Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hao.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!woods From: woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: The role of love in a happy life Message-ID: <1449@hao.UUCP> Date: Mon, 8-Apr-85 20:49:40 EST Article-I.D.: hao.1449 Posted: Mon Apr 8 20:49:40 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 10-Apr-85 06:40:56 EST References: <338@boulder.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO Lines: 109 > The question is: What is the proper role for love in one's life? > What importance should it have; how much effort should one put into finding > it; is it vital to a happy life? The "proper" role for love is nonexistent. Whatever role it currently has for you is the way things are; why make judgments like this? As for how much "effort" you should put into it: that's another belief you have; it has to be hard and it requires "effort". Why not just take whatever comes up for you? I guarantee if you just "be there" for people, love will naturally come your way. The more you worry about it, the more uptight and less "real" you will be, and the less likely you are to find it. > You see, I have encountered two very different attitudes with > respect to this question. The first is the one I was raised with, and > it holds that love is everything. It is. But, love doesn't always have to look like this ideal you have built up in your head. It can look a lot of different ways. I don't have a traditional SO-type relationship right now, and yet I give and receive love with lots of people, and I find it very satisfying. > anybody who needs love > to live a happy life is putting {his, her} happiness in the hands of others, This is true. You do not *need* love, it is just there. I think you confuse needs with wants. You do not have to put your happiness in the hands of others; there is plenty of love in this world for you, if you will just be willing to see it. It doesn't always look like the stories. Remember, it seldom turns out like it does in the song... > I have encountered this sort of > reasoning in "self help" books I have read, and in people who have gone > through certain types of therapy or awareness courses. As one of those who has done one of these "awareness courses", I can say that the most important thing I became aware of is that love truly is all around me. It just doesn't always look like I believe it should look. If I stop blinding myself to it, there's plenty to keep me happy. > To somebody (like me) who tries to apply logic to all situations, such > reasoning holds a certain amount of appeal. You're an analyzer, like me. Trying to understand things is just a way of resisting the way things actually are, a very energy-draining and thoroughly frustrating occupation. Understanding is worthless; you must accept the world the way it is and live within it. > To be able to count on being happy, I have to fill in all of my needs myself Count on? there ain't no such thing as guaranteed happiness, or even emotional security, for that matter. And you can't create love by yourself. By definition, love is a transfer of feeling between two or more people. > Perhaps I should > just give up on trying to find happiness in others. Now we're getting somewhere. Stop trying and start experiencing, and what you desire will come to you. > But the fact remains: the two times in my short life that I have > felt love for another with my entire being, and known that the other person > was feeling the same way about me, were the very happiest times of my life. Good. You're in touch with what you want. Just realize that where other people are concerned, you have no control. All you can do is be there for people, experience fully everything that comes up for you, and be ready to see when that which you desire so greatly presents itself. > There is another issue with the "love is a luxury" viewpoint that > really scares me. If I conclude that I have to build a life where I don't > need to love and be loved, the part of me that says otherwise has to be > somehow suppressed. Suppressed? Why? Why not just be realistic and change "need" to "want"? That's the truth, isn't it? I'd have to say that I want pretty much the same things for myself as you have expressed a desire for here. Yet, I have had this only a small portion of my time on this earth, but I am still here. Prima facae evidence that I do not *need* it. Here's what I'm getting from you: you think you have to have a committed relationship with a woman to experience love. Perhaps if I share some of my recent experiences with you you will get an idea what I'm driving at through this entire article. I have a lady friend with whom I am extremely close. She lives 1300 miles away and has another close male friend/lover there. I only get to see her two or three days a month at most. And yet, I experience that intense love you speak of when I am with her, because I LIVE IN THE MOMENT. I do not allow thoughts of what she will be doing the next night with her other lover to detract from my experience of love when I am with her. Nor does the fact that this does not fit the "traditional" model of a love relationship diminish the love I experience with her. It's real. It feels good while it is happening, and that is ALL that counts. > If I really modify my viewpoint to one that does not need to be loved, what > happens to my ability to love? Well, nothing, of course! If anything it will increase, because your eyes will open to the other ways love can show itself. > So, those of you who have made it this far, what do you think? I > value your opinions. Well, you've heard mine, for whatever they are worth to you. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!noao} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@NCAR ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY "Please don't dominate the rap Jack, if you got nothing new to say..."