For muses_gonewild: The human mind...
"If the human mind was simple enough to understand, we'd be too simple to understand it." - Emerson Pugh
Love is infinitely more complicated than hate.
There's a whole holiday based around love, there are self-help books on love, and there's an entire bank of the book store labeled "romance". Some people would trade looks and money just to be loved, and of the 778 best picture movies during the Academy Award's run, 750 of them were based around some sort of love story. One quick look online and it's easy to find "7 great ways to build a good relationship" or "How to find true love". As if it was actually that easy.
Psychometrician Robert Sternberg theorizes that there are three components of love. A triangle, as it were. Passion, commitment, and intimacy. Without these three elements, one can hardly call it love at all, can one? And only the commitment part is something one can control, the other two are based on emotions, compatibility, and (usually) hormones. Without the heat of passion, a love story has no intensity. Without commitment, it will fizzle and die into nothing. And without intimacy, there's no genuine connection.
Psychologist Zick Rueben proposes a similar theory, though he words it 'round a bit differently, calling it "caring, attachment, and intimacy". The fundamentals are the same, of course, but it's focused more on a less romantic version of love and more a general version because there's more than one version of love, apparently. Romantic, parental, familial, friendly…all sorts of love. Psychologist Elaine Hatfield splits them into two categories so one can take up less space in their cabinets: passionate and caring.
And if one follows the scientific Coulomb's law, then one knows that the magnitude of the electrostatic force between two point electric charges is directly proportional to the product of the magnitudes of each charge and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the charges. Meaning that opposites attract. Clever, isn't it? Good old Charlie Coulomb, always great fun at parties (but he's French, so that's expected) Oh, and Freud says love really just has to do with sex. But that's Freud. Good bloke, but he's a bit off his rocker at times.
Love is complex. It's messy, it's twisted, it's confusing, and no matter how hard you might try to fit it into an algebraic matrix, it just doesn't want to come out simply.
As for hate.
Hate is easy.
Hate is deep-rooted and uncontrollable.
Hate is body temperature rising.
Hate is adrenaline pumping.
Hate is muscles tensing.
Hate is all-consuming.
Hate is…a lot like physical attraction, come to think of it.
So for a generally nonsexual man (we'll refer to him as Example A), hate can replace the passion in the triangle love setup. Just so that one understands, the "triangle love setup" is actually an example of ironic foreshadowing. Just keep going, it's brilliant.
Example A might find himself generally alone. Void of sexual desire, commitment-phobic, and with a hereditary hatred of intimacy. Example A is intelligent, caring, and generally poised to do the right thing. Also, he probably has really great hair.
Now, enter Example B. Example B is the polar opposite of Example A, the only similarity being Example B's equal intelligence. Following the aforementioned scientific law, opposites attract and the two find themselves consistently crossing swords (figuratively speaking, of course). The two Examples have almost nothing in common, they follow different ideals, and they cannot interact without some sort of conflict. While they sit as opposing sides to the same coin, the two Examples are so equal they are unable to defeat each other, and thus spend many years facing off.
Now, would one consider this interaction to be love?
At first, one might consider it to be hatred. Makes sense, of course. Nothing in common, general desire to hurt the other, destroy each other's meticulously placed plans, create general havoc for each other, ruin each others' newly regenerated youth, that sort of thing. However, if one uses the triangular theory, one can split apart the obvious and see the subtextual "love" beneath the relationship.
1) Passion: The two parties are equally passionate about each other. When engaged, they fight with every part of them, even if it opens them up to further injury.
2) Commitment: Honestly, though, after many years of consistently fighting the same individual, it's impossible to call it anything but commitment.
3) Intimacy: Although the examples might've had intimate conversations in the past, over time they [to be filled in at later date]
Thus, the "hatred" between Example A and Example B can be equally called "love".
Now, enter Example C. Example C and Example B have their own form of hatred-love. Example B is domineering and charismatic and Example C is submissive and quiet. The only thing the two share is their lust for power and position. This type of a relationship can follow a typical BDSM style relationship (see: Freud), however it verges further onto the realm of abuse and neglect with a side of obsession. Example B hurts Example C, then seeing her pain attempts to reconcile by giving her either physical possession or intimacy. Example B might truly care for Example C but be incapable of expressing it. One might see this relationship is not love but instead an abusive and dangerously symbiotic relationship of need and hurt. One might be right. However, for the sake of argument, let's set it to the triangular test.
