FYI everyone,<p>I just listened to an interview with a woman named Jill Murray. She is the author of a book entitled, But I Love Him, targeted at teenage girls in abusive relationships, not infidelity.
However, there is something to think about in her work. <p>Her premise is, "Think of love as a behavior, not a feeling." I think that is an interesting comment. The validity of this point of view has been debated here several times.<p>My opinion is that for a relationship to last through good times AND the inevitable bad times, there has to be a certain commitment to behave in a committed way, and not simply act on how one feels at the moment. I'm glad to see someone express this philosophy in print.<p>But I Love Him : Protecting Your Teen Daughter from Controlling, Abusive Dating Relationships
by Jill Murray<p>
Food for thought,
Estes<p>[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: Estes49 ]</p>

Estes, <p>I agree completely that love is not a feeling, it is an action.<p>And M. Scott Peck, MD, has been one of the biggest recent proponents of this -- of the idea that love is an action, not a feeling.<p>[L]ove is an action, an activity. . . . Love is not a feeling. Many, many people possessing a feeling of love and even acting in response to that feeling act in all manner of unloving and destructive ways. On the other hand, a genuinely loving individual will often take loving and constructive action toward a person he or she consciously dislikes, actually feeling no love toward the person at the time and perhaps even finding the person repugnant in some way. . . . <p>When love exists it does so with or without . . . a loving feeling. It is easier&#8211;indeed, it is fun&#8211;to love . . . with the feeling of love. But it is possible to love . . . without loving feelings. . . . I have defined love as the will to extend oneself for the purpose of nurturing one's own or another's spiritual growth. Genuine love is volitional rather than emotional. The person who truly loves does so because of a decision to love. This person has made a commitment to be loving whether or not the loving feeling is present. If it is, so much the better; but if it isn't, the commitment to love, the will to love, still stands and is still exercised. Conversely, it is not only possible but necessary for a loving person to avoid acting on feelings on love. . . . True love is not a feeling by which we are overwhelmed. It is a committed, thoughtful decision.<p>The common tendency to confuse love with the feeling of love allows people all manner of self-deception. ("The Road Less Traveled," pp. 116-119)<p>I love (volitionally, not emotionally [img]images/icons/wink.gif" border="0[/img] ) debating the the nature of love. [img]images/icons/smile.gif" border="0[/img] <p>Take Care, <p>Paruil

