The Art of Relationships, Part VIII - feeling your way in... or out

Sometimes I think God is playing with a giant yo-yo (up there somewhere) and the string is attached to my life and just when I think I've developped enough momentum to break free once and for all (so I can hit the ground running), I hear a voice inside my head...

"There you go Nic - enough rope to hang yourself."

Hang myself? What the ---

"Happy now?"

Happy? What do you - HEY!!!

As I get snapped back into that dark whirling mass to start from scratch again.

(For my own good of course).

That's God/The Universe/The Great Mother watching and stepping in as required when I repeatedly ignore my own intuition for an extended period of time.

Gee, thanks Big Guy.

Don't get me wrong, I have free will. Trust me. I do.

The thing is, I've developped enough of a relationship with the divine that I've 'made a deal' with Him/Her because at least I'm smart enough to know my own weakness.

Yes, amid all this broo-hoo-hoo, push n' pull and wondering who's in charge here - the Universe or me - I've been steadfastedly re-organizing my life in such a way that I can get back to manifesting my uber positive vision of what is to become.

But I know myself well enough to also know that I can't do it alone - you know, stay the course - my intuition simply isn't strongly developped enough yet.

And that's when I get pulled into other people's lives. Which is cool. Unless of course, we're not on the same page. Then I'm in trouble. Because it's like a vortex of the wrong kind of energy sucking me in.

So I've asked for signs. Demanded is more like it.

And part of that process has been giving in to those signs as they appear and accepting the fact that although I might not like what I see/hear/feel... I will honor it just the same.

After all, I made the deal.

Because although I'm still having a tough time figuring out if something is right for me, if it's wrong, I want to know. At all cost. Even a broken heart.

And so far, it's worked wonders. All I have to do is wait long enough and sooner or later, I just know.

That's what happened last time. That's why I'm flying solo again.

I have this invisible relationship with Something Else, something bigger, that doesn't have the same veil of self-deception I possess when I want what I want and in order to have it, ignore the stuff that makes me feel awful in exchange for a morsel of bliss.

So when I know I can't do it alone, when I know my intuition is marred by my desire for an authentic connection, (or by desire period), with white knuckles gripping the doorknob as I head out to dig myself deeper and deeper in more emotional bondage, I look up and cry:

"Just give me a bloody sign. A BIG ONE. If he's not right for me, make it so abundantly clear that denial is not an option. Otherwise, I'm in it for the long haul 'cuz I've decided that much. So don't screw around! THIS IS MY HEART WE'RE TALKING ABOUT."

And I walk out the door trusting that circumstances will manifest that will send me a pang. And that pang won't be one of doubt, but rather one of knowing.

It doesn't make it any easier mind you. But there is a certain calm that accompanies the right decision. (You know, after all the crying n' chocolates n' junk food n' stuff).

And of course, there's all those things you genuinely miss for the right reasons too. Just because it wasn't 'long-term right', doesn't mean there wasn't a whole lot of magic.

Sigh.

In retrospect, the signs were there. It was a mismatch. I simply didn't trust my intuition. I pushed whatever bothered me, completely aside. Like they say, love is blind.

Thank God your intuition isn't.

Next time, I think I'll let my intuition be my seeing-eye dog right from the start.

But right now, I still have to train that puppy.

------

The Art of Relationships - Part VII - Do opposites attract? and Love in the cosmos

Do opposites really attract?

Do people with opposing views inherently possess something we are magnetically drawn to because they 'complete' us?

Do we need them? On a practical level? Personality level? Soul level? At all? Are we incomplete without them? Relegated to wandering this lonely universe solo from one relationship to another until we accept this necessity as part of our human development?

Is that how we balance who we are?

God help me if that's the case.

And what exactly do we mean by opposite? Should a kind, gentle person get involved with a someone who tortures small animals for kicks?

Should a shyster date an honest Joe?

Should a person who sees the world in black and white date a person who sees it in shades of gray?

