Paul, I don’t find your response unfitting and I am glad to see that you have posted something new onto this blog and I am also glad that you do not agree with me, so I have something to react to.
First of all, I think, from the impression I get when reading your reaction, that we both come from a different angle concerning this topic. I noticed that you initially seemed to react to what I wrote and eventually gave your own view on things, without taking mine into account. Not that I mind, but I had the impression that you would have because of your introduction.
Let me react to what I think concerned a reaction to my initial post first; I do not talk about literal agreements. You have created this literal piece yourself, which turns my whole argument upside down, because it is about assumed agreements, things which are agreed on without speaking about it. This is essential when it comes to the understanding of how I see a relationship. You do, however, refer to these ‘unconsciously assumed’ agreements in the text between parentheses, but then in relation to another agreement, namely to exchange certain affections. I do not see how that would work in prohibiting a desirable relationship, however.
You use the arranged marriages in a very awkward context I think. I do not really see that their situation is a relationship, at least, not at first. You have therefore not stuck to our specific context or situation in order to obliterate my statement about calling each other boy and girlfriend as being the sole obligatory requirement to have a love-relationship; that ‘special’ kind of relationship.
To me the relationship, as a monogamous form of relating to another person, in my case, a person of the same sex, is not a ‘special’ one. At least, that is the relationship itself I am now talking about. The way in which I deal with another human-being should not be appreciated as being special or solely designated for one person, but instead, in my opinion, the person should be special. And for all I care, it can be a plurality of persons in which I endeavour in which current social norms would define as a ‘special’ relationship. I know the distinction between a special person and a special way of relating to someone is hard to make, but there is one and I think it is an important one to make. If it is not made, it opts out the possibility of having this special thing with other human-beings, wouldn’t it? I am not entirely sure about this and I will spend more thought on this and possibly write more about it.
I think it is self-explanatory that a good relationship consists of at least two people who mutually love each other. I do not want to go into making value judgments about relationships however, because two people loving each other in a relationship can still result in a bad relationship, even though those two people love each other very much. I think the blame should then be searched in the way people relate to each other (the situation) rather then things which are innate to either one of the persons. I more and more assume of people that I know quite well that they generally try to do the right thing and that if they do not, from my point of view, that it is probably not on purpose and especially not meant to piss me off or anything. I think it is an important realization. Endeavouring into a relationship, however, with someone of whom you know that he or she does not love you or like you in any way is just a bad idea I guess.
As I more or less indicated in my previous entry is that I find the term affection very vague. How this is practically expressed, that is more interesting and more useful I think in a discussion. I do not believe either that there are universal features concerning relationships or love. About to be in love I said very little, because it concerns something you probably know more about than I do, namely biological processes and so on. I can explain what it does socially with a person by my own experiences, but I am reluctant to do so. I rather make definitions about things I can define a bit; seems quite logical I guess. Love is one of those things and because it does not find it’s reflection in significant biological processes in the brain or whatever, as far as I know, I feel quite free to say what I want to say about it. However, if there was a certain process in the brain or whatever which would fully explain why you do this and that, I would still not assume it to be the final answer.
I do not agree that the relationships one embarks on are determined by personal fundamental desires and belies; I think that is a utopic thought. I rather think that human-beings are kings of convenience and are willing to make minor adjustments in their behaviour; which might be a product of these desires and beliefs, in order to be able to relate to other human-beings. Sometimes, however, you can embark on someone who shares the same desires and beliefs as you do, but I do not think that is necessarily the key to a good relationship.
I do not see in what way the nostalgic explanation of your search for romance relates to anything you have said before. The paragraph itself is a mess as well. Sorry, I am so harsh, but I do not see how you can know the love you want when you see it. This is so utterly vague to my ears, it makes them flapper. I don’t know how to define a flourishing relationship, but if it means to conform and be monogamous all of your life and stay together with one and the same person all of your life; then I rather not flourish. I cannot imagine that one person would want to stay with me for the rest of their life at least not without seeing other people in the same manner as she would see me every now and then. I think it would strengthen a relationship, because it makes you realize, hopefully, that love is not about sex and not about potential feelings of love for another person than your lover. Love should be a rational construction in my opinion.
I never wanted to assert that love is not possible in anyone’s life. I can see people around me who genuinely love each other; at least I assume it to be so. Sometimes I do not assume it and then I ask for it, as I have done with my parents for example. I don’t see why you would laugh in the face of people who ‘stand by’ and deny, which is what you assume they do, what is there according to you. You should go into semantics otherwise you cannot back up your argument I think, because you owe us a definition of love, as well as a definition of affection by the way. And I do not mean in the sense of neurons this or that, but a semantical one, otherwise I am afraid we start to speak different languages.
I am not going into the falling in love bit, since I do not know much about it. I can give my opinion of it, however, if this is desired. Feel free to ask; I’ll think about thinking about it.
I hope you find my reaction useful. I have not refrained from being critical as you probably will have noticed, but I really appreciate the effort you have take to post this entry and I really appreciate the alternative point of view you have provided on a topic I am concerned with.