I pretty much completely disagree with the author, but I do find it so curious that a certain kind of intellectual seeks to remove emotions from human psychology... to reduce love to a contractural consideration ( a decision) obviates any reason to have emotions at all...which then begs the question of why do we have emotions? I for one think emotions are extremely important to us as human beings, and play an integral role in our mental health, and successful decision making processes. Love, the marital kind (the real thing, not all the dysfunctional behaviours we call "love" but are really dependentcies, or attempts to control) is the label we assign to the nurturing fit of two human beings, and emotions are an integral part in assessing whether we have this right....it is impossible to achieve this simply by behaviour, or decision, it requires specificity...meaning the psychology of the two individuals (an unchangeable characteristic of who they are as unique human beings) is critical to the capacity of be in-love....<p>What people routinely attempt to do is equate love with sacrificial behaviour (I will love you no matter how I feel)...or contractural behaviour (I will love you if you meet enough of my en's. and I will do the same for you)... both are lifestyles, and one can accomplish them with varying degrees of success (depending on how you measure success)...but neither have anything to do with the experience of being "in-love" with someone who fits you (and you them, it takes both, or it doesn't happen). I suspect the pressure to gaurantee love (via societal paradigms seeking to remove feelings from the equation) is rooted in reducing the risk of investing resources in a marriage only to have someone leave it (and leave you)...it also reflects the dominant temperament of our species which is one of rules and order and status quo, this mindset views emotions as dangerous, cause emotions do not follow logic and rules, and is therefore less amenable to control.<p>Aside from my personal issues with love and marriage, this whole experience has been one of the most fascinating journies of my life.... I am an extremely analytical person, and value rules and such a great deal...yet I value truth even more, and I can see the standard rules offered re marriage and love are hopelessly flawed, and in complete opposition to the needs of human psychology, I have ruthlessly suppressed my emotions for most of my life, doing my best to "decide" how to live, including you decide to love, no matter how you feel....the truth I finally had to face was this was a terrible mistake, emotions are an integral part of decision making, and must be listened to, if we don't we are going to make serious errors in life choices. Emotions provide the oversight we need over our cognitive side, cause one cannot rationalize emotionally.....likewise cognition provides oversight over our emotions, cause emotions are not definitive enough to be acted on alone, and must be assessed so we don't make emotional errors....the synergy between the two is beautiful, and healthy....in terms of marriage it takes both, you need to decide to be married, and want to be married, if either is missing, the marriage is most likely unhealthy....and one ignores this reality at their own risk...<p>one of the reasons this notion love is only a choice is wrong, is it leaves no reason to leave a marriage....if it is only a decision, or a duty, you just do it, it can never end...this is intuitively nonsensical, and a complete violation of human nature (the ability to assess our circumstances and change them)... the usual reaction is to say, no one says you should stay in a marriage and then go on to offer vague notions of it is ok to leave "abusive" marriages and such....but who decides when something is abusive? And isn't this just another way of saying it is unhealthy? So what is the criteria for health? Who decides? Then folks usually say, well the participants have to decide...but then a curious thing happens...if someone says ok, this isn't working, I don't want to keep doing it...they are told they are not working hard enough, just keep trying....how long? Forever, cause one is never really supported in leaveing, it is always about "destroying" the other spouse, or the family, or you are just being selfish etc.... the upshot is divorce is not really an option, cause one will never be able to make an acceptable case for divorce. What does this all mean? To me it is obvious, there is a bias about marriage, and that is keeping people married whether they want to be or not... in so doing, all the people who are married, and do not want to be divorced, exert pressure to keep their spouses in line as well, personally I find this all very interesting, and when thought all the way through makes very good sense... the predominant temperament of our species is rule makers, (for very good reasons)...and they set the marital agenda....that doesn't make em right though.<p>[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: sad_n_lonely ]</p>

Paruil and SNL,<p>Just a quick reply tonight then I will be back tomorrow evening. I have 120 gifted 14-year-olds to do intellectual battle with in just a few hours [img]images/icons/rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] and a science fair to judge at a nearby private school.<p>I'll look for a copy of Dr. Peck's book. It looks like it will give me a lot to think about.<p>SNL, I expected to see you here. [img]images/icons/wink.gif" border="0[/img] <p>G'night all,
Estes

