Home > Romance/Relationships > Entry 10/11/2007 11:29:20 PM – Mentat 361

Entry 10/11/2007 11:29:20 PM – Mentat 361

10/12/2007
     I had an interesting talk with an acquaintance of mine yesterday "afternoon" involving his use of the words "I love you" in my direction.  I was confused about the use of the words for a number of reasons…  While I’ve known him on and off for the last four years, our conversations in the last year while increasing in frequency have not really increased in intensity.  They had taken me off-guard because I could find no real reason why love would be an emotion that he would express in my direction as I am normally guarded (at best) or casual (at worst) whenever we chat.  And whenever there had been an opportunity to get more intense or more intimate in our chats, they always seem to either fall short, or end up on the rocks of "…I just don’t understand you…" whenever I try to make my position, my feeling, my thoughts, or even my perspective clear. 
     When he had said "I love you" in my direction yesterday afternoon, I had asked him "in what capacity?"  While he didn’t seem annoyed by the question, he did appear rather surprised, explaining to me that love has no levels. 
     Yes it does, I responded.  We have the love of a brother and family, the love of a friend, the love of a brother, love of a husband or wife.  There are physical levels of intimacy attached to love which dictates the levels. 
     He said to me, when a child says that they love us, we know precisely what that child means when he says it. 
     At the time, I mostly agreed with him, however I said that a child doesn’t understand the physical implications of love, as when we reach adolescence we begin attaching a physicality to that love.  (I’ve since had some time to mull this over, and I’ll get to that in a little bit). 
     He said to me as the conversation and debate on this wore on, that people who attribute love to levels to love, are usually the kind of people that either are incapable of expressing love, or make it difficult to express love. 
     I agreed to an extent, but stated that it’s not as simple as that… 

     Eventually it reached a point where debating this in a public setting I felt was particularly dangerous; not because of the random comments that could come up from the various strangers sitting in the room, but because there were a couple of personal adversaries that I preferred not to engage their little minds and their smaller wheels turning into putting one and one together where there was no one and one to put together. 

     He had hit an interesting defensive point within me when he had said that people that define love by levels are incapable or don’t want to express love freely.  At the same time I personally think he was intentionally over-simplifying things, because someplace in the conversation we had gone into the realm of physical love/sex, and brought up the fact that he didn’t bottom for someone, and if he did, it would involve loving (and trusting that man). 
     This over-simplifying was reinforced when I said, "then if you love me as a four year old does without boundaries and without levels then physically bottoming shouldn’t be a problem for you should it?"  I could hear him sidestepping/backpedalling and setting up the routine minefields I’m used to walking whenever I’ve figured out the boundaries established and start twisting their own words against them. 
     I allowed the conversation to change course, but like I said, it did give me some things to think about since. 

     Having meditated on it for some time now, I’ve come to the conclusion that he is indeed over-simplifying love in all its splendid form.  Not to mention his use of the analogy that love is something that is given as simply and as freely as he alluded to in that conversation.  There have been and always be differentiations in love; from the brotherly/sisterly, through the parental and it’s variations of maternal/paternal, through to platonic and the various forms of friendships, to the intimate and those reserved for those we call lovers, or husbands/wives. 
     Having chatted with this acquaintance of mine for some weeks now, and given the fickleness that I have seen him demonstrate this "love" to those around him in the years that I’ve watched him chatting with folk online, I believe that he’s merely deluding himself into a false sense of being a giver, when he only gives based on what he can get out of it.  Like that four year old that he had alluded to in his analogies yesterday afternoon. 

     The defensive point that he had hit though, in his comment about those that create so many levels when it comes to love being incapable of expressing love, I believe hits only the mark in that it’s been some time since I’ve let down my defenses around people and allowed them in.  I still don’t find it within me to trust people — particularly online — given that the environment that I had started out with so many years ago is one that doesn’t seem to exist anymore in this day and age.  Too many people online lack the necessary confidence to be themselves without being totally fake, or totally delusional and work on the concept that the Internet is a world of fantasy instead of simply an extension of a reality we’re already a part of. 



[Last Edited: 10/12/2007 03:08:06 AM]

     Picked up a new program yesterday morning called Apophysis (no doubt a mutation of the word: apophasis), which is sort of like Chaoscope, but infinitely easier to work with, not to mention creates infinitely more complex than what Chaoscope creates.  At the time of this journal entry, I’ve created something like 5 PNGs which I’ll convert to JPEGs and upload to my Flickr Account (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mbaldelli).  Stay tuned in the next couple of days for those… 

     That’s about it for the time being.  Until the next time.
Advertisements
Categories: Romance/Relationships
%d bloggers like this: