Psychology of love
It’s time for another provocative topic. To reason about love with a serious view would be to succumb to universal obstruction on a hole from the bagel, so we will add a little pepper and irony in our conversation. Let’s talk about love and try to figure out what it is, and why there are so many problems in life.
About love could be said the same as about friendship, and it would be completely accurate, but if only we will stop, then the topic, as they say, will not be disclosed. Love and faith in it – the phenomenon is more complicated, just because of the most universal insanity.
We rub a lot about friendship, but I’m loved by love, brains are rinsed. TV, printed publications, internet, parties and gatherings – everywhere one and the same wanders about love in various forms and poses.
In fact, the situation is such that the issue of love is equally equal to the question of the meaning of life, and for many – is identical to him. Live life and not love, live life and not be loved … Is it not the most terrible nightmare of a modern man?
In psychology there is such a principle: the more expectations about some kind of event, the higher the probability of crushing disappointment. Wait more – you get less, you wait less – you get more. Principle reinforced concrete, no exceptions.
So it turns out because the reality is unpredictable and does not want to be placed in the procrusteo bed of mental ideas about whether it will be ". And the more faithful ideas about the future we build, the more difficult the reality in them to fit, and it became and the probability of expanding the forehead in a collision with harsh truth of life above. And vice versa, the fewer plans and fantasies, the sooner the reality will be the most expectations.
So, one of the main problems with love is just that it consists that expectations initially damn great, because, love is the same, what an important thing! Love is waiting for all life, with each regular failure winding all new and new expectations, they say, in the next one, everything will be exactly like in a fairy tale. Then there are new relationships, and it seems that it is love, but it takes time and rude reality once again hits a shovel on the back.
A clever man would look back, there would be two plus two and made the right conclusions about the fallacy of their expectations, but for some reason it turns out otherwise. Everything ends with the accusations of another person in the fact that he loves reliability or does not work well with his duties, because, so much easier than to recognize your responsibility for false expectations and unreasonable requirements.
Simply put, expectations for love are strongly overestimated, and you need to do something about it. Entilly romantic ideas about love do not give to see the simplicity and naturalness of this feeling.
"The feeling of love" is only a figure of speech such. There is no sense of love. And if someone firmly believes that he has a special light bulb, which lights up when sympathy develops into love, then so it is necessary – with relations with such people, everything is not very successful, maybe they will expand once by themselves.
There is a sympathy, there is respect, the passion is exactly, and there is no love. Our love is called a complex of more or less simple mental experiences, mainly neurotic nature. "I was pregnant, it means I love" – this is the modern formula of love.
It is said that you need to be able to be able to love, and that not everyone is capable of this feeling … Brehnya is all! If you do not replace the concepts and torn to the root, then no science is required. About the inability to love the most butt manipulators using the topic of love as a lever of psychological impact.
Loving are capable of everything – it is not more difficult than breathing. Just look closely at your everyday sympathies and antipathy to understand how easy and naturally we love our things, and … as you are absolutely not able to love even the closest people.
Of course, love inanimate items easier. Who would argue – from them bribes smooth. From your favorite sweater, no response feelings are not required – he is not capable of them, but for some reason we do not suffer from this. We love him as it is, just for the fact that we have, and for how warmth and cozy.
But as soon as it comes to love for a person, so immediately begins some complaints. A sweater for us for our love should not, and the person must – he is a man, must understand! The strange thing in the end turns out – we treat your favorite things better and more careful than our loved ones.
And how do we treat the disadvantages of our own things? We do not get angry and do not be offended, and your favorite clothes do not eat to holes and still continue to love her. In relation to inanimate objects, it is much easier to feel the very calm and unconditional love that everything is careful to find in a relationship with a person.
We are all able to love, but in the most responsible moment, this ability gives a failure, because in other people we see not the "thing in yourself", and the consumable material for your psychological arbitrariness. It is not enough for us that the beloved person is near – we want to have been fixed to us for us, otherwise we are squeezing.
