Interesting view on Love and Fear

[Sonolumino]

I'm reading a book called "Thinking in the Shadow of Feelings". Found it down my basement and picked it up, turns out it's a very good read and has some interesting insights on love and why breakups are so difficult on people. I've written a few excerpts here that I thought were interesting.

 

What do you think?

 

 

We sometimes enjoy being alone, but we never enjoy being lonely. We at least have our own company to give us solace when alone, but we are only in the company of fear when lonely. The essence of loneliness is emptiness, and the essence of emptiness is terror. In loneliness a person often behaves as if he or she were drowning, grabbing at anything or anyone. The emptiness of a lonely weekend can be more terrifying than any real danger in the real world. A gaping nothingness. Two days without work make the three nights around them very long, black, and bleak. Too much time for rest and recreation is a severe punishment for those who are very restless inside: It proves almost endless opportunities to experience panic. Many single people rush to congregate in crowded bars at such times to establish some form of human contact. The dominant mood at the "Thank God It's Friday" pubs is hardly thankfulness. It is anxiety. It is only superficially true that the very nervous young men and women who mingle there are looking desperately for sex partners. In fact they are looking for something much more important, although not necessarily knowingly: at least short-term companionship to relieve the frightening anxiety of loneliness. A warm body is the classic antidote to the cold grip of panic. The fear of abandonment is present in men and in women, in the young and old, in all relationships. Divorced or widowed men and women often rush into a new marriage essentially to avoid this fear, although they usually deny having it in the first place. Yet, without it, nobody would get entangled so quickly in anew serious relationship. People marry, they have children, join clubs and causes, mix socially, and they form alliances and friendships with other people as well as with dogs, cats, birds, and other pets-all to avoid loneliness, or at least to lessen it.

 

Why are breakups so hard? Why do people commit murder or suicide, or have nervous breakdowns and other serious troubles when a lover or mate dies, deserts, or divorces them? Not because of the pain that is associated with any important loss. Pain is bearable, but the fear of abandonment often is not. The breakup of central relationships is often experienced as leaving a hole in the middle of one's abdomen, as if something were torn out from there. Many of those suddenly left by an important person sense themselves without any attachments, in danger of drifting into outer space forever. The fear of "non-being" is activated here.

 

Those in panic are positive that "others" simply do not understand the dimensions and the urgency of the danger that confronts them. Why else would "they" still be so calm? When a security-providing relationships is lost, the result is pathologic mourning that consists of terror and panic and that appears endless and empty of hope. Death often seems highly preferred to the bottomless agony.

 

Many have a sense that they are faceless, nameless, and with no connections. Such people are desperately eager to hold onto somebody and they are hungry to be held. Many fear being left, forgotten, abandoned. This is why many people want to see their names on plaques or in print, to be "eternally" remembered by others. This is also why some people are so driven to have children.

 

The unseen fear of abandonment also has a tendency to escalate. Will this relationship continue as one gets older, less attractive physically, less potent or desirable sexually, weaker, less exciting? Is this job secure? The cost of appeasement is always greater appeasement. More and more of a person's interests are given up in the effort to please the other, to maintain the status quo. At rare moments of relative sanity people realize that heir "adjustments" are degrading; but this further lowers self-esteem and aggravates the fear as it adds to the pain and to the hidden rage. This is when peace-loving and docile people sometimes break into rampages. Those in the degrading prison of fear frequently warn others not to follow in their footsteps, because they themselves can't break out.

 

Choosing to be with someone is basically different form clinging to a person. The former is based on free choice, the latter is an effort to lessen panic. But clinging does not insure emotional closeness, and it almost guarantees in fact that the partners will remain emotionally distant. The fear of being all alone often serves as a strong glue, however, which holds people even in poor relationships. But those driven against their free will, in a car or in a relationship, do not enjoy the scenery very much. Conflicts, divorce, and even violence are common in romantic "love", because the closeness eventually exceeds the tolerance for it by one of the partners, while being insufficient for the other.

 

Ideal conditions exist only during or before the honeymoon of relationships, when the yearnings are most alike in both partners. The anxiety of each is lowered by the presence of the other, and both usually expect that the other will cause it to disappear altogether. The inevitable disappointment that follows most honeymoons springs from the painful realization that the partner failed to bring such happiness, though even this disappointment is sometimes denied for years. Hope springs eternal when nothing more concrete can be relied upon. The realistic adult need for distance is often overlooked by those who fear abandonment. But even the formal pact "till death do us part" does not guarantee non-abandonment.

 

Even unfulfillable dreams are not given up without fierce struggles. As long as we rely on another person to "make us whole" we are ourselves half whole, and terror is always lurking nearby. An extreme sense of fragility is always present.

 

 

Now, onto "Love"

 

We are in need and not necessarily loving at all when romantically "in love". In return for the may declarations of our "love" we expect the "loved one" to be totally devoted to us. Above all, fear filled people seek to be reassured that they will not be rejected; this is the central concern of "lovers". This is not so in real love. The joy and pleasure of loving are derived from the very act of giving, not from obtaining anything from anyone. The wish to share one's inner plenty is the essence of real love. Love is neither an obligation based on past performance nor a contract for the future. The words "I love you" always refer only to the present moment, although they are generally misunderstood as a promise for all time. Real love can only exist when feelings in general are neither suppressed nor denied, and it commonly alternates therefore with hurt, disappointment, and anger. They often come and go in quick succession, like bright rays of sunshine on a somewhat cloudy day. Many people nevertheless still think that love can last till death or for any other fixed period of time. Few know that love's impermanence is not a sign of its fickle nature but a feature of its essential character. The promise of eternal love is always false, always self-serving, and always aimed at deluding the one that is made to, although usually without conscious awareness of such an intent. Those making such vows and those willing to accept them are engaged in the exchange of bogus promissory notes having no real value. The inevitable crash occurs sooner or later, when the initial fund of goodwill proves insufficient to cover the many demands made upon it.