Maybe. But I for one, can't see oh... an Atheist and a devotee of some religious sect making it work for instance.

Call me crazy.

'Opposites' implies diverging views.

This can be a good thing as it has the potential of invoking some pretty heated debates which can lead to even more 'fun'. But not necessarily.

Someone might end up sleeping on the couch.

It depends on whether you're arguing which is better? 'coke' or 'pepsi'? or whether the thing upon which you differ completely is something you hold dear to your heart and any significant differences reveals a fundamental rift in your mindsets.

That, can be problematic.

So I don't think opposing views are the source of balance as much as someone who can tip the emotional scales in such a way that when you're heavy on the 'heavy' stuff, they lighten you up.

When you're tapped out, they can tap in to fill you up.

When you're stressed, their very presence eases your burden.

And when your cage is rattled, they open the door and let you out to express yourself - wild mane n' all - without judgement, but with an eye of stoic amusement, knowing all the while who you really are underneath the mayhem.

And it must be reciprocated.

Now that's balance.

Do opposites attract?

They most certainly do.

Can they sustain it? Well, I'll get back to that in a moment...

A few weeks ago, I asked my eldest whether he thought true love existed.

Knowing he's been in a wonderful relationship for the last six years, I was expecting a stellar response that would mirror mine - "but of course"! (Then we'd share a beer and I could go about my day pleased with myself that I had done such a good job raising him).

Instead, he gave me some sort of mumbo jumbo biological response that didn't sit well with me as I never intended to raise a doubting Thomas, yet here he was, making an argument for logic, and (I thought), leaving love behind in the dust.

(So much for all those fairytales I used to read him).

Anyway, it went something like this:

You can relegate everything in the universe to energies and we tap into those energies via the collective unconscious.

This is in effect, our ability to tap into what we all recognize in each other as universal commonalities (and principles).

We all started as amoebas, we all contain the same building blocks. That's why we all get each other on some level. We really are all connected. Carl Jung.

Therefore, everything we do or choose to do, (or HAVE) including love, is a conscious decision. We just love those that are more like us. The higher the recognition, the greater the chance we will choose to love them. It's a choice.

Pretty logical.

Then I said; we not only recognize people like us, but we recognize nuances in energy differences. We instinctively get those of us like ourselves yes, but I think it goes further - it has to do with a source, the origin or the foundation...

(This came as a result of my talking about love at first sight, does it exist, but I will leave that digression for another time)

This discussion eventually went on to the nature of love...

To him, love is a decision... it comes after lust wears off (which is of course, our biological instinct for reproduction kicking in), blah blah blah... Then he claimed to be an atheist and more blah blah blah, thus assuring me that his view is objectively based, because none of that hokey, romantic, society-induced bullshit works on him.

He knows the deal. (True grit n' all that jazz). And I loved him to bits for it.

But I told him that for me true love does exist and my certainty was based on one significant underlying belief.

And that this belief (or lack of it) placed people in two different camps for which there was no possible reconciliation. (Regardless of biology, hormones, ovulation, procreative drive or what-have-you).

It was significant - a deal breaker - because incorporating it or dismissing it would affect the foundation through which someone viewed his very existence.

And if two people were at variance regarding this one thing, that no matter how significant the attraction, no matter what else might be right, it could never work.

And here's that one thing (at least for me)...

Some people believe the fundamental building block of the universe is matter...ie; it's an objective crapshoot of evolution.

I think the fundamental buidling block of the universe... is LOVE.

And I'm talking about the actual building block.

To put it more succintly, I don't believe the creative force of the universe is neutral. I think it holds a positive, loving energy.

For lack of a better explanation, I think that's how it creates... how we create. I believe feelings and thoughts are just as real as visible matter and they are part n' parcel of the creative process, while destructive forces, hold a negative charge (or perhaps a non-positive one).

If you look at an atom, it is comprised mostly of empty space.

