible to act in the way you describe without having a sense of love?

In my experience, the feeling of love is something other than love. It's a complex of emotions that result in the desire to be around someone and to bond with that person. The feeling is not the love; the love is what you do to nurture the relationship.

Yes, the emotion and the actions are independent of one another. It is entirely possible and common to perform the same actions without having feelings of romantic attachment. We act very lovingly toward our children and parents (and spouses occcasionally) but without a morsel of romantic attachment. For that matter, we act lovingly towards complete strangers sometimes - think of people giving a hand to a homeless person or working hard to raise funds to help a child get a needed organ transplant operation. Loving acts are not restricted to romantic arrangements.

I spent a lot more time thinking and writing about this a couple years ago. If you browse this thread: Defining Love that I started a couple years ago in The Playground, you'll find several short essays on the subject that are much more articulate than I can be this morning.

 

[Munachi]

i suppose then i have to ask what was meant in the OP - the romantic feeling towards someone, that most people would call "love", or those actions that you say define love...

i guess what you could say, is that practicalities can get in the way of love really developing. i.e. when you meet someone who at first is just a crush or something, but you think there is a big potential of it developing to somethign serious, you think they could end up being the one you want to be with for the rest of your life - but because of practicalities, you never get a chance to really find out...

for example a bit over a year ago, i thought i was "in love" (though maybe i didn't know the other person well enough yet to be in love, but i thought there is a very big potential, more than i have ever felt with anyone else). he lives in another country, is a lot poorer than me (and being a student, i am not rich either), and i had to go home after being with him for about three months. of course, there were options, but all would have implied a radical change of life style for at least one of us, and that of course with the risk of after a few years realizing it wasn't what we thought it was, after all. so at least in my case, i let practicalities win.

 

[Flyin_Free]

EJ, i firmly believe that if genuine love exists, everything else should become secondary.

ed

I disagree with you.

i don't know if this will just restate the the original post or clarify it... but what i was sort of pondering was this: suppose two people were in love, i mean deeply in love with one another... yet the practicality of life (like a chosen career or other responsibilities) kept them from being functional on the level of daily life as a couple.

to take it to the extreme (for illustration purposes) suppose you were to fall in love with a crack dealer. i know it sounds ridiculous but just suppose for a moment that you have genuine love in your heart for that person, and they for you... yet you know that the love isn't pracitical because they're in constant threat of death, prison, etc. between the two of you, life is wonderful on every level yet there's the reality that the lives you both enjoy can't really be shared.

You have no idea just how close to home this post hit. No, I didn't fall in love with a crack dealer. I'm so anti-drug it's not even funny. Without going into the whole story here on lit I will say that there are some things that love can just not survive. Sometimes no matter how much you love each other, it's just not practical or safe to stay together.