1) Passion: At the beginning, there was no doubt sexual passion and it might still be there, though as they spent time together, the Examples have learned to [to be filled in at later date]
2) Commitment: Strong: the two are so dependant on each other for emotional satisfaction that they are unable to leave each other---not completely.
3) Intimacy: The two are intimate both sexually and emotionally, entwining both their minds and their physical forms in ways this author would rather not think about.
Thus, the "hatred" between Example B and Example C can equally be called "love".
Now, with the law of commutativity, in the simplest binary form:
In layman's terms it is said that a = b and b = c so therefore a = c. Therefore, explaining the concept of love between Example A and Example C should therefore be easy, correct? (Lots of 'therefore's in that paragraph).
As with everything else in love, in short: no.
Example A and Example C, for all their mutual attraction to Example B, also have very little in common. Example A is selfless and boisterous, while Example C is selfish and quietly manipulative. Example A obsesses over Example C's well-being (mostly due to her abusive relationship to Example B, but also more likely due to other reasons which Example A is unwilling to admit or face), while Example C focuses on extracting information from Example A (for the good of Example B, at first, but then slowly for other reasons, maybe? Perhaps? Shall have to ask Example C about this later).
Now, triangular system? Triangular system!
1) Passion: The two Examples share a mutual (if unwilling) attraction for one another that has led to complicated, passionate scenarios. Due to the Examples' differing body chemistries, it is uncertain whether or not the situation is due to hormonal influence.
2) Commitment: Example C may or may not be married, and the Examples may be quite insistent that they despise one another, but [to be filled in at later date]
3) Intimacy: Example A has opened up to Example C about emotional influences and the same can be said for Example C to Example A. The two have a slowly growing emotional intimacy.
As was previously mentioned, love and hate are really quite complicated, aren't they? Once Example B finds out about Example A and C, what's to happen to this mutual set of attractions' situation?
And why is it that Example A always ends up falling for those that hurt him most?
Discuss.
Muse: The Doctor (Ten)
Fandom: Doctor Who
Word Count: 1,342
Based on RP in realityshifted with savagestime and shatteredqueen.
Also, special thanks to savagestime for suggesting that I challenge myself and write something in 4th person!
Love is infinitely more complicated than hate.
There's a whole holiday based around love, there are self-help books on love, and there's an entire bank of the book store labeled "romance". Some people would trade looks and money just to be loved, and of the 778 best picture movies during the Academy Award's run, 750 of them were based around some sort of love story. One quick look online and it's easy to find "7 great ways to build a good relationship" or "How to find true love". As if it was actually that easy.
Psychometrician Robert Sternberg theorizes that there are three components of love. A triangle, as it were. Passion, commitment, and intimacy. Without these three elements, one can hardly call it love at all, can one? And only the commitment part is something one can control, the other two are based on emotions, compatibility, and (usually) hormones. Without the heat of passion, a love story has no intensity. Without commitment, it will fizzle and die into nothing. And without intimacy, there's no genuine connection.
Psychologist Zick Rueben proposes a similar theory, though he words it 'round a bit differently, calling it "caring, attachment, and intimacy". The fundamentals are the same, of course, but it's focused more on a less romantic version of love and more a general version because there's more than one version of love, apparently. Romantic, parental, familial, friendly…all sorts of love. Psychologist Elaine Hatfield splits them into two categories so one can take up less space in their cabinets: passionate and caring.
And if one follows the scientific Coulomb's law, then one knows that the magnitude of the electrostatic force between two point electric charges is directly proportional to the product of the magnitudes of each charge and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the charges. Meaning that opposites attract. Clever, isn't it? Good old Charlie Coulomb, always great fun at parties (but he's French, so that's expected) Oh, and Freud says love really just has to do with sex. But that's Freud. Good bloke, but he's a bit off his rocker at times.
Love is complex. It's messy, it's twisted, it's confusing, and no matter how hard you might try to fit it into an algebraic matrix, it just doesn't want to come out simply.
As for hate.
Hate is easy.
Hate is deep-rooted and uncontrollable.
Hate is body temperature rising.
Hate is adrenaline pumping.
Hate is muscles tensing.
Hate is all-consuming.
Hate is…a lot like physical attraction, come to think of it.