Estes, good luck with the 14-year olds!!<p>And do get a copy of Peck's "Road Less Traveled" -- it's very good.<p>~~~~~~~~<p>SNL,<p>You wrote: I pretty much completely disagree with the author, but I do find it so curious that a certain kind of intellectual seeks to remove emotions from human psychology... to reduce love to a contractual consideration (a decision) obviates any reason to have emotions at all...which then begs the question of why do we have emotions?<p>I think in light of the way you have (perhaps, as in maybe just maybe) (mis?)read and (over?)simplified Peck&#8217;s passage, the begging question of why do we have emotions at all certainly follows.<p>But Peck&#8217;s point is that genuine or real love transcends mere emotion. It also transcends mere begrudging duty or begrudging obligation.<p>Peck is not &#8220;a certain kind of intellectual&#8221; as you seem to almost disdainfully describe him, seeking to remove emotions from human psychology. He is trying to help lift humanity from the muck of impulsivity and thoughtlessness where emotions are automatically and reflexively acted out on, that level of functioning where our thoughts and behaviors are emotionally driven.<p>Believe me, I have no interest in producing the kind of person that Lewis calls the &#8220;urban blockhead&#8221; or, nowadays, the suburban blockhead, or the &#8220;trousered ape&#8221; &#8211; &#8220;men without chests.&#8221; But I do have a very distinct interest in doing whatever I can to encourage people to honor their word, live responsibly, not give their word carelessly or without forethought, have some functioning system of checks and balances so that feelings are not simply acted out on reflexively, broaden their perspective, live conscientiously as well as passionately, etc.<p>You also wrote: What people routinely attempt to do is equate love with sacrificial behaviour (I will love you no matter how I feel)...or contractural behaviour (I will love you if you meet enough of my en's. and I will do the same for you)...<p>Actually, from my experience, these are not nearly the problem and not nearly as prevalent as those who equate love with a feeling. To me that is a more prevalent and damaging tendency. How many people are in affairs because they are equating their love for their OM/MM/OW/MW as sacrificial behavior &#8211; &#8220;I love you MM/OM, etc., no matter how I feel.&#8221; It doesn&#8217;t happen. (Not that a unfaithful wife may not utter, &#8220;I will always love you MM/OM no matter what!!&#8221 [img]images/icons/wink.gif" border="0[/img] Nor do affairs tend to happen because of contractual behavior &#8211; &#8220;Listen, MM/OM, I will love you if you if you meet enough of my emotional needs, deal?&#8221;<p>Affairs, for most women and some men, begin because of feelings, because of the feeling of love. &#8220;Oh, I feel so much love for MM/OM, therefore it&#8217;s right that I should sleep with him, betray my husband, lie, cheat, deceive, live in denial, abdicate responsibility,&#8221; etc.<p>Granted, these feelings may arise because &#8220;love needs&#8221; are being met, because deposits are being made, because unconsciously, reflexively, a deal has been struck, a &#8220;you scratch my back and I&#8217;ll scratch yours&#8221; arrangement has been put into play. Or perhaps these feelings also arise because the other person does not really exist as a person, but is instead a fantasy, an object for positive projections and creative filling in of the blanks , a repository of our own alienated and projected self-potentials.<p>But all of that&#8217;s not love. Love is not a deal. It&#8217;s not bargain. It&#8217;s not a fantasy or a projection. No more than it is a feeling. Real love is much more than all of this. That&#8217;s Peck&#8217;s point. It&#8217;s Fromm&#8217;s point as well.<p>You also wrote: emotions are an integral part of decision making, and must be listened to, if we don't we are going to make serious errors in life choices.<p>I agree. It is important to listen to our emotions and feelings. Ignorance doesn&#8217;t work. Nor does steamrollering them. The point is not to treat them as incontrovertible facts. They are mere one source of information, one way that we come into contact with the world and can know about it. Sometimes they mislead us. If you stand in the middle of railroad track and look off into the distance, you&#8217;d swear that they converge at some point. Similarly, if you look at a rainbow, you&#8217;d swear that it touches the earth somewhere. For centuries we thought the earth was flat and the center of the universe and that the sun revolved around us. Similarly, our emotions can distort reality. <p>If we only listen to our emotions, or if we treat our feelings as facts, as correct data, so too are we going to make serious errors in our choices in life. Affairs are an example of this. Marrying or committing yourself to someone because you are &#8220;in love&#8221; or have never been &#8220;this in love&#8221; before is also a mistake. <p>Feelings of love that arise early on in a relationship tend to be driven by fantasy, positive projections, attribution of positive characteristics in a vacuum, and projection of alienated self-potential; or they are sexually driven &#8211; the mating instinct, infatuation, etc. These are not relationships of genuine love &#8211; a concern for the psychological, spiritual and emotional growth and maturation of the other person; they&#8217;re addictions.<p>You wrote: I can see the standard rules offered re marriage and love are hopelessly flawed, and in complete opposition to the needs of human psychology<p>What do you mean by this? How do you understand &#8220;the standard rules offered re: marriage&#8221;? (Because I suspect that we might have very different understandings of the rule.)

SNL,
You don't know the first thing about Scott Peck, one of the preeminent social psychiatrists of our time. <p>You lose credibility when you read 2 paragraphs of a book and then go off on your very misguided analysis of this man's lifes work.<p>He is, of course, not saying that love is a contract or void of emotion. Read the book, then feel free to make a comment.

