Exertec Health and Fitness Center,
Napa,
California, USA
July 29, 2015
"There are only two things in
the world:
nothing,
and semantics."
...
"Don't go falling in
love
with me: I don't want the responsibility. If you're
rising in
love
on the other hand, I'm
interested."
... Laurence Platt
"I asked him with my
eyes
to ask again yes and then he asked me would I yes to say yes my
mountain
flower and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me
so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his
heart
was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes."
... James Augustine Aloysius Joyce, Ulysses
This essay,
Rising In
Love,
is the thirteenth in a group of twenty one on
Love:
I don't know
why
we started deploying the expression "falling in
love"
to connote the recognition that we're starting to
love
someone. I mean,
why"falling"? From my perspective, the idea of "falling"
doesn't
work
well with
"love".
What gets in its way for me as a descriptor for real
love
is there are so many
already
connotations of "falling" which are borderline
distractions from if not outright incompatible with
love.
For example there's "falling down" and then there's "falling behind"
and then there's "falling back" and then there's "falling afoul" to
mention but four. These
already
connotations suggest
"falling"
in
love
is but one vowel shy of
"failing"
in
love.
If you dismiss this huffily by saying "'Falling in
love'
is just semantics
Laurence",
you're right: it is just semantics. But
listen:
semantics and
language
are all we have with which to
create
and leverage
context
and distinction in life (this is what
Werner's work
is). In this regard there's
nothing
else: it's all semantics, and the semantics of saying
"falling" in
love,
ensures
love
is
created
in a certain restricted
context
- that's to say it ensures
love's
relegated to a limited
context
(to wit, a fallencontext).
Since it's all semantics, what I'm proposing is new semantics which
work
better with
love,
and a whole new
context
and starting point for
love.
For me, real
love
doesn't start with falling in
love.
No, real
love
starts with being
complete.
When I'm not
complete,
only a certain limited interpersonal experience is possible. When I'm
complete,
another level of interpersonal experience becomes possible. It's when
I'm
completeand you're
complete,
that the interpersonal experience which becomes possible, and the
love
which goeswith it (as
Alan Watts
may have said), is experienced as anything but "falling" in
love.
Rather it's "rising" in
love.
It's "soaring" in
love.
It's even
"flying"
in
love
- real, thrilling,
love.
Admit it: that's your experience, yes? And your experience doesn't jive
with what you say. You say you're "falling" in
love
but what you really mean is you're "rising" in
love.
The semantics of "rising in
love"
creates
a new, expansive
context
for
love.
And you say it's only semantics? I assert deploying the
semantics of "falling in
love"
rather than the semantics of "rising in
love"
actually puts a damper on our experience of
love
ie it sets in
play
a diminution of what's possible for
love
with people.
When human beings ie when you and I give each other the
freedom
to
stand
before each other, being fully and openly
who we really are,
celebrating
being fully and openly
who we really are,
allowing each other the
freedom
to be fully and openly
who we really are,
granting each other the permission to change if we want to and not
have to, that's
love
ie that's rising in
love
- period. If you say "No it's not" then I ask "What else could it be?"
(it's an inquiry into the experience not the concept).
And what of "... real
love
starts with being
complete"?
Being
complete
is the genesis of real
love.
It's what makes real
love
possible. It's the stuff of
fairy tales
that being
complete
is the result of
love.
It's often said (something like) "When I'm with (the one I love), she /
he
completes
me. That'swhy
I
love
her / him. That's what
love
is.". I personally
eschew
the notion of
love
as being
completed
by another. In my
view,
being
completed
by another is the epitome of ie is central to the notion of "falling"
in
love.
Here's
why
the semantics of "being completed by another" don't
work:
when I say
love
is given by being
completed
by you, it implies that by myself I'm incomplete, yes? The
foundation of my
love
then is living as if I'm incomplete - which isn't
true.
When you say to me "You
complete
me" as proof of
love,
tell me: when you're not
around
me, where's your experience of being
complete?
For that matter when you're not
around
me, where's your experience of
love?
I don't want the responsibility of you not experiencing being
complete
when you're not
around
me. I don't want the responsibility of you not experiencing
love
when you're not
around
me. What I want is for you to bring your experience of being
alreadycomplete,
with you. What I want is for you to bring your experience of
alreadylove,
with you. Don't go falling in
love
with me. That's not what I want. What I want is you rising in
love
- that is to say who I want is you rising in
love.
