Understanding unrequited love

[LoBagola]

From what I've understood you fall in love with another persons sense of life.

It is one’s own sense of life that acts as the selector, and responds to what it recognizes as one’s own basic values in the person of another.

 

 

The other element of this is checking that the other person holds conscious ideas which will pose you no trouble later on.

 

 

Now if that is true, what I don't get is how people can fall in love with someone who remains indifferent to them?

 

 

[Marc K.]

LoBagola:

 

I appreciate the questions you ask. You seem thoughtful and inquisitive and I don't want to discourage these things in you. 

 

However, two things you seem to have a penchant for is quoting out of context and not giving a citation for the things you quote. Both of these things are highly inappropriate in rational discussion. It is ESSENTIAL that you provide a citation for your quotes: Who are you quoting? From where? What book? What edition? What article? What chapter? What page? What paragraph? If you are quoting from the Ayn Rand Lexicon, then say that and provide a link to that page of the Lexicon. 

 

In addition it is improper and illogical to quote someone out of context. It is almost never appropriate to quote just one sentence. As a general rule I would suggest quoting the entire paragraph from which the sentence originates, highlighting (and noting) the sentence or phrase you wish to discuss. In fact, it may be appropriate to quote the paragraphs before and after (and maybe more) the one under examination, if they bear on what you wish to discuss, i.e., if they provide even more context.

 

Doing these things (among others) will facilitate a more fruitful, targeted and less disjointed discussion. 

 

As for what you've asked so far ... I don't think one fall's "in love with another persons sense of life". I believe you fall in love with a person. 

 

And in your question you ask "what I don't get is how people can fall in love with someone who remains indifferent to them?" Using the word "remains" can be confusing. Does it mean that this other person was always indifferent or that they changed their mind?

[A is A]

Saying "I love you" involves two people, not just one.

[LoBagola]

LoBagola:

 

I appreciate the questions you ask. You seem thoughtful and inquisitive and I don't want to discourage these things in you. 

 

However, two things you seem to have a penchant for is quoting out of context and not giving a citation for the things you quote. Both of these things are highly inappropriate in rational discussion. It is ESSENTIAL that you provide a citation for your quotes: Who are you quoting? From where? What book? What edition? What article? What chapter? What page? What paragraph? If you are quoting from the Ayn Rand Lexicon, then say that and provide a link to that page of the Lexicon. 

 

In addition it is improper and illogical to quote someone out of context. It is almost never appropriate to quote just one sentence. As a general rule I would suggest quoting the entire paragraph from which the sentence originates, highlighting (and noting) the sentence or phrase you wish to discuss. In fact, it may be appropriate to quote the paragraphs before and after (and maybe more) the one under examination, if they bear on what you wish to discuss, i.e., if they provide even more context.

 

Doing these things (among others) will facilitate a more fruitful, targeted and less disjointed discussion. 

 

As for what you've asked so far ... I don't think one fall's "in love with another persons sense of life". I believe you fall in love with a person. 

 

And in your question you ask "what I don't get is how people can fall in love with someone who remains indifferent to them?" Using the word "remains" can be confusing. Does it mean that this other person was always indifferent or that they changed their mind?

 

 

I appreciate your feedback and I'll be remedying what you mention in my future posts.

 

 

 

I quoted from "of living death" in the voice of reason p55-56

 

I am referring here to romantic love, in the serious meaning of that term—as distinguished from the superficial infatuations of those whose sense of life is devoid of any consistent values, i.e., of any lasting emotions other than fear. Love is a response to values. It is with a person’s sense of life that one falls in love—with that essential sum, that fundamental stand or way of facing existence, which is the essence of a personality. One falls in love with the embodiment of the values that formed a person’s character, which are reflected in his widest goals or smallest gestures, which create the styleof his soul—the individual style of a unique, unrepeatable, irreplaceable consciousness. It is one’s own sense of life that acts as the selector, and responds to what it recognizes as one’s own basic values in the person of another. It is not a matter of professed convictions (though these are not irrelevant); it is a matter of much more profound, conscious and subconscious harmony.