I found the best description of it in a book called The Tao of Physics. Simply put, if an atom were the size of St. Peter's Basilica, the nucleus would be the size of a grain of sand floating in the middle of it while the electrons spinnning around would each be the size of a dust particle.

And everything in the universe is made of atoms. EVERYTHING. Think about them apples for a mintue or two.

So if 99.99% of an atom is empty space and we are all made up of atoms, then we are mostly empty space. Or perhaps, pure thought. Or emotions. Which if true, suddenly makes thoughts and feelings just as real (probably more) than anything else you can touch, see, or feel (since solid matter comprises less than a paltry .1% of everything).

And supposing that these emotions/thoughts literally exist on a universal level, as human beings, we could not, not also possess them. For we are a microcosm of our external, cosmic world. A mirror reflection of all that is.

So I believe these things exist at a subatomic level. And they are real, and they are unbelievably powerful.

Therefore love exists independently of whatever goes on in our biological brain because it existed BEFORE we had a brain, and will exist AFTER it disappears.

Love simply is.

It exists in the brain, but it also exists outside of it.

There is no separation.

Therefore, love exists. PERIOD.

It is a part of us - and not a decision to have or not to have (at least not entirely).

Whether you like it or not, are ready for it or not, love is always there, always at your doorstep, in every person you meet. Though it may be dormant, like a chrysalis, it is waiting to be cracked open for release.

Some people create vast scenarios and call those love, thinking they are in such a way, bringing it to existence, but you cannot bring something to existence that was, is and always will be.

Sometimes it is a hidden part and the brain helps us to reactivate it, but it exists even when it is dormant. In all beings.

It is wrapped up in everything we do as an invisible force. (Even though a lot of people do their damndest to keep it under wraps).

And that's why we can't really put a finger on it.

Love is intangible and yet it's more real and more powerful than anything else.

And that's why Fisher's analysis is incomplete.

Now, do opposites attract? Yes.

Can they sustain it?

Not if part of that opposition is the whereabouts of love.

If one believes it exists as an extension of our biological function and the other believes it is responsible for the creation of everything and we are inseparable from it, then fugghetaboutit.

(And next time, I might even postulate as to why).

In any case, an hour later the question still hung in the air, having woven its way through a few black holes and milky ways, for I knew he loved this girl.

"So, what do you think? Is what you have true love?"

He paused... looked at me, pursed his lips, nodded knowingly and smiled...

"Yup."

The Art of Relationships - PART IV -Is love nothing but a Pavlovian response?

I sure as hell hope not.

Anthropologist Helen Fisher makes an argument for reducing the strong feelings you have for someone - you know, like that little thing called love - to the amount of dopamine their presence releases in your brain.

The more they trigger those releases (ahem), the more addicted you become.

Pretty soon, you don't need the 'ahem' and just the thought of that person triggers the same response.

This happens in the 'attachment' center of your brain and before you know it, you've built up a little response library to a particular person that's full of the warm n' fuzzies whenever they pop into your head. And that's usually a lot for most people.

Even without the 'ahem', these chemicals get released anyway - definitive proof (at least to me) - that thoughts are real...

Which is awesome until... backtrack to psych 101

Pavlov trains dogs to salivate at the sound of a bell by ringing said bell followed by feeding the dog. The dog starts to associate the bell with food.

Pretty soon, he's anticipating a meal every time he hears a bell. Voila! He salivates before he gets his food.

Bell. Food. Bell. Food. Bell. Food.

Consistency builds trust.

Pretty soon the dog hears a bell and starts salivating because he trusts that food is just around the corner. Now that's faith. (Or at the very least, a reasonable assumption that it's on its way because it has never failed to show up before).

Bell. Salivate. Food. Bell. Salivate. Food. Bell. Salivate. Food.

It's aaaaalllllll good. Until...

You take the food away. But not the bell. What happens?

They hear a bell. They salivate. They wait. No food.

WTF?!

They hear a bell. They salivate. STILL NO FOOD. But they're salivating up a storm.

