Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site peora.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!petsd!peora!jer From: jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: The role of love in a happy life Message-ID: <803@peora.UUCP> Date: Thu, 11-Apr-85 08:49:12 EST Article-I.D.: peora.803 Posted: Thu Apr 11 08:49:12 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 13-Apr-85 03:11:26 EST References: <338@boulder.UUCP> Organization: Perkin-Elmer SDC, Orlando, Fl. Lines: 62 > The question is: What is the proper role for love in one's life? ... 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. ... The second view is that love is a luxury. Since "true" > love really does require that the feeling flow in both directions, anybody > who needs love to live a happy life is putting {his, her} happiness in the > hands of others ... What do I live my life for, anyway, if it is not the > strongest happiness I know? ... If I really modify my viewpoint to one > that does not need to be loved, what happens to my ability to love? I may > never be able to really let myself be immersed in that sort of emotion > again. I think that would be a severe loss. You're right. The "answer" lies in between the two positions you have stated here. Your initial opinion is the more basic one to human nature. Human beings are by nature social beings; and beings that (unlike many, but not all, animals) form lifelong relationships. People, by nature, need love. On the other hand, it is a romantic viewpoint in the notion that "love is everything"; that assertion in itself is a romantic assertion, since clearly it's not everything (there are other vital needs as well). The viewpoint most commonly expressed here, and in self-help books, is an extreme opposite to that viewpoint. It's expressed, I think, for the fundamental reason that many people today are highly dependent emotionally on others. The whole philosophy of our culture, which is based on a path- of-least-resistance/maximize-happiness approach, serves to preserve that emotional dependence. Many people go through a large portion of their lives successfully existing in this dependent state. But then they encounter some trauma such that the source of their support no longer exists; and that is when they seek the self-help books and the philosophies surrounding them. These books offer an opposite viewpoint, that you can exist on your own, independent of others. (Likewise books and philosophies dealing with loneliness take this approach to keep one from falling into a self-destructive despair, in which loneliness is preserved.) But neither viewpoint is "correct," nor really healthy. Few people achieve a true middle ground; these are what A. H. Maslow called "fully functioning human beings" (a psychology around which an unfortunately misguided, I think, popular psychological cult has evolved). But it is the middle ground for which you must strive. You must be capable of the unreserved love you described, and which you worry (justly) about losing. Simultaneously, you must avoid an unhealthy emotional dependence on others. Abraham Maslow's _The_Farther_Reaches_of_Human_Nature_ and _Toward_a_Psy- chology_of_Being_ are books that discuss the basic problem you are referring to. Maslow (who is possibly better known for his work in "eupsychian management") had a concern that is described well by a story he told about a psychology book he had as an undergraduate. On the cover of the book was a picture of a row of smiling babies; and underneath these, a row of scowling subway riders, and the caption, "What Happened?" Or, if you are more into popular literature, the song "To Be Over," by Yes, is on the same subject. At least, that's my opinion... -- Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642