Let's go back to the original question "When will I know that it's really love?" mentioned in Part One.
This question, oddly enough, brings another to mind: How does one define "love?" Does he or she mean "being in love": The sparks and fireworks that go off in the beginning of any relationship? Or, by chance, does he or she mean the more reserved, calmer sense of the word that many have found after the fire settles to ashes.
Some may be taken aback by my last statement. Ashes? Shouldn't the explosions of passion and flashes of romance remain in a relationship forever? Many couples, married 40 plus years, told me that in order for "love" -- real love -- to develop, the "being in love" stage must dissipate. And they're not alone in this belief.
As an example: it's rather exciting when we learn how to drive, in our teens. One might say it's even exhilarating. After years of getting behind the wheel, it no longer has that same "feel/appeal" to it. Does this mean we stop driving? No. Does this mean we get better at maneuvering through treacherous traffic? Hopefully; but not always. Wouldn't it be rather exhausting if each time, for the rest of our lives, we felt the same way when putting our keys in the ignition? Not to mention that as a teen, I made a million and one mistakes due to these so-called thrills. At any rate, one thing's certain, our enthusiasm for the act did die -- it's gone. Moreover, it doesn't return.
C.S. Lewis -- yes, the same C.S. Lewis who wrote The Chronicles of Narnia, The Space Trilogy, and The Screwtape Letters -- was, among a list of other things, a Christian apologist and opined that "Knowledge can last, principles can last, habits can last; but feelings come and go. And in fact, whatever people say, the state called 'being in love' usually does not last. If the old fairy-tale ending 'They lived happily ever after' is taken to mean 'They felt for the next fifty years exactly as they felt the day before they were married', then it says what probably never was or ever would be true, and would be highly undesirable if it were. Who could bear to live in that excitement for even five years? What would become of your work, your appetite, your sleep, your friendships?"
Now, let us return to Sternberg's "Love Triangle Made for Two" mentioned in Part One. The first year "shows a high degree of passion." By the fifth year, "intimacy has become the dominant theme." He ends with the tenth year of relationships where "commitment is the strongest bond." My argument is that if this research holds true, as time marches on and we strive to improve our amorous unions, commitment should eventually take over. At some point the triangle ceases to exist: Passion and intimacy are redirected. In its place another more wondrous formation develops -- the truest of all loves. It is uniquely shaped; one that very few witness today. This is when, to my mind, the previous love dies and a new -- more genuine -- love is born. The individuals who made the journey together thus far receive immeasurable tolerance from one another: Defined as "a great capacity for or practice of allowing or respecting the nature, beliefs, or behavior of others" by The American Heritage Dictionary © 1969.
With this love a couple experiences vast contentment, trustworthiness and promise. "It is not merely a feeling," as Lewis puts it. "It is a deep unity, maintained by the will and deliberately strengthened by habit; reinforced by (in Christian marriages) the grace which both partners ask, and receive, from God. They can have this love for each other even at those moments when they do not like each other; as you love yourself even when you do not like yourself. They can retain this love even when each would easily, if they allow themselves, be 'in love' with someone else. Being in love first moved them to promise fidelity: this quieter love enables them to keep the promise. It is on this love that the engine of marriage is run: being in love was the explosion that started it."
Isn't this love -- "this quieter love" -- the one we all strive for? If not, shouldn't it be? I believe so, and I work very hard at achieving this goal.
Most importantly, however, Lewis adds "let the thrill [being in love] go -- let it die away -- go on through that period of death into the quieter interest and happiness that follow -- and you will find you are living in a world of new thrills all the time." He goes on to insightfully warn us that if we "decide to make [the being in love] thrills a regular diet and try to prolong them artificially, they will all get weaker and weaker, and fewer and fewer, and [we] will be bored disillusioned old men [and women] for the rest of our lives."
Personally, I chalk up falsely extending the "being in love" state to simple human nature. Most of us put less and less energy into something that keeps us in such an elevated state for extended periods of time. Ah, but this is a topic for another day.
So then, after reading this piece, shouldn't we first ask ourselves, and our partners, "How do I/you define love?" before we can answer "How will I know when it's really love?"
Just a thought.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this part of your trilogy on love. I agree wholly with all the statements, and hope to find such an amazing thing as love, and not just being in love, one day.
Posted by: Ashley Long | October 26, 2011 at 06:04 AM
I keep going back to the nature of this series. Yes at some point that passion does ebb. The point I'm making though is that when you miss it and you look for it within the one that has brought it to you before... the same person that you have built this foundation of love with... maybe only then do you know that you have true love.
I'd love to be 80, look at my woman, remember those times and try to turn up the warmth a little. It's powerful when you feel this even after a few years.
Posted by: ken | October 12, 2011 at 02:25 PM
Yes, Ken, it is different for different couples and each individual. Understand, though, this theory of mine comes from many couples who have remained together 40 plus years. They struggled through the "dying" period together. How many relationships today withstand this stage? People in their 40s, 50s, 60s, even 70s are getting divorced. Therefore, the time frame is different to be sure. But, in researching it, it *still* happens. Additionally, the passion of which I speak is not the new-fangled definition, but (taken from the aforementioned dictionary) it is "any powerful emotion or appetite:" emphasis on the word powerful. Yes, you can reignite *that* spark, but this happens before the "being in love" stage ends. Again, this does not happen to everyone; this does not happen in every relationship; but in this immediate gratification and me-oriented society in which we now live, it is definitely the norm.
Posted by: Maggie Bean | October 12, 2011 at 08:45 AM
It's interesting. Thinking of my long term relationships and the length of time the "high degree of passion" lasts. It's different with different couples I think.
That degree of passion can last though if two want to work at it. It is great when years after it fades the sparks can be easily made to fly with just a little effort.
In the end though it's the commitment that makes you want to feel that again/still with THAT person.
Posted by: Ken | October 12, 2011 at 07:55 AM