They might even get confused. (Maybe even depressed, search in vain for an answer in the void around them and think, Where's my doggone food?!

Here's what I want to know...

What if Pavlov rang the bell and sometimes he gave the dog food and sometimes he didn't? Would the dog still salivate?

Would he sometimes salivate?

Would he avoid salivation altogether because he didn't trust the food was on its way?

Would he bite the hand that sometimes feeds him but sometimes doesn't?

Would he build mistrust? Or take it as it comes because let's face it, he's a dog and doesn't really have any choice, (it's not like he can opt for a better master).

Is love a Pavlovian response?

To some extent, yes.

That's why the social psych books say if you want someone to keep liking you (and to grow in liking you), you must be extremely consistent or they will lose interest.

Email, text, call at the same time every day (roughly). It all comes down to being attentive. Consistently. Or you risk making someone feels insecure and emotionally 'ostracized'.

And it doesn't take much because people's feelings are surprisingly delicate. (Their words, not mine).

Because (and this is my analysis tossed in for good measure), I think there's a part of your brain that also registers a pain response that also exists in the attachment area of your brain. Why should positive chemicals have all the fun?

I'm going to call this the anti-dope-amine response.

The problem is, if you have inconsistencies in your relationship, your brain goes into conflict - dopamines vs anti-dopamines. All associated with the same person. But if you're getting different signals from them (or ones you can't read), sometimes you get a pleasure release, and sometimes you get the opposite.

But you're still in the attachment section. Crap.

So no matter what happens, the attachment grows.

That's how abusive relationships start. And they don't have to be boxing matches to be abusive. The passive aggressive kind happen when sometimes you get a bone and sometimes you don't (no pun intended).

And I don't know about you, but I don't much like walking on eggshells wondering if I'm getting my plate of food or not.

At some point, you have to give your brain a rest. Because, we all know butterflies are felt in the heart, but a headache is well... in the head....

At some point, you have to trust your intuition.

I'm not saying you should expect one person to trigger a constant dopamine eruption in your brain, but if your scale is tipping more often than not in the other direction, and your trigger/response mechanism is starting to feel like mistrust more than trust, maybe you should well... trust that.

After all, you're not a dog... and nobody should be allowed to play Pavlov's games with your feelings. Whether they do it on purpose or not...

The Art of Relationships, Part V - anti-depressants and emotional self-preservation

In 'Ted talks' Helen Fisher briefly discusses the effects of anti-depressants on the brain and the area where attachment occurs.

It is so significant, it bears repeating here.

And to be clear, this does not apply to short term use for conditions that would otherwise leave the patient with little hope for their existence, placing them in danger of wanting to 'meet their maker' before their designated time (if there is such a thing - food for thought and another post).

But considering that about 100 million prescriptions of anti-depressants are filled every year in the U.S. alone, (many of which are being extended into long term use and going globally generic), there is tremendous cause for concern.

In a nutshell, here's what she said:

Anti-depressants raise the levels of seratonin and that suppresses the dopamine circuit in your brain which is associated with romantic love. Plus it kills the sex drive, which kills orgasm, which kills that flood of drugs released that's associated with attachment in that area of the brain. And a "world without love is a deadly place."

Her words. And I couldn't agree more.

It scares me to think the world is headed in a direction full of automatons walking around functioning perfectly well, but unable to feel enough to form a real attachment to anyone.

But I've known many people on anti-depressants. You couldn't really tell if they didn't fess up, because they are functioning... properly.

Now I don't think Fisher is right about everything she says... For instance, she "doesn't honestly think we are an animal that was built to be happy but rather we were an animal that was built to reproduce."

I think we are inherently happy, (or perhaps more accurately, beings designed to re-access the peaceful state that is our true nature). That's why being miserable bugs us so much - because it's not a comfortable state - but more on that later.

Anyway, to give her credit, she does go on to say we make our own happiness and can still make good relationships as a result of that choice. (Which I think is also true but not because we are fundamentally unhappy).

