Nonpossessive Love

[daisydo]

I recently read a book about communication and there was one section that really interested me. It seems a lot of people's relationship problems and break ups have stemmed from this type of issue IMO:

 

"Love is reverence: it keeps its distance even as it draws near; it does not seek to absorb the other in the self or want to be absorbed by it; it rejoices in the otherness of the other; it desires the beloved to be what he is and does not seek to refashion him into a replica of the self or to make him a means to the self's advancement. As reverence love seeks knowledge of the other, not by way of curiosity nor for the sake of gaining power but in rejoicing and wonder. In all such love there is an element of "holy fear" which is not a form of flight but rather deep respect for the otherness of the beloved and the profound unwillingness to violate his integrity."

 

-H. Richard Niebuhr

[Am4Real]

Pretty deep!

[princessa]

I agree that this is how love should be in theory.. What I've experienced in practice though, is that insecurities and fears often set in and prevent us from embracing these differences. When I was by myself and thinking about the way I should be loving him, I had to always remind myself that the beauty truly lies in the small differences.. But when faced with these differences I often found myself deeply scared of us drifting apart at some point in the future and of being abandoned because of these differences. I admit I am possessive by nature, and perhaps this is part of what's detrimental to true love.

[daisydo]

I agree. I think it is the fear of losing someone - but the fear becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. I think the quote above is a very mature type of love that takes some serious self-discipline and self-awareness.

 

I know I have never been like that in any of my relationships. I hope one day I can get to that point.

[notmakingsense]

I recently read a book about communication and there was one section that really interested me. It seems a lot of people's relationship problems and break ups have stemmed from this type of issue IMO:

 

"Love is reverence: it keeps its distance even as it draws near; it does not seek to absorb the other in the self or want to be absorbed by it; it rejoices in the otherness of the other; it desires the beloved to be what he is and does not seek to refashion him into a replica of the self or to make him a means to the self's advancement. As reverence love seeks knowledge of the other, not by way of curiosity nor for the sake of gaining power but in rejoicing and wonder. In all such love there is an element of "holy fear" which is not a form of flight but rather deep respect for the otherness of the beloved and the profound unwillingness to violate his integrity."

 

-H. Richard Niebuhr

 

Sounds like it was written by someone who was never in a relationship!

[MagnoliaJane]

I agree with NMS! This is great in theory, but what about practice?

 

Mind you, deep down I also hold this ethereal notion of love very high, but I acknowledge it is a very romanticised view. In reality, I believe love should be practical, and there's some poetry int that too. I would like love to be like this (written by U. A. Fanthorpe) -- or is this also too romatical?

 

There is a kind of love called maintenance

Which stores the WD40 and knows when to use it

Which checks the insurance, and doesn't forget

The milkman; which remembers to plant bulbs;

Which answers letters; which knows the way

The money goes; which deals with dentists

And Road Fund Tax and meeting trains,

And postcards to the lonely; which upholds

The permanently rickety elaborate

Structures of living, which is Atlas.

And maintenance is the sensible side of love,

Which knows what time and weather are doing

To my brickwork; insulates my faulty wiring;

Laughs at my dryrotten jokes; remembers

My need for gloss and grouting; which keeps

My suspect edifice upright in air,

As Atlas did the sky.

[notmakingsense]

I agree with NMS! This is great in theory, but what about practice?

 

Mind you, deep down I also hold this ethereal notion of love very high, but I acknowledge it is a very romanticised view. In reality, I believe love should be practical, and there's some poetry int that too. I would like love to be like this (written by U. A. Fanthorpe) -- or is this also too romatical?

 

There is a kind of love called maintenance

Which stores the WD40 and knows when to use it

Which checks the insurance, and doesn't forget

The milkman; which remembers to plant bulbs;

Which answers letters; which knows the way

The money goes; which deals with dentists

And Road Fund Tax and meeting trains,

And postcards to the lonely; which upholds

The permanently rickety elaborate

Structures of living, which is Atlas.

And maintenance is the sensible side of love,

Which knows what time and weather are doing

To my brickwork; insulates my faulty wiring;

Laughs at my dryrotten jokes; remembers

My need for gloss and grouting; which keeps

My suspect edifice upright in air,

As Atlas did the sky.

 

Nice MJ! I like it!

[riobikini]

re:

 

DaisyDo: " Nonpossessive Love

 

I recently read a book about communication and there was one section that really interested me. It seems a lot of people's relationship problems and break ups have stemmed from this type of issue IMO:

 

"Love is reverence: it keeps its distance even as it draws near; it does not seek to absorb the other in the self or want to be absorbed by it; it rejoices in the otherness of the other; it desires the beloved to be what he is and does not seek to refashion him into a replica of the self or to make him a means to the self's advancement. As reverence love seeks knowledge of the other, not by way of curiosity nor for the sake of gaining power but in rejoicing and wonder. In all such love there is an element of "holy fear" which is not a form of flight but rather deep respect for the otherness of the beloved and the profound unwillingness to violate his integrity." "

 

(Smile)

 

While there may be some truth to a few of the above statements -books about the ups and downs of love relationships are hot sellers, and the *purpose* is to have them immediately flying off the bookstore shelves.