whoa nellie, er wiffle, I am not commenting on scott peck per se, and I read his first book long ago, and liked it...I was pretty clear on what I was addressing and said so, there is an agenda amongst many of these folks (or those who use their resources) that love is a decision, and emotions play no role (unless the emotion is to "honor" vows, and work "hard" at being married, and convince yourself you are happy).... I simply disagree.<p>I was gonna ask paruil, but let me ask you too, when is it ok to not "want" to be married, and act on it? When is it ok to "break" your vows, even if your spouse is a good (by all normal standards) spouse? <p>The deception in all these various versions of downplaying emotions, is that not wanting to be married to someone (without obvious cause) just means you need to be fixed in some way....I don't think that is true... (although it certainly could be)....the plain and simple fact of the matter is we often marry someone, and find out we do not fit them very well....we can then spend a lifetime making it work, and being happy about the effort (and whatever en's you get met), or you can take the risk of divorce (and maybe never having a more successful relationship, and being less happy)... restructure that relationship as less intimate (no reason not to be good friends, who share history, growth, and children)...and be open to a relationship that fits intimacy in a more healthy way (meaning both parties are happier)... for some reason this notion incenses people, and I really don't know why, unless we view love/marriage as a property/promise sort of thing, a sort of gaurantee....<p>radical honesty requires we tell our spouse whether we want to be married to them or not, and who wants to be in a marriage with a spouse who (honestly) tells them they do not want to be there (an emotion)?
[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: sad_n_lonely ]<p>[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: sad_n_lonely ]</p>

I think it is fine to not "want" to be married. I have never subscribed to the 'stay together forever because we said we would' kind of thinking. You seemed to be saying in your post that is what you thought Peck was advocating. <p>A close look at my own story reveals that I signed the agreement when my husband decided he had had enough. I would have continued to work at the relationship through counseling, prayer, attempts to meet each other's needs... whatever strategies I could think of. But, he didn't have any fight left in him and truly felt that what he needed was to get the divorce. So, lovingly, that is what I did. <p>Now, here we are, a little over a month from it being final and we are getting along better than we did in the last several years of our marriage. We are clearly not through with one another and while I don't know where (if anywhere) our relationship is going at this point it is going to be based on honesty and genuine caring for each other. <p>Not only is marriage not a guaranteed thing. Life isn't and we are wise to use the only thing we have which is this very moment.

snl~<p>you said this......<p> <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>the plain and simple fact of the matter is we often marry someone, and find out we do not fit them very well<hr></blockquote><p>Isn't that what marriage is all about???? The honeymoon isn't over and the REAL marriage doesn't even spread it's wings until the two people who are married REALIZE THIS. No two people EVER are going to "fit" each other all the time. Marriage isn't about "fitting" together. That rationalization is one of the first that people use when justifying an affair. It's AFFAIR THINKING!!!!!........<p>"I thought we were in love, I thought we were meant to be....but now we don't fit together".<p>So what, if you realize that you no longer "fit" with your wife? People do it day in and day out. They come to a realization and maturity level that married people don't always fit together. That is where the emotions are taken out of it and the brains are used (or should be used). <p>The reasons for marriage are irrelevant. I got married because I was "in love"....which is why most people get married.....and also because I was pregnant. Now, let's be honest here.....those are the two lousiest reasons I've ever heard of for getting married. But it happens every day.<p>When is enough enough? When you give up. When you stop putting REAL efforts into the marriage and start using half-baked rationalizations for why it isn't good and how you don't "fit" together. When you stop putting the marriage into perspective as an entity in and of itself that YOU have contributed to all along and are now dreading the real work it takes to put it back together again. When you won't take down your defenses long enough to consider the reality of marriage. That's when it's time to give up the marriage......<p>OR.....<p>When you just don't want to be married any more. From the few of your posts I have read, you don't seem to be the type of person who would do somthing because of external pressure. So, why are you still married?<p>selket<p>[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: selket ]<p>[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: selket ]</p>

If I hear that word "fit" one more time, snl, I'm gonna BARF! <p>Would you PLEASE think of something new, for crying out loud? <p>By the way, M. Scott Peck is WONDERFUL! <p>I was going to use some cute little gremlins or something, but ya know... I just don't feel like it... snl, you NEED to stop this sermonizing and do some WORK - some ACTION - not JUST WORDS.