Unfortunately, I think my view has caused the demise of some of my own personal relationships but that is neither here nor there. (I'm still trying to figure that one out).

But Fisher's point regarding anti-depressants in instinctively valid.

Anti-depressants may help people to be less depressed. But to do that, they have to make them feel less about well, everything.

It's not that they walk around like zombies, they just walk around feeling less of what it is to be human.

Instead of a spectrum of emotions that ranges from A to Z, on anti-depressants, theirs runs somewhere from M to P.

Now assuming A would be complete and utter bliss, and Z would be its opposite (ie; sheer agony), you might not want your life to reflect the entire spectrum but... to grow, a greater range is necessary.

And as a human being, you couldn't even begin to understand one emotion without having at some point, felt its opposite.

A person who lives only in suffering cannot conceive of happiness and vice versa. But a range of emotion that runs from M to P would leave you with little room to grow as you could never experience the opposite of anything.

Personally, I wouldn't mind starting around C and ending around W. Or maybe even starting at A and ending at W.

Anyway, I think it's our ability to harness our emotions but also let them out that frees us to experience what it is to be fully human.

But anti-depressants aren't the only killers of love.

Sometimes I think people suffer so much they've developped their own version of anti-depressants. They stop feeling. Or they have walls so high you can't see over them. Or nothing gets through.

And that's all fine and dandy. As a matter of fact, it serves the very noble purpose of self-preservation. Unfortunately, it also has the distinct effect of eventually making one less human, less accessible.

And a life lived like that, would totally suck.

What remains in that case, is a gap. And leaping beyond that void to embrace what is rightfully theirs to have - the A to Z part of the human experience - becomes an impossibility because they spend most of their time in an unfeeling state.

It's called apathy.

Also known as a neutral state because it harbors neither positive nor negative emotion, yet it is not positively detached as it stems from an uncaring, self-protective state.

And it's the most difficult of emotions (because it's a non-emotion) to transcend, as it sits at the bottom of the ladder. Alone. In the dark. A mark of someone's fear of not wanting to feel anything anymore (lest the opposite eventually rear its ugly head), yet so insidiously comfortable it makes a mockery of the rest of the emotional family and their silly 'feelings'.

That's what I think anti-depressants do. You laugh, you cry, you still function. But how much of it do you really feel? In your gut? In your heart?

I think the frustration and joy of experiencing emotions you want to let loose on (love) and those you fear (its opposite, rejection), are gone.

And so is your motivation to find the good ones and risk what it takes to keep them.

Long term anti-depressant use and long-term emotional self-preservation are each habits that keep you safe, but also limit your human experience.

The good news is, both are choices. And choices, can be changed.

The Art of Relationships, Part VI - Is love just an offshoot of a biological function?

The thing about all this reading and researching I've been doing on that ever-elusive topic love is that it's starting to feel a bit hollow.

Something is missing.

I read it and think "Wow, this is amazing information!" and yet something inside the core of my being is nattering at me. And I'm trying not to be all Jane Austen about these things because when it comes right down to it, I will abide by the truth I seek over a false sentiment any day (in spite of the fact that I'm terribly attached to my sentiments).

The thing is, even though there have been leaps and bounds done in brain research, for the most part, they don't know a whole helluva lot. And for good reason...

Our 3-4 pound brain contains about a trillion nerve cells, each of which is connected to 10,000 or so others, for a total of roughly 10 million billion connections.

Any connection that goes askew can have a domino effect on a whole whack of other things. But what really happens in there? Can you seriously tell me, that our response to the world and others is ALL just a biological mechanism?

My big question is, (which I will address in the next post) does any of it happen outside of the brain? On a soul level? In the cosmos perhaps?

But I digress...

Most of what we have learned about the brain comes from brain injuries so freakishly severe, the person who suffered them should have died but didn't. So we get to see how different parts of the brain change certain behaviours in people because well, they're still alive to show us.

