Poetics and feelings
This came about as a result of the events of which I spoke in yesterday's entry, and also from the influences of poetics class. Man, poetics class can mess with your brain.
I was thinking about the way that we all seem to want to have explanations for everything. At the very least, I seem to want explanations, it's just the nature of my mind. Most people aren't quite satisfied with the answers they're given when they first ask a question, and they have to ask 'why' in order to satisfy their curiosity.
Consider this, then. For all that we want to know why things happen, and to rationalize everything, we would be devestated if it were possible. Today I was thinking about wanting to understand my own feelings to better understand where this detaching feeling came from. But while I was in class thinking about it, I could not think of anything worse. If I knew perfectly well why my feelings happened, and where they came from, they would be greatly devalued. At least, some of them would.
The most powerful of these examples I believe to be love. What kind of love is it that can be quantified? Imagine this: You're in love, maybe even married to someone. I ask you, 'why do you love him?' and you actually are able to give me an itemized answer. Does that seem right to you? Could you bear to call it love if the sum total of the reasons were "Because he gives me a good foot massage, helps take out the trash, never raises his voice, is kind to strangers, generous to charities and is a wicked dancer"? What if there were twice as many reasons? What if there were ten times as many? A hundred? If those were the true and honest reasons that you loved him, would you feel satisfied calling it love? I wouldn't. I know it. I'm not saying all of those things aren't a great help to being able to love someone, but rather that they cannot be the sum total without robbing love of one of its greatest possessions. Mystery. Uncertainty. A lack of reason.
Think about your dream man or woman. You think that you would love that person? Maybe, maybe not. If all you can think of is a collection of physical and personal characteristics, then that isn't the person you love. It's bizarre and circular, but there it is: The thing that is truly necessary for love is that you love. If it makes sense, it is robbed. I'm not sure about that of course. I don't know love well enough to say it for certain, but I have the feeling that I'm right. And I'll stand by it until I feel differently.
Also, my poetics teacher made a comment today about how one way of looking at love is "the ultimate self-deception." I thought he meant that love didn't exist and that it was self-deception to think it did. That scared me. The man is fun, married, just had a kid. If he didn't believe, it'd put a dent in my confidence in the existence of it. But now I realize he only meant that it is self deception as far as seeing your lover. You can't see their faults, or you take their faults to be endearing traits. I like that statement a lot better. It says something about the mysterious quality of love. Of course, if you ever were entirely rational about it, it might break the spell. That would suck.
I was thinking about the way that we all seem to want to have explanations for everything. At the very least, I seem to want explanations, it's just the nature of my mind. Most people aren't quite satisfied with the answers they're given when they first ask a question, and they have to ask 'why' in order to satisfy their curiosity.
Consider this, then. For all that we want to know why things happen, and to rationalize everything, we would be devestated if it were possible. Today I was thinking about wanting to understand my own feelings to better understand where this detaching feeling came from. But while I was in class thinking about it, I could not think of anything worse. If I knew perfectly well why my feelings happened, and where they came from, they would be greatly devalued. At least, some of them would.
The most powerful of these examples I believe to be love. What kind of love is it that can be quantified? Imagine this: You're in love, maybe even married to someone. I ask you, 'why do you love him?' and you actually are able to give me an itemized answer. Does that seem right to you? Could you bear to call it love if the sum total of the reasons were "Because he gives me a good foot massage, helps take out the trash, never raises his voice, is kind to strangers, generous to charities and is a wicked dancer"? What if there were twice as many reasons? What if there were ten times as many? A hundred? If those were the true and honest reasons that you loved him, would you feel satisfied calling it love? I wouldn't. I know it. I'm not saying all of those things aren't a great help to being able to love someone, but rather that they cannot be the sum total without robbing love of one of its greatest possessions. Mystery. Uncertainty. A lack of reason.
Think about your dream man or woman. You think that you would love that person? Maybe, maybe not. If all you can think of is a collection of physical and personal characteristics, then that isn't the person you love. It's bizarre and circular, but there it is: The thing that is truly necessary for love is that you love. If it makes sense, it is robbed. I'm not sure about that of course. I don't know love well enough to say it for certain, but I have the feeling that I'm right. And I'll stand by it until I feel differently.
Also, my poetics teacher made a comment today about how one way of looking at love is "the ultimate self-deception." I thought he meant that love didn't exist and that it was self-deception to think it did. That scared me. The man is fun, married, just had a kid. If he didn't believe, it'd put a dent in my confidence in the existence of it. But now I realize he only meant that it is self deception as far as seeing your lover. You can't see their faults, or you take their faults to be endearing traits. I like that statement a lot better. It says something about the mysterious quality of love. Of course, if you ever were entirely rational about it, it might break the spell. That would suck.