amour inconditionnel
would you be willing to tell your love
you love them conditionally?
or do they, as you, expect unconditional love?
it can only be one or the other
if your love's love is dependent on conditions
how does that make you feel?
are you even-balanced because
your love for them is conditional too?
of course these conditions get enshrined
after serious negotiations,
for everyone wants it all but at least
compromise ensures us enough
a zero-sum game going into love from either side
itches us the wrong way in that out-of-the-way spot,
although we still see how the total sum might be right for us
so we're open to negotiating more for our side
zero sum or compromise?
and if we choose compromise,
that's conditional, leaving us no option
for an unconditional love
if you go ahead anyway and tell your love
you love them unconditionally,
what exactly do you mean?
chances are, people define it differently
is it -- ?
-- loving someone unselfishly, caring about their happiness and doing anything
to help that person feel happiness without expecting anything in return
-- loving the other person despite their flaws, but also loving them because of them
-- loving someone for who they truly are, even when they are unlovable
and in spite of their imperfections and mistakes
-- never ever questioning if you'll feel any other way toward a person. It will always just "be"
-- loving someone without boundaries
-- caring about the happiness of another person without any concern for how it benefits you
-- putting someone first and prioritizing their health and happiness
with no expectation of reward for yourself
So, what exactly do you mean
by unconditional love?
do any of these definitions apply?
you might answer unconditional love
is all of that and more --
if so, then you'd need to explain
how the love you show is any match for all of that,
and saying it's only an ideal one aims at, not expecting to achieve,
is a pale excuse for not really delivering what is promised
and while you're grappling with that
you might try coming to terms with the variety
of divergent viewpoints on unconditional love,
for the nature, realism, and practicality of the whole concept
is not as self-evident as one might expect
About unconditional love some also say
-- it's a naive romantic illusion, reflecting a love that's immature, one that's ignorant of life's stages
-- it's unrealistic since the real world is conditional with reactions to actions and consequences too and you can't escape at least one condition unless you don't care about fidelity, honesty, loyalty, truth
-- it's a denial of the real work that love entails where there's much skill and practice involved supported by a commitment that must be tended and reinforced along the way
-- it's a problem to a relationship since it enables the idea of "being loved for who you are" but this too often becomes validation from outside oneself in order to feel OK, whether or not it's always prudent, wise, or healthy to give a pass to our faults or neglect our potential.
-- it's a problem because it fosters a belief that a perfect relationship will result from it
-- it's a dangerous sentiment because it's impossible for something to exist without attached conditions and an attempt at love under this delusion is nothing but slavish devotion
-- it's a backward concept since putting conditions on love doesn't weaken it, it makes it more honest, thus stronger - everyone represents who they are to another and this may be a partial or mistaken display or the total of it may change as what once was presented is suddenly withdrawn
-- it's a denial of the freedom one should have when expectations on how another person treats you and how they act are in play - it isn't horrible to walk away from someone who treats you poorly, you're just being honest about the fact you want a strong and abiding foundation for love
-- it's ignoring the fact that love is a verb, it's something you do, not something that just happens, thus conditional love can last because it's built on a foundation of realism, not fantasy
-- it's simplistic and errors in not recognizing that loving ourselves is primary before we can love another and a huge part of that self-love is establishing boundaries and conditions around what we'll accept and not-accept
-- it's setting up blind subservience if one manages to practice it while the same isn't reciprocated
-- it's an altruistic goal but breaks down under numerous conditions and for good reason - as much as you might love an alcoholic, a liar, or a cheater unconditionally, this isn't healthy for you as a person
-- it's incomplete and "unconditional positive regard" is closer to the truth - treating the other person with love and respect while maintaining your boundaries and protecting yourself. You don't have to be everything to the other person. The mature version has you recognize that your only obligation, in the face of the other's behavior, is to communicate your message with love and respect. It also means honoring the requests of others when you are able to do so without harming yourself.
-- it's loving someone regardless of circumstance, but not regardless of how they treat you - sometimes loving someone also requires making tough decisions and letting them go.
-- it's counter-intuitive because boundaries are important for one to know their self worth - and those boundaries keep one's self love and self worth healthy
-- it's deceptive because it means one doesn't know what love is -- love is a condition in and of its self -- just as you can't hate someone unconditionally - condition is reason, something to bond you, there has to be a common condition that keeps you together and a limit to what you will take, for what we "won't" do also bonds us
-- it's a depersonalization since it means being loved NOT FOR who i am -- one person is chosen to be with over all others primarily due to conditions, otherwise everybody would and should love everybody all at the same time equally in all the same ways
-- it's a nice concept but not possible as long as the ego-mind is involved
-- it's true as far as love is concerned but trust and respect are still conditional
centers exclusively on romantic love,
that messy domain of feelings, expectations, and super charged desires.
In areas where there's love without romance,
like the biological, hormonal imperative of a mother's love
or the transcendent love of a martyred saint,
the concept is much more easily accepted,
generally since it's seen more as a maternal instinct without choice
or a lofty virtue to aspire to or emulate in approximate ways
rather than a daily practice to be realistically expected in full.
People have no problem discussing and accepting
that which seems too hard for them to achieve but is conveniently out of reach,
it's only when it's presented to them in -- say wedding vows
that cognitive dissonance and hurt feelings may result.