The result is behavioral and cognitive changes that let researchers better understand that this part of the brain or that part of the brain is the hotbed of certain functions.

The most famous (and probably the first to give researchers insight) is the case of Phineas Gage who in 1848 had a terrible construction accident and ended up with a pole through his frontal lobe.

Ouch.

He survived just fine, but suffered severe personality and emotional problems as a result.

Conclusion? Frontal lobe = the seat of your emotions.

Disruption to this area has the potential to cause a whole host of problems from your inability to deal with stress to unreasonable emotional reactions (your spouse forgetting the bananas you put on the grocery list does not warrant your freaking out).

There are however, not nearly enough consistencies (due probably to the gazillion synaptic connections we can't actually trace) in the damage/resulting behaviour spectrum to warrant any definitive or absolute cause and effect rules.

For example...

Through the course of my reading, I came across a most interesting case study of a man who had suffered severe short and long term memory loss due to a car accident that damaged the memory structure of his brain (though he could function in everyday life remembering how to do basic things like brushing his teeth, making a sandwich, etc.)

He couldn't for the life of him however, remember that he had been injured in an accident, and therefore couldn't remember his condition. To make matters worse, he did not recognize anyone in his life. Not short or long term acquaintances, friends, or even family members...

... except for his wife.

Even the textbook attributed this anomaly to the power of love as it was inconsistent with his other symptoms.

Alas, his wife was his only link to reality and became the one responsible for retelling him every 10-15 minutes who he was, who the people in his life were, and what had happened to him.

(And if you haven't yet seen it, the movie 50 First Dates explores such a condition).

So even though researchers have found those spots in the brain that are attributed to love and can break them down to a chemical reaction, this must be, if not a faulty concept, at the very least, terribly incomplete.

We cannot, (and never will), be able to fully explain the power of true love. Nor can we with any certainty, break it down an emotion that arises purely as an offshoot of a biological function.

I think we live within our biologies but also outside of them - neither are separate. And the sciences rarely incorporate consciousness as an integral part of our being because they can't find it.

But just because they can't find it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

And that, is worth exploring... next time...

The Art of Relationships, Part III - reconciling love, and lust and whatever

Okay, I admit it.

I'm still not quite getting the whole picture here. But what I am getting, I will relate (*and as usual, throw in my two cents' worth).

According to Helen Fisher, love affects one of 3 different brain systems:

1. Lust - that's our sex drive.

As one researcher called it, it's like a 'neural itch we need to scratch'. Fisher says it stems from our biological need to find a mate.

Put it this way... if you're not horny, you won't want sex. If you don't want sex, you won't have sex. If you don't have sex, you can't get pregnant. And if that happens, so much for our species. I get it.

2. Romantic Love - focuses on mating energy.

Fisher says it developped so we can focus on one person long enough to have kids with them - you know, to start a family unit.

3. Deep attachment - evolved so we could tolerate this person long enough to raise kids together.

(I thought that was kinda funny).

And apparently, we can have deep feelings for each type of love. Which sorta ticks me off because of course I don't want anyone I'm dating to think of anyone else in any of those capacities, except for me - selfish wench that I am.

Anyway, each one of the above type relates to a different brain system. So in effect we can be in love with all three types at the same time. Shiza!

But it seems in contradiction with the other research that says most people can't actually sustain an emotional attachment (of the deep, romantic kind) with more than one person at a time, without some messy ramificiations (as eventually one falls by the wayside).

So the question remains, which one is real love?

On a biological level, some of it has to do with the power of a neurological reward system. For instance, an orgasm releases a rush of oxytocin in the brain (especially in women - most especially in women).

To give you an idea of how powerful that is, cocaine gives the same effect.

And what's more, it releases it in an area of the brain that has to do with attachments.

So men, take note. If you're wondering why she's telling you she loves you after a one-night stand, now you know. It might be unreasonable, but it's neurologically valid - especially if you were that good.

