This is a rare colour photograph from 1940’s America. I think it sums-up quite nicely my views on what the correct mind-set in marriage should be.
I tried [and failed] to find a second, contrasting, ‘classical’ image of romantic love… you know the ones I mean… the ones with the bisexualised angst-riidden prince/poet licking the shoes of some lazy, spoiled princess. But perhaps my words have done a better job.
P.S. - Is there any evidence of ‘romantic love’ existing before [size=150]all [/size]media ?.. including poetry and paintings ?
.
Any evidence that it didn’t? Besides, poetry and paintings aren’t media in the same sense as what I think you are talking about are. They’re arts. They’re aren’t contrived from some outside source to convince us of something against our nature; they come from within us, they’re reflections of our nature. As for you descriptions of the romantic legends of old, I think you and I have differant views on the importance of mythology to the psyche, but that can’t be helped…
As for the picture, it’s a wonderful photo indeed and it does indeed serve as a reminder of marriage as a survial unit, though I read it differantly than you do I’m sure. I do not see a lack of romantic love in this photograph, I just see it in a differant form, love tempered by hardship.
Once again, as I have been saying all along, how is one person to define a notion as subjective a love for all of us. The correct mind-set in marriage? If two people are to come to you and tell you that they’ve been married for fourty years and though they’ve had hard times they still love each other, are you to tell them that what they feel is wrong? That their feelings are illusions? Unlike thoughts which can twist and turn to fit situations, feelings do not lie; they’re plain statements unconditioned by the needs of logic. You can try to tell yourself “I love this” or “I hate this” and it’s quite possible you could be lying to yourself, unless you back up those statements with feelings which do not arrange themselves in sentances or orders and are completely spontaneous.
For you maybe romantic love does not truly exsist, at least not as a conscious possibility right now. I just think you’re trying to make a blanket statement based on your own experience
A line from the movie ‘Dead Poets Society’ has just sprung to mind… the one about language/poetry being invented/advanced for the sole purpose of ‘wooing women’. A little bit simplistic, I know, but perhaps this is more true for the ‘less than alpha male’. A man would do well to bear this in mind and not allow himself to be emotionally influenced/corrupted by such ‘woman winning’ tools.
Is ‘romantic love’ just a mythical notion… an intangible ‘bunch of flowers and a box of chocolates’ ?
.
Starting at the end again, I take issue with the phrase “just a mythical notion,” or the dissmissal of such notions as a “bunch of flowers” etc. etc. I do not believe that mythological motifs that have been extremely prevalent throughout human history and find such resonance on many levels with so many people are mere wish fufillment. Like I’ve said many times, I very much believe in Jung’s idea of dreams and myth expressing universal longings from the subconcious, not the simple wishings of the ego.
Anyway, to the earlier thing: " A man would do well to bear this in mind and not allow himself to be emotionally influenced/corrupted by such ‘woman winning’ tools."
Again, as usual, I must take issue. Emotionally influenced/corrupted? That’s an interesting way of putting it. You believe emotions are a corrupting force, but I must ask how, how can emotions corrupt a man (or woman for that matter)? I get the sense that you fear your intellect is under threat from your emotions in such situations, that your irrational self will overwhelm the rational. Now, if you choose to live a life of pure intellect like a kind of monk in a rationalist monestary, then you’re right, flee from your emotions by all means, (reminded of Dr. Spock again…) As for me, I see no reason to fear that which is of my own mind, indeed, I welcome it. I do not find that my emotions can corrupt me anymore than my thoughts and if I am to be led by my emotions then let them lead me where they may. Some of man’s greatest accomplishments have resulted from emotional drive; hatred, sympathy, sadness, love, etc. have all pushed mankind outward and inward to new heights and depths. I can’t really understand the idea of being corrupted by an emotion, instead I see it as another intregal, especially dynamic part of the mind as a whole.
for me, i strongly believe in sternberg’s triangular theory of love (and this is the kind of love couples share with each other) wherein love is composed of 3 basic elements: passion, intimacy and commitment.
passion - is the heat, how you lust and wish to be with each other, etc.
intimacy - is how well you know each other, a feeling best friends have for each other
commitment - is, um, well, commitment; but not necessarily just the act of seeing one person, but also how you share feelings only with your partner and not with anybody else.
the absence of one can mean probable disaster. the overpowering level of one can pressure your partner. there has to be a dynamic balance between the three elements - this is why it is as important to have fights, as much as how you can also be really sweet to each other.
Anyway Dan, that’s putting it a bit simply, but yes. However there are vastly differant levels of love ranging from just liking something (i love this burrito,) to euphoric love involved in the higher stages of spirituality and poetry and all that.
