Here’s part two, recorded last week, not to be confused with part three, recorded now, airing next week. Anyway, we explain love, so everyone will understand. Enjoy!
QUESTIONS:
Dear Hatleks, Please explain nerd rage, is it something I do not understand and am looking for insight. — Sir Guido
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
The link below will take you to a wiki article on that triangle love thingy I was talking about. I haven’t read it, so… maybe it contains insights that prove that I didn’t have a very good understanding of the model. As usual. 🙂
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_theory_of_love
The definition of intimacy in that theory seemed strange to me. It’s a feeling rather than a shared experience. Because Sternberg defines it as a feeling rather than a shared experience, he predicts that intimacy, as well as passion, diminish over time, whereas commitment (which unlike the other two is a conscious decision rather than a feeling) is the thing that lasts. So for the most part, his model predicts that most people wind up with what he calls “empty love.” 🙁
Somehow that triangular theory does seem to fit with Western preoccupations with identity to me.
It’s only the non-conscious things that seem to define identity–things that overwhelm us, that we feel passionately about. Things about which we make very conscious, deliberate decisions are seen as less real, more artificial. But then our relationship to the things (or people) who overwhelm, or whom we feel passionately about–the very lack of conscious decision making shows they’re out of our control–so there’s a really strong reaction to threat of change. It seems to me that the problem is not quite so much surrendering to the chaos and idea that we have no control–it’s more that we need not to polarize into total surrender to the other, or total control. In relationship, there’s always–well, relationship 🙂 –going back and forth without total control or surrender (which really to me is what intimacy is, not a “feeling”).
Well… the control/surrender dynamic I referred to wasn’t really in reference to relationships (or, at least, I didn’t intend for it to be). I was speaking more in terms of circumstances and situations beyond our control that we nevertheless try to control.
I’m not sure if this came across, but when I said “relationship” I didn’t mean with just people. It could also be with our environment.
What I’m trying to say is that “beyond our control” usually means, if I had control here, I’d determine things go differently. And I don’t think we ever have that kind of control. On the other hand, any circumstance or situation that we’re in, we’re having some impact on. So trying to control is sort of by definition impossible–there are even parts of ourselves that aren’t consciously under our control. However, I also think the opposite isn’t true. Anything we’re in relationship with, we are having an effect on.
Yes, exactly.
Although when Tony said if he could embrace the Chaos, he’d never leave the house, I think I woke the dog up laughing (me, not the dog) 🙂 So, no Tony, don’t think it was funnier in your head.
And somehow, about the identity stuff, I blame advertising…
Advertising certainly plays its part!