It's all your fault.

On the other hand, if you're wondering why she's not that into you after a while, take a good hard look at your love-making skills because according to Fisher, a man's ability to make a woman orgasm has also evolved as a mating determinant. Ahem

Keep her happy and your chances increase that she will stick around (of course there's lots of other factors but that is seriously one of them).

And don't shoot the messenger. Apparently, it's like some Pavlovian response mechanism in a woman's brain. I think it's kinda cool. And if you think about it, it makes perfect sense.

We base our lives and the decisions we make largely on the rewards those decisions will get us. We never intentionally make a decision based on the suffering it will bring. Rather it's the opposite.

Multiple orgasms, multiple rewards!

It works the same for men, but that's usually easy for them. The big O however, can be tricker for some women. So the pressure's on.

I'll never forget a movie I watched with my boys called Outside Providence. Alec Baldwin played a single father giving his kid advice about a girl he was dating. Here's what he said:

"Remember son... it ain't over 'til you both get yer cookies."

The reason I remember it, is because one of my kids asked me what that meant and I had to explain it. Not only that, but before I knew any of this stuff, instinct had told me that Alec was right.

Back to love, lust, romance, whatever you want to call it.

I think the real thing would be all three wrapped up into one.

You're wildly attracted to someone who is also capable of being your best friend, and with whom you feel a deep-seated attachment (ie; you want to grow old with them).

But apparently, even if you don't have all three, romantic love seems to be the strongest one of all.

Romantic love, releases dopamines. Even couples who have been married for years and claim to still be in love, have the same neurological release of dopamines as those 'newlywed' couples whose feelings we think are more intense. It's a real bonding factor.

And I think the reason a great many people are dissatisfied in their relationships is because they have one or maybe two sides of the triangle but want all three.

Having all three however, is like winning the lottery.

According to research, societies all around the world have the most difficulty reconciling all three aspects. Most keep them separate. (more on that next time).

The rest, develop strong attachments (and are successful at them) because they make that choice.

In this respect, I completely agree with Fisher: "The happiness we find, is the happiness we make".

-----

Next - anti-depressants are killing our ability to fall in love - Fisher's plea and of course, my input.

The Art of Relationships, Part II - love and infidelity - never the 'twain shall meet

Is there such a thing as true love? Or is it all in our minds?

Seems the answer is yes to both. And since the only true reality exists in our minds (a teasing intro to a future blog), it's 'yes' to the former, because it's 'yes' to the latter.

World leading anthropologists like Helen Fisher and William Janowiak (among others) have discovered a physiological (not cultural) basis to romantic love.

They found out that certain parts of the brain releases dopamines when people who claim to be 'in love' thought about their partners, triggering a release of 'good vibrations'. (If only I could figure out how to bottle such a delectable drug, I could quit my day job and put all my kids through college).

But from the little reading I have done so far, (don't worry, there's more to come down the road), it's quite consuming. So much so, that some anthropologists are suggesting we are emotionally monogamous.

Some people can handle being in more than one sexual relationship (though I'm not one of them), but not emotionally (ie; not romantically).

Every woman interviewed in the polyandrous societies of the High Himalyans claimed their lives were "emotionally challenging" because they had more than one husband - note: not consort - and as a result, preferred a monogamous relationship.

Making sure someone is emotionally satisfied takes way more energy than satisfying them sexually. After a while, if you've been doing it right all along, chances are it will become more effortless - you get to know them, they get to know you, you figure each other out, blah blah blah... but seriously. Three husbands?

Please kill me.

There are enough neurological differences between men and women as it is, never mind all those other factors like environment, personality, genes, to think that you can spread it around to a few lovers and make them all feel "special".

Love is a powerful feeling and you really can't be in love with more than one person at a time. Lust? Mabye. Love? No. Love... real love, is monogamous. And as Fisher says, 'it's something we're willing to die for.'

The question is, what is real love?