We want someone from the outside to accept us with all the losses and gave us to believe that we have the right to our cubic meters of space in this life. We do not like themselves, we do not know how to take ourselves, and therefore are not able to calmly and holistically take another person. Our love only works in simple cases of love for inanimate objects, where dissatisfaction can not be transferred to the object of our love.
It is dissatisfaction with himself creates dissatisfaction with other people. The inability to recognize and take its drawbacks, as some kind of dality, does not give us the opportunity to see this very dality in another person.
We see the shortcomings in another person and blame it for them in the same way as I blame yourself for your. And there would be no one inner guilt and another person, we would be perceived completely differently – they would look at him exactly the same luminous gaze, which we look at your favorite things.
You can love another person only to reconcile with you or, at least, without allowing you to transfer your internal problems to him. No one should do nothing for our good attitude – this is our choice, love or not to love, take care or not, and if it does not find a response from the other side, this is not a reason for offense. Love or be loved – does not mean.
In case of loved things, everything is simple – we like them, and all. We do not need to find out with them relationships and demand some oaths and recognition. We are glad that we have, but not dependent on them. We are tied to them and inevitably upset when we lose, but we don’t go crazy – no matter how bitterly we are, we live further, get on other things and with the same sincerity they now love them now.
We do not reduce the whole meaning of life to your things, and therefore our world does not split into parts with their loss. Cases of frank pathology we do not consider, so do not argue.
With regard to favorite things, the most psychological distance is preserved naturally, which in relations with a person has to be established consciously with its volitional effort. Things can be loved, but it’s hard for them to interfere. But in a person we are plugged, insert, fall and dissolve – and this is just a pathology.
And what about loyalty? Are we obliged to keep loyalty to one sweater and refuse to love others? We, of course, can play the game and give a vow of loyalty – to wear a sweater to the last thread, before changing it to another. But is there any sense?
What is the fundamental difference between the beloved sweater from all other? In the fact that at the moment he likes most of all the others, and we return to him once at once not because they gave vow, but because it is better for us than with others. Do you need some oaths and promises here?
And even if it turns out that the favorite sweaters are not one and not two, – Would we have to experience some moral suffering about this? No one here does not require monogamy here, no one reproaches us in treason. In one sweater, it is good for skiing, in another TV watch in the winter evening. And now, hair on yourself tear?
Moral, requiring love and keep loyalty to someone alone, protects the neurosis of this very "one". No other value in such morality. Catch a person, put it on the chain and make him love him – that’s what the chambers of the married loyalty want. Losing someone else’s love hurts only because of the same dislike for yourself, and Morals here, as always, falls on the side of humiliated and offended – protects the weak and condemns strong.
We are not obliged to keep loyal to our things, we are not nailed to them with nails of their requirements, but without any external or internal coercion, we return to them again and again. We are free from them, and therefore they keep them loyalty – where there are no chains, there is no and desire to break them.
This loyalty is not a moral category, but the necessary consequence of the principle of pleasure – we always return to where we are good, and no vows are not needed for this. Will be good – we will go back, stops to be good – stop returning. There is no other law "About loyalty".
But imagine that the sweaters had a free will and he wanted to change the owner under the pretext that he would be better elsewhere. Admit it, in the shower, something came out, "Yes, how he dreamed?! He is mine!"
Pride requires submission, the insignificance is painfully experiencing a blow to self-esteem … And, after all, it’s about the same right to freedom that we just happily recognized. The object of our love has the same full right to go there, where he is better, but are we ready for him, in this case, to glad and sincerely wish all the best?
If someone parallel between love for things and love for a person seems unpealing, he goes to the forest just does not want to give up his self-deception. It is very convenient to assume that love for a person is something fundamentally different.
You can so much to naphantize, it is possible to suffer with such pleasure due to the lack of "real love" in your life, and with what profit you can change your "true love" to all sorts of household services and psychological stroking!
