domenica, maggio 30, 2004

The Theory Of True Love -the unreturned kind

the third and final installment of the trilogy of thoughts on love.



back in the first episode, i showed you how romantic love is just a social construct, given efficacy and tremendous power due to the consensual belief we conferred onto it. in the second, how that social construct subsists -the theory of availability. and now, in total complement of those two, how true love, in all its publicity, and perception thereof, can exist as real in only one form.

now you may not accept these reasons, for it truly belittles our emotions, but it's 100% pure truth.



now as a prelude to illustratin true love;

i love you sarah tan! i love you!

the love for a celebrity is true love. remember the liv tyler example? contrary to popular belief, it's not easy to love a celebrity. any one can be a fan but only few can truly love a celebrity. the key to lovin a celebrity is -the celebrity can stop you from seein her, but the celebrity can't stop you from lovin her, even if it is from afar with a 10-metre-distance court injunction. however, to qualify as true love, it must be substantiated with the usual ideals we attach to love. for example;

time;
i will love you forever, sarah tan! till the end of time!

monogamy;
i will never cheat on you, sarah tan! not even with my girlfriend!

unconditionality;
even when you're 60 sarah tan, i'll still love you for every wrinkle on your pruny tits!

emotional support;
if you ever need to talk sarah tan, i'm always here for you! one call away!

support;
if your career ever fails, i'll be here to hire you as my house servant! promise!

indeed, it's a very difficult brand of love and exactly why it must be true.



now consider the 'milder' and less theatric case of unreturned love (but for someone who actually knows you exist). unreturned love, continually shown, and unconditionally shown, must be the truest form of love. this is the only brand of love which can outlast the frailties of love as we know it. and because it is continual, it can endure the time test all other superficial affections crack under. the more you love someone, and the more that someone doesn't care about you/doesn't wanna be with you/cannot be with you, the more true your love must be if you continue it.

examples;

forrest at graveyard; "even though you're gone now, i still love you jenny."

jennifer in hospital; "it's alright brad, you can write scripts instead, now that you look like you stopped a bus with your face."

britney; "i don't know why you raped that girl justin, but i promise you i will be here for every prison visit they let you have!"

that light-hearted film love actually did a pretty good job by includin the i-love-her-but-she's-married-now scenario as one of the six relationships depicted. now that geezer with the romantic placards at the front door, he's one helluva lover and his love is definitely true. he suffers in silence watchin the girl of his dreams marry his best friend. and he has the big heart to play the fonz throughout it all for the sake of her happiness as perceived by him.

alright now, enough bollocks. i'll finish with somethin remotely honest then.



true love (the romantic kind), supposin there is such a thing, would have to be somethin absolutely maddenin. it would have to be like electricity in your heart, each beating pulse testamentary to your undyin oneness with your lover. then, it would have to choke with jealousy & possessiveness and then relieve with comfort & care. it must be spot-on, one-off, one-time and all-time, eternal. it cannot be like drawings in the sand, it's permanence subjected to the ebb and flow of the tide. it must be certain and surer than death, and in fact, it must outlast death. it would also have the power to destroy you and inspire you. then, it would have to make you know no other world than that of your lover. every day, it would have to make you wake up early and stay up late. it would have to make you lose all track of time, all sense of reality, because the only time and reality is that with your love. it would have to be intensely sexual, a constant continuum of bodily thirst, every touch longin for the next. it would have to be bittersweet, something you can't live with and can't live without. it would have to be strong and shameless, unconditional. it would have to be unreasonable and yet uncontainable. and most important of all, true love, would have to be the one and only thing that you can remember from this life.

and while i'm still bleedin with emotion, might i just add the most romantic words i've ever heard in my life;

you are my every memory.


ciao.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Word Of The Wolf today is pernicious \pur-NISH-us\,

adjective:
Highly injurious; deadly; destructive; exceedingly harmful.

"Despite her cheap affection, brutal coldness and how he knew how very industrious she was in using men to gain advantages, Mikhail found himself helplessly falling for the pernicious femme fatale."

________________________________________________________
Pernicious comes from Latin perniciosus, "destructive, ruinous," from pernicies, "destruction, disaster, ruin," from per-, "through, thoroughly" + nex, nec-, "violent death."


4 Osservasioni:

Blogger michaelcsm couldn't refrain from sayin...

Questo commento è stato eliminato da un amministratore del blog.

lunedì, maggio 31, 2004 9:21:00 PM  
Blogger Carmen couldn't refrain from sayin...

I believe you cant love a person you do not know. for instance, your sarah tan example. you are merely infatuated by her. you dont love her. how can you love her when you dont know her personally? do you know if maybe she digs her nose when she showers? if maybe she likes chewing her fingernail when she's bored? if maybe she is sweet and caring and makes you breakfast in bed every morning? or if maybe she dislikes animals and kick stray cats for fun? i dont know. just a few examples. no offense intended.

you idolise famous or good looking people. but you dont 'love' them. you are very interested in the country, but you cant love it til you ve been there. till you 'know' that place. just like how you cant love a person unless you know that person inside out. till u know his/her good and bad points.

and in relation to Love Actually, the Kiera Knightley part, i actually think that he cant really love her. i like that show a lot, and i certainly think that part is really sweet. however, how can he says that he loves her when he doesnt even know her? she made it clear in the show that all the while she tot he hated her cuz he has always been giving her the cold shoulder. she tot that it's cuz of his best friend, her husband, that maybe he's jealous or something. but in the end, it's cuz he actually loves her! he could be infatuated, he could be admiring her from afar, maybe he likes the way she smiles or the way she plays with her hair. but nah, i dont think he loves her. same as how i disagree with love at first sight. it could be lust at first sight, but not love.

and oh zee, sorry for the long comment, i know it seems that i m criticising a tad too much but i really do quite like ur article esp that last paragraph. and i know u do appreciate my opinions. =p ciaoz

martedì, giugno 01, 2004 1:18:00 PM  
Blogger Brian couldn't refrain from sayin...

Advertisement: visit the all new and exciting blog of a sexy yellow sponge at www.iamspongy.blogspot.com...

in an unrelated incident, i have taken your recommended test and i am Pinochet, former dictator or Chile. Damn name sound too close to pinochio... i guess if i was pinochio, my only crime is having wood that only gets longer the more i lie. ahahhahahha...

stank you smelly much.

mercoledì, giugno 02, 2004 1:54:00 PM  
Blogger Carmen couldn't refrain from sayin...

Dear Apocalypse...

after reading your comments, i am even more adamant bout mine. you are saying that you love someone although you dont know her and you are merely fantasising bout her. in other words, you are loving what you dream she is and not whom she really is!

you like the idea of 'liking' someone. of being attracted to someone. of not knowing what kinda person she is. its the thrill of it. thats not love. the main issue here is love. love comes with time. it comes with knowing that person.

as for the person you love deep down, thats someone you know! i probably do love someone deep down, but thats a special guy i might be dating or used to date or know very well or a childhood friend. not some pop star i idolise ( at the mo, its eric bana =p) anyway, u see, i dont love eric bana, i idolise him. i think he's hot. he's sexy but how can i love him when i dont even know him? what kinda person he is. maybe he's bad tempered. maybe he has a whole collection of sick junk! i dunno.

you cant love a person you fantasise or dreamt about. that is just whom he/she u molded to be. not who the person really is.

yours sincerely,
carmen

domenica, giugno 06, 2004 4:06:00 AM  

Posta un commento

<< Den Proper