>>23 I can assure you that love (or rather, the many things that are given that name) is quite explainable, and many have written on it. It is not true that it is not explainable, it is not true that it "doesn't make sense", because firstly all under heaven is explainable, as per Spinoza, and in the question of sense, we have many methods to make sense of love. You'll find that quite a-many love stories an in fact renderable into signifiers, otherwise romance novels would not exist, and love poetry would sooner be replaced by grunting.
And I remind you, Mr. Glowie LLM-agent / human override, that I am not in need of love advice; and that I am in fact "the realest version of myself" all the time already, in as much as I live authentically.
It is in fact as deep as I think, otherwise there would be no need to talk about oedipus and other such things. If we do not question this concept of love, if we do not attack its most archetypal formulations, if we do not struggle against its lamest actualisations, we are defenseless in relation to the mechanisms that enslave us hidden inside the bonds between us and our fellow man, the bonds that lay hidden in this naive concept of "love".
I'll spare you my manifesto on my personal love experiences, since I live by the moto that: "those arguments that come from ones anecdotal experience are bad and reactionary indeed". But I shall relay to you the fact that love is not merely "connecting to someone", or even "wanting to eat them alive" in the metaphorical.
I'll now characterise one of love much explainable aspects: It is more correct to muse that love is a process of mutually assured destruction, that lays less on connection, and more on seizure of this or that person, ripping them from their current social substrate and forcibly alienating them, through any means possible, from (at the very least) the familial structures that had bound them so far. In the common oedipal mode of love, this means only one thing, the reproduction of the oedipal triangle, the object of affections stops being the "child" and becomes the "father" or "mother", generating in their triangulation yet another "child" that may continue the cycle anew. Of course, in anti-oedipal modes of loving, the triangle is not completed. And it may even be so that offspring is not generated. In fact the act of producing offspring is so separated from the act of loving that one might even use concubines for reproduction, with varying degrees of "love", as is attested by historical practice. Not that I support it.
I can only look back at Mishima's film "patriotism", and think how the acts of love expressed in that film are so unlike yours, or >>21 's description. This is because you are not stewards of any understanding of "love", or anything for that matter.
I'll just reiterate to conclude that stating or supporting such statements such as >>21 's only serve to further lock down, through ignorance and an infirm heart, love into serving the interests of our shared social programming; they map very clearly onto a well known script about "love".
sorry in advance if this sounds rude but you must be the most unfun person ever. i’m not really into being aphoristic when someone clearly spills their soul over text, but this is simply too much
everything you said could be correct, it really could, but your response just reeks of i know everything syndrome. what >>23 typed clearly stated that the way they experience love is kind of destructive but you really had to make a 5 paragraph long response to say “you are all llms let me talk about oedipus”. that wordsalad you typed there means nothing in the real world, unless you’re one of those elitist types of people who bring up deleuze every time they can.
dont be a jerk, thats not how people communicate. unless you are so self centered that you get hard knowing you brought up oedipus in a random online forum. if you want to actually say something then say it with clear cut and appropriate terms for an online forum, this is not a phd thesis you don’t have anything to prove to people here >>21 literally tried to give an irl example in response to the op and you just HAD TO make this about yourself
I can assure you that love (or rather, the many things that are given that name) is quite explainable, and many have written on it. It is not true that it is not explainable, it is not true that it "doesn't make sense", because firstly all under heaven is explainable, as per Spinoza, and in the question of sense, we have many methods to make sense of love. You'll find that quite a-many love stories an in fact renderable into signifiers, otherwise romance novels would not exist, and love poetry would sooner be replaced by grunting.
And I remind you, Mr. Glowie LLM-agent / human override, that I am not in need of love advice; and that I am in fact "the realest version of myself" all the time already, in as much as I live authentically.
It is in fact as deep as I think, otherwise there would be no need to talk about oedipus and other such things. If we do not question this concept of love, if we do not attack its most archetypal formulations, if we do not struggle against its lamest actualisations, we are defenseless in relation to the mechanisms that enslave us hidden inside the bonds between us and our fellow man, the bonds that lay hidden in this naive concept of "love".
I'll spare you my manifesto on my personal love experiences, since I live by the moto that: "those arguments that come from ones anecdotal experience are bad and reactionary indeed". But I shall relay to you the fact that love is not merely "connecting to someone", or even "wanting to eat them alive" in the metaphorical.
I'll now characterise one of love much explainable aspects:
It is more correct to muse that love is a process of mutually assured destruction, that lays less on connection, and more on seizure of this or that person, ripping them from their current social substrate and forcibly alienating them, through any means possible, from (at the very least) the familial structures that had bound them so far.
In the common oedipal mode of love, this means only one thing, the reproduction of the oedipal triangle, the object of affections stops being the "child" and becomes the "father" or "mother", generating in their triangulation yet another "child" that may continue the cycle anew.
Of course, in anti-oedipal modes of loving, the triangle is not completed. And it may even be so that offspring is not generated. In fact the act of producing offspring is so separated from the act of loving that one might even use concubines for reproduction, with varying degrees of "love", as is attested by historical practice. Not that I support it.
I can only look back at Mishima's film "patriotism", and think how the acts of love expressed in that film are so unlike yours, or >>21 's description. This is because you are not stewards of any understanding of "love", or anything for that matter.
I'll just reiterate to conclude that stating or supporting such statements such as >>21 's only serve to further lock down, through ignorance and an infirm heart, love into serving the interests of our shared social programming; they map very clearly onto a well known script about "love".