In Christianity, unconditional love is thought to be part of the Four Loves; affection, friendship, eros, and charity. The main use of unconditional in Christianity is the assertion "That God so loved the world..." In other words, God loves the world enough to suffer for us without preconditions. I can't help but wonder if this applied to romantic unconditional love prescribes as necessary our acceptance of whatever suffering our love manifests to us. Suffering is good, otherwise, no doubt, there should be guilt.
In Buddhism one of the most important concepts is called Bodhicitta. There are two kinds of Bodhicitta. They are Relative and Absolute Bodhicitta. In Relative Bodhicitta one learns about the desire to gain the understanding of unconditional love, which in Buddhism is expressed as Loving-Kindness and Compassion. The point is to develop Bodhicitta for all living (sentient) beings. Absolute Bodhicitta is a more esoteric Tantric Teaching. At every moment one has the opportunity to make a choice how to act, and to be completely mindful of one's actions means that in every interaction with another being one will consciously act with Loving-Kindness and Compassion toward every other being no matter what the nature of that interaction. This seems to say, more often than not, we're attempting Relative Bodhicitta but only the holiest of yogis ever manage the Absolute form, which would be the actual practice of unconditional love.
In Islam, unconditional love can only be directed to Allah. Enough said.
There has been some evidence to support a neural basis for unconditional love, showing that it stands apart from other types of love. In a study conducted by Mario Beauregard and his colleagues, using an fMRI procedure, they studied the brain imaging of participants who were shown different sets of images either referring to "maternal love" (unconditional love) or "romantic love". Seven areas of the brain became active when these participants called to mind feelings of unconditional love. Three of these were similar to areas that became active when it came to romantic love. The other four active parts were different, showing certain brain regions associated with rewarding aspects, pleasurable (non sexual) feelings, and human maternal behaviors are activated during the unconditional love portions of the experiment. Through the associations made between the different regions, results show that the feeling of love for someone without the need of being rewarded is different from the feeling of romantic love. This points out biological indications that romantic love falls short of having everything that true unconditional love entails -- three attributes out of seven, to be precise.
Going for the proof, some have developed a logical equation to explain unconditional love based on credences, a term used to measure the degrees of belief rated on a numerical value scale between 0 and 1 - where 1 is being completely certain. Here's the equation based in part on Bayesian probability theory:
From Cr(e∩p)/Cr(e)
To Cr(e)/Cr(e)
To 1 (as anything divided by itself equals 1)
Since Crupdated(p)=Crinitial(p|e), where we have just shown that Crinitial(p|e)=1, then it will always be the case that Crupdated(p)=1 when Crinitial(p)=1, for any e where Cr(e)≠0.
Of course, there are some clever psychologists
and progressive sociologists who spin things
with creative compartmentalization,
resulting in a distinction between
unconditional love
and unconditional relationships.
they claim love (feelings) and relationships (decisions)
can have separate rules and expectations,
thus, it is possible to love someone without limit,
yet still have contingencies placed upon
continuing a relationship with them.
Other researchers measured relationship sanctification
(the perception of the relationship is sacred)
through an individual's rating of their relationship on nine dimensions:
holy, inspiring, blessed, everlasting, awesome, heavenly, spiritual, religious, and mysterious.
From their results it appears that relationship sanctity/sacredness perceptions
do indeed help to buffer against stress, promote positive behaviors between partners,
and result in greater bonding, commitment, and satisfaction too.
Mahoney and associates (1999)
Still others don't feel a need to look that deep
into unconditional love, instead they sum it up by assuring us --
unconditional love may not save your relationship
but managing realistic expectations will --
and so, i guess if we simply keep our expectations low enough
we'll be satisfied and happy and feel loved. Yeah, sure.
From all of this, it appears
universal unconditional love ironically
is more approachable as a concept
than romantic unconditional love.
One wonders why this should be so?
Why should it be easier to envision
unconditional love for all of humanity
than for the one person you're closest to in every way?
Is it because universal unconditional love is nebulous
whereas romantic unconditional love
is down-in-the-trenches, rubber-meets-the-road,
in your face and steeped with specifics and details
moment by moment that are too real
to make into abstractions?
What wisdom is there to be found?
So many quotes one can find are clever, or sentimental, or reasonable
if taken as a sub-set of the reality we actually experience,
but do any of them answer the fully explored question?
"A successful marriage requires falling in love
many times, always with the same person."
- Mignon McLaughlin
"The best and most beautiful things in the world
cannot be seen or even touched - they must be felt
with the heart."
- Helen Keller
"To love for the sake of being loved is human,
but to love for the sake of loving is angelic."
- Alphonse de Lamartine
"Love loves to love love."
-- James Joyce
"Love bears all things, believes all things,
hopes all things, endures all things."
-- Corinthians 13:4-8
"To love is so startling it leaves
little time for anything else."
-- Emily Dickinson
If that last quote is correct, then I wouldn't have time
to contemplate any of this if I were truly in a loving state,
and yet I do not feel as much startled as perplexed.
Maybe I should be studying dogs --
much of the love-literature recommends observing dogs
to see true examples of unconditional love.
To expect it anywhere else seems miraculous.
Perhaps I'm too much in my head and not my heart
and the witty advice from Audrey Hepburn might apply --
"Anyone who does not believe in miracles is not a realist."
Oh yes, I've heard the call to pursue unconditional love,
by now it's an archetypal meme of a society
that loves to delude itself ---
unconditionally.
No comments:
Post a Comment