August 6: What is love?

I find this line of inquiry interesting. In my own experience for my world of “romance,” I question what the difference is between friends who have sex and romance. Romance seems like a consciously (at least where I'm coming from today) created game people play with each other in an effort to woo the other person... Wooing them for what is where the game lies I think. Don’t we do that with friends though, just to a lesser degree?

For me intimate relating comes down to love. Interestingly enough, I generally walk through the world and feel love for everyone. I modeled this out when I was 15 or so, though there are some updates as I write it now. I’ve thought of love as degrees of experience of love — from least to most:

hate (loving the life in a way such that one is closed to them, often from fear, disappointment, judgment, disapproval, disdain for their actions)

universal love (love of life and all things that are alive)

acquaintance love (those you’ve met and have more connection with than someone you haven’t)

familial/obligatory love (“those you should love”) which is not always to say that they are loved at that level — can be loved at a higher or lower level

student/teacher love – love of the dynamic that creates learning between you and another as you learn (as both student and teacher) and grow from the experience

friendship love — this has infinite gradients, really. I described it then as this thing where if you have a set of criteria in X domains (ways you value a person showing up be it in common values, hobbies, skills, ways of being, approach to the world and whatever else), a friend is someone who meets Y percent overall of your criteria (back then for me it was 80%); good friend meets Y+some %; best friend meets good friend + some %; etc.

kindred spirit love – is a new one for me over recent years and is what I think at 15 I felt was romantic love, so i’m replacing that spot in the model with a different name for it. For me, it is this place where we meet people who reflect us in ways such that we feel met at a level that almost feels “destined” -- and in a sense, touches into the unknown and indescribable sense of the mystery of love. I have experienced this in the context of “soul contracts” with another — a sense that our souls met in the great Kosmic nothingness and we made a contract to partner in these bodies in this life on this earth. This love, I have noticed, has us make non-rational choices because the draw of the “soul contract” trumps rationality which, for me, explains the completely non-rational aspects of looking in someone’s eyes and just falling into love with them. I think when this happens, there is a soul contract there.

At the time, I thought of “in love with” as the pinnacle of it all. In the last 5-7 years I evolved that thinking into the endless opening to the person, again and again, for who they are, as they are. Even if you “fall out of love,” which you can can do when you are closing, you can also “fall back in love with them” and this can vary moment to moment throughout the day/week/month/year/lifetime of the relationship. The depth of “in love” is about ones willingness to surrender into the truth of the being and i’ve noticed that even if I thought I was “as in love with someone as I could be,” as my capacities and self awareness increase, so does my ability to be more in love with someone.

Also, I could be in love with the man on the street I don’t know by accepting him fully as he is and allowing myself to be open to him even if I have no desire to draw him into a “higher” level of love. I dare say though the closer to kindred spirit love one experiences another, the more likely one is to be in love with them because the nature of being met (at least as I have experienced it in the world) has beings open to Other.

This was probably the first model I ever distinguished, now that I think about it. And I realize now that it is holonic in nature in my experience.

I also realize my experience of love is whacked by most people’s standards. This model explains why polyamory (and in a sense, polysexuality) have been so easy for me to embrace in my life -- I think because I can literally walk through my life being “in love” with everyone. This is a confusing experience to have when so many people reserve that term and limit who they will be in love with when in my world, I am most healthy when I feel in love with all things because I operate at a different vibration in the world. For me, this is the altered state of flow and when I access that space, I know only openness and love and I am at my best.

Anyone I call a good friend I have had at least one moment of being in love with them. And for me, if I’ve been in love with someone, I would consider being sexually involved with them — why wouldn’t I want to share that level of intimacy with them as well as all the others? Hence the boundary-less-ness of my (bi or should I say Try)sexuality because my sexual attraction to a being is directly derived from my love for them which is immediately informed by my openness to them in combination with the overlaps described in the model above. I notice that I see people’s spirit when I look at them (which is also what I see when I look in the mirror) so people’s physical form doesn’t really impact my sexual attraction. There is, often, a high correlations between someone’s own love of themselves and health and how they look physically, but it is incidental to and not what draws me to people or to be attracted to them sexually.

Hence romance doesn’t make much sense to me as romance seems like a construct for limiting relating, seeing as it is often about singling out people to be romantic with, rather than expanding it. For me. Hence my confusion about interacting in that context with people. :D