• I believe that love can be demystified, just as any other emotion can. That is because:
• I am unconvinced that there is a mind/body split. That is, our minds and consciousness are the result of neural activity in our brains, as are emotions.
• Demystifying love would not make it any less beautiful to me.

And a disclaimer: I have never experienced romantic love.

---

As a child I had a very extreme and puritan conception of love; it was an almost metaphysical bond which two people would share, and there was one person in the world who would be your perfect match. A few people were lucky and found that person, but most weren't.

That idea didn't last very long, and today this is my view:

To use an analogy, love is like a house you live in with your significant other. It can be a solid but plain house, a slightly flimsy but lively one; it can be on a solid footing or not. Building that house takes time, or more to the point, more interaction time. I don't believe in love at first sight. I believe in good-foundations-for-love at first sight.

Physical attractiveness is one of the factors that will make the house easier to build. It's a solid natural foundation. Personal interpretations of beauty will of course differ. This is not to say of course that the less than beautiful can not love or be loved, but that the relationship will be built on other merits. Public images defining what constitutes beauty and sex appeal have done a lot of damage to the psychological health of its consumers, but stating that physical appearance is irrelevant would be false.

The other factors which will (hopefully) have a greater bearing on the quality of the house's foundation, are the other person's character, their values, and the quality of their company (how well or otherwise you interact together).

When you judge someone favourably, you decide that his/her values coincide with yours, or that they possess traits you value; that the things which matter to you would matter to him/her, or that s/he will likely behave in a way which you deem to be good or worthy of respect. That is not to say that love across political affiliations are not possible; in that case, both parties would have to find other principles they value above those affiliations (could be anything). If a man holds his politics above all other values (such a person is rare), he could not love a woman with different opinions. On the other hand if the man considers family to be more important than politics, he could love a woman who shares his attitude towards family life.

And as a corollary, if two beautiful lovers considered physical attractiveness to be their highest value, their love would be no less genuine than the love of a man who marries a woman for her virtue and character.

That's the foundation. Building the house involves interaction. Some couples can communicate more in less time, through silence or body language, while others might need to say things more explicitly. Chronologically speaking the first couple is building their house quicker.

Lack of communication, or lack of meaningful communication, causes the house to deteriorate.

Building the house too quickly will sometimes make it unstable. Meaningful communication is like steel girders, whereas trivial banter is like timber studs. Transparency and honesty make for a house with lots of windows and sunlight. Am I taking this analogy too far?

Those are my thoughts. What are yours?
 

---

Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
 
Love is an evil, evil thing and it will rip you apart. Bah! It's the brain unleashing all the joy-hormones it can, messing you up, and making you giddy. *sigh, and look into the past*

Anyway, I don't really know much about love, to be honest. People aren't meant to live by themselves; it is in their nature to make unions. Yet those unions are so beautiful, they transcend the individual so much, that they border on the supernal.
 

---

Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
 
You know what they say; it's better to have loved and lost...
 

---

Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
 
They also say Hah!


 

---

Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
 
I think that even if you love someone and they love you too, you can both still be homeless.

This is coming from a girl who is love and isn't in a relationship with that person as of this week.

As for the analogy, you may find it works for you but I disagree too much to even know where to begin. I always liked a fire analogy...it can warm you and comfort you but be careful cause its dangerous and can kill you. Maybe that's just I'm paranoid and fearful by nature.

That and the idea of two beautiful lovers having a genuine relationship based primarily on their attractiveness...it makes me feel alittle icky inside.

This is all rambling sounding but I would say your analogy may have good advice for "relationships" but I consider "love" to be a separate, though partially intersecting, entity.
 

---

Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
 

quote:

---

That and the idea of two beautiful lovers having a genuine relationship based primarily on their attractiveness...it makes me feel alittle icky inside.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shanna:

I think that even if you love someone and they love you too, you can both still be homeless.

---

quote:

---

She shone for me like the Evening Star. I loved her dearly - but at a distance.

---