Also available : http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/love.html

 

 

Then to rephrase my question.

 

How can person A fall in love with person B, and person B not fall in love with person A. I'm trying to understand the process; according to my understanding of Rand's description of love, this is impossible.

[Reidy]

The problem you raise is, I gather, that if the person you fall in love with shares your sense of life then necessarily that person will reciprocate.  This doesn't in fact happen, so we have a contradiction.

 

I see two ways around this.  The first is that you might be mistaken about the other's sense of life, having responded on the basis of incomplete information.

 

The second is that, while a shared sense of life might be a necessary condition, it isn't sufficient.  Sense of life is very general but falling in love also depends on a lot of particulars.  The love interest has to be of your oreferred physical type and age range, for example.  A shared sense of life is not enough to satisfy these criteria.  Another would be sexual orientation.  If a straight woman falls in love with a gay man it's not going to be mutual no matter what their basic values.

 

To illustrate the same point: let's say that to be a good teacher you need to acquire teaching skills and you have to want to teach.  You also have to know the subject matter.  Either of these, without the other, won't be enough to make you an effective teacher.  To be a good dancer you need the right kind of body and you need practice.  One without the other won't get you a job.

[bluecherry]

I just so happen to have discussed this topic with somebody a lot before. I'm pretty sure I've got the answer. It's an issue of differences in the two people's hierarchies of values.

 

Person B has several characteristics in common with person A, characteristics which Person A highly values. Person A loves Person B. However, Person B does not value those characteristics they share with Person A highly. Person B does place a high value on some characteristics that Person A doesn't have or doesn't have enough of. Person B does not love person A.

[Eiuol]

LB, Looking at your longer quote, it looks like Rand is saying one falls in love with a person's sense of life, but is qualifying it in terms of the falling in love with the embodiment of values that embody their character. When you fall in love with them according to this standard then, there is not necessarily an implication of reciprocation in all cases. Notice that Rand wasn't saying something like falling in love is a matter of getting attention, the focus is on a response to value you see in another person that's so unique to them, how they express themselves. To me, sense of life is a synonym of personality, but it also seems to imply a perspective on life as well that's more about values than personality is. If there are differences and love isn't mutual, the reason may be along the lines of what Bluecherry said because hierarchy of value is quite important to how Rand talks about value in general. Two people can be fond of each other without valuing each other in the same way.

A different possibility with some people is not knowing what romantic love refers to. Person A may feel X for Person B. Person B may also feel X for A. But perhaps A calls X romantic love, while B calls X some other emotion like strong fondness. Neither is wrong about the feeling, yet with differences in knowledge or experience, A doesn't understand perfectly well what X is and just calls it romantic love for lack of a better term. Then X might turn into a different feeling due to mistakes/misjudgments though, so I'm not claiming in such a case that doesn't X change form over time. External referents, like trees, are easier to investigate because you can investigate it with someone else. Internal referents, like love, are hard to investigate because no one can help you investigate - other people can't tap into your conscious experience directly. Say if one person had a romantic relationship before, but another person hasn't, it's that much harder to know or investigate romantic love feelings. This applies to any emotion, by the way.

Edited September 20, 2013 by Eiuol

[LoBagola]

A is A

 

S aying "I love you" involves two people, not just one.

 

Yes, it does. And?

 

Reidy

I see two ways around this.  The first is that you might be mistaken about the other's sense of life, having responded on the basis of incomplete information.

 

Responding to another's sense of life is, by definition, automated. "Mistake" is not applicable concept.

 

 

The second is that, while a shared sense of life might be a necessary condition, it isn't sufficient.  Sense of life is very general but falling in love also depends on a lot of particulars.  The love interest has to be of your oreferred physical type and age range, for example.  A shared sense of life is not enough to satisfy these criteria.  Another would be sexual orientation.  If a straight woman falls in love with a gay man it's not going to be mutual no matter what their basic values.

