A different street
You're walking down a street, trying to get to a building because someone told you should go there. You don't really know where the building is, but you've been given directions that brought you to this street.
The problem is, the street leads to a dead end. There's just a wall there that you can't get over. You know the building is on the other side because you can see it, but you just can't get there from this street. The wall's too high to climb over, too wide to walk around, and too empty of doors to walk through.
Later, you leave your house and visit a friend across the street. You glance out the window at the back of the house and with a start see the other side of the wall that stopped you earlier and realize you're in the building you were trying to get to earlier and that you actually did know how to get there all along.
That's how I felt when I read Ian's latest post in our discussion. The way we were talking about whether romantic love is necessary was just not going to get me to see his point. It was taking the form, "You don't need romantic love to live a complete and happy life." Those directions just weren't working for me. The words "you don't need" were a wall I just couldn't get past.
Reading them, I'd automatically and unconsciously switch them to "you shouldn't need..." Ian made that distinction in his first post, but I didn't see the significance then. The problem was that reading in "shouldn't" changed an impersonal statement of how things are (Ian's point) into a personal directive for how I should feel (my understanding of Ian's point).
I didn't even realize this was happening (and would argue that it was impossible for me to) until Ian's point was phrased differently and I was able to take a different street to it.
For me, for some reason, there is a world of difference between "you don't need romantic love to live a complete and happy life" and "anyone can live a complete and happy life without romantic love."
When put the second way, I agree for the most part. I'm not sure about the "anyone", but acknowledge it could be true. But the basic point is something I've known about since second year when I took a psychology of family and couples course. I went back and reread the section of the textbook about a month after I split up with Bronwyn. Hell, I think it's still on my shelf. Give me a second.
Here we go.
In retrospect, Thursday's rant came out of a shitty mood I was in for a number of reasons, one of which being that I'm struggling with a very specific kind of loneliness these days.
So, to clarify (mostly for my sake):
1. I know I can live a happy and complete life without romantic love (which I'm just going to call love from here on out because I'm tired of typing the whole thing). I think it was Ian who said that part of doing that is actually believing love is not a necessary component of such a life. A lot of the time I do. I go through many bouts where I don't. Thursday was one of them.
2. It's not that I think I'll never love again. That's ridiculous. I will. I have few doubts about that. "The end is not yet."
3. It's not that I think that love will make me happy. That's a very dangerous belief because it makes you rely on something outside yourself for happiness.
4. I do rely on myself.
5. As Thursday's rant might suggest, it's not always the easiest thing to do.
6. Some of this may contradict what I've written before.
7. I'm comfortable with that.
The problem is, the street leads to a dead end. There's just a wall there that you can't get over. You know the building is on the other side because you can see it, but you just can't get there from this street. The wall's too high to climb over, too wide to walk around, and too empty of doors to walk through.
Later, you leave your house and visit a friend across the street. You glance out the window at the back of the house and with a start see the other side of the wall that stopped you earlier and realize you're in the building you were trying to get to earlier and that you actually did know how to get there all along.
That's how I felt when I read Ian's latest post in our discussion. The way we were talking about whether romantic love is necessary was just not going to get me to see his point. It was taking the form, "You don't need romantic love to live a complete and happy life." Those directions just weren't working for me. The words "you don't need" were a wall I just couldn't get past.
Reading them, I'd automatically and unconsciously switch them to "you shouldn't need..." Ian made that distinction in his first post, but I didn't see the significance then. The problem was that reading in "shouldn't" changed an impersonal statement of how things are (Ian's point) into a personal directive for how I should feel (my understanding of Ian's point).
I didn't even realize this was happening (and would argue that it was impossible for me to) until Ian's point was phrased differently and I was able to take a different street to it.
For me, for some reason, there is a world of difference between "you don't need romantic love to live a complete and happy life" and "anyone can live a complete and happy life without romantic love."
When put the second way, I agree for the most part. I'm not sure about the "anyone", but acknowledge it could be true. But the basic point is something I've known about since second year when I took a psychology of family and couples course. I went back and reread the section of the textbook about a month after I split up with Bronwyn. Hell, I think it's still on my shelf. Give me a second.
Here we go.
"Singlehood can be a happy, healthy lifestyle. Nevertheless, for many single individuals loneliness can be a challenge."It then goes through a number of different strategies that single people use to stave off loneliness. All ones that I've employed.
- marriage and the family: diversity and strengths; david h. olson & john defrain; p. 147
In retrospect, Thursday's rant came out of a shitty mood I was in for a number of reasons, one of which being that I'm struggling with a very specific kind of loneliness these days.
So, to clarify (mostly for my sake):
1. I know I can live a happy and complete life without romantic love (which I'm just going to call love from here on out because I'm tired of typing the whole thing). I think it was Ian who said that part of doing that is actually believing love is not a necessary component of such a life. A lot of the time I do. I go through many bouts where I don't. Thursday was one of them.
2. It's not that I think I'll never love again. That's ridiculous. I will. I have few doubts about that. "The end is not yet."
3. It's not that I think that love will make me happy. That's a very dangerous belief because it makes you rely on something outside yourself for happiness.
4. I do rely on myself.
5. As Thursday's rant might suggest, it's not always the easiest thing to do.
6. Some of this may contradict what I've written before.
7. I'm comfortable with that.
