Taken from: http://peterrollins.net/blog/?p=1231
In the transition from liking someone to falling in love with them there is the recognition of a previously unseen property in the other that transcends all other their other traits. They may be attractive, interesting and creative, but the confession of unconditional devotion cannot not arise in response to any of these.
If someone asks why you love them there is something obscene in the mere listing of traits. For while these may contribute to your connection with the other, love addresses something deeper. It is attached to a property unlike all other properties. I may like you because you are attractive, interesting and creative, but I love you because you are you. Because there is something excessive about you that emanates from the totality of your attributes but which cannot be reduced to them.
And yet, before the lover discovers this sacred property in their beloved, this x which elicits their martyrdom cannot be said to exist. In truth it comes into existence in the very act of acknowledging its presence. For example, two people could agree utterly about the characteristics of a particular person and yet one might be in love with them while the other merely likes them. This sacred property is not then something that stands beside other properties as some-thing which can be acknowledged by many people in some detached manner. To acknowledge it is not only to call it forth into being, but to be utterly transfigured by it. It is that elusive some-no-thing that cannot be found on some operating table or through some psychological evaluation.
The existence of this x in the other demands our total response. As such the stereotypical Hollywood relationship, with their prenuptial arrangements, can never be described as love.
But, of course, relationships do dissolve and love affairs do end. So what is one to say? Here we must avoid the common response of pointing out that nothing lasts forever, things change, etc. etc. The lover is rightly bemused when confronted with such ideas. Not because they are incorrect, but because they do not grasp the absolute nature of love.
We must be more precise in our reflections and say that, when one no longer recognizes the sacred property that emanates from the other, that property no longer exists. More than this, it never existed.
We must reject the idea that it continues to exist after it is no longer recognized. But we must also reject the notion that it did exist up until the time that it is no longer recognized. It exists only in the act of its acknowledgement and disappears from all of history the moment it is no longer perceived in the present.
In order to understand this let us reflect upon what happens at the end of a relationship. Imagine a woman has fallen out of love with the person she has been seeing and starts a new relationship. And let us imagine that the man is still in love. In this state her presence evokes a deep suffering. Ensuring that a normal friendship is impossible. The man, or course, may choose this suffering as preferable to no contact at all, and even hold onto it throughout his life. But the point is that, in this state, he is still in love and a friendship is thus precluded. In this state she still has the sacred property that elicits his desire. She remains everything, even though she has left.
However, if the day comes when he could actually be friends without the suffering a fundamental loss has taken place. He is now able to appreciate her various properties, but without the sacred x (what in Lacanian analysis is called the objet a). It is gone. Yet it is not something that he can recognize as having once existed. If he is able to perceive it at all, even as something past, then this means he recognizes it and thus that it he is still in love. Instead the ex-lover can say, “I see why I liked them, but why did I love them?”
In Michel Gondry’s 2004 film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind two former lovers erase all trace of the other from their minds after a painful breakup. But when they happen to meet again they immediately fall in love once more. Why? Because the procedure was unable to erase the one thing that mattered. What the couple really were seeking was a way of erasing the objet a. In that case they would not have to erase any memories whatsoever for the memories would be drained of that which gave them such dark power in the first place.
Once the objet a passes out of existence one is able to see all the properties that one liked about the other, but without the property that drove them into love. It is as if it has been erased out of history itself.
This is why there would be something inappropriate about a marriage ceremony full of caveats and promises like, “I will love you until I get bored and then we will live together unhappily for a few years until I finally leave”. But it is also naive to think that separations will not happen.
The point is a simple one. When there is love the end of love is impossible. Why? Because when the end comes the love never happened.
These thoughts are inspired by my reflections on Žižek’s work on love
In the transition from liking someone to falling in love with them there is the recognition of a previously unseen property in the beloved that transcends all their other traits. They may be attractive, interesting and creative, but the confession of unconditional devotion cannot arise in response to any of these.
If someone asks why you love them there is something obscene in the mere listing of traits. For while these may contribute to your connection with the other, love addresses something deeper. It is attached to a property unlike all other properties. I may like you because you are attractive, interesting and creative, but I love you because you are you. Because there is something excessive about you that emanates from the totality of your attributes but which cannot be reduced to them.
And yet, before the lover discovers this sacred property in their beloved, this x which elicits their martyrdom cannot be said to exist. In truth it comes into existence in the very act of acknowledging its presence. For example, two people could agree utterly about the characteristics of a particular person and yet one might be in love with them while the other merely likes them. For the lover there is something transcendent which illuminates the being of their beloved that cannot be pointed out to one who is not taken up by it.
This sacred property is not then something that stands beside other properties as some-thing which can be acknowledged by people in some detached manner. To acknowledge it is not only to call it forth into being, but to be utterly transfigured by it. It is that elusive some-no-thing that cannot be found on an operating table or through some psychological evaluation.
The existence of this x in the other demands our total response. As such the stereotypical Hollywood relationship, with its prenuptial arrangements, can never be described as love.
But, of course, relationships do dissolve and love affairs do end. So what is one to say?
Here we must avoid the common response of pointing out that nothing lasts forever, that things change, etc. etc. The lover is rightly bemused when confronted with such ideas. Not because they are incorrect, but because they do not grasp the absolute nature of love.
We must be more precise in our reflections. When one no longer recognizes the sacred property that emanates from the other, that property no longer exists. More than this, it never existed.
This means that we should reject the idea that it continues to exist after it is no longer recognized. But we must also reject the notion that it did exist up until the time that it is no longer recognized. It exists only in the act of its acknowledgement and disappears from all of history the moment it is no longer perceived in the present.
In order to understand this let us reflect upon what happens at the end of a relationship. Imagine a woman has fallen out of love with the person she has been seeing and starts a new relationship. And let us imagine that the man is still in love. In this state her presence evokes a deep suffering. Ensuring that a normal friendship is impossible. The man, or course, may choose this suffering as preferable to no contact at all, and even hold onto it throughout his life. But the point is that, in this state, he is still in love and a friendship is thus precluded. In this state she still has the sacred property that elicits his desire. She remains everything, even though she has left.
However, if the day comes when he could actually be friends without the suffering a fundamental loss has taken place. He is now able to appreciate her various properties, but without the sacred x (what in Lacanian analysis is called the objet a). It is gone. Yet it is not something that he can recognize as having once existed. If he is able to perceive it at all, even as something past, then this means he recognizes it in the present moment and thus that he is in love. Instead the ex-lover can say, “I see why I liked them, but I can’t quite put my finger on why I loved them?”
In Michel Gondry’s 2004 film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind two former lovers erase all trace of the other from their minds after a painful breakup. But when they happen to meet again they immediately fall in love once more. Why? Because the procedure was unable to erase the one thing that mattered. What the couple really were seeking was a way of erasing the objet a. In that case they would not have to erase any memories whatsoever for the memories would be drained of that which gave them such dark power in the first place.
Once the objet a passes out of existence (like an object being erased from a photo) one is able to see all the properties that one liked about the other, but without the property that drove them into love. It is as if it has been removed from the past.
This is why there would be something inappropriate about a marriage ceremony full of caveats and promises like, “I will love you until I get bored and then we will live together unhappily for a few years until I finally leave”. But it is also naive to think that separations will not happen.
The point is a simple one. When there is love the end of love is impossible. Why? Because when the end comes the love that was never happened.
These thoughts are inspired by my reflections on Žižek’s work on love
Posted at 13:47 |
Link to this post