 

So desperate are we to find the "miracle" book with all the answers we never look at the author as closely as we, probably, should.

 

As popular as relationship "fix-it" books are, it's a free-for-all market and the material you'll find inside is often an obscure and hungry writer's (narrow and mostly unresearched) idea about something he may -or may *not* know- much about or even have experience with.

 

Buyer beware.

 

Some of these books, I think, should come with either a disclaimer -or a warning.

 

(Smile)

 

And focusing on the excerpt from your post, "Love is reverence" -well, love is many things.

 

"Reverence", I associate with the Southern Bapticostal teachings rendered by my sunday school teacher when she talked about God.

 

Hardly a description of my feelings towards a husband.

 

The part about, "..(love).. keeps its distance even as it draws near.." is something I actually put into practice with everyone I love: no one likes to be *smothered* with constant, persistant attention -it gets annoying- fast.

 

I find that, with all my beloved, my feelings are the same if I'm at work, in the kitchen -or locked in an all-day embrace with any of them.

 

And they *know* it.

 

Excerpt: "(Love)...does not seek to absorb the other in the self or want to be absorbed by it."

 

Only *partly* true -and under certain circumstances, at that.

 

During the intial falling-in-love phase, any couple who's experienced it can tell you: you even resent *daylight* passing between you.

 

On the other hand -give it a few months or years- and you wean yourself from endless cow-eyed gazing, stop to eat a bite or two, learn to do without each other for more than a few seconds, and settle into a more comfortable, relaxed, and easy-going kind of partnership that doesn't oppose a little time away from each to continue practice being interesting *indiviuals*, tho still very much 1/2 of a loving, satisfying partnership.

 

Excerpt: "(Love)....rejoices in the otherness of the other; it desires the beloved to be what he is and does not seek to refashion him into a replica of the self or to make him a means to the self's advancement."

 

Again, only partly true.

 

True love *does*, indeed, "rejoice" in the distinct characteristics that make up the individual he's so in love with.

 

And true love *certainly* doesn't want his partner to be *exactly* like himself.

 

But -in any properly performing deep and meaningful romantic relationship you really can't help but become a better -more "advanced" person without the input of your partner.

 

Excerpt: " In all such love there is an element of "holy fear" which is not a form of flight but rather deep respect for the otherness of the beloved and the profound unwillingness to violate his integrity."

 

Good Lord! Couldn't the writer have been just a little more flowery, a bit more confusing, and a tad more misleading!?

 

(Smile)

 

Deep respect is *essential* to any truly loving relationship, however, I strongly object to fear, holy fear, or anything that causes a partner to cower, experience negative anxiety, or causes a loss of personal dignity.

 

It seems strange -and contradictory- for the writer to have mentioned that this so-called " holy fear" is supposed to promote deep respect that renders a "profound unwillingness to violate his (the partner's) integrity".

 

What an altogether confusing and misleading collection of statements.

 

Proves only they'll print *anything* these days.

 

(Smile)

 

I only hope and pray that -for the few who actually purchased this book- that the most of them never found the time to read it.

 

-Rio

[MagnoliaJane]

Dear Rio,

 

I very much enjoyed your post! What a wonderful day to start the morning and the week...

 

I always enjoy looking for what is written between the lines. I could not help thinking the "reverence" text is a very "oedipal".

 

I once ran off to another country to live with my lover. My parents were upset off course, but I was determined. My father brought me to the train station and was clearly unhappy. Just before the train arrived he scraped his voice and asked how I saw our future together. I answered: "what do you mean, to be in love off course". My father asked: "anything else, 'cause that is quite meager?".

 

Off course the relationship didn't last:)

[riobikini]

( And the "Bapticostal" reference? (Smile) Just for the curious, it's a label I've adopted to identify a type of religion formulated and practiced throughout my region by those who were more than willing to offer confusing facts and statements from a particular compilation without supportive *knowledge* and force-feed them to me as a child. It turns out that I had to learn more about the real *author* of its ideals, for myself, in order to discover with more clarity and understanding its true intentions and goals. A book is worthless without *understanding*. )

 

Comprende?

 

-Rio

[riobikini]

I read your post, MagnoliaJane -and I agree with the wisdom of your father.

 

The song phrase, "All you need is love.." seems to promote the idea that the rent will never come due, you'll eat kisses instead of food, and that there will always be a perpetual summer so, if you get kicked out of your "lover's nest", you can live and sleep outside under the stars, and that the future children you have will simply raise themselves and never expect anything on Christmas Day.

 

They call it "Utopia" but I call it a component of "welfare".

 

(Smile)

 

You were lucky to have such a caring father.

 

 

-Rio