So for a generally nonsexual man (we'll refer to him as Example A), hate can replace the passion in the triangle love setup. Just so that one understands, the "triangle love setup" is actually an example of ironic foreshadowing. Just keep going, it's brilliant.
Example A might find himself generally alone. Void of sexual desire, commitment-phobic, and with a hereditary hatred of intimacy. Example A is intelligent, caring, and generally poised to do the right thing. Also, he probably has really great hair.
Now, enter Example B. Example B is the polar opposite of Example A, the only similarity being Example B's equal intelligence. Following the aforementioned scientific law, opposites attract and the two find themselves consistently crossing swords (figuratively speaking, of course). The two Examples have almost nothing in common, they follow different ideals, and they cannot interact without some sort of conflict. While they sit as opposing sides to the same coin, the two Examples are so equal they are unable to defeat each other, and thus spend many years facing off.
Now, would one consider this interaction to be love?
At first, one might consider it to be hatred. Makes sense, of course. Nothing in common, general desire to hurt the other, destroy each other's meticulously placed plans, create general havoc for each other, ruin each others' newly regenerated youth, that sort of thing. However, if one uses the triangular theory, one can split apart the obvious and see the subtextual "love" beneath the relationship.
1) Passion: The two parties are equally passionate about each other. When engaged, they fight with every part of them, even if it opens them up to further injury.
2) Commitment: Honestly, though, after many years of consistently fighting the same individual, it's impossible to call it anything but commitment.
3) Intimacy: Although the examples might've had intimate conversations in the past, over time they [to be filled in at later date]
Thus, the "hatred" between Example A and Example B can be equally called "love".
Now, enter Example C. Example C and Example B have their own form of hatred-love. Example B is domineering and charismatic and Example C is submissive and quiet. The only thing the two share is their lust for power and position. This type of a relationship can follow a typical BDSM style relationship (see: Freud), however it verges further onto the realm of abuse and neglect with a side of obsession. Example B hurts Example C, then seeing her pain attempts to reconcile by giving her either physical possession or intimacy. Example B might truly care for Example C but be incapable of expressing it. One might see this relationship is not love but instead an abusive and dangerously symbiotic relationship of need and hurt. One might be right. However, for the sake of argument, let's set it to the triangular test.
1) Passion: At the beginning, there was no doubt sexual passion and it might still be there, though as they spent time together, the Examples have learned to [to be filled in at later date]
2) Commitment: Strong: the two are so dependant on each other for emotional satisfaction that they are unable to leave each other---not completely.
3) Intimacy: The two are intimate both sexually and emotionally, entwining both their minds and their physical forms in ways this author would rather not think about.
Thus, the "hatred" between Example B and Example C can equally be called "love".
Now, with the law of commutativity, in the simplest binary form:
In layman's terms it is said that a = b and b = c so therefore a = c. Therefore, explaining the concept of love between Example A and Example C should therefore be easy, correct? (Lots of 'therefore's in that paragraph).
As with everything else in love, in short: no.
Example A and Example C, for all their mutual attraction to Example B, also have very little in common. Example A is selfless and boisterous, while Example C is selfish and quietly manipulative. Example A obsesses over Example C's well-being (mostly due to her abusive relationship to Example B, but also more likely due to other reasons which Example A is unwilling to admit or face), while Example C focuses on extracting information from Example A (for the good of Example B, at first, but then slowly for other reasons, maybe? Perhaps? Shall have to ask Example C about this later).
Now, triangular system? Triangular system!
1) Passion: The two Examples share a mutual (if unwilling) attraction for one another that has led to complicated, passionate scenarios. Due to the Examples' differing body chemistries, it is uncertain whether or not the situation is due to hormonal influence.
2) Commitment: Example C may or may not be married, and the Examples may be quite insistent that they despise one another, but [to be filled in at later date]
3) Intimacy: Example A has opened up to Example C about emotional influences and the same can be said for Example C to Example A. The two have a slowly growing emotional intimacy.
As was previously mentioned, love and hate are really quite complicated, aren't they? Once Example B finds out about Example A and C, what's to happen to this mutual set of attractions' situation?
And why is it that Example A always ends up falling for those that hurt him most?
Discuss.
Muse: The Doctor (Ten)
Fandom: Doctor Who
Word Count: 1,342
Based on RP in realityshifted with savagestime and shatteredqueen.
Also, special thanks to savagestime for suggesting that I challenge myself and write something in 4th person!