They say 'love is blind' but that's not it, is it? If anything 'Love' (or what we think is 'love') is based particularly on our initial perception of a person. Hence that other conventional wisdom 'don't judge a book by it's cover' tunrs out to be absurd too. Everyone does because everyone must. How else do you start to develop an idea about who someone is?
The reason why we have these conventional wisdoms is more to guard against blinding ourselves from who someone is by applying a stereotype. But to start the process of 'gettng to know' someone we do have to look at what they're wearing, do they bite they nails, and everything else. Culture and background ad everything else is important, not just in terms of the other peson, but in terms of relativity. Who am I relative to you? We ignore these signals at our peril.
The problem with Love though, if you ask me (and no one is), is that love is not blind, it's deaf. It's deaf because we don't listen to one another, and particularly when couples argue, the argument is seldom about the actual heinous crime apparently committed, it's really about something else that has been miscommunicated (or insensitively miscommunicated). People are very different to each other, but people of the opposite sex even more so. Sometimes insecurity is warranted and sometimes it isn't. When it is warranted, it is the job of the insecure person to ask for 'reassurance' and the duty - if the person truly love his or her partner - to give reassurance.
Hence on Valentine's Day the appearance of a gift says something; it says: 'My love (or feelings) for you are real.' The words in the card are perhaps even more important, but whoever reads those?
No comments:
Post a Comment