The thing “love” can be analyzed through many frameworks and perspectives. Those have been done before. Mostly accurate on their own perspectives but fail to address the whole. Here, I plan to define love without a predefined framework. By doing that, I aim to deliver a more holistic approach to what to expect from love.
The ❤️ looks symmetric as an icon, too.
Love cannot be objective, i.e., it can only be emphasized rather than idealized.
Love is like an offer to the other, in which the other is invited to the subject. If the invitation is accepted by both to the stabilizing degree, symmetric romantic relationships emerge, or else asymmetric relationships emerge.
Love for the other cannot be asymmetric else. It is narcissism; narcissism is not love as it implies double subjects in a single person, which indicates some kind of mental shattering.
Someone who is mentally shattered cannot love because there is no unified subject; there are ups and downs due to multi-voting, which is too much for a healthy love.
Loving takes time. But love doesn't take time. Love needs loving, but loving does not need love. As such, not every loving is symmetric loving.
There is no wrong person in love. There is only the wrong duration. It's either too short or too long. Only the perfect duration can be reached in symmetric love.
Love doesn’t kill you or tear you apart. It is only the most vital thing for well-being. One can live without love, but I wonder about the degree of one's integrity as a human.
The only sin in loving is consciously allowing asymmetry, as this implies that love is not an end but a tool.
Love is not merging with the other but having a sense of unity with an addition of sexual desire. Unity, in here, means the degree of conflict resolution flexibility.
Love, unlike the consumerist mindset, is not the fulfillment of short-term desires but long-term desires as well. Unity connects short-term to long-term. To the next instant to the last instant.
Love doesn’t need to have symmetric resource sharing (time, attention, finances) but needs to be not seen as a transfer channel.
The symmetry can be distorted by changing life circumstances, yet in a reasonable amount of time, it must naturally be restored. Else, asymmetry kills love.
Love is a shared reality between the subject and the other. As such, love has its place in the universe, in a sense. Thus, it has its own language, which implies that the two speak in one language.
Love is musing in an orchestra of two without a maestro.
Love needs some level of life satisfaction as it cannot be the sole source of life satisfaction. Love is not the sun that heats everything. Love is creating the sun; thus, it takes energy and time in its own language.
Love is not risking everything but risking anything.
Risking everything does not invite love but misery.
Love has nothing to do with surviving. It only thrives.
Love is not like a rose, but love is. Too much loving, and the thorns would hurt. Too little, and the rose is withered. Thus, there is a symmetry between what the role requires and what the party gives.
Envy is self-directed and cannot be the source of love. In love, there is no envy.
What is not love can be stress tested, any synthetic storm can wash what is not love away.
Love is the rational selfishness of ensembled two selves.
Love is not a marriage contract. A marriage contract is not love.
The degree of “mimicking” should not exceed the degree of personal “sincerity.” It is giving and taking. When the give-take flow is broken, love is no longer there.
Marriage is not love. Love is not marriage. Actually, there is no correlation between marriage and love.
Love is not parenting or being parented but sharing the responsibility as two integrated emotion-rational individuals.
Love is a synthetic heaven; thus, the world except love is synthetic.
Love is not merging or operating uncorrelated. It is the Goldilocks zone between merging and somehow remaining distinct.
Love is a natural habit.
Love needs intelligent effort to maintain. Actually, it requires all of the effort types, but love pays more than it took. Something that is not love cannot do that.
Love is a long way, not the long end. The end is a state; the way is a process.
Loving behaviour is a single habit domain. One eventually loves themselves the same way as they love the other. Similarly, how one loves the other is the same way one loves themselves.
Achieving requires sacrifices, but love cannot be one of them to really achieve something.
Love is not an inquiry on who is to call, but an inquiry about the call itself.
Love requires physical dances to develop. Nothing less than this is a condition for the thriving of love.
One's madness is caused by emptiness, not love.
Love is anxiety-free
Love cannot fill the void of emptiness; it needs some level of character to occur.
Loving is knowing when to take the ship’s wheel and when to give it to the other.
Love is the journey of two co-captains in a single ship to a chaotic sea of unknown. Love is the symmetry, i.e., the stability and the known against the sea.
A captain who cannot navigate their ship cannot board the vessel of love.
Love is at the point between choosing and drifting without will. Thus, neither of the two is the premise.
Vortexes in love are symmetry balancing forces.
Only love can withstand severe storms, or else it will fall apart. Thus, storms are reminders of love. Thus, they are reminders of what is not love.
Love is the vortex, in which you feel a thrill of the unknown but are tied to the other so that you know you are safe in the vortex and enjoy the ride.
Love is the hurricane, in which each time what is not love is cleaned and what is love is watered.
Love is not deserved or given. But it is chosen symmetrically.
This is a public personal note to the hunters & seekers of love. If those above are present, look at the eyes of the other. If you see the “Glimpse of Us”, resume symmetry; if not, you will know what to do.
Comments