zlol xshu is on a rant again surprise surprise
Well I still say that what we usually call love is a trade, which I would say is on the same continuum as codependency. Perhaps it's not necessarily what we think of as an unhealthy level of codependency, but it's still along the same lines.
Well sure, in the same sense that a hobby is somewhere along the same lines as an addiction, or a knife is somewhere along the same lines as a sword. It should be fairly obvious that comparing love to codependency would set off some bells in peoples' heads.
I have X and Y that I need, emotionally, physically, etc. You have A, B, and C that you need. We are compatible if we can fill most of the other's needs fairly well, so we partner up.
That sounds like dating to me. That doesn't sound anything like love. Anyone who "decides" to fall in love like that is really not getting the concept of love.
However it usually ends up that there are also needs LMNOP which one or the other has that are not entirely met.
Yes, dating is a pain in the ass.
Perhaps those can only be met by other people, or perhaps one or the other person is more needy than the other can fulfill, or they have like, unfulfillable needs due to emotional problems (which might result in what we call unhealthy codependency).
Seeing multiple people seems to me like it would be ultimately unsatisfying; especially if they were also seeing other people. You're trying to fill all of your needs, but you're doing it with multiple people. Now if you need M you have to go to one person, and if you need B you have to leave and seek out another. And what if person with B and N is busy with one of her other lovers? Well, now you're shit out of luck. It seems to me like it would be easier to just find one person who you want to spend the rest of your life with and stick it out with them, and just accept that maybe M and N are just not going to happen. Love does require work, and compromise is part of that work.
I still say it's a trade, more than some mystical superawesome unexplainable thing.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Love can easily be described as a trade while retaining all of its ineffable properties.
There's also 1) infatuation, the stage of love where you lose your mind and can't stop thinking of someone, which I suspect is a result of a procreationally-directed instinct and 2) don't know the word but there's something psychologically that happens when you care about something over a period of time, that it becomes entertwined with the sense of self, which definitely happens in long-term relationships, so those two components are added in there, making "love" appear to be something more than what it is.
How does that make it "appear" to be more than what it is? I believe it simply is what it is, without need of appearing any greater. You make it sound as though an emotional attachment so powerful that it becomes integrated into your sense of self is somehow being blown out of proportion. I argue that this in and of itself is remarkable. The only other emotion capable of doing that is hate, which occurs much less frequently.
But the truth is, if you're not terribly needy, you're not going to feel a whole lot of what people talk about as being "Love", especially after the infatuation phase is over.
I somehow get the feeling that your definition of "terribly needy" is not that of the general public. Neither of my parents are needy people, and they maintain a relationship based on their love for one-another. The same can be said for my grandparents, and the parents of all of my friends whose parents are still together. You seem to be grouping love and crushes into the same category. That's silly. Love is something beautiful that's nurtured for a long period of time. Infatuation that doesn't lead anywhere is a crush or "puppy love".
This is why a lot of relationships involving people who are not thinking people fail or become unnecessarily dramatic, as people try to get back to the feeling of intense attraction for the other..
A lot of relationships fail because the people in those relationships aren't compatible. That's what dating is: you spend time with prospective mates until you find someone you don't ever want to leave your life, and then you foster that relationship. Staying with one and trying to force it, or not even really paying attention to who you're with and "falling in love with love" is what causes divorce.
it's pretty impossible to maintain a relationship based on emotion alone.
That's only true in the Romeo and Juliet sense of "if people are gunning for you, love is not going to pull your ass out of the fire". Every happy marriage on Earth is evidence contrary to your claim, and I personally have seen my share of happy marriages.
Putting your intention and care into it brings out a whole nother set of emotions, which we also lump in with "love".
Wait, what? No, the fact that love is an amalgamation of different emotions is part of what makes it special to begin with. That's what makes it so ineffable. There are entirely too many things one feels while in love to properly describe what's happening.
Spiritual teachings indicate that the highest attainment for humans is not a monogamous relationship, even a "soul mate" relationship, though it is possible to get very high through that route, if done with the right mindset.
"Spiritual teachings"? What teachings are these, exactly? Buddhism is the only religion I've ever heard of that treated romantic love like an obstacle. Well, Buddhism and Jedi. By contrast, Christianity goes as far as to claim that whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. Every polytheistic religion I can think of has at least one god dedicated to love. I'm not sure there are many religions that
don't glorify love in some way or another.
This rings true to me. At higher levels, the person does not experience emotional need which must be met by another person. They are able to only give. Their heart overflows with love that they can only give to others.
Buddhism, then?