 

I don't think I have enough experience to comment or process this. I have only ever loved one person. I love their sense of life. My friends sense of life varies a lot but I admire all of them. Their are aspects of their personality I just like, e.g. humor. But I've only ever once felt admiration for the total sum of a person (my last girlfriend). I agree though that shared sense of life is not sufficient - it's possible that one persons consciously held values conflict with the other. E.g. one is religious, the other is atheist; the atheist doesn't care, but the religious person does. But I don't know - I'm venturing into territory with which I have no experience or perceptual evidence to relate to.

 

 

Eiuol

LB, Looking at your longer quote, it looks like Rand is saying one falls in love with a person's sense of life, but is qualifying it in terms of the falling in love with the embodiment of values that embody their character. When you fall in love with them according to this standard then, there is not necessarily an implication of reciprocation in all cases. Notice that Rand wasn't saying something like falling in love is a matter of getting attention, the focus is on a response to value you see in another person that's so unique to them, how they express themselves. To me, sense of life is a synonym of personality, but it also seems to imply a perspective on life as well that's more about values than personality is. If there are differences and love isn't mutual, the reason may be along the lines of what Bluecherry said because hierarchy of value is quite important to how Rand talks about value in general. Two people can be fond of each other without valuing each other in the same way.

 

What do you mean "embodiment of values that embody their character"? Isn't that a sense of life?

I agree with the latter on Bluecherry's comment on differing value hierarchy. Although it's still somewhat vague in my mind.

 

A different possibility with some people is not knowing what romantic love refers to. Person A may feel X for Person B. Person B may also feel X for A. But perhaps A calls X romantic love, while B calls X some other emotion like strong fondness. Neither is wrong about the feeling, yet with differences in knowledge or experience, A doesn't understand perfectly well what X is and just calls it romantic love for lack of a better term. Then X might turn into a different feeling due to mistakes/misjudgments though, so I'm not claiming in such a case that doesn't X change form over time. External referents, like trees, are easier to investigate because you can investigate it with someone else. Internal referents, like love, are hard to investigate because no one can help you investigate - other people can't tap into your conscious experience directly. Say if one person had a romantic relationship before, but another person hasn't, it's that much harder to know or investigate romantic love feelings. This applies to any emotion, by the way.

 

 

Agreed. I don't have any experience to relate to here either. When I felt love - once - (out of the hundreds of women I met) it was reciprocated. 

[LoBagola]

Oh and to further add to Bluecherry's point. I have experienced a situation where both are in love, but one loves another much more. This fits in well with a difference in the hierarchy of values.

Edited September 23, 2013 by LoBagola

[Eiuol]

"Agreed. I don't have any experience to relate to here either. When I felt love - once - (out of the hundreds of women I met) it was reciprocated. "

Well, I did say it also applies to any emotion, you don't necessarily need to focus only on love type emotions. Take the emotion of anger. You could say that you are angry because someone accidentally knocked your books on the ground. Another person might say it was just strong annoyance, and would be quicker to call noticing that your laptop is stolen is anger. Just because the first person said they are angry means it necessarily refers to different feelings than the second person. The difference in labels may be due to experience, not a difference in actual feeling. You can distinguish between what you *feel* and how you label or describe the feeling. Perhaps that time you fell in love, it was all great, but are you sure it wasn't infatuation? You have thought it was self-evident, but emotions can be very complex concepts!

I mistyped the part I wrote with embodiment. I meant it in terms of concretization of values that embody their character. People hold varying values, and those values are expressed in different ways, too. So, the way I see it, sense of life is generally pretty abstract, like a view on life and one's goals. What you fall in love with is more specific, more at their entire being rather than just a psychological evaluation. Along with that goes their and your hierarchy of values. A very basic example of differing hierarchy for this context is say, dancing. You like dancing with your friend, and maybe it's important to share that valuue. Your friend might like dancing with you too, while they find watching old Hitchcock movies a lot more important. You're not a movie buff one bit, nor interested in Hitchcock. So, you're not friends to each other in different ways. Of course, that's an example of friendship at a low level, but it conveys the idea of differing hierarchy affecting interpersonal relationships.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Eiuol