Everything I have failed to articulate articulated in your article. Everything I wish to say said with the right word and the right intellectual curiosity and no shame of the obvious we ignore or fail to understand.
I want to thank you on your writing, and I hope more will come.
I was particularly touched by the line “Once I believe I know you, I can stop looking for you”. It is an important reminder to keep relearning a partner at each stage of life; I think there is always so much more to discover within someone else’s world if we are willing to look beyond our own for a second.
Thank you for writing on this. It has put a few things into perspective for me.
But i must disagree, or rather say that the mechanics of desire seem to expressed in a very simplistic way in this article. Almost from a purely animalistic objectifying POV. And sure, that might be true in a bodily- nafs frame of reference, it doesn't validate the higher orders of sexual expression within love: the desire to please and be pleased, love leading to union, for example.
Maybe this is why studying the arts is actually the most important thing for humankind rn. To find the higher expressions of ourselves in a world determined to take us to our primal selves.
Thank you and I hear you! There is a dimension to the Love-Eros dialectic I have entirely neglected but I’m afraid that was intentional. The spiritual dimension, while I’m sure exists and is deeply influential and probably quite beautiful, is not my domain. I don’t feel qualified to articulate it. This was a brief introduction to the concept from the field I work in and study but I’d be fascinated and eager to see if scholars or more gnostically-oriented writers could develop it further.
Ah! Classic psychology vs Islamic psychology. Nothing is a mere object. Not even a stone. The more we can see that, the more we start to realise the sacredness of our existence.
Personally I'm neither a scholar nor an expert. But, I wrote something parallel but not necessarily directly related to romantic love on this link :
I cannot claim the theory as my own. There’s a fascinating canon of literature on this, some of which is a little problematic but fascinating nonetheless.
Everything I have failed to articulate articulated in your article. Everything I wish to say said with the right word and the right intellectual curiosity and no shame of the obvious we ignore or fail to understand.
I want to thank you on your writing, and I hope more will come.
Glad to hear that, thank you!!
Thank you for sharing this incredible piece!
I was particularly touched by the line “Once I believe I know you, I can stop looking for you”. It is an important reminder to keep relearning a partner at each stage of life; I think there is always so much more to discover within someone else’s world if we are willing to look beyond our own for a second.
Thank you and Absolutely! And that openness to relearn requires a kind of humility.
Thank you for writing on this. It has put a few things into perspective for me.
But i must disagree, or rather say that the mechanics of desire seem to expressed in a very simplistic way in this article. Almost from a purely animalistic objectifying POV. And sure, that might be true in a bodily- nafs frame of reference, it doesn't validate the higher orders of sexual expression within love: the desire to please and be pleased, love leading to union, for example.
Maybe this is why studying the arts is actually the most important thing for humankind rn. To find the higher expressions of ourselves in a world determined to take us to our primal selves.
Thank you and I hear you! There is a dimension to the Love-Eros dialectic I have entirely neglected but I’m afraid that was intentional. The spiritual dimension, while I’m sure exists and is deeply influential and probably quite beautiful, is not my domain. I don’t feel qualified to articulate it. This was a brief introduction to the concept from the field I work in and study but I’d be fascinated and eager to see if scholars or more gnostically-oriented writers could develop it further.
Ah! Classic psychology vs Islamic psychology. Nothing is a mere object. Not even a stone. The more we can see that, the more we start to realise the sacredness of our existence.
Personally I'm neither a scholar nor an expert. But, I wrote something parallel but not necessarily directly related to romantic love on this link :
https://faatimamveil.substack.com/p/on-love-human-divine-all-of-it?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=bla9y
I'd love to hear your thoughts.
It's written from the perspective of a gnostically-oriented writer but I make no claims to really knowing :)
I like how you’ve intellectuallized infatuation.. makes it more predictable somehow and lessens its power interestingly!
I cannot claim the theory as my own. There’s a fascinating canon of literature on this, some of which is a little problematic but fascinating nonetheless.
Thank you