http://writevli.deviantart.com/art/Love-is-blind-83380602
NOT!
Whoever said this is in loggerheads with the whole of human experience of love!
*Huh! You want to piece of me!? Believers of love's blindness! huh!?
If then, then it is not love.
Wikipedia defines love as...
"Love is any of a number of emotions related to a sense of strong affection[1] and attachment. The word love can refer to a variety of different feelings, states, and attitudes, ranging from generic pleasure ("I loved that meal") to intense interpersonal attraction ("I love my husband"). This diversity of uses and meanings, combined with the complexity of the feelings involved, makes love unusually difficult to consistently define, even compared to other emotional states.
As an abstract concept, love usually refers to a deep, ineffable feeling of tenderly caring for another person. Even this limited conception of love, however, encompasses a wealth of different feelings, from the passionate desire and intimacy of romantic love to the nonsexual emotional closeness of familial and platonic love[2] to the profound oneness or devotion of religious love.[3] Love in its various forms acts as a major facilitator of interpersonal relationships and, owing to its central psychological importance, is one of the most common themes in the creative arts."- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love
eloquent at that wikipedia!
But I would want to go beyond the descriptive exposition of love and will attempt finally in this blog to perform an exegesis.
*WHEW! GOOD LUCK! I use exegesis here not in the traditional textual-hermeneutic or the more limited Biblical sense of it, but in the more semiotic sense of reading anything as a "sign."
http://lullabyoflilly.deviantart.com/art/L-O-V-E-40123171
I shall begin by inverting the argument: "Blind is love" and adding this condition "only to those who don't KNOW it."
In this condition, the notion of "knowing" is not only a cognitive knowledge, but a more holistic knowing that involves the whole being of a person- even those that lie beyond the reaches of the mind and its rational schema. Love is to simply know by beholding despite exhaustive explanation. At the point that you are convinced of any explanation on why love exists then it refuses to lend itself to you.
I divert at this point to a expository narrative.
Have you ever experienced being asked "why" you love a certain person or "why" you love doing something?
And if you sincerely love that person or craft you find yourself at the same time producing so many reasons, but knowing deep inside that these do not really account for the "why" of your love.
Because to ask "why" you love someone or something is the biggest disservice and to try to answer it is to disenfranchise yourself of the authentic experience!
That real object of love in fact is that "unspeakable" aspect of that you love. If you find yourself being satisfied on your own rationalizations of why you love somebody or something, it's bound to lose its current flavor. Sweeter if you're lucky, then if it is so, then you were simply deceiving yourself as opposed to if it turned bitter, then it was bound to happen since you were simply loving the "idea" or "blueprint" of the person or thing you were supposedly "in love" with.
Why is that so?
Because to love is to see beyond what is present- LOVE IS PROPHETIC!
To love is to see the broad horizons the "other" is capable of conquering.
http://mcr-raven.deviantart.com/art/Bring-me-the-Horizon-99432112
If it is anything else, then doubt it.
That in the other's radical otherness, that in one's inability to grasp the raw being of the other, past, present, and beyond- one is only shaken to the core and have nothing to do but to tenderly and deeply care for it.
http://worthyg.deviantart.com/art/Care-113232447
As well, through the overwhelming elusive essence of the other, one sees the "I" as an "other-in-itself". Through the eyes of the other, one sees one's self as a vulnerable kernel of reality: also as an object of tender and deep care.
Love is a paradox that in its very mysterious co-other-ing of lover and loved, the dualities of similarity and complementarity are TRANSCENDED! One can see how a person in love sees the other as like one's self, an other, but still wholly other. Through the prophetic enlightenment to the potential of the other and one's own potential to be other through the other- love becomes a circular motion of expansion.
Does this cycle of expansion ever end?
I shall dwell on the "heart" as a symbol of love...
http://stupid-princess.deviantart.com/art/heart-61068842
Because as I said in the previous blog "the ungraspable" love consists of the two-way opposing functions of the phallic and the yonic. These two are accounted well by the heart. Phallic at the bottom and yonic at the top.
Love in its purest form does not seem to even conceive of an end as analogically portrayed by the heart. The opposite functions within a single "loving unit" do not ever simply get to meet by itself and always seeks the other.
But this would be simplistic.
Because love is not always "attachment," but precisely it sets free. Attachments made by a lover to the loved is made in the light of inciting the other in both parties to expand. A lover can't seem to contain him or herself in desiring to see the possibilities of the other. No essence is asserted unto the other, but it is increasingly set free by the lover regardless of it being in the context of binding or unbinding the lover and the loved.
http://ladybirdm.deviantart.com/art/Love-35009942
finally, to love begins to become a total experience of otherness between two beings. Whether of a person, a thing, or an act, what matters in love is that you precisely are not blind to the reality of the other. Love essentially, if I need to claim to know it is to choose to see the otherness of the other and to act as if it's one's own.
2 comments:
However, the phrase "Love is blind" is generally used in reference to the emotional coloring that occurs when a person is infatuated. This does not mean that love is false but instead that the human mind tends to focus on what they want to hear or see; similar to selective hearing. If a person loves eating french fries they most likely do not care or want to know about the 'bad side' of their favorite snack. Love is similar. If you love someone (true love, infatuation, familiarity, or instinctual feelings), you tend to choose to be selective in the information that you believe about them, depending on the light the information casts on your 'love'. Hate could also be considered 'blind' as it is the opposite of love. If you hate something or someone, the good is generally overlooked in favor of the bad so that your current beliefs or feelings may not be changed.
I can see where love is not completely blind, but when emotions are involved, perceptions are skewed. Our original, un-skewed perceptions on reality are altered in some way when emotions are being felt, even if the emotions or changes are minimal. Some people can be completely blind when it comes to love, and others can be less swayed by our emotions. It all just depends on the person.
So in response to your post, I would have to disagree with your belief that love is not blind because love is an emotions just like hate, anger, jealousy, and/or greed. It is guaranteed to color one's perceptions as 'emotion' is one of the Ways of Knowledge and love is an emotion.
It seems that you didn`t understand the entry given that you felt the need to explain this at length
Post a Comment