 

In reality, a commitment between people can only bind their acts, not their feelings.

 

Being "in love" is essentially a passive state; the goal of lovers, like that of children, is to be loved. Romantic "love" is characterized by yearning. We are filled with a sense of well-being when near the "loved one", or with jealousy and dread when we are involuntarily separated. Separation is so intolerably painful and brings up so much anxiety that many physiologic processes are disturbed. Being "in love" impoverishes both lovers, and it robs them of the flexibility to respond freely to changing situations. Fear of losing the lover causes the other to behave in ways that are guaranteed to please, regardless of the price.

 

This is why lovers hold hands in public. They kiss, touch, repeatedly profess their "love" for each other, oblivious to anything and to all others around them. Those afraid of desertion remain very careful not to overstep the boundaries of what their partner will accept.

 

Since the happiness of romantic lovers is really nothing more than the balance achieved by two people who help each other hold dread in check, disappointment is only a matter of time. The panic always returns, unless a new lover soon replaces the old one and a new "magical" bond is formed. This is why forlorn ex-lovers often get married on the rebound. Since being cast off evokes not only the fear of abandonment but often also the more primitive and more horrible fear of nonbeing, those who have been jilted tend to become bitterly vindictive, and they eagerly seek revenge. Coming back with a punch helps them a little to feel less vulnerable and not so powerless.

 

We forget how fickle common lovers are, because the fear that something will break our "love" relationship is so terrible that those of us involved swear that THIS "love" is forever. Lovers understandably consider themselves the luckiest people in the whole world because their most terrible fears SEEM to have disappeared.

 

Being "in love" is thus synonymous with being "out of fear", and this is achieved by being "out of mind". Lovers compliment each other perfectly during the honeymoon phase, and then hold on for dear life. Their anxiety is reduced in exactly the same way that sucking the thumb reduced it in infancy. Rather than "couple" with a part of their own body, lovers couple with each other. But even so, dynamically it is still self-coupling. This is why lovers promise, demand, and expect exclusivity and totally loyalty from each other. Since survival itself is subjectively at stake, lovers must always be on call for their "beloved".

 

Anyone who says "I love you" is saying it for themselves, and expects/demands reciprocity. The ones to whom this statement is directed are usually only "happy" for themselves. They feel safer. They feel less anxious.

 

"Love" from the outside is not the solution. You can't find inner peace through someone else.

[Kansas]

Thanks for posting.

 

Another good read is The Journey From Abandonment to Healing.

[Fern]

LOVE IT.

 

Thanks for posting!

[abust1]

Wow, this is me: "Those afraid of desertion remain very careful not to overstep the boundaries of what their partner will accept." God I have a lot of work to do.

 

Another similar read based on the Tristan and Iseult myth,

We: Understanding the Psychology of Romantic Love.

[Fern]

'Against Love: A Polemic' - is very interesting too. If you like this sort of thing...

[Isolde]

There are some good points here with the love-fear connection, but the article seems to suggest that people don't have any ability to sustain love, through free will. People are subject to lots of vagaries out of their control, but I don't think they're nearly as helpless as this article indicates.

[GreenPolicy]

There's a difference between eros love (infatuated love in the honeymoon stage) and committed love. Eros love ALWAYS fades in every relationship. Most relationships fall apart when the honeymoon stage ends. Relationships that last, the couples experience committed love. Romance and passion cannot be sustained 100 percent of the time.

[Sonolumino]

There are some good points here with the love-fear connection, but the article seems to suggest that people don't have any ability to sustain love, through free will. People are subject to lots of vagaries out of their control, but I don't think they're nearly as helpless as this article indicates.

 

I don't think this is the case. I think the article suggests that fake love never lasts, and we humans often mistake "being out of fear" with "being in love". The parts of the book which I didn't include was how being in real love takes two mature adults, each emotionally mature enough to understand the consequences of feeling a deep emotional connection. I think that the point it was trying to make here was that many people confuse the two forms, and when the initial honeymoon stage ends, people end the relationship because they think that is how it should be always. That kind of acting immature "out of fear" connection, not love.

 

There's a difference between eros love (infatuated love in the honeymoon stage) and committed love. Eros love ALWAYS fades in every relationship. Most relationships fall apart when the honeymoon stage ends. Relationships that last, the couples experience committed love. Romance and passion cannot be sustained 100 percent of the time.

 

Exactly. I think that most relationships fall apart when the honeymoon stage ends because one or both partners have an extremely unrealistic view of what love is. This may be due to mass media and parental indoctrination, but mainly it is the fear of abandonment that was cultivated. When that fear becomes the reason for entering the relationship in the first place, it stands zero chance of success, because both partners can never live up to the other's expectations.

[Riversong]

I really enjoyed reading that, thanks for the post, definite food for thought and I could certainly relate to some of it. I'm going to read it through again later ....