Assignment Title: “What Is Love (To Me)?”
Due Date: Flexible—but sooner means fresher signal.
Format: Blog post. Public, personal, honest. The usual.
Objective: To clarify your internal definition of love, in all its shades and dimensions.
I've spent a lifetime playing in, cataloging, and experiencing the different types of love (eros, philia, storge, agape, ludus, pragma, philautia); their interaction within me, within others, and the and fluidity they share within. More recently, I've been asked pointedly by friends, lovers, and therapists the difference between loving someone and being in love, which is always difficult to articulate to those who have either not studied the Greek philosophies, or never experienced an emotional connection strong enough to safely reconsider the meaning of their own existence from behavior to worldview, or who may not even acknowledge or understand there is a direct, manipulatable nerve running through each iteration between worldview and behavior which can (and should) be accessed, questioned, and redefined constantly in almost real-time as new data comes in for assimilation. This is how assimilation works - through constant application of new information by way of behavior/value/belief/worldview synthesis. Otherwise, what are we even doing? Collecting information is not knowledge; utilizing it is.
Philosophies are fantastic when we adhere only to the parts which resonate within us across a broad spectrum of them, rather than focusing on highly specific tenants of only one. That is the opposite of flexibility and open-mindedness. Or, as my hetero-lifemate often puts it, "epistemologically unsound." Yet this is what people cling to; root, which is why it is so very difficult to unlearn. I'm the king of justifying not doing...well, anything based upon level of effort alone and even I can't sit idly by if what I thought was real or true wasn't. I'll put in the work because the payoff is astronomical compared to not - which is where level of effort is often misunderstood, in its return on investment. So of course I'm going to do the work.
And yet.
We're all starting at different points and forging unique, individual paths. Sometimes those paths converge, other times they never come into contact. Those which do converge sometimes later diverge - which is not only wholly acceptable, it should be expected given the mechanics of pathing coupled with the totality of life. All we're doing is arguing duration, and that's based solely upon attachment. I'm of two minds where, "attachment type" is concerned. One is that I practice secure attachment because of who I am - how I see/interact with the world (which likely led to my immersion into polyamory - true polyamory - not the kind which is used to justify bad behavior). The other being the Buddhist philosophy that attachment is the root of all suffering. If that's true, my suffering style is secure suffering. All things have a beginning and an end. Why subjugate ourselves over something as petty as its duration? So if we cling to attachment because to be without is suffering, and attachment itself is also suffering, are we simply picking the lesser of two sufferings? Why go through life with that mindset at all? Instead perhaps, let us take what resonates and create something which works for us, and seek out those who may share our vision - or better yet, those who don't so we may learn from them, and perhaps leave a little of ourselves.
Speaking of things not meant to be mastered, rather practiced, enter compersion: Joy from a loved one's joy, especially in their connection with others - the opposite of jealousy. Awkwardly in my life I've experienced this only in spurts. Those who agree to it, then deny any responsibility when faced with it, those who live their lives according to it, those who want it, but struggle with it, those who believe they can handle, but admit they cannot, those who outright refuse to consider anything outside complete capitulation exists in the world, and those who choose to use fault and blame while simultaneously denying their own responsibilities in how things progressed to the point they choose to wield re-evaluation without provocation as a weapon to control others rather than its purpose as a tool for self-reflection (yes, that actually happened). Auspiciously, in my FB memories today I ran across a quote from Maya Angelou in which exactly three people felt compelled to ♥ react - and I didn't even have to guess who the three were:![[profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
michelle1963, Cassie, and codekitten
Compersion means even if they're in the arms of another lover over me. This is why I'm friends with all my lovers save two. I will freely offer my tears and my doubts and fears in order to have those hard conversations because loving relationships deserve that; demand it. And I will liberate not with permission, but with love - even when it hurts - because that is how we also liberate ourselves from old patterns which no longer serve us. And I respect those who are willing to have the hard conversations as well, the one who say, "I tried to practice compersion and the struggle is too much for me to bear." That is understandable - being magnificent is not effortless. The two lovers with which I am not friends? The two who feigned ignorance about decades of discussion and chose instead to pursue an attempt at control while using both fault and blame as their weapon of choice even after (ostensibly) knowing that duo is not only ineffective, but exceedingly telling. On a related note, I've recently learned the hard way that quiet introspection does not always equal emotional maturity - a lesson I won't soon forget.
Yet one of the most difficult lessons this past year was to accept the truth of things. I'm working on allowing. On receiving. On being present in the moment. Earlier this month I posted:
The level to which I rely upon emotional connection to guide me was brought into question - and not unfairly so. It got me to thinking more about emotional connection - never a bad things when one relies upon it so heavily. What did I unearth? That perhaps emotional connection changes over time as we do. Perhaps reliance upon emotional connection is as varied as the personality types which would utilize them. Perhaps - just perhaps, the importance we individually place upon them is directly related to our trust in, and experience within it.
As for me, I'll continue slipping into and out of eros, philia, storge, agape, ludus, pragma, philautia seeking that connection and the subsequent combination which fits; which works for us both. Because love is the rug which really ties the room together.
Due Date: Flexible—but sooner means fresher signal.
Format: Blog post. Public, personal, honest. The usual.
Objective: To clarify your internal definition of love, in all its shades and dimensions.