If we talk about the "science to love" and that real love is something more complex and sublime than the usual sympathy, then learn how to love a person at least as "primitively", as you like your things – without any oncoming commitments , without any dependence, but with the same self-dedication and sincere care. It turns out – then come to speculate about the nature of true love.
Now imagine that there is a lively pretty person with you, who belongs to you, as a beloved sweater, in the sense that we just considered. He loves you calmly and without any insanity. He is good in your company and he does not require anything in return. He protects your relationship and sincerely takes care that you feel good, because then it will be fine and he is next to you. Is it not about this holiday of life you always dreamed?
And whether you are able to love another person here is so? Are you capable of accepting a person as it is, with all his "holes and scuffs"? Are you able to take care of another person for reasons of healthy egoism, not exposing the account for your services?
Are you able to love, while maintaining your integrity and independence, not dissolving in another person? Or, perhaps, you are looking for – this very dissolution in each other?
Maybe you love the loss of personal borders when two lonely and unfortunate "halves" naively hope to become a single full-fledged whole? If so, then you have big problems that you, however, can be proud.
All love lyrics and half of the creations of world art are created by such people – with a similar "fine" mental organization. There is something to be proud of what, but happiness, it has not yet brought anyone – Some sweet suffering.
No boundary between simple sympathy and love – it’s all solid conventions. There is nothing different in nature, except for a greater or less sympathy of one person to another. And the love that is spoken about everything around, from ordinary sympathy differs only by a safety contract for exclusive use of each other.
Marriages are to heaven, yes, but only in heavenly laws, and not through the regulations, beautiful promises and treaties for the right of ownership. Sympathy – this is the "law of God", but it does not paint the rights and obligations of the parties – this is already a flour of the law of the human.
There is nothing funniest recognition in love. Well this is just liketing! If in our mental organization is not provided for a separate independent feeling called "Love", the fact that it sees a person who recognizes in this love itself? Watch hands! Inside, he sees sympathy and obsessive his attachment, coupled with the fear of possible loss – sees, and makes a logical conclusion that all this together, probably, is "love".
Ask him what love is and he will replete – if enough honesty, he will say that he has no intention. But he is forced to operate with this concept, because it is waiting for it and even demand – "Well, when he declares his feelings?!"So he declares – in order not to look an idiot that the only one does not know what love is. And on the very case, no one knows! And especially those who are sacred in love believe.
And you also thought about it. Tried to answer this question? And something other than beautiful poetic wording invented in response? And if you were asked what hunger was, you would also hit poetry? No, hunger exists completely real and you know it perfectly, so it’s easy to describe it and just show your finger where you feel it. And about love you do not know anything – not at all because they have never been "hungry".
Being still unaware children, you loved the whole world around, but it was never an independent feeling – you just took everything around, how delicious data that does not require any changes. But even if you were then knew this word, you would not understand that it was love, because there was nothing to understand.
Then it was your natural way to look at things – a complete acceptance or a complete absence of rebound. As a breath – inhale, and no illusions about the fact that inhale is better than the exhalation or vice versa.
Love is not a feeling – this is a mode of perception, peculiar to healthy consciousness, and it is possible to determine it only through denial, through what is not in it. Love is a perception in which there is no separation for black and white. And this is a natural state of a person who, however, almost all of us is deeply violated.
We split on black and white inside and therefore no longer able to see the world around the world holistic. Restore inner integrity is quite possible, but not by the game in the neurotic love, which this most inner split only increases.
So all words and confessions in love is either a lie or neurosis that for some reason is made to be proud of instead of treating it. If there is a "real love" in the life, then this natural love is the same that it is impossible to describe for the same reason that it is impossible to bite the hole from the bagel. The lack of stone in the boot is not love, it’s just the lack of stone in the boot.
Therefore, if before enlightenment, you are still far away, do not wise up to the holy and do not remember the name of the Lord Vure. The more beautiful words, the greater the lies and self-deception. Trust your clean sympathy, follow it and do not demand more from other people.
The pursuit of ghosts takes all his strength and does not give anything in return. Stop and look back – you are surrounded by a beautiful world and beautiful people.