Oh crud, who am I to judge? <p>Sorry guys... I'll bow out...

sheryl, always a breath of...um, not fresh air exactly (allthough sometimes)...um...not sunshine (although sometimes), but somehow this place would just not be the same without you, somehow you have managed to be in everyones business, yet do it with aplomb.... I know I drive you nuts, and I did try (a bit) to find a word that uh... fits better, but I couldn't...offer some suggestions will ya.... btw, doncha fit your new H better?<p>I feel this overwhelming urge to analyze you, (but I resist), you are a very interesting human.

Another fascinating debate.<p>The word "love" is just a label. There seem to be differing opinions on exactly what that label represents. I find it very interesting that most people seem to agree that love is necessary for a fulfilling marriage, but not everyone agrees what love actually is. I believe most people consider love to be one of the following, or some combination of both:<p>1. A feeling. This is a positive emotion that is caused by the presence of a particular person in one's life.
2. A behavior. This is a set of actions that one performs in order to demonstrate care for a particular person.<p>Jill Murray seems to lean toward #1 as the definition of love. SNL seems to believe in #2. My opinion is that you can attach the label "love" to whatever definition you want, but both #1 and #2 are necessary for a relationship to be healthy and fulfilling.<p>Many people seem to believe that #1 is a prerequisite for #2. In other words, they believe that it's not worth demonstrating "loving behavior" without first having "loving feelings". I'd like to offer an alternative point of view: #1 is a result of #2. Simply put, loving feelings grow out of loving actions.<p>I realize that people are individuals and that not everyone reacts the same emotionally. I can really only speak from my own experience. When I first met my W, I liked her and I found myself going out of my way to do nice things for her. I noticed it felt great everytime I made her day a little better. Eventually, I decided that my favorite feeling in the world was the one I got when I knew that I had done something to make her happy. I'd never had that sort of feeling for anyone else, and that's how I knew that I was in love with her.<p>After several years of marriage, and some relatively serious issues including an A, my loving feeling for my W had faded significantly. In fact, at one point, I was convinced that I was no longer in love with her. I believe that is the point where people who believe only in definition #1 tend to walk away from a M or start an A. I chose instead to start reading relationship and self-help books, and to ask my W to attend marriage counseling. After a lot of self-examination, I realized that I'd pretty much stopped my loving actions toward my W (definition #2). For the first time in years, I thought about the feelings I had when I first fell in love with her. This inspired me to start doing nice things for her again-- having dinner ready when she got home, sending flowers to her office, telling her she looks pretty, even just smiling at her. I was amazed to see how my loving feelings for her were rekindled. After about a month of this (a little like Plan A), I felt completely in love with her again. That experience totally convinced me that loving feelings (#1), at least for me, are a direct result of loving actions (#2).<p>YMMV,
BP

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by sad_n_lonely:
<strong>sheryl, always a breath of...um, not fresh air exactly (allthough sometimes)...um...not sunshine (although sometimes), but somehow this place would just not be the same without you, somehow you have managed to be in everyones business, yet do it with aplomb.... I know I drive you nuts, and I did try (a bit) to find a word that uh... fits better, but I couldn't...offer some suggestions will ya.... btw, doncha fit your new H better?<p>I feel this overwhelming urge to analyze you, (but I resist), you are a very interesting human.</strong><hr></blockquote><p>LMAO over here, snl. Right you are that I'm in the middle of a bunch o' things around here... but my friend, SO ARE YOU! You and I are alike... maybe that's why you drive me bonkers!! <p>Here's the thing about that fitting thing... yeah, I do "fit" {puke - LOL} my new H better, if that is the goal. But it WASN'T the goal. The goal when I came here three years ago was to SAVE MY MARRIAGE TO THAT GUY I DIDN'T FIT WITH BUT LOVED ANYWAY. Okay, so didn't save that marriage. Now I have a new marriage. Am I happy with him BECAUSE we fit? No, I'm happy with him because I LOVE HIM.
Does that make any sense?<p>Oh, and snl, go ahead an analyze (is that spelled right?) me. I get a kick out of that kind of stuff. I suspect you can't tell me anything I don't already know... but what the heck, I might learn something - or, horror of horrors, YOU MIGHT! [img]images/icons/tongue.gif" border="0[/img]