I've spent a lifetime playing in, cataloging, and experiencing the different types of love (eros, philia, storge, agape, ludus, pragma, philautia); their interaction within me, within others, and the and fluidity they share within. More recently, I've been asked pointedly by friends, lovers, and therapists the difference between loving someone and being in love, which is always difficult to articulate to those who have either not studied the Greek philosophies, or never experienced an emotional connection strong enough to safely reconsider the meaning of their own existence from behavior to worldview, or who may not even acknowledge or understand there is a direct, manipulatable nerve running through each iteration between worldview and behavior which can (and should) be accessed, questioned, and redefined constantly in almost real-time as new data comes in for assimilation. This is how assimilation works - through constant application of new information by way of behavior/value/belief/worldview synthesis. Otherwise, what are we even doing? Collecting information is not knowledge; utilizing it is.
Philosophies are fantastic when we adhere only to the parts which resonate within us across a broad spectrum of them, rather than focusing on highly specific tenants of only one. That is the opposite of flexibility and open-mindedness. Or, as my hetero-lifemate often puts it, "epistemologically unsound." Yet this is what people cling to; root, which is why it is so very difficult to unlearn. I'm the king of justifying not doing...well, anything based upon level of effort alone and even I can't sit idly by if what I thought was real or true wasn't. I'll put in the work because the payoff is astronomical compared to not - which is where level of effort is often misunderstood, in its return on investment. So of course I'm going to do the work.
And yet.
We're all starting at different points and forging unique, individual paths. Sometimes those paths converge, other times they never come into contact. Those which do converge sometimes later diverge - which is not only wholly acceptable, it should be expected given the mechanics of pathing coupled with the totality of life. All we're doing is arguing duration, and that's based solely upon attachment. I'm of two minds where, "attachment type" is concerned. One is that I practice secure attachment because of who I am - how I see/interact with the world (which likely led to my immersion into polyamory - true polyamory - not the kind which is used to justify bad behavior). The other being the Buddhist philosophy that attachment is the root of all suffering. If that's true, my suffering style is secure suffering. All things have a beginning and an end. Why subjugate ourselves over something as petty as its duration? So if we cling to attachment because to be without is suffering, and attachment itself is also suffering, are we simply picking the lesser of two sufferings? Why go through life with that mindset at all? Instead perhaps, let us take what resonates and create something which works for us, and seek out those who may share our vision - or better yet, those who don't so we may learn from them, and perhaps leave a little of ourselves.
Speaking of things not meant to be mastered, rather practiced, enter compersion: Joy from a loved one's joy, especially in their connection with others - the opposite of jealousy. Awkwardly in my life I've experienced this only in spurts. Those who agree to it, then deny any responsibility when faced with it, those who live their lives according to it, those who want it, but struggle with it, those who believe they can handle, but admit they cannot, those who outright refuse to consider anything outside complete capitulation exists in the world, and those who choose to use fault and blame while simultaneously denying their own responsibilities in how things progressed to the point they choose to wield re-evaluation without provocation as a weapon to control others rather than its purpose as a tool for self-reflection (yes, that actually happened). Auspiciously, in my FB memories today I ran across a quote from Maya Angelou in which exactly three people felt compelled to ♥ react - and I didn't even have to guess who the three were:
michelle1963, Cassie, and codekitten
“If you need permission to go, I liberate you. You see, love liberates; it doesn’t bind. Love says I love you — I love you if you’re in China. I love you if you’re across town. I love you if you’re in Harlem. I love you. I would like to be near you. I would like to have your arms around me. I would like to hear your voice in my ear but that’s not possible now. So I love you. Go.”
Compersion means even if they're in the arms of another lover over me. This is why I'm friends with all my lovers save two. I will freely offer my tears and my doubts and fears in order to have those hard conversations because loving relationships deserve that; demand it. And I will liberate not with permission, but with love - even when it hurts - because that is how we also liberate ourselves from old patterns which no longer serve us. And I respect those who are willing to have the hard conversations as well, the one who say, "I tried to practice compersion and the struggle is too much for me to bear." That is understandable - being magnificent is not effortless. The two lovers with which I am not friends? The two who feigned ignorance about decades of discussion and chose instead to pursue an attempt at control while using both fault and blame as their weapon of choice even after (ostensibly) knowing that duo is not only ineffective, but exceedingly telling. On a related note, I've recently learned the hard way that quiet introspection does not always equal emotional maturity - a lesson I won't soon forget.
Yet one of the most difficult lessons this past year was to accept the truth of things. I'm working on allowing. On receiving. On being present in the moment. Earlier this month I posted:
"...I've started seeing emotional connection as the hub of a wagon wheel, with choice but one of the many actions at the furthest end of the various spokes (emphasis mine); without which, "choice" is nothing more than an illusion. It is that emotional connection which gives choice its power - keeps it in power, and renders all attempts at thwarting null and void. Choice without emotional connection is empty - it cannot withstand onslaught. When we choose to act or react, it is the emotional connection behind it which empowers its effectiveness."
The level to which I rely upon emotional connection to guide me was brought into question - and not unfairly so. It got me to thinking more about emotional connection - never a bad things when one relies upon it so heavily. What did I unearth? That perhaps emotional connection changes over time as we do. Perhaps reliance upon emotional connection is as varied as the personality types which would utilize them. Perhaps - just perhaps, the importance we individually place upon them is directly related to our trust in, and experience within it.
As for me, I'll continue slipping into and out of eros, philia, storge, agape, ludus, pragma, philautia seeking that connection and the subsequent combination which fits; which works for us both. Because love is the rug which really ties the room together.