So my friend Jim asked me a couple of questions today that I would like to answer here based somewhat on the information I have begun to pull together on the nature of love:

"Could you forgive infidelity? Should Tiger's wife forgive him?"

After all, Tiger didn't love those women, he lusted after them.

According to the research, every society in the world distinguises between the two. And every society has difficulty reconciling them.

Here's what I think... straight from my email response...

infidelity....

a one night stand, yeah, i could probably forgive that, though it speaks to trust and i'd be wondering if they'd ever do it again... so that might turn into a problem on its own... a relationship is suppose to be based on trust and if that's gone, you're fucked. but it's possible to get over that if there's remorse and there were extenuating circumstances, like lots of alcohol, immaturity.... but yeah, i think so....

a string of one night stands? less likely - because it speaks to habit and i'd be putting myself at risk for a number of things, including one of those one night stands turning into an affair, or my 'husband' bringing home a disease...

as for an affair of the heart?

never.

it's the one thing about romantic love helen fisher talks about that had the most impact on me. human beings are emotionally (ie; romantically) monogamous by nature. even swingers, who agree to an open marriage, do so only providing the other person comes home to 'them'.... their heart belongs to one. that's why people are willing to die over love (the romantic kind), but would never put their lives on the line for a woman they screw.

or a woman for a gigollo for that matter.

sex is sex, (and can be forgiven - it won't be easy or pretty, but it's possible) but the real deal is a sacred thing and as such it must be honored.

as for tiger woods?

unforgiveable.

because he's too immature to know what he did. and he gave these women his time and energy and flew them around... things he should have been doing with his wife. he was half screwing them, half courting them. he was playing the game of love, even if he had no plans to follow through... that's a slap in the face to the wife, coming from a confused man who has not earned the privilege of the benefits love entails.

and he was feeding off of all of it for the purposes of his own ego.

tiger has no idea what love is, no concept whatsoever.... at least not right now. he's too young, too immature. and one mistake gone public cannot fix that.

she'd be crazy to take him back.

but, i'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he loved his wife as best he could (which isn't saying much).... the thing is... everyone wants to think they love.... and people genuinely DO. they love to their fullest capacity and can love no more. (and for most people, this is limited).

now that doesn't mean they're bad people, it just means that their capacity to love might be less (or different) than it is for other people. here's an example....

i dated a guy - mike in chicago - he was absolutely crazy about me (claimed to be). i was the love of his life, blah blah blah.... (supposedly and i believed him)...

but his idea of 'love' had limits and that's why i couldn't be with him any more. and when he told me again (a few years after we broke up) that i was his "one and only" and how he "dreamed of coming to canada and showing up at my door and sweeping me off my feet" so we could be together again....

"well.... dude", i thought, ".... then just do it".

please be the ultimate NIKE commercial. and just frakkin' do it!

but...

when a man backs up that statement with...."but i don't have a passport to get across the border"... it doesn't mean all that much anymore when all that would take is applying for one.

it's not that mike didn't love me. he simply loved me as much as he could. which is fine. but let's face it. he's talking to a woman who moved to another country for love (me) and would do it again. and before that little fiasco, i stuck it out in an awful marriage for a long time, because i understood that you don't just leave. and believe me, i had reason to.

i would walk over hot coals for the right guy. i know that about myself. but this time, he's gotta be worth it. and he's gotta earn it. cuz i'm good for it. and i'm not taking any less.

so sometimes, i think the ability to love takes someone who has experienced great suffering so they know how precious it is.... and how lucky they are to have found it.

tiger doesn't get that. and neither do most people.

he doesn't understand how fortunate he was because he never had to sacrifice anything to get it. nor did he suffer to find her. nor do i think he had to work for it all that hard (or even at all)... tiger never earned it.

-----

If true love exists - and apparently it does in the minds (literally) of all of us... then those people who are lucky enough to find it (more on that later), are hopefully smart enough to hang on to it.

-----

Next: reconciling love and lust....