Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuts.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!whuts!amc
From: amc@whuts.UUCP (Andy Cohill)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Living alone
Message-ID: <253@whuts.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 31-Aug-85 09:35:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: whuts.253
Posted: Sat Aug 31 09:35:22 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 1-Sep-85 06:27:33 EDT
References: <1296@hound.UUCP> <5290001@acf4.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 33

>  What you are calling "love" is what I would call infatuation,
> while what you call "commitment" is much closer to what I think of as
> love. To me, love is a fundamentally irrational commitment to another
> person which is so strong that it will keep the two of you together even
> when staying together seems counter to one's own best interests at that
> moment.
> 	Is it possible that the main reason that the divorce rate is
> so high these days, is because people are mistaking what I've called
> infatuation for what I call love?
> 
> -  From the Crow's Nest  -                      Kenn Barry

Interesting idea. I think that we agree in principle, but I am not
sure that I like your use of the word "infatuation". I have always
thought of that as a very short-lived kind of emotion (say, less
than three months, to be completely arbitrary). I agree that love is
irrational, but I do not believe that commitment is. Let's try this:

Love is a fundamentally irrational *attachment* to another person.

Commitment (to paraphrase someone else) (Elizabeth?) is a decision
to do whatever it takes to stay together.

And I think that it is possible, in a sad kind of way, to love
someone without making a commitment.

Best regards,
Andy Cohill
{allegra|ihnp4}houxm!whuxl!whuts!amc

"Love, I think, is an instant's fusing of shadow and substance."
 
                     James Branch Cabell