According to the books, Harleys, Retrouvaille, and more, love is an outcome of meeting the spouses emotional needs. Love is from the willing to do for your spouse what they would like you to do. Love is knowing that your actions make your spouse happy. Love is feeling good about your actions, and seeing the smile of your spouse. Love is out of caring, viewing your spouse, laughing, etc. <p>There is no love when you see your spouse as a person who you don't want to do anything special for them. You really don't care about the persons feelings that much. You could care very little if your spouse is hurting, (or say get over it) or withdrawn. You don't want to find out what makes your spouse happy, and if told what would make your spouse happy, you feel you don't want to perform. There is no love, when your spouse continously says, all I want is everyone to be happy (impossible). There is no love when your spouse says, I will do things my way and only my way. Again selfish, uncaring, and basically me, me, me!!! Love is not there when this person says fitting all the time. Who in the heck knows what FITTING is! In order for two people to fall in love, they had to work at it in the beginning to fall in-love. <p>Love was there when you married your spouse. Vows stated for richer or poorer, sickness and health, till death do us part. It was there when the wife bore the children that the two of you created out of love. It was there when the wife just couldn't do another feeding during the middle of the night, the husband got up changed the baby, and put the baby to your breast. Love was there when the person who takes care of paying the bills and is short of money and needs help in figuring out what do to. <p>Love is created out of the desire to please and meet the emotional needs of your spouse. No love busting, no manipulation, and not saying I am going to do it my way and no other way. <p>Yes I am the paperwife of SNL. Things are not good here, as you can read in his posts. As you see, he doesn't want to be in this marriage, he asks how do you tell your spouse you don't want to be married to them. Radical honesty is the best medicine. He does not want to meet my emotional needs, stated quite clearly to me today, says why should I perform. Asked what he saw in me and he likes my organizational skills. Boy that was great to hear [img]images/icons/frown.gif" border="0[/img] that is all I am to him. <p>He has chosen not to work on this marriage, he has chosen to portray himself as willing to do the MB stuff, and as far as the Harleys are concerned, like Steve asked SNL the last time we talked to Steve (about 3-4 weeks ago), what is your plan? SNL couldn't give him an answer, but to say except to not LB and be supportive. He has chosen to not show me love, but to show that he is here (for what?). I feel that he is here for one reason only, to get things organized and figure out our finances. So that separation will be easier. Asked him who is going to do the bills when I am gone, he said it will be a mess.<p>I have asked SNL over the last 2 weeks to help me get the bills in order. I get stressed out when I can't seem to find money to write checks. Like he stated yesterday, you have been doing these bills for over 20 years, what is there to figure out? I have asked for help, and it seems he criticizes me with his statements, like I am stupid and this is not brain surgery. All I want is for him to sit down with me, and have him figure out which ones are more important, and where are we going to get the money to finish the bills. Love is saying yes, honey, I will sit down with you now or how about 3pm today. To give the spouse positive feedback, and say I love that you do the bills, I see that you are stressed, and I will make time to go over the project with you. But with SNL he seems to come back with remarks that don't show love. (You've been doing this for over 20 years...) But he can sit on the boards and type, type, phylosophy - when I am sitting at the table in tears. <p>Love is there for those to create. Love was given to us by God, we were given feelings. <p>SNL has an appointment to day with Steve, I am not to be included in the conversation. I have made an appointment with minister from a local church for this Sunday afternoon. <p>SNL and I could of had a great marriage, but it takes 2 to do the work. It takes 2 to meet each others emotional needs. Love is there for those to create. Love is wonderful, and part of the WS seems to feel they had the (fantasy, euphoria love) with the other person and of course they look at there spouse with uncaring and regret. When one does not give up the past, and continuously brings up the past, they have not started the path to working towards the present marriage. As far as love and temperment, this is not concrete. Temperment doesn't mean you are perfect, what it means is there is some likeness. But it doesn't mean this person is the ideal person at all. The post I read about temperment states that exactly. Again, love is created by 2 people meeting each others emotional needs. Love is a commitment!!!!!<p> [img]images/icons/confused.